1933-05-12

[Stage Direction]
Hon.	W.	A.	GORDON	(Minister	of
Labour): Mr. Speaker, I desire to lay on the table a number of orders in council passed pursuant to the relief legislation.

[Stage Direction]
Hon.	W.	A.	GORDON	(Minister	of
Labour): Mr. Speaker, I desire to lay on the table the authentic texts of the draft conventions and recommendations which were adopted at the sixteenth session of the international labour conference of 1932, in accordance with the provisions of article 406 of the treaty of Versailles and the corresponding provisions of the other treaties of peace; also the text of an order in council which has been adopted dealing with the competence of parliament and of the provincial legislatures respectively with regard to the subject matter of these draft conventions and recommendations. The texts of the draft conventions and recommendations, together with the order in council above mentioned, have been transmitted to the lieutenant-governors of the several provinces.

Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, under the
order of motions I might be permitted to table a reply to the hon. member for Bona-venture (Mr. Marcil) who asked at page 4746 of Hansard a question regarding the quantity of butter imported into Canada from New Zealand since 1930 when this treaty came into effect. The question is not quite accurate, and so in my answer I have divided the information into two periods, one period dating from the cancellation of the first treaty and the other period approximating with the coming into force of the new treaty. I would suggest that this be printed in Hansard as an answer to the question, as I promised the hon. member yesterday I would do so today.



BUTTER IMPORTATIONS

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


Henry Herbert Stevens: The terms of the Australian treaty were extended to New Zealand foy order in council and later withdrawn on October 12, 1930.
Canada's imports of butter from New Zealand entered for consumption from October 1, 1930, to March 31, 1932, with amount of duty collected were:
Duty
Period	Amount	Collected
Pounds	S $ cts.
October 1, 1930 to March 31, 1931	
2,532,696	652,799	47,996 35April 1, 1931 to March 31, 1932	
72,984	17,404	5,254 85
A treaty was negotiated with New Zealand and went into effect May 24, 1932.
Canada's imports of butter from New Zealand entered for consumption from April 1, 1932, to March 31, 1933, with amount of duty collected were:
Period
April 1, 1932 to March 31, 1933
Amount
Pounds	S
806,947
Duty Collected S cts. 40,641 47
[Mr. Pouliot.l
125,020

Business oj the House



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I beg to move the following motion standing in his name:
That on Saturday the 13th May, instant, the house shall meet at 11 o'clock in the morning. That in addition to the usual intermission at 6 o'clock p.m., there shall also be an intermission from one to three o'clock p.m., and that both the order of business and and procedure shall be the same as on Friday.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I
understood this was a motion which would not be pressed without the unanimous consent of the house. If .there was any prospect in the world of our getting through with the business to-morrow in time for prorogation on Monday I think it might be advisable to have this motion passed, but unless there is that probability it would be infinitely better I think to allow us to reserve our energies for nest week. We have had a very busy week sitting morning, afternoon and night, and unless there was the certainty of our getting through tomorrow I do not think this motion should be pressed. I know that is the feeling of all hon. members on this side.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Would there be any objection to having the motion pass on the understanding that we rise at six o'clock?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If we do not get far enough to-day to make probable a completion of the business by to-morrow night, I think hon. members will wish to have the week-end off, particularly those who had intended leaving the city to-night. I do not see why if we are to sit again next week we should come back here for part of the day to-morrow.


Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: I am sorry the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) is not here but I think I am expressing his opinion when I say that if there is no prospect of our finishing the business of the house this week, and I do not think we have any reason to believe that that can be done, I think it would be a mistake to ask the house to sit on Saturday. The members of the house have been working hard all week, and I do not see why wTe should sit on Saturday unless we can finish up the business. I hope the minister will not press the motion.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In view of what has been
said by the right hon. gentleman who leads the opposition and the hon. member for Macleod I shall not press the motion, but I should like to reserve the right to move it at a later stage in the day if it is thought desirable that that should be done.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was just
going to suggest that the motion be allowed to stand, and if there is any certainty or real probability of our getting through this week, I think everyone would be willing to sit until midnight to-night and to-morrow night.
Motion stands.



LEGISLATION BEFORE THE HOUSE AND TO BE INTRODUCED

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, in
order to get a 'correct view of what business remains for the house; there are still three or four orders Which appear on the order paper, also two or three items of supply remain to be passed, then there are the French agreements and the shipping bill to which reference has just been made and redistribution. Are there any other measures apart from those that are likely to be introduced this session?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: As at present advised I think there are no others, certainly none of a major character.



SEED GRAIN DISTRIBUTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOSEPH A. BRADETTE (North Timiskaming): If my information is correct the federal government distributes seed' grain in the western provinces. Would it not be possible in view of the large number of settlers who are unable to buy their seed grain this spring, that a distribution of seed grain should be made in northern Ontario?
Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: The federal department does not
distribute seed grain excepting under the subsidies of the province. The subsidies for Quebec and Ontario are used in one particular way on the recommendation of the people who are in the best position to advise. There is a small part of the subsidy in the west that is used to distribute newer strains of grasses which are returnable.



CANADA-FRANCE TRADE AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) if the report in the press is correct that a treaty has been signed with France; if so, will it be tabled forthwith?
Government Loan


Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State):: An arrangement has been made to sign the treaty at 12 o'clock to-day, and I hope that if the printers are up to date copies of two treaties, or rather of a trade agreement and a convention between Canada and France concerning the rights of nationals and commercial and shipping matters, will be laid upon the table within a short time thereafter. The bills to approve the same will by leave of the house, be introduced forthwith. I think one bill with its schedule will be printed early to-day, the other schedule is very long and there may be a delay of some hours in respect to the second bill.



GOVERNMENT LOAN, $750,000,000

[Stage Direction]
REDEMPTION OF OBLIGATIONS AND PURCHASE OF UN MATURED SECURITIES	*
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved the third reading of Bill No. 103, to authorize the raising, by way of loan, of certain sums of money for the public service.
George Gibson Coote: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I happened to be out of the house yesterday morning when this bill received second reading and was passed in committee of the whole. There are two or three observations that I would like to make and I would like, if I may, to direct a question to the minister. I have not yet had the privilege of reading Hansard so that I have to depend on what I have heard with regard to the statement of the minister yesterday.
I wamt to suggest to the minister that from this time on no bonds of the dominion should be issued payable in gold. I made this suggestion to the Minister of.Finance of Canada eight or nine years ago. I am afraid he did not see fit to act on it at that time.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I did not catch the suggestion.


George Gibson Coote: I say I made the suggestion to the Minister of Finance eight or nine years ago that no bonds should be issued payable in gold or in anything but lawful money of Canada. I want to suggest to the minister, if he has not already so decided, that the bonds to be issued under this act should be payable only in lawful money of Canada, not in gold or in foreign funds.
Then I suggest to the minister that these bonds contain a provision under which the government may call them in at any time. I think the minister will realize the wisdom of such a provision.
Incidentally, I also urge that- our money policy be such as to maintain as nearly as

possible stable purchasing power for money which is paid in interest to the bondholder. I think that would be one of the first steps to lower interest rates in Canada. I do not think it necessary to remind the minister of the necessity of lowering these rates. One step has already been taken by lowering interest rates on savings bank deposits. The chief factor governing interest rates in Canada, particularly on long term obligations, is the rate paid on Dominion of Canada bonds. I would just like to remind the minister that our public debt, that is provincial, municipal and dominion, now amounts to over six and a half billion dollars, which at an average rate of five per cent-I think we are paying more than that-means an annual interest charge of $325,000,000. I just mention these figures to impress upon the minister and the house the necessity of lowering interest rates.
Lastly, I want to suggest to the minister that the new loan should be floated at a very much lower rate of interest. I think he should fix three per cent as the rate to be paid on these bonds. I believe that rate is justified by the price level obtaining in Canada now. Whatever the government may decide as to the rate, the principle enunciated by the Prime Minister three or four years ago should be followed now, and banks and insurance companies, particularly insurance companies, should be compelled to invest a percentage of their reserves in such bond issues. I understand that the minister must meet this year treasury bills amounting to $110,000,000 bonds maturing, $169,000,000, and budget deficit $100,000,000, roughly $380,000,000 in all. My last suggestion to the minister is that if he does not get sufficient subscriptions from the public to cover this amount at the rate of interest I have suggested, he should issue enough Dominion notes to make up the balance. He has now ample precedent for that in the action which has been taken in the United States, where the president is authorized to issue three billion dollars of United States notes to retire maturing obligations. I think that as the government has been following a so-called "sound money" policy for the last two or three years, that of keeping our money good in the United States, the minister might now very well follow the United States precedent and meet part of these maturing bonds with an issue of Dominion notes. If public subscriptions are not sufficient, he should at any rate meet the remainder with an issue of Dominion notes. I think the rate of interest should not exceed three per cent.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

Sup-ply-Pensions



PENSIONS AND NATIONAL HEALTH

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sullivan in the chair.
War veterans' allowances, $1,650,000.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was understood that under this item the members of committee would be free to discuss any matter they may wish to take up with respect to the minister's department.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, the right hon. gentleman is quite correct.


George Gibson Coote: Under this item I should
like to direct the attention of the minister to complaints that have come to me, and I suppose to other members of parliament also, from different soldier organizations. I think the chief complaint is that the scale of relief afforded by the department to pensioners has not been equal to the scale afforded by many municipalities to those receiving unemployment relief. I had a communication from the Canadian War Disability Pensioners' Association of Winnipeg in which they say:
No clothing allowance is made to the needy pensioner whereas the civilians receive the necessary clothing in greater Winnipeg, either through the Greater Winnipeg Welfare Association or through the city council.
Many of our needy pensioners have been out of employment for an extended period. They are not only needy and destitute but many of them and their families are without clothing absolutely to protect them against this climate. If they appeal to the welfare association of the city or municipal councils, they are told they must look to the Department of Pensions and National Health. When they go to the department they are told that there is no provision for clothing. The result is obvious. . Many of our needy pensioners are without clothing, and it is impossible to provide their children with the necessary clothing to permit them to attend school.
The matter of clothing is not a matter of minor consideration but a very substantial one.
During the past week the temperature has registered in Greater Winnipeg continuously below zero ranging from 20 to 35 degrees.
Then they have another complaint with regard to dependent children:
The scale of relief allowance to the dependents of needy pensioners applies only to boys sixteen years of age and under and girls seventeen years of age and under. If they exceed that age no allowance is made in respect thereof, even if they are unemployed and dependent, whereas relief to civilians is based upon the number of dependents in the family irrespective of age.
I think those matters should be cleared up by the minister before this item passes.
While I am on my feet perhaps I might direct attention to the next complaint as well, which has to do with the purchase of fuel:
Civilian needy in greater Winnipeg are enabled through a special arrangement by the city of Winnipeg to purchase their fuel at what might be termed " wholesale prices," in any event at prices substantially less than the retail price, whereas needy pensioners must pay the retail price which it can be conservatively stated is at least 25 per cent in excess of the price paid by the civilian needy on direct relief.
The first question I should like to direct to the minister is with regard to the clothing for pensioners in Winnipeg. Is the department continuing to pursue that policy of refusing to give a clothing allowance to pensioners and their families?


Mr. MacLAREN:: The subject to which my hon. friend refers has reference to unemployment relief and not to war veterans' allowances. The committee will observe that in the vote for unemployment relief this year there is an increase of S375,000, and last year there was also a large increase. In past years it has not been the practice to distribute this unemployment relief during the summer months but because of unemployment conditions of late this relief has been distributed the year round, though to a lesser degree in the summer when the same expense is not incurred with regard to the provision of fuel.
The policy pursued in the distribution of unemployment relief at present is that the amount distributed to pensioners-and of course these are small pensioners, because men who draw large pensions are able to get along without this relief-shall be not less than the amount allowed in the district or municipality in which the pensioner lives. Conditions vary in different portions of the country, and there has been no attempt to fix an exact amount for all parts, for the reason that as local conditions vary the amounts granted by local authorities varies also. Substantially, however, there is not a very great discrepancy. When I say that the department has been granting not less than what is allowed locally, in point of fact in some cases it is rather in excess of the local amounts. In no case has there been a reduction. If a municipality has lessened its allowances the department has not followed suit.
I am afraid a general conversation was going on in the committee which prevented my hearing much of what my hon, friend read, but I gathered that he was presenting complaints with regard to the distribution of clothing.
Supply-Pensions


George Gibson Coote: The distribution of clothing in Winnipeg, where no clothing allowance was given the families of veterans though such an allowance was given by the city to their own unemployed.


Murray MacLaren: The policy followed in
Winnipeg is practically the same as that followed in several other communities. The department does not issue clothing; it has not been thought advisable to do so. It would mean that the department would have to go into the purchase of clothing and carry on the organization necessary in connection with its distribution. This would mean that such operations would take place in a number of the large communities of Canada, and this has not been done. Unemployment relief never has been distributed in the form of clothing either directly or indirectly but recently, following our policy of doing not less than is done by the municipalities, clothing has been distributed to pensioners and their dependents in certain centres, including Winnipeg. Provision is made for dependents up to the age of sixteen in the case of boys and seventeen in the case of girls, and that is in keeping with the Pension Act. Over these ages they are subject to the care of the municipalities. That is the view taken by the department. I can understand complaints arising with regard to boys over sixteen or girls over seventeen, because they do not quite realize the principles on which we are working; but we do not hold ourselves responsible for any dependents or children of pensioners over the ages I have stated. The department has been most careful, indeed anxious, to give as much relief as it can, and it has made an arrangement with local organizations, Winnipeg among them, whereby they purchase the clothing and distribute it, the amounts being paid out of this vote. On the whole, I think the plan has succeeded reasonably well, although we have received complaints which we have found to be quite inaccurate. On the other hand, we have had very considerable evidence of greater contentment and satisfaction within the last few months.
Mr. 'COOTE: When was the practice adopted of distributing clothing relief in Winnipeg? Has it been recent?


Murray MacLaren: In March of this year. It has involved travelling and interviewing on the part of the officials, and the making of many arrangements. The arrangement was made in March of this year, when the amount expended was $5,741. Since then, in the two succeeding months, the amount has naturally been less because the needs have been met.
[Mr. MacLaren.l


George Gibson Coote: The letter which I have was written before March and I have been waiting for an opportunity to bring this matter up on the minister's estimates. I regret that this clothing allowance arrangement was not put into effect in Winnipeg earlier than March because the climate there is severe and the pensioners have been under great disability. In regard to dependent children over sixteen and seventeen respectively, will the municipality give an allowance to the parents?


Murray MacLaren: I will not venture to speak for all the municipalities, and I do not think I am expected to answer yes or no to that question generally. I do know however that in many areas they accept that position. In any event, the department is not empowered to go further than the provisions laid down in the Pension Act. The position is accepted in many places, I daresay not in others; but it is partly because it is not understood and partly because they are not willing to accept that interpretation.


George Gibson Coote: I should appreciate it if the minister would have some of his officials ascertain whether that is being done in Winnipeg. If not, I suggest that the situation should be thoroughly canvassed between the department and the city officials there in regard to this point.


Murray MacLaren: I am informed that that is the case in Winnipeg. I know that when I visited that city some months ago the situation was discussed at a meeting attended by the mayor and representatives of various organizations. I am informed that Winnipeg accepts the situation.


Mr. DONNELLY:: I understand that those . returned soldiers who are receiving pensions and are living in the dried out district in Saskatchewan cannot obtain any assistance from the relief commission in that province because of the fact that they are soldiers receiving pensions. What steps has the government taken to look after these people?


Murray MacLaren: Unemployment relief has been one of the most difficult subjects which the department has had to deal with, and in fact the officials in charge of some of our large hospitals have told me that there is more time taken up and there are more difficult problems to settle in that connection than in all the rest of their administration. An endeavour was made to get this distribution to our pensioners and their dependents carried out through the provinces, inasmuch as they have organizations, and they have the unemployed who have to be clothed. The

Supply-Pensions
provincial government of Saskatchewan has taken on the distribution of clothing to our pensioners and their dependents and has been operating since January or February-I cannot give the exact date.


James J. Donnelly: I am not thinking so much of groceries or clothing. What I am referring to is the fact that a good many of these returned soldiers are farmers and this is the time for them to buy their seed, as well as to make necessary repairs to machinery preparatory to putting in their crop. The relief commission will not give them any assistance because they are pensioners. What has the government done in such cases, in order to provide for seed and so on for these soldiers and to help them to make the necessary repairs to their machinery in preparation for the summer?


Murray MacLaren: The distribution of funds for the purchasing of seeds does not come under this department at all; it comes under the soldier settlement establishment or some other suitable organization. No attempt whatever is made by this department to meet that situation, but we do try to take care of light, heat and rent and, in a few instances where the municipalities do not supply clothing, we give some assistance. Our care is to relieve absolute distress and to help the men to carry on in the meantime.


James J. Donnelly: My object in raising this question is to bring to the attention of the minister and of the Minister of Labour the condition that exists in southern Saskatchewan. If a man happens to be a returned soldier receiving a pension he is worse off than if he were not in receipt of a pension, because without a pension he could get relief; he could obtain seed and be assisted in making repairs. If he is a returned soldier, however, the relief commission in the province will not come to his assistance for the reason that he is in receipt of a pension; they take the view that the soldiers' organizations should look after him. It is impossible for men in that * position to get this measure of relief which is so much required at this time of the year in this area, where conditions have been severe in the last three or four years.


Murray MacLaren: I quite recognize the difficulties. Personally I do not care for the arrangement. I should have hoped, speaking for myself and not for the government, that ultimately the whole matter of unemployment relief would be administered in an entirely different way and perhaps through a different department.


James J. Donnelly: All I am asking the
minister to do is to bring this matter to the attention of the Minister of Labour in order that some arrangement may be arrived at to give these people a certain measure of relief and a certain measure of fair play.


Murray MacLaren: I shall be glad to do so.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: I think
the time has come when some further consideration should be given to the manner of dealing with unemployment relief for returned veterans and pensioners in particular. I have received a number of letters from the Non-Affiliated Veterans of Canada in Montreal. They write to me stating that they find that representations made to the department in connection with their complaints have been quite unavailing. Their letter of March 13 reads as follows;
Following up our recent resolution to obtain justice for our disabled front line veterans who, because of their disabilities and unemployment conditions generally are forced to apply for relief to the Department of Pensions and National Health. We have held an open meeting for front line veterans, March 12, at 1877 Wellington street, Montreal. The following resolution was unanimously adopted:
'[DOT]Whereas, the total amount of relief granted by the Department of Pensions and National Health in Montreal and district to the disabled veterans is $30.60, this sum is with pension included, that is to say, that, if a man draws a war pension of $25 per month, he would be granted $5.60 plus $2 for each child.
"Whereas, the average low shelter rental in this district is $18 per month.
"Whereas, if a rent is paid the disabled veteran has only $12.60 per month to provide food, fuel, light, clothing and medical attention for his family.
"Whereas, if a rent is not paid the landlord may seize and sell under authority of the Quebec lease law, leaving the disabled veteran destitute.	_
"Be it resolved that the existing conditions are intolerable and that the federal authorities duly consider all phases of the situation and render a decision favourable to the disabled veterans, who have fought and suffered that our Canada may be the land of their ideal."
Following the receipt of that letter and resolution I took up the matter with the minister and asked a question in the house with respect to this situation. The minister assured me that an investigation had been started and would be pursued on the following Monday, my question being asked on a Friday. On March 21 I received a further letter from this same organization, which reads;
At an open meeting for the front line veterans, held under the auspices of the Non-Affiliated Veterans of Canada, at 1877 Wellington street. Montreal, March 19, the following resolution was unanimously adopted and a
*Supply-Pensions

request was made that it 'be sent forward to the ministers of the government and members of parliament:
"Whereas, in view of the fact that the lower rate pensioners and their dependents in this district are facing starvation until they receive their pension cheques at the end of the current month.
"Whereas, we have already forwarded two resolutions to Ottawa outlining the situation in this district and have received no satisfactory reply from the Department of Pensions and National Health.
"Therefore be it resolved: that the Department of Pensions and National Health be asked to take immediate action to alleviate the distress that exists amongst the disabled veterans.
"Be it further resolved: this organization of service by veterans in Prance can produce concrete evidence that disabled veterans in this district are being evicted from their homes and have appealed for assistance both to the federal and municipal authorities and have received no help."
We would feel very grateful for any assistance you may be able to render us.
I found out that there was some sort of an investigation being held in Montreal by the department. I solicited further information from my correspondent, the president of this association, and his letter of March 29 contains the following paragraph:
An inquiry at the local relief office to-day brought no information as to an inquiry here into conditions. If there is any way in which we can be of service to you to show our appreciation, kindly let us know and we will try to oblige you.
The letter contains also ithe following paragraph :
The veteran in this district, according to a schedule issued by the department for a married man without children is allowed $30.60 per month which is divided as follows: rent $15; light $2; fuel $5; food, $8.60. This food amount must cover a month of thirty-one days. The result of this is that the veteran must use some of his rent money for food and other essentials, and so the landlord goes short and misery begins by way of bailiff sales.
I again communicated with the president of this association and under date of April 11, he wrote as follows:
I will try and give you some idiea of the investigation or rather camouflage that has taken place. On March 22nd, I was requested to go to the D.S.C.R. and meet the district administrator for Montreal, Mr. Boyd. Upon arrival there with the secretary of our branch, we found the deputy minister of pensions, Mr. McKee and his second in command awaiting us.' Mr. McKee informed us that being in the Montreal district and having received copies of our resolutions, lie thought he would like to see us and immediately opened up a conversation regarding the relief question, the result of which we were informed that no more relief could be granted other than that he would ask Mr. Boyd, district administrator to canvass the civic relief authorities and other charitable organizations 
with the object of trying to get some clothing for pensioners and their families, but so far there have been no apparent results.
On Friday, March 31st, we were called back to the D.SjC.R. in reference to eviction of pensioners from their homes; wrhich we bad called to the attention of the ministers and members of the House of Commons in our resolution of March 19th. Mr. Boyd informed us he had been instructed from Ottawa, that upon sufficient data provided by myself or secretary representing the N.A.V.O.C. branch toumber one, Montreal, to the effect that a pensioner on relief was being evicted, he would take the matter up at once with the view of either having the eviction order cancelled or make arrangements for the man to get another house and failing in that, he was to report the matter hack to Ottawa.
In dealing w.ith the rent situation, the tactics are plain enough. In the past the average pensioner has been in the habit of buying his eats and other necessities first and leaving the landlord whatever might be left which we have, no doubt, would he little or nothing. Therefore, it is an easy matter for Mr. Boyd to go to the landlord and make arangements guaranteeing the rent of fifteen dollars ($15) as the administration intends making the pensioner produce the receipt for the rent before they grant him any further relief which means, in most cases, women and children will have to go hungry in order to pay the rent and draw the small amount that is left after that.
Coming back to the matter of investigation, I might state that we were not informed that anything of that nature was taking place so were not prepared with any evidence also the system of calling up members of different organizations and button-holing them at different times is no way of trying to solve the problem, but merely a means to find a loop-hole for the department of pensions to crawl out of.
I must admit that my only authority is my correspondent who represents himself to be the president of this association.


Murray MacLaren: Could I have his name?


Edward Joseph Garland: William G. Brookes, president, Non-Affiliated Veterans of Canada. I was not satisfied that this case was not like many others which have come to my attention where there has been exaggeration and at times misrepresentation upon the part of correspondents. I replied under date of April 12 and asked him to send me particulars of specific cases in order that I might have something concrete to justify further protests. I was forwarded a letter signed by R. Laycock and Mrs. Mary Lay-cock of Verdun, Quebec. This letter reads;
With regards to my relief, there seems to be a decidedly strong rumour about that we are to be subjected to another cut in our relief through the D.SjC.R. This hardly seems possible, and I wish to protest it strongly, when one stops to consider the cost of "bare" living commodities, that is with what we are receiving: $32.75 per month which, no matter how carefully one tries to manage leaves nothing for clothes, not to mention light, gas or rent.

Supply-Pensions
I can readily understand that would be the case in Montreal.
Most decidedly it is my -wish to protest this talked of cut in our relief.
That was something entirely new to me. On April 17 I received the following letter from Mr. A. H. Johnson:
Dear Sir,-I receive a pension cheque for $25 and a relief cheque for $5.60, making a total of $30.60 as the sole income for a family of two adults, my rent amounts to $15 per month and leaves me a balance of $15.60 to take care of all my other expenses such as food, clothing, medical attention and household necessities.
I have repeatedly complained that this amount was inadequate, both to the Department of Pensions and National Health at Ottawa and to the local district office but have received no satisfaction whatever, the department only answers that the pensioner on relief is in somewhat of a preferred position to that of the civilian in this district, but when one realizes that our municipal aldermen have stated that the amount of relief granted by the city is only sufficient to keep a person from starving, one may readily realize why there are so many children and adults waiting for admission to hospitals suffering from malnutrition and tuberculosis.
A pensioner is in constant fear of accidents or sickness or death overtaking one of his family. Where can he turn for assistance? Charity only applies to civilians in this district.
Everyone that I have interviewed in this matter, leaders of public opinion, have all been impressed with the situation and have all agreed that the matter is one for the federal authorities to deal with and the local Department of Pensions and National Health say it is a matter for Ottawa to deal with.
Faithfully submitted,
A. H. Johnson,
Pension No. 32910 Regimental No. 105344.
I have a further letter from Mr. H. Lafond, who states:
An average rent in Verdun-
This is simply corroboratory evidence.
-that is sanitary and decent surroundings for a flat of four rooms is $20 monthly, five rooms, $23 to $25, and six rooms, $28. Anything under that is old houses and not modern.
That was submitted by my correspondent or by the organization merely as evidence that S15 to S18 was certainly not a high rental to pay and it would hardly provide suitable accommodation for even these people who are in such serious circumstances.
A further letter from Mr. Frank Wrigley states:
On or about June the 15th last I applied to the local Department of Pensions and received relief for June and July to the extent of $21 for each month-
That is June and July, 1932.
-over and above my pension of $35 for a family of five. August the following month I was closed off all relief. I appealed to the local administrators and received a $10 loan on my pension. I was instructed to let my rent go as the landlords had been very lucky up to that time.
Rather amusing that he should have been instructed to let his rent go.
September of the following month I appealed to Captain Boyd, the administrator, who told me he could not advance me a further loan owing to lack of funds, he promised to send an investigator up, but the investigator has not arrived yet.
November, my wife in an advanced stage of illness, was suddenly taken seriously ill, I came home one night and found that she had been lying helpless for over half an hour owing to premature childbirth. I could not afford proper medical attention so was obliged to render first aid and dispose of the remains myself. I had neither food or fuel in the house, I kept the children home from school on that account.
I sent a note to the principal of the school explaining the reason for their absence. I understand my letter was referred to the Verdun Protestant School Board. All I could obtain from the Pension department was a fuel order and was now obliged to beg and borrow from friends and run into debt with merchants, the same which I cannot see any hopes of paying and am being continually hounded for payment of same.
December I received and have been receiving since, a relief chit of $6.50 over and above my pension each month. After paying monthly rent of $20 which is obligatory under the ancient and obsolete law of Quebec yearly lease law, I have the magnificent sum of $21.50 left to provide light, heat, food and clothing, medical attention and other necessities for a family of five.
Then this trenchant sentence is added:
Will Mr. Bennett tell me how to do it?
He continues:
I have been without underwear all winter, also holes in my footwear, owing to being a chest case I appealed to Captain Brennan, chief medical adviser, for local department of pensions. Doctor Brennan informed me that was an economic question and a matter for further legislation, as there was no provision made for cases like mine, but from a medical point of view 1. should not be going about in such a condition. In answer to my questions he also informed me that in my case if I caught cold and took seriously ill I would be granted hospitalization with full pay and allowance, and in the event of my death my dependents would receive a pension. The present government are evidently firm believers in the old song "Old soldiers never die."
I have been notified by my landlady to vacate my present home owing to my inability to meet the terms stipulated in my lease. I am without funds to rent another home and am completely at a loss as to where I am going to stay, according to Captain Boyd no
Supply-Pensions

further loans can be advanced to any pensioner who is on relief and distinctly told me I was up against a stone wall.
Hoping the same will he of some assistance to you.
I have a whole fife of letters, some not so bad and some even worse than that. I hesitate to place them all on the record of the house, and with what I have already read I rest ithe case for these men. I want to ask the minister two questions, first, why he did not see fit to do me the courtesy of lotting me have as soon as it was available, a copy of the report of the investigation that he promised me would be held-if he had done that, a great deal of trouble might have been saved-and, second, what is the report of the investigators?


Murray MacLaren: Certainly I shall supply all the information possible to the hon. member for Bow River. I do not wish him to have any feeling that anything is being concealed from him of any other hon. member. This matter was brought to my attention some time ago by the hon. member for Bow River and as a result an investigation was held; I think he already knows that. The assistant deputy minister made at least two visits there in order to look over the situation carefully. We also had a very distinguished social welfare official who, in addition to the local representative, studied the matter. The result is that the information gained does not sustain the substance of the letters which my hon. friend has read. On the contrary -there is much to show that they are n-ot correct. In the meantime I would ask the hon. member for Bow River if he would kindly send that correspondence to the department to be investigated as it is obviously impossible to answer it in the house. If he will do so, the matter will be carefully considered. I have under my hand from the assistant deputy a memorandum under date of April 5, which I might read to the committee. It states:
With reference to complaints received, alleging that unemployed soldier pensioners in Montreal were on the verge of starvation and that many were threatened with eviction from their homes owing to the inadequacy of relief allowed by the department:
I would advise that a careful investigation has been made and, as a result, I am satisfied that the departmental schedule of relief is sufficient to provide adequate food and shelter.
Regarding the threatened evictions, investigation has brought to light only one authentic case where it was subsequently shown that the pensioner had failed to pay rental although in a position to do so.
The departmental scale of relief in Montreal, to which pension may be augmented, when the need exists, is higher than that provided to non-pensioned veterans and civilians.
[Mr. E. J. Garland.1
As there will no doubt be further discussion on this subject, in order not to delay the house I have been asked to proceed with bill No. 78, and I therefore move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this day.
Progress reported.



PENSION ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 78, to amend the Pension Act-Mr. MacLaren 

Mr. Sullivan in the chair.
On section 1-Definitions.
Mr. ARTHURS:: Mr. Chairman, this bill No. 78 as it appears before the house to-day is largely amended from the bill as originally introduced. Bill No. 78, in effect, is a bill to reorganize the administration of the pension department. It has nothing to do with pensions in the ordinary sense. It was found that after the amendments to the Pension Act of 1930 the courts as then organized became greatly congested, and in consequence an investigating committee was appointed in 1932 to inquire into the whole procedure. The members of the committee included five officers of the department, five representatives of the returned soldier bodies, and one judge. Unfortunately, perhaps, they disagreed on many points, but in some essential points they were in entire agreement, and based on their report the original Bill No. 78 was introduced and was afterwards sent to a committee of this house of which I had the honour to be chairman.
The unanimous opinion of the committee of 1932 was that there should be only one court of first instance, thus shortening the procedure. This court, according to the bill as it was first presented to this house, was to be completed by an enlargement of the board of pension commissioners. Hon. gentlemen will see by the amended bill that our committee have recommended that a new body be formed to be called the Canadian pensions commission, this body to consist of not less than eight or more than twelve persons, in order that there may be sufficient personnel to carry out the idea of the present quorums and be able to meet the soldier at home. That principle has been consistently followed throughout the bill. Therefore the board of pension commissioners as at present existing and also the tribunal will be done away with by this act.
There are other essential changes, not necessarily amendments, but in the bill itself. I might refer to the reviewing officer, which was

Pension Act
another very important feature and was very thoroughly considered by your committee. The reviewing officer under this bill is a man appointed for the purpose of protecting the public to a certain degree, and also of seeing that justice is done the returned soldier. In the past objection to the judgments of the various quorums has been taken by various persons, largely employees of the board of pension commissioners. This was objected to, and in the original bill it was suggested that the reviewing officer should be placed under the control of the pension appeal board. This would apparently be more satisfactory, but it has been considered better to have an entirely independent officer, and so it will be found that in the amended bill as presented to the house to-day this official is to be appointed directly by the governor in council and to be responsible to no particular body.
So far as the pension appeal court is concerned the recommendation of the committee of last year was followed. It was found that in that court there are at the present time between 1,300 and 1,400 cases awaiting appeal, far too much work for one quorum. This bill therefore provides that ad hoc members may be added, some judge who shall be paid only for the time engaged, thus allowing two quorums to be formed and two courts to be working at the same time, and in this way it is quite possible that they will be able to catch up with the congestion.
The most important part of the whole bill and of this legislation is that we have probably not yet reached the peak of our pension troubles. There are at the present time 1,490 cases already prepared to come before the tribunals, and these cases are coming in at the rate of approximately 3,000 per year. So the committee will understand how necessary it is that these quorums should be able to carry on and help to relieve the congestion at the earliest possible moment. I may also say in passing that if our recommendations are carried out and this measure meets with the approval of this committee a good deal of the red tape in connection with the trial of these cases will be done away with. There will be a great deal less formality and that will be much better for the returned men.
In conclusion, I think I voice the opinion of every member of the committee in saying that the work was done by your committee most earnestly and with no desire except to serve the interests of the public and at the same time the interests of the returned men. Not only that, but I think that in every
change, certainly in every material change, we were absolutely unanimous, and had the entire concurrence of the representatives of each of the veteran bodies, all of whom were present at the hearings.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Mr. Chairman, I desire to say a word or two of concurrence with the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs), the chairman of the committee on pensions. The committee may recall that I was personally responsible, when the original Bill No. 78 was first brought to the house for the suggestion that this bill should be referred to a special committee. And I think if ever a course was justified it was that course, because there is a tremendous difference between Bill No. 78 now before the committee and the bill in its original form. The main changes, as stated by the hon. gentleman who has just sat down, have been endorsed by the unanimous vote of the committee, with certain reservations which can be expressed during the discussion, and also endorsed by the bodies of ex-servicemen representing all the organized associations in Canada. So while we have all received numerous letters and telegrams from the various provinces protesting against Bill No. 78 as introduced, I think generally speaking the bill now before the committee should give satisfaction. Speaking only for myself I may say quite frankly that I would have preferred to see the present legislation functioning for at least another year, but seeing that the majority of the investigating committee last year, the Audette commission, including General Ross and Colonel Sherwood, recommended legislation along this line, possibly there was substantial reason for change. I wish to make one observation, that we have adopted in the first place the principle of merger between the board of pension commissioners and the tribunals. Most of the telegrams received have objected to abolition of the tribunals and retaining the board. I ask the committee to observe that these objections have been met by your subcommittee. The new body, the Canadian pension commission, is to consist of not less than eight and not more than twelve, in the discretion of the governor in council. I think I am voicing the opinion of the committee in saying that although the number of members is left to the discretion of the governor in council, the number of cases now awaiting decision or coming up for hearing in Canada absolutely justifies the number being twelve instead of eight. But that is left to the discretion of the governor in coun-
Pension Act

oil who will be acquainted with the number of cases calling for attention. The hope of the committee is that this legislation will largely remove the congestion referred to in the report of last year and also will remove the unsatisfactory condition that prevailed in regard to the number of appeals taken. A very important feature of this bill is that there is no appeal from a favourable decision of the commission as such, that is a decision favourable to the applicant. There is an appeal from the travelling quorum which hears cases throughout the country. And the reviewing officer, who in the old bill was subject to the appeal court, is now an independent officer subject only to the governor in council. He will advise which of the cases in which judgment has been given in favour of the applicant by the quorum in the field should be appealed by the crown. So I think the legislation in general should work in the interests of the veterans. We have endeavoured to ensure that the personnel of the tribunals and of the board of pension commissioners shall have equal chances in the discretion of the governor in council, and also that the clerks and under-staff shall be in the same category. So that the objections which we have all been receiving from our various ridings have been as far as possible met by the committee.
May I say in conclusion that I agree with the hon. member for Parry Sound that the spirit manifested by every single member of that committee, was a desire to serve the best interests of the ex-servicemen, consistent of course with the interest of the state.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: 
Mr ROSS:: With the principle of the bill so ably presented I am in accord. I could not be otherwise, since it is practically the method I proposed to the committee in 1930. That proposal was turned down; it was decided to enter upon the experiment which we are now discarding, and that experiment has cost this government and this country $1,371,000 in cash. The tribunal was not a name of which I was very fond, because returned men always liked the name "pension board." Owing to -the difficulties which have arisen ever since the close of the war many returned men felt that the pension board was not sufficiently sympathetic to their applications, but now that this -bill proposes to change the name it may be, and I trust will be, that a better feeling will exist among the returned men.
Pension Act

I have always felt, Mr. Chairman, that our legislation was good. No other country has pension legislation equal to that of the Dominion of Canada, but the trouble has been that somewhere the administration fell down. I am sure that any person who served on any of the committees appointed since 1922 has felt that there was some sort of antagonism or lack of cooperation on the part of the different organizations. That became very acute when we introduced the tribunals and the appeal court. Now these two bodies have been merged, and I hope we can look for a more sympathetic administration of the act.
As I said before, Mr. Chairman, I think difficulties have existed with regard to the administration. I directed t'he attention of the committee to a lack of consideration which, if rectified, perhaps would clear up some of those difficulties. It was stated during one of our meetings that in notifying an applicant that his application had not been accepted, the name and address of the person concerned with appeal appeared on that notice. I disputed that statement. I have before me one of the forms sent out in such cases, which is as follows:
I am directed to inform you that the act of 1931 amending the Pension Act provides:
"Should the application be not granted the commission shall refer the case to the chief pensions advocate and the chief commission counsel for presentation to the pension tribunal if the applicant or any person on his behalf duly authorized so requests in writing."
When that notice is received very often the person interested does not know what it means, and many of these notices are not answered. As a result, many applications are lying (there inactive. I would direct the attention of those in charge of the administration of this legislation to the fact that some effort should be made to get rid of these ten or twelve thousand cases now in the inactive list. It might be that if these cases were divided up as between different areas the persons concerned could be advised by advertisement that no action had been taken with regard to their applications and that, if they would get in touch with some official of the commission, they would be informed more definitely as to what might be done. I am perhaps more interested in this phase of the question than in anything else. We have still kept the principle of examination and inspection, and with a little more trouble, and more details given in the paper sent to the applicant who has failed, I think we could clear up a good many of these ten thousand cases.
fMr- Ross.]


Murray MacLaren: I wish to express my
complete appreciation of the work of the committee. They have come together on this bill and have been very thorough and assiduous in their duties. The work they 'have done has shown a fine spirit of unity on a subject in regard to which there are so many diverse opinions. I was visited yesterday by representatives of the Associated Veterans. They came to inform me, as representing their organizations, that the bill met with their complete approval. Both of these factors, both the finding of the committee and the representations from the Associated Veterans, are undoubtedly gratifying and will encourage the department to do its 'best in carrying out its part. In any case, it is reassuring. Finally, if I were making any general observations, I would ask for the fuller confidence of parliament, of the returned men and of the public generally in the administration of this act. I believe it is warranted; I do not think it would be misplaced but on the contrary would have a very beneficial effect not only on the department but on the feeling of the people throughout the country.


Mr. GEARY:: What the minister has just
said is something Which I think should be borne in mind by this committee, namely, that the soldiers' organizations as represented before the committee undoubtedly displayed a spirit of conciliation and of compromise, and evidenced an endeavour to arrange the matter having in mind not only their own interests but the interests of the taxpayers as well.
There have been two main troubles with the administration up to date; one was congestion in the hearings by the tribunals and the other was the appeal. The appeal was probably the sorest point of all and it arose because the commission was really appealing on its own behalf. Perhaps what has been said had some basis in truth; the soldiers felt that the sympathy of the commission was not always with them. The commission appealed without knowing what it was appealing on in many cases. There was pressure at times, the record was not always available, and appeals were put in without regard to whether they were justified or whether there was proper cause of appeal or not.
The merit of this bill, to my mind, is this. The number of appointees may be eight or twelve, and hereafter such matters as delay or congestion in the first court, and the question of appeal from that court, will be up to the governor in council. That is the essential feature of t'he bill as we now have it. There is no delay anywhere at all except in the officials appointed by the governor in council.

Pension Act
They may appoint enough or they may appoint too few members to go about the country hearing cases. Further, either the reviewing officer is proper and right in advising appeal or he is derelict in his duty in advising too many appeals, in which case the governor in council will have to stand the brunt of the criticism that may be brought to bear.
These are the achievements of the committee; these are the things that the house will have achieved in passing this bill. The soldiers have had good cause for complaint in a great many instances, but I believe that the opinion of the country is still in favour of all the promises made to these men being carried out. There is no disposition on the part either of the country or of this government to cut them down. We hear occasionally of pensions having been wrongly granted to persons-men who did not deserve them. May I point out, however, that this is not to be laid at the door of the soldiers. Pensions may have been badly awarded, there may have been injustice in that direction; but that to my mind has been the fault of administration in the granting of pensions and not a fault which must be laid at the door of the soldiers' organizations. They simply desire to see that the soldier shall get a fair deal in the matter of pensions.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: I am happy to associate myself entirely with the remarks of the other members of the committee, and I am particularly happy to concur fully in the very able remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Canadian Pension Commission.
Mr. DUFF:: This is the section referring to the 'change in the act to provide that instead of there being a pension commission and also a pension tribunal these two bodies shall be amalgamated and a commission to be known as the Canadian pension commission appointed. I notice in subsection 2 of section 3 that the number of commissioners to be appointed by the governor in council must be not fewer than eight though it may be increased to twelve. While every right-thinking man in this country is willing to see that every consideration is given to the claims of the returned soldiers and that the amounts due them for pensions are paid, nevertheless it seems to me, in view of the magnitude of the amount which this country is voting every year for pensions to returned soldiers, that the government in the present condition of the country's finances should carefully con-53719-312
sider what action ought to be taken in connection with this section of the bill.
In the past we have had a board of pension commissioners, and I do not think that anyone who has taken any interest in the work of this commission will deny them credit for the splendid work they did during the number of years they functioned. It is rather strange to me to hear some hon. members say, in spite of the fact that, in addition to the board of pension commissioners which for so many years carried out its work so well in the interests of the returned soldiers, and the fact that an additional body of twelve men was appointed after the act was amended in 1930, that now there are more complaints and more claims than there were when the work was done entirely by the pension commission. It seems to me that while everyone is anxious to do everything that is reason^ able and possible for the returned soldiers, the government should be very careful to take every step it possibly can to economize in this matter. Let me say to the Acting Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, that in my opinion it is necessary to try first how well the work will be done by eight men, before the additional four are appointed. Before those additional four are appointed, making twelve in all, the governor in council should make an experiment with eight men. It seems to me it would be in the interests of economy to appoint the three pension commissioners. These men know the work and could be appointed with advantage. It seems to me it would also be in the interests of the taxpayers of this country to provide only for a board of eight, which would be sufficient to carry on the trials.
This pension commission has been acting for a great many years and in the main has given satisfaction not only to the people of this country but to the returned soldier. It is quite true that there has been criticism of certain amounts paid to returned soldiers, but that is to be expected! in the administration of such vast sums of money. There have been criticisms made that they have not always given the amounts which the returned soldiers or the men at the head of the organizations demanded, but it seems to me that that should be in their favour. In any business it is impossible to satisfy everyone and the Minister of Finance and every member of this committee knows that where government money is concerned, either for this or any other purpose, there is sometimes a temptation to ask for more than should be given. It seems to me that the members of parliament are as much to blame as anyone

[DOT]1938
Pension Act

else for the fact that since this act came into force a number of years ago we have spent vast sums of money and are to-day spending something like $55,000,000. I am not averse to spending every dollar that is necessary, whether it be $55,000,000 or $100,000,000, but the Minister of Finance has to find ways and means of raising the revenue and in view of the conditions prevailing at the moment I think every effort should be made to see that no money is paid to returned soldiers which is not deserved. I suggest to the Minister of Finance that a complete investigation be made into the payments to returned soldiers. This could be made either through this pension commission or in some other way. I am convinced that many men are receiving pensions who should not receive them while there are other poor devils receiving amounts entirely inadequate. If the whole matter was gone into I am quite convinced that the Minister of Finance would be able to save tens of millions of dollars.
The pension commission and the tribunal boards will go out of office immediately this bill receives royal assent. In view of the good work done in the past by the pension commission, I think in the appointment of these eight officials first choice should be given to the three members of the present pension commission. After a man has been engaged in a certain line of work for a number of years it is pretty hard for him to go back to something else upon being thrown out on the street. I should like the Minister of Finance to give serious consideration to this matter. Why do I say this? First, for the reason I gave a moment ago, that these pension commissioners have given the best years of their lives to this work. Of course, there is bound to be criticism in the expenditure of such a vast sum of money but the fact remains that these pension commissioners are in a position entirely different from that of the members of the tribunal boards. These boards were a new experiment and they have been in operation for only a few years. If the minister cannot make a definite statement to-day I ask him to take into consideration the appointment of the present commissioners to the new pension commission.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In administering subsection two of section 3 I am sure it will be the purpose of the governor in council to keep in mind the considerations which have been presented to the committee by the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff). It is the desire of the governor in council, as it is of the members of this committee and the

people of this country, that full justice should be done to the returned soldier. On the other hand, we must keep in mind the heavy burden which is imposed upon the taxpayers of this country. As my hon. friend will understand, I cannot give him any definite undertaking but we all appreciate the representations he has made, not only with respect to the personnel of the old pensions board but with respect to other matters. I can assure my hon. friend that the attention of my colleagues will be directed to his observations and that they will receive my careful and sympathetic consideration.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Will the Minister of
Finance give the same assurance with respect to the members of the pension tribunals?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am sure it will be the
desire of the governor in council to see that alll interests are properly considered.


William Duff: According to their merits.


Murray MacLaren: As this bill will become operative by proclamation, the difficulties referred to by the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough will not arise. The hon. member referred also to the necessity of a review being made of all pensions. My understanding is that the board of pension commissioners have been working for the past few months upon a review of all cases.


Alfred Speakman: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to repeat what I have said already but I wish again to urge the importance of the right of hearing being held in open court and the necessity of having a body sufficient to provide the necessary quorums. As far as the personnel of this body is concerned, I am sure the governor in council will keep in mind those men who have obtained experience in this work and who only a few years ago were appointed under a ten year contract. The bill in its original form provided for the reappointment of the board of pension commissioners and I hope in the appointment of this new body the governor in council will consider the number which I have suggested and which is provided for in the bill. I hope they will also keep in mind, as they undoubtedly will, the personnel of the pension tribunals. Apparently these men have achieved a unique success, something rarely accomplished. They reviewed many cases some of which they accepted and some of which they refused but I have heard only of a few cases of dissatisfaction in connection with unsuccessful applicants whose cases were heard by these tribunals. Men have told me that while they were disappointed in not having

their cases accepted they felt' that they had had a fair, honest and impartial hearing. If their cases were rejected, they felt that they were not strong enough to stand. I hope these men will be kept in mind in the appointment of this new commission. The government is under some responsibility to the members of these boards as they have served only three years of the ten year statutory contract under which they were employed. I repeat that to my mind the important part of this legislation is the retaining of the feature of the open court and the providing of travelling quorums before which the applicants can make a personal appearance. This can be done only by adequate appointments to the board.


George Gibson Coote: Not being a member of the special committee, I had not intended to say anything upon this subject, but the remarks of the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysbor-ough prompt me to say a few words. Many veterans and their friends throughout the country greatly regret to see the pension tribunal done away with. It was because of the dissatisfaction existing in Canada that the pension tribunals were established and there is a great deal of dissatisfaction now because so many cases in which favourable decisions were given by the tribunals have been appealed and the appeals are held up for such long periods. I think in one case which I brought to the minister's attention, an appeal has been pending, if I remember rightly, for nearly two years. While of course I agree with the hon. member for Antigonish-Guys-borough that the government at this time should do everything to practise true economy, I want to remind the hon. member and the committee that this government has gone to the limit in living up to our obligations to those who purchased government bonds to finance the war, but in many cases, in my humble opinion, we have not gone nearly to the same limit in living up to our obligations to the men who went overseas and fought in the war. I say that because of individual cases which have come to my attention. I have under my hand the correspondence in regard to one case where a man served three years and ten months in France with practically no leave, and with every day of that leave spent in hospital in England. He is incapacitated and he cannot get a pension. Although he was physically fi.t when he was taken on, he was discharged as medically unfit, of course the board claiming that this was due to defective eyesight which they stated was congenital.
I have another case of a man who spent four years in France; he was buried in an 53719-312i
Pension Act
explosion caused by a shell. He has suffered ever since with a weak back and pains in his legs. It would seem to anyone that this man's disability was due .to the injuries he sustained when buried by the shell. He was refused a pension by the pension commissioners. His application was heard by the tribunal and allowed. His case was then taken to the appeal board where, after a delay of a year, it was heard and he was refused a pension. In many of these cases when they come to the appeal court, the clause under which the applicant is supposed to get the benefit of the doubt is absolutely ignored. The men feel and I feel that the board of pension commissioners should be enlarged to take in the present members of the pension tribunal so that we may clear up the thousands of cases that are waiting for hearing. I should like to urge upon the minister that the full board of twelve be appointed so that they may deal with these cases as promptly as possible and clear up some of this dissatisfaction which I think rightfully exists among many veterans who have applied for pensions.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I have just a word to say about subsection 14. This was amended in the committee to read:
All officers, clerks and employees on the staff of the board of pension commissioners for Canada-
Then there was added:
And of the pension tribunal . . . shall be and become during pleasure, officers, clerks and employees on the staff of the commission.
The amendment was one about which I felt strongly. It was my desire that the officers, clerks and employees of the pension tribunal should receive the same consideration as those of the pension board. By that I mean that there should be no discrimination. Some misunderstanding has arisen in certain quarters as to just what that means. My sole desire is that the staffs of both the pension board and the tribunal should be placed on an equality when it comes to the question of administration and that the same consideration should be extended to the employees of both boards, without any discrimination whatever.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3, 4 and 5 agreed to.
On section 6-Pension appeal court continued.
William Duff: With regard to 10B on page 6, subclause (1) reads:
The governor in council upon the retirement of anv member of the commission, or the court, who has served upon one or other of such
Pension Act

bodies during at least twenty years, or who has so served during at least ten years and has reached the age of seventy years, or is physically or mentally incapacitated, and is not entitled to superannuation under the Civil Service Superannuation Act, may grant to him a pension for his life not exceeding one-third of the salary to which he was entitled as such member.
It will be noticed that if he is over seventy years of age, after serving ten years, he receives 33 per cent of his salary, but if he is not seventy years, but might have served ten or more years, he gets nothing. In view of the principle 'laid down by parliament on several occasions and especially in the last few days in regard to the appointment of the tariff commission, where a salary of $15,000 was asked for the chairman for the next ten years and where, after that ten years had expired, he was to receive a retiring allowance or pension amounting to $7,500, and in view of the fact that certain members of this new pension commission, or, in fact, of the old commission, will soon retire, they should be entitled to the same treatment, I am going to move the following amendment to 10B:
That all the words after the word "least" in the third line of subsection (1) of clause 10B be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"ten years, may grant him a pension for his life not exceeding one-third of the salary to which he is entitled as such member, or two-thirds of such salary to any member of the commission who has, as aforesaid, served fifteen years and upwards, provided any such member is not entitled to superannuation under the Civil Service Superannuation Act."
I am not asking for the same consideration as has been given to the chairman of the tariff commission; all I say is that a member of this board, after serving ten years, may be granted for his life a pension not exceeding one-tlhird of the salary to which he was entitled.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is one o'clock. May I call your attention, Mr. 'Chairman, to the money phase of this motion?


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Sullivan):: Yes, it is out of order.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at one o'clock.


Murray MacLaren: I just wish to make one observation on the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Antigon-ish-Cuysborough. I think there is merit in what the hon. member says. I propose to bring the matter to the attention of the {Mr. Duff.]
government, and'I hope it will be dealt with at some more favourable time. I think it is of sufficient merit to be fully considered, but it should wait until some more favourable time. That is my own personal view.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: What	is the amendment?


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Cowan, Port Arthur-Thunder Bay):: The	amendment is
to strike out all the words after the word "least" in the third line of subsection 1 of clause 10B and to substitute the following therefor:
"ten years, may grant him a pension for his life not exceeding one-third of the salary to which he is entitled as such member, or two-thirds of such salary to any member of the commission who has, as aforesaid, served fifteen years and upwards, provided any such member is not entitled to superannuation under the Civil Service Superannuation Act."


William Duff: Perhaps in view of the fact
that a monetary question is involved, the amendment may be out of order.


Donald James Cowan: It is.


William Duff: By changing only a few words I submit, Mr. Chairman, the amendment would be in order. The Minister of Pensions and National Health was good enough to discuss my amendment with me and he has just said that the government will take it into consideration, but if this section passes as it is I submit that it will be impossible to deal with the proposal in my amendment until the next session of parliament. May I suggest to the minister that instead of dealing summarily with the amendment now and passing the clause, he let the clause stand until to-morrow so that he will have an opportunity to consider the matter further and perhaps agree to my suggestion. He admits that there is merit in the amendment.


Murray MacLaren: I did not have the
idea that it would apply this session.


William Duff: Do I understand that the
minister is willing to allow this subsection to stand.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We have not been able to hear what the minister was saying on this side.


Murray MacLaren: I do not think the
section should stand. I have said I am impressed by the reasons expressed by my hon. friend, but it is a matter that requires a good deal of consideration by the government, and I said I should have much pleasure in bringing it to the attention of the govern-

Pension Act
ment with my favourable comments. I think that is as far as the hon. gentleman can expect me to go.


William Duff: I cannot agree with the minister. I can understand, of course, that it may be necessary for him to give further consideration to my amendment, but certainly my amendment is very much more modest than the proposals contained in certain legislation which we have passed in this house in the last two or three years or in the legislation which -was proposed to this house within the last day or two. I remember when I was very much younger and one of a big family, when some of us tried to get from the other the biggest slice of bread and molasses my mother used to say, "There should be no step-bairns in our family," and as far as government officials -are concerned there should be no step-bairns, but everybody should be treated alike. Within the last day or two the government introduced legislation whereby parliament was asked to vote for the chairman of the tariff board-I am not talking personally at all-not only a salary of $15,000, an increase from the $12,000 which the former chairman of the board received, but in addition that he should receive an annuity after drawing $15,000 for ten years. As far as I am concerned there are entirely too many pensions being paid, whether it is to the Chairman of the tariff board or anybody else, because the ordinary person in this country who has to pay taxes receives no pension at all. He is engaged in farming or mining or fishing or in mercantile life, and, if any of us does not make enough for our old age we have to go to the poor house or grub along as best we can without any pension. Yet the government proposed to give the chairman of the tariff board a salary of $15,000 for ten years and an annuity, and if the chairman of that board cannot save sufficient for the future out of a salary of $15,000 a year for ten years, I say that he is not fit to be chairman of the board. In addition, besides providing that the taxpayers of this country should pay the chairman of the tariff board a pension of $7,500 per year or fifty per cent of his salary at the end of ten years' service, that legislation originally proposed pensions also for the other two members of the board and now my good friend the Minister of Pensions and National Health says that he cannot agree to my very modest amendment to provide a pension for these men who have given good service to this country as members of the pension board, although my amendment proposes that they shall receive a pension of only one-third of their salary.
Clause 2 of this bill makes provision for the salaries which the members of the new Canadian pension commission ^hall receive. The chairman is to receive a salary of $7,000 and each of the other members of the board $0,000 per annum. I am willing to admit that in these times under present conditions $7,000 or $0,000 is rather fair remuneration in the public service. But how can the minister or the government justify not accepting my amendment when the chairman of the pension commission is responsible for the expenditure of $55,000,000 per year, and when he receives a salary of $7,000 and the other members of the commission $6,000, as compared with $15,000 for the chairman of the tariff board and $10,000 each for the other two members of that board? The minister is part of the ministry and an adviser to His Excellency the Governor General in Council, and I ask him how can he justify waiting for another year. Surely, Mr. Chairman, the members of this new board, whether these gentlemen Who have been members of the pension commission for the last ten years or the new members who are going to be put on from the tribunals, with the serious responsibilities they have to assume, are entitled to as much money from the taxpayers of this country as the members of the tariff commission. Yet my hon. friend says when I move a modest amendment to give these men not so high a pension when they retire after ten or fifteen years, that it cannot be dealt with this year, and asks us to pass this bill and the matter will be considered later. I say that is not fair either to the members of the pension board, the members of the tribunal or the members of this house. I say to the minister that in fairness to everyone concerned he should allow this clause 10B to stand for further consideration.


Mr. HEAPS:: In the course of the proceedings this morning, I listened very attentively to the plea of the hon. member who has just sat down for the utmost economy in pensions. He pleaded that as much as twenty-five per cent could be cut off the pensions list of the Dominion of Canada. Yet the amendment he now moves is one which if accepted would have the effect of increasing the amount spent by the government on pensions. Now, Mr. Chairman, I am quite in favour of giving employees in the service of the government a reasonable retiring allowance, but I think that instead of starting at the top we should start at the bottom. I am getting sick and tired of listening to pleas on behalf of men in the employ of the government who are receiving very high salaries, and to whom in addition
Pension Act

to ithe high salary we are asked to give other large sums in the way of pensions. During the past two days we have listened to a plea for high pensions to men receiving $15,000 a year, and to judges receiving salaries of $8,000, $10,000 and $12,000 a year. We have been told that thrift is one of the great virtues. I am under the impression that if we are to have thrift it should start among those people who enjoy these very high salaries; men in receipt of $8,000, $10,000 and $15,000 a year should be alble to save a little for the rainy day. We are always hearing that people receiving $700, $800 and $1,000 a year should be taught the virtue of thrift. I think these people receiving high salaries are still better able to put something aside to tide them over. As I said, I am not opposed to the principle of retiring allowances, I am heartily in favour of it.
May I point out further that the engine driver or the crew of a train that brings the hon. member here from Nova Scotia is performing just as useful service to society as the man who takes office on the pension board. After all .their work deals with the spending of money, but the train crew have entrusted to them the very lives of a number of human beings. It is true, I do not for a moment deny it, that the man sitting on the pensions tribunal is performing a very important task, but not one bit more important than that of the men driving the trains. These men at present are entitled not only to certain emoluments, but as they come under the Civil Service Commission they have also a claim on the superannuation fund; at any rate if not they are receiving fairly good salaries. I think this particular time is not one in which it is essential to provide them with retiring allowances. We have been told for the past two or three years in this house that these are times for the practice of the utmost economy. I do not know of any more extravagant expenditure at this time than providing these very extravagant retiring allowances for men in receipt of high salaries, so I think if we allow this question to stand for the time being there will be no harm done.


Murray MacLaren: I would like to point out that the government has consented to pass this bill as it stands. I do not think it would be desirable to make any changes if possible to avoid doing so. Therefore I would favour the passage of this section as it stands, and as I say I will bring it before the government for future consideration.
Amendment negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.

Mr. SPlEAKMAN: Owing to the confusion in the house I was unable to hear what section was called. Do I understand that section 6 was declared carried?
The CHAIRMAN:: We are taking the bill subsection by subsection. Subsection 10B is carried.
On subsection 10C-Appointment of civil servants.
Some hon. MBMBEiRS: Carried.


Murray MacLaren: Mr. Chairman, with the animation that is prevailing in the house you have got a little ahead of me. I wish to amend the wording of this section. There are several words omitted in the last line on the page. It reads:
-his tenure of office as a member of the commission or of the . . .
I wish to amend it to read as follows:
-his tenure of office as a member of the board of pension commissioners for Canada, of the pension tribunal, or of the . . .
Those words were omitted in error.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Subsection as amended agreed to.
Subsection 10D agreed to.
On subsection 10E-Medical and clerical
assistance.
Mr. REID:: I wonder if the minister would answer an important question that I would like to put now. Perhaps it does not come under the bill, nor do I wish at this time to raise any question regarding the matter of pensions, but among many organizations of returned men a feeling prevails that the private soldier who receives a pension is called up each year for examination, but that such examination is not required in the case of those who were officers. My question is, do those who were officers and who are in receipt of pension come up for examination periodically the same as the private soldier?


Murray MacLaren: As far as I know there is no difference made between members of the forces as to examinations and reexaminations on the ground of rank. There is a difference regarding the nature of the disability. For instance if a man has an amputation of the thigh, that remains, requiring no verification. But there are conditions which may vary, and they call for more repeated examination.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Subsection 10F agreed to.

Pension Act
On subsection 10G-Veterans' bureau continued.
William Duff: Under subsection 3 it is provided that the pension advocates shall be appointed under and pursuant to the provisions of the 'Civil Service Act, at such salaries as the governor in council may prescribe. I should like to know from the minister how in the name of all that is good and holy 'pensions advocates can be appointed by the Civil Service Commission. Surely the ministry, this parliament and the country will have sufficient confidence in this board to permit them to appoint their own pensions advocates without referring to the Civil Service Commission. If appointments are carried on in this way it may take three or four months to get an appointment through, and in any case the Civil Service Commission would really take the recommendation of the minister or of this new board. So far as I am concerned I think this is a mistake; in fact I think the whole Civil Service Commission is only camouflage, and in this more than in any other law it is more of a camouflage than ever. If the appointment of officials to penitentiaries is not to come within the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission; if the appointment of officials and soloists, to whom the Prime Minister referred last night, is to be carried on by the radio commission surely the same practice can be followed here. There should be no delay in making these appointments; if a soldier is suffering because he is unable to be represented before the board he should not have to wait two or three months for the Civil Service Commission to advertise the position and appoint an advocate.
I say this is a great mistake, in spite of the fact that it is carrying out the unanimous report brought in by the eminent gentlemen who formed this committee. Personally I do not like the idea of unanimous reports of this kind; I think it would be much better to have divided opinions, but since these eminent gentlemen did bring in this recommendation that the pensions advocates should be appointed by the Civil Service Commission I respectfully submit that they must have been asleep at the switch when this went through. I hope the minister and the members of the committee will agree with me.


James Arthurs: I think the hon. gentleman is labouring under a very great misapprehension. As a matter of fact the present pensions advocates are reappointed to office, under subsection (4). We may have brought in a unanimous report, but we were not
unanimous in the beginning; personally I shared the view which has been expressed by the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough, that the pension commission should have power to appoint its own men. My reason for so thinking was that in every case these pension advocates are returned soldiers and they are and have been men acceptable to the leaders of the returned men. We desired to continue that state of affairs, but the representatives of the legion said they were quite willing to have this clause inserted if that was thought advisable because in every case the preference will be given to returned soldiers. Not only that, but in the past they have been asked to sit in with regard to the appointment of these men. These vacancies will only occur from time to time, from death or other causes or when it may be necessary to add an additional member to the staff. I think there can be no question that even in the view of hon. gentlemen opposite, who have expressed very pronounced opinions in the last few days with regard to certain matters, it was the part of wisdom to make all future appointments subject to the approval of the 'Civil Service Commission of Canada.


William Duff: The chairman of the special committee which was appointed to investigate this matter has not answered my question at all. The fact that these advocates are returned soldiers has nothing to do with the matter. The pension commission or this newly appointed board certainly can select advocates for the returned soldiers, and in that way we will get rid of a lot of red tape in these appointments. Surely the gentlemen who will form this body will have sufficient interest in the returned men to appoint returned men as pensions advocates, without reference to the Civil Service Commission.	I say that this clause is not
necessary at all. I believe it will clog the machinery of this act and will keep the returned soldier waiting anywhere from three to nine months until the Civil Service Commission, which is not composed of returned soldiers and which may appoint other than a returned man, gets around to making an appointment. So far as I am concerned, in the interests of the returned soldiers and in spite of the fact that this matter was investigated by such a wonderful committee, composed of gentlemen who 'have all the necessary' knowledge to decide on these questions, I am opposed to having these advocates so appointed. I say it should be left in the hands of the minister, the governor in council or the pensions commission. I would prefer
Pension Act

to have the appointments made by the governor in council, because after all in this country, where we have responsible government, appointments should be made in that way rather than by a body which has no responsibility at all.


James Arthurs: If the -hon. gentleman will turn to clause 10H he will find a similar provision with regard to commission counsel, in exactly the same terms. I do not think for a moment that the soldier organizations in Canada would be in favour of having the men who appear against them appointed by the court that is going to try them. By this measure we are taking over the men now engaged in this work and future appointments will be made by the Civil Service Commission. I do not think there should -be any question about that at all.


William Duff: I do not want to -take up too much of the time of the committee, but surely my hon. friend is not serious when he insinuates that the Civil Service Commission should appoint these advocates instead of the minister or the governor in council because, in -the latter case, -the returned soldier might not get a square deal. Let me tell my hon. friend that in my experience during the last seventeen years, in nine-ty-nine cases out of a hundred appointments have been made by the Civil Service Commission on the recommendation of either the minister, his deputy or someone else in -the department. It is all nonsense for my hon. friend to say that if these appointments are not made by the Civil Sendee Commission the returned men will not get a square deal from the minister or the governor in council. I say this clause should be struck out; it is absolutely unnecessary and is no-t in -the best interests of the returned men.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Subsection 10H agreed to.
On subsection 101-Reviewing officer.
Alfred Speakman: Though this is one of the two or three really important clauses in the bill I shall delay the committee for only a moment. This section is intended to meet the unfortunate situation in regard to which many complaints have arisen respecting the abuse of the appeal system. There is one important change of principle embodied in the new act. Speaking the other day on another subject, I suggested that, in the meticulous care which the department had taken to divorce all pension matters from political considerations, we had perhaps in some
IMr. Duff.]
instances gone too far and removed from parliament and the governor in council that authority and responsibility which should be theirs, and our objection was perhaps commendable. In this act, in the appointment of a reviewing officer and in the appointment of a board, we have deliberately restored to the governor in council itself and, through the government, to the department, responsibility in respect of two causes of complaint-congestion, where we now place the responsibility on the government itself to see that adequate means are taken for the hearing of cases by the quorum, and secondly, in the case of the reviewing officer, the provision that the governor in council shall become responsible for the appeals that shall be made. It is perhaps an experiment, but I think it is a wise one; and having brought these two important matters more completely under the control of parliament, we shall probably, I think, be able to obviate many of the troubles which we have experienced.


William Duff: I would direct the attention of the minister and of the chairman of the special committee to this particular section. The chairman of the committee gave satisfaction but he rather opposed my view which I expressed in connection with the appointment of the advocates,, because he was of the opinion that the pension advocates should not be appointed by the commission. The present clause reads:
Notwithstanding -anything in the Civil Service Act, or any other statute, the governor in council may _ appoint an officer, called a "reviewing officer,'' and may fix the salary that shall be paid to him.
In other words, in one case this very able committee compels the pensioners, before they can get their cases heard, to submit to the delay of having the advocate appear before the Civil Service Commission, while in the case of the reviewing officer the appointment can be made by the governor in council. I wish the chairman of the special committee would explain why he was Dr. Jekyll in one case and Mr. Hyde in the other.


James Arthurs: There is this difference between the two cases. Under this bill, which if carried will change the operation of the Pension Act, the most important, the most essential officer so far as the men are concerned is the reviewing officer. He is the channel through which all cases must pass. It was contended by some that this officer should be under the control of the present board of pension commissioners or its successor, while others took the view that he should be under the control of the Department of Justice. Others, again, including General Ross, who

Pension Act
submitted a very elaborate report last year, suggested that the reviewing officer should be under the control of the pensions appeal board. Personally I was inclined to favour the latter course, but after we considered the matter, this being a very important office, we decided to leave this man directly responsible to parliament through the minister, having the appointment made by the governor in council, thereby being under our direct control, so that we could demand an accounting at each session. This is a most important office, and I trust that the government will select a man of great ability, a man with a sense of fair play, because he stands between the pensioner and the public purse. If he makes no decision to appeal within thirty-five days of judgment, the applicant receives his pension irrevocably; if, on the other hand, he decides that an appeal is necessary, the applicant has ninety days in which to prepare. I would point out to my hon. friend that this official is in an entirely different class from the advocates.


William Duff: I admit with the hon. member that the reviewing officer under this bill is in an entirely different class from the advocates who are to be appointed to represent the returned soldier. And that is the great trouble in this country; there is too much class. In my opinion the pensioner is the man who should be looked after. He should be given the easiest way to get his pension reviewed.


James Arthurs: That is what we are
doing.


William Duff: Instead of that the chairman
of the committee now says that the reviewing officer, who is going to get a big salary and occupy an important position, should be appointed by the governor in council. The advocate, who really represents the poor returned soldier in the country districts, must go before the Civil Service Commission for approval. The soldier must wait until the advocate has been appointed by that body. I do not know whether the Civil Service Commission is any good or whether its members are earning their salaries; that is a debatable question so far as I am concerned. But this government as well as previous governments have retained the Civil Service Commission, and I say that if that commission is necessary in the case of the advocates, it is equally necessary with respect to the reviewing officer. I submit that the reviewing officer as well as the advocate should be appointed by the Civil Service Commission; indeed, the necessity is more apparent
in the former case. I can see what my hon. friend means; I can see what the minister means in the contention that the reviewing officer should be appointed by the government. It is a good fat job for someone. The advocate may appear before the board only once in a year or in five years and he will be paid a certain fee, five dollars or ten dollars. The returned soldier has to wait three or six months until this august body in the Hunter building appoints the advocate. But with regard to the reviewing officer, receiving a salary of five, six or seven thousand a year, the chairman of the special committee stands up and says that this official is in an entirely different class. I know it; surely he is in a different class- likely in the Tory class. He will be appointed by the Tory party.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: I am
anxious to know whether by setting up a new commission we are short-circuiting in any way the hearings of applicants. Will cases still pass through the commissioners to the appeal court and then to the reviewing officer? In other words, what is the mode of procedure? I ask that question because of the difficulty men have experienced in having their cases settled.
Mr. MaoLAREN: The provisions of this legislation are in very large measure a simplification of what was a complicated organization. Simplification and expedition are I think two of the prominent features of the bill. There will be two adjudicating bodies instead of three as at present, one, the pension commission and, two, the appeal court. I do not agree exactly with what my hon. friend the chairman of the committee says as to the duties of this reviewing officer. His duties will be important but they will not be preeminently important. He will have nothing to do with the awarding of pensions, he will simply review cases which have been heard by the travelling boards.


Charles A. Stewart: That would be the commissioners?


Murray MacLaren: Two members of the pension board who will go out to hear evidence. These men will have the power of making a definite decision. During the last few months there has been an erroneous impression throughout the country that this legislation was going to do away with the personal contact with the men. That is not the case because such contact has been provided for. There will be two adjudicating bodies instead of three which will simplify
Pension Act

the procedure and save time. Where a man has been granted a pension by the travelling board the question will then arise as to whether that finding should be accepted or an appeal taken, and .this point must be decided by some individual or organization. This will be the duty of the reviewing officer. He will review the evidence and if he is satisfied that the pension has been granted on proper grounds, that will be the end of it. If he thinks the evidence ds insufficient and that there should be an appeal taken, he will so report. He will have no authority over the awarding of pensions, he simply decides the proper cases for appeal. I believe this provision will go a long way to meeting the complaints which have been made that too many references have been made to the appeal court.


Charles A. Stewart: Assume that two commissioners 'hear an applicant and decide to make an award. That award will be reviewed by this reviewing officer and if he thinks it is too generous, he will refer it-
Mr. MaoLAREN: I did not say he reviews it, he looks over the evidence and decides whether or not an appeal should be taken.


Charles A. Stewart: I am simply trying to get clarity. This reviewing will be done in the interests of the government because he will be their officer. If he decides that the case should go to appeal, it will go to the appeal court which is now set up.


Mr.   MacLARBN@: That is the only court to go to.


Charles A. Stewart: Their decision will be final.


Mr.   MacLARBN@: Absolutely.


Charles A. Stewart: In the event af an applicant being dissatisfied has he the right to take his case to the appeal court?


Mr.   MacLARBN@: In all instances. That is the point I was trying to make clear, that the reviewing officer will have nothing to do with such cases. A man who has been unsuccessful has a right to take his case before the appeal court.


William Duff: With all due deference to
the minister, I cannot agree with him when he says there will be only two bodies under this bill. First, there will be the body known as the Canadian pension commission; second, there will be the reviewing officer and, third, there will be the appeal court. Under this legislation there will be three bodies to which the soldier can appeal. He will appeal first 
to the pension 'commissioners and if he is not satisfied with their decision, he can appeal to this reviewing officer.


Murray MacLaren: No.


William Duff: What is the reviewing officer
for if he is not there to be appealed to? He certainly must review the evidence.


Murray MacLaren: May I explain? There
will not be three bodies. There will be only two adjudicating bodies, one the pension commission and the other the appeal court. At the present time where a pension has been granted, the case is considered as to whether or not an appeal should be taken. It is the same in principle to-day as I trust it will be under this bill. But that body is the pension board and objections were taken to the procedure under which this board would first express their views as to the granting of a pension and then decide whether or not there should be an appeal. That procedure was not considered to be logical. This reviewing officer will perform the same function now being performed by the pension board but he will be independent of the board. He will not have expressed an opinion and will be under the governor in council so far as jurisdiction is concerned. He simply determines whether or not it is reasonable to appeal and will be responsible for the cutting down of unnecessary appeals.


William Duff: The reviewing officer will be
entirely separate from the commission or the appeal court?


Mr.   MacLARBN@: Quite so.


William Duff: After reviewing the evidence
he will either decide in favour of or rule against the soldier. For the sake of argument I will assume that the minister is right when he says there are only two bodies, the new pension commission and the appeal court. If the minister is going to appoint eight commissioners instead of the present three, then in my opinion there will be no necessity for an appeal court. The reviewing officer can review the evidence and pass his finding back to the pension commissioners. I have no hesitation in saying that since it has been operating, the appeal court has been responsible for an unnecessary expenditure of at least $10,000,000.
Mr. LaVERGNE: The reviewing officer.


William Duff: I am talking about the appeal court to which the soldier appealed against the decision of the pension commissioners.

Pension Act
I cannot remember whether this court was set up by the late government or the present government, but from information I have received I know it has been responsible for a waste of at least $10,000,000. I could give a dozen instances, but I will give only one at the present time. A jeweller in a certain city was asked by the government of the day to raise a regiment in which he was given the rank of colonel. He had in his employ a clerk who did certain clerical work in connection with the raising of the regiment. This clerk never put on a uniform or went overseas, he simply carried out the orders of the colonel who was boss of the jewellery store. But a few years after the war, the appeal court having been formed, the pension board received an application from this man, it was turned down and it was appealed to the appeal board. The appeal board awarded this man, who was never in khaki, who was never overseas, $7,000 back pension and gave him a pension during his lifetime. He had tuberculosis and later on died and at the present time his family are receiving about $100 a month from the pension board although he was never entitled to anything. Nevertheless the appeal board, against the decision of the pension commissioners who investigated the case and who knew that this man had no claim, gave him about $7,000 back pension and put him on the pension list, with the result that until he died he received a large pension and now his family are receiving a very large amount of money from this country. The minister cannot deny that the incident to which I have referred did happen and that this country has been mulcted to the extent of a large sum of money and is still paying out large sums to the family of this man who was a jeweller's assistant in a jewellery store, who never saw the war, never put on khaki, never served as a soldier. I can give a dozen similar instances.
Mr. LaVERGNE: As a matter of fact this is an extraordinary ease, because at the present time the tribunals are giving about 40 per cent of their decisions in favour of the returned men, while about 80 per cent of the cases have been appealed by the reviewing officer.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There
is no reviewing officer. The chief commission counsel.
Mr. LaVERGNE: What is in a name?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The procedure is entirely different.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	In many oases which
are appealed, instead of the men having the doubt in their favour, their claims are thrown out.
Under this new machinery we have really four bodies instead of three. The returned man puts in his claim to the board of pension commissioners. If it is approved, well and good; if not, the pension commission refers the matter to two of its members to hear the evidence and give a decision. If the decision i3 in favour of the returned man, it goes before a reviewing officer and he will then send it to appeal just the same as was done before by the commission counsel; it will be the same procedure. So far the delay has been caused by too many appeals being brought by the pension counsel before the appeal board. After the tribunal, which had heard the witnesses, heard and seen the men and knew the cases, had given its decision, at least 75 per cent of those decisions were appealed and only about 40 per cent of the appeals were decided in favour of the men. I never was a very strong partisan .of the war, but I think we are not playing the game with the returned man. Instead of his being given the_ benefit of the doubt, every time the decision has been against him, that of the first court being reversed by the appeal court, and the man who went to the front and lost his health or came back wounded, has seen his claim rejected by the appeal court. In my opinion we should take the position that men who have been at the front should at least get the benefit, of the doubt. I am afraid we are putting this reviewing officer into the same position as that of the pension commission counsel; we shall have the same result and the law will not work any better than did the previous act.


Charles Marcil: I think the hon. member
for Montmagny (Mr. LaVergne) should explain what this pension law means. The references that have been made to this body, that body and the other body reminds me of the old song:
Gin a body meet a body Coming through the rye;
Gin a body kiss a body,
Need a body cry?
I have the case of a poor widow in St. Godfroy in the county of Bonaventure which I have brought to the attention of the board of pension commissioners about eight or ten years. Although her son was killed in action at the front, I have never been able to get a dollar for her, a poor woman who has been living on charity from the parish of St. Godfroy and from the parish priest. Every
Pension Act

six months or year I get an encouraging letter that her case will be looked into. Then Mr. Chasse writes me stating that her case does not come within the purview of the conditions under which a pension can be granted. This case has been kicked around amongst Tom, Dick and Harry for the past ten years. She cannot get anything and I cannot get anything for her. There was a travelling board appointed in Matapedia last fall. This woman lives forty or fifty miles away; she did not meet the body; she was not given a hearing; she was not called at all. I cannot give her name at the moment. Her son, a young man of eighteen years, was, as I say, killed in action. If he had been living to-day, he would be looking after his mother.
I want to bring forward another case. There is in my county a man whom I will not mention who receives a total disability pension and who has a large number of children. I think he receives so much for his wife, so much for himself and so much for each child. The story was that, while he was not totally disabled he received about $180 a month, because he was the organizer of my opponent in the election of 1925 and took a very active part in the county at that time. Questions are put to me by my electors: On what basis or principle of justice are such pensions awarded? I am unable to answer them. We are paying $55,000,000 out of the treasury in pensions, but if there is anyone in the house who can explain why a pension is given or refused, it is more than I have been able to do. Of course we know what happened in the United States. After the recent revulsion of public feeling there, they made a clean sweep of many of those pensions, I think $500,000,000 at one sweep.
A soldier who has gone to the front and who has been disabled or who, by reason of his service to his country, has lost health, should be compensated, but there should be some basis of justice in the way in which his claim is treated. The system is so complicated it is impossible for a poor man to understand the difference between a pension board, an appeal board, a reviewing officer and this, that and the other thing; we are entirely at sea in the matter. I wish to call the attention of the minister to this particular case of the poor woman at St. Godfrey whose son was killed in action, and I ask him in all decency to do something for her.


Murray MacLaren: I think the matter can be made simple if it is dealt with by the means at our command. Any man who wishes to be advised and assisted goes to the nearest

pensions advocate of his area. The government pays that official his salary and it is bis duty to do all he can to assist the men, as I believe he does. All that is necessary in any of the cases to which my hon. friend has referred, is to tell them to see the pensions advocate in their district.


Charles Marcil: What about the case of
the mother of this soldier who was killed in action?


Murray MacLaren: I am referring to all
those who think they are entitled to pension.


Charles Marcil: The official is in Quebec,
about 400 or 500 miles away.


Murray MacLaren: If necessary, I shall
send him to the woman's house.


Charles Marcil: Can the minister tell me
who acts in Bonaventure county?


Murray MacLaren: Just let me finish; I
think I can save the hon. member a number of questions.


Charles Marcil: I wish the minister would.


Murray MacLaren: First of all as to the
procedure. A man does not understand these matters until they are explained to him and the course is to appeal to the nearest pensions advocate.


Charles Marcil: Supposing he is in Quebec, 400 or 500 miles away?


Murray MacLaren: He will be instructed. The case to which my hon. friend from Bonaventure has referred and similar cases are pitiable and distressing but one cannot do anything until one knows the whole of the facts. It must be connected with war service. Is that the case? These cases require full investigation by those trained in the work. I know nothing about the particular case in question and I could not offer any opinion until all the facts are placed before me. If my hon. friend will be good enough to have the name and address I promise to let him know the grounds on which it was refused and the reasons connected with it. Simply to relate the case here does not effect much beyond drawing my attention to it, but if my hon. friend will give me the name and address I promise to give a prompt reply.


Charles Marcil: From what I understood from the correspondence with this woman the boy enlisted at the age of eighteen and he was not then contributing to the assistance of his mother, perhaps because he was not old enough to work. He was killed at the front and now a pension is denied the poor

Pension Act
mother because he did not support her when she did not need his support. If she has not a case in equity, I do not know who has. I know the minister's kind heart and that is the reason I am bringing the case to his attention.


Murray MacLaren: Please give me the facts.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: There seems to be a lot of misapprehension about this reviewing officer. At the start I was not in favour of it because nowhere in the judicial system of Canada was there such an officer of the crown as a reviewing officer under this act. When the quorum goes about the country and hears applications for pension, if the decision of the quorum is unfavourable to the applicant, the board there and then decides against the applicant, and the applicant at once knows that he may appeal. If the decision is to be in favour of the applicant no decision is given in the field, but those who heard the application, either a quorum of two or, what sounds rather peculiar, a quorum of one, or whoever hears the application reports the case to Ottawa and the decision is placed before the reviewing officer without the applicant knowing what the result will be, although of course he infers from the decision not having been given in the field that it will be in his favour. The reviewing officer then takes the case as it comes before him and looks over the evidence and if he feels that the decision in favour of the applicant ought to be appealed by the crown he simply turns the case over to the appeal board and says in his opinion that there ought to be an appeal. An appeal may or may not be taken. The reviewing officer simply reviews the evidence, places the facts before the proper officers and says in his opinion that an appeal ought to be had. It might be construed, and this is where I disagree with the majority, that the reviewing officer was already deciding the appeal, but I can well see the difference. He does not decide the appeal; he is rather in the position of counsel. In an ordinary civil or criminal action when judgment is rendered, the dissatisfied party secures the advice of counsel on the chances of success in appeal. Counsel may say: la my opinion you would be well advised to appeal. That does not mean that the client should or should not appeal. It simply means that in the opinion of counsel, or as in this case in the opinion of the reviewing officer, an appeal ought to be taken. It does not by any means follow that if an appeal is taken it will be successful.
Mr. LaVERGNE: But this is an appeal.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Just as a counsel learned in the law who is called in to give advice advises an appeal. But that does not mean that the appeal is well taken or that it will be successful.
Mr. LaVERGNE: In this case the reviewing officer decides that there will be an appeal, and then the man 'has to go and have his case appealed before the court. In the ordinary courts the lawyer advises an appeal, but here the reviewing officer decides that there should be an appeal.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: The reviewing officer says in his opinion the evidence is such as would warrant the taking of an appeal. I can well see now that I have gone through the reports how this operates. Under the old system the crown, being limited as to the time in which they could take an appeal, appealed cases holus-bolus, if I may use the word, appealed en masse, without knowing whether the case was good or bad. They simply appealed every decision in favour of the applicant, and as a result of these appeals being taken promiscuously, purely to save time, without looking into the merits of the case at all, the court became congested. In the meantime the applicant who had received a favourable decision in the field kept on hoping for months and months that he would get his pension after a decision had been given in his favour.
I said at the outset that I did not favour this reviewing officer because nowhere in the judicial system of Canada is there such an officer. I thought we could devise a system that would simplify matters, but again I say, in order to prevent the clogging up of the higher tribunals with appeals taken by the crown without due consideration of the evidence, it was necessary that some kind of a check should be imposed. It would have been much better if the crown counsel who had heard the case in the first instance there and then decided there *would or would not be an appeal. But I am not responsible for that situation. As it is now, no appeal is to be taken by the crown unless the reviewing officer expresses the opinion that an appeal should be taken. The returned man has always the right to appeal the moment that an adverse decision is given. When the reviewing officer gives his decision that the crown ought to appeal, the applicant is advised, and then he has time to have his case prepared by the veterans' bureau and all the other machinery placed at his disposal under the act. I do not like this fifth wheel to a cart. But under the conditions I think it is the only system that could have
Pension Act

been devised in order to prevent the clogging up of the courts and at the same time do justice to the applicant and deal with the case with the shortest delay possible.
Mr. LaVERGNE: But we come to the very same result as before. This reviewing officer will appeal all the decisions in favour of the men.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I am not prepared to accept that. If he does, he is not worthy of his position.
Mr. LaVERGNE: That was the experience of the past. The chief commission counsel appealed in almost every case that was decided in favour of the men. I do not think the exceptions numbered five per cent. After a decision had been given in favour of the man, then on the ipse dixit of the commission counsel the case was appealed, and it would be months before it would be decided. I think that under the system proposed here we shall have the very same result. I suppose it is an improvement, but to my mind it is not an ideal system, and while we are at it we may as well do the whole thing.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Will my hon. friend suggest a way out?
Mr. LaVERGNE : I do not know if my suggestion will be any better than that of the committee. But a man makes a claim; the commission delegates its work to two members to hear the case. They give a decision in his favour-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It may be turned down.
Mr. LaVERGNE: Yes, if so 'that is the end. But suppose they grant a pension, then that record, without the man knowing, goes back to the pension board and the reviewing officer takes it; he looks at the record, he has not heard the case, he has not seen the claimant, but hie decides by looking over the file that this case should be appealed, and it is sent to the appeal court. It is practically the same procedure as that which takes place with the chief commission counsel. We will be falling into the same rut. I understand the pension board cannot say: we will appeal this case or we will not appeal. They should be entitled to a counsel who would advise them-give them an opinion about the case. Either the registrar of the court or the advocate who has fought the case for the crown before the quorum of the commission should report to the commission: This case in my opinion is not proven, the quorum has erred in its decision. Then the commission should [Mr. ChBvrler.I
take the advice of counsel, or of the lawyer who represented the commission in the quorum. But why should there be a man there with sort of juristic powers who will be allowed to say: I advise the commission to appeal, in spite of the case having been won by the man, without the opinion of the lawyer who represented the commission before the court? To my mind we shall be back in the same rut from which we are (trying to escape. Why not take the opinion of the man who conducted the case before the quorum? Then the commission might have a sort of advisory counsel to check the opinion of that lawyer. This is going to defeat the purpose of the committee, and the men will be in the same position. After all the promises made by both parties in this house since the war (broke out, in my opinion, we are not playing the game with the returned men. I have this satisfaction that I was not one of those who made these promises, but they certainly got many promises that are not being fulfilled to-day.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: One word only. There was a very well-organized committee and they investigated last year the entire question of pension administration. That committee did represent the organized veterans of Canada, and the various tribunals functioning in regard to the administration of pensions. The unanimous effect of the three subreports was all in favour of establishing two courts, a court of first instance and a court of final instance. The bill as submitted had some very objectionable features, especially in regard to the reviewing officer who was to be under the jurisdiction of -the president of the appeal court. The committee changed that and he is now an independent officer. The pension counisel who are to make the appeal in case they think it necessary are also appointed by the Civil Service Commission under the Civil Service Act. So the control that the old board of pension commissioners had over the commission counsel is gone. The!se amendments, arrived at by the committee after careful consideration, were endorsed by those who represented, after years of experience, the considered viewpoint of the organized ex-servicemen of the Dominion of Canada. So although I agree largely with the fears and proper apprehensions of my hon. friend, I suggest that this is the very best thing that we can do. We all agreed on it, we took the advice of the ex-servicemen, of the department officials and this is the best we could arrive at. I suggest that we gave it a trial.

Pension Act
Mr. LaVERGNE:	So much the better.


Mr. ROSS:: 
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The case mentioned by my hon. friend from Bonaven-ture was a case of dependents, and entirely different from the ordinary case. Such a case must not be confused with the ordinary application for pension.


Arthur Edward Ross: But the fact remains that this poor woman does not know the next step. I am not talking about whether it is a dependent or a first application.


Alfred Speakman: I may say again what
I have said from 1930, that while I agree with this appointment of the reviewing officer as being the best method by which appeals by the crown can be dealt with, personally I have always felt and always stated that I think finality in such cases should lie with the court best qualified to hear the case, that 'court being the body which meets 'the man in the field, goes into the circumstances thoroughly, and knows the applicant. If I had my own way I would have no crown appeal, I would have the case settled by the court that sees the man, but as long as we have an appeal I think the best way is as we have it now.


George Gibson Coote: I insist on taking this only opportunity I have of protesting against there being any reviewing officer at all to appeal against a decision given by the judges who have actually seen the applicant and heard his story. I have met with many instances of what seemed to me injustice, where a case which seemed to me just and humane and in keeping with the act, particularly that clause under which the man is to be given the benefit of the doubt, has been appealed from the decision of the tribunal. In cases that have come to my own notice where appeal is taken from the decision of the
tribunal, I have not seen one in which the man was given the benefit of the doubt by the appeal board. If I had my own way I would do away with the reviewing officer altogether.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 7 to 17 inclusive agreed to.
On section 18-Repeal.
Murray MacLaren: The committee will remember that some days ago the Minister of Finance referred to an agreement which had been reached with the associated veterans to the effect that no further additions should be made to the list of pensioners by way of marriages and births after May 1. As a result I am asking the Minister of Trade and Commerce to move that the bill be amended, and I may say to hon. gentlemen that this amendment has been submitted by the Minister of Finance to representatives of the associated veterans, and they have expressed their satisfaction with it. The amendment is as follows:
That the bill be amended by inserting the following section therein immediately after section 18:
"18A. Notwithstanding anything contained in this or any other act, no pension, or additional pension, awardable or payable under the provisions of this act, shall be awarded or paid:
(1)	under schedule A or schedule B or section 33 of this act, to or in respect of,
(a)	any child of a member of the forces or pensioner, if such child shall have been born on or after the first day of May, 1933;
(b) the daughter, or other person, who, on the death of the wife of a pensioner or on the death of a widow of a member of the forces who has been in receipt of a pension, shall have assumed the household duties, and care of the minor child or children of the pensioner or the widow, as the case may be, on or after the date aforementioned.
(2)	Under schedule A of this act, to or in respect of the wife of a member of the forces or pensioner, if she shall have been married to him on or after the date aforementioned."


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Perhaps I might confirm
the statement made by the minister to the effect that this is the amendment which was submitted to and accepted by the representatives of the associated veterans whom I saw, headed by the president of the legion, Major Roper.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have
no particular objection to this amendment, because of what the minister stated, but I do think this very important amendment might
Pension Act

have been submitted to the committee which devoted several laborious days to the consideration of the other clauses. I am scarcely in a position to comprehend at once the significance of the amendment.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It was purely a question of procedure; this had not been referred to the committee and it would have required a fresh reference from this house. Otherwise that would have been done.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 19 agreed to.
On the title.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I
inform the committee that in addition to the formal report made by the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Parry Sound, several other recommendations were made which it was not thought advisable to embody in the formal report to the house. I think three or four recommendations were agreed upon in connection with specific cases brought to the attention of the committee. I believe they have been directed to the department, and I hope the minister will pay particular attention to them.


Murray MacLaren: They are being sent to the Prime Minister, and I know they will reach me ultimately.


Alfred Speakman: I should like to know what was done with one particular recommendation, which does not appear in the bill because it did not have application, but which was brought before the committee by the heads of one of the veterans' organizations. It was to the effect that section 73, which is commonly termed the benefit of the doubt clause, should be amended by the addition of certain words.


James Arthurs: At the request of the
various parties presenting these claims- which, of course, I said we could not bring to the house-these recommendations were carefully copied out and forwarded as informal recommendations of the committee to the Prime Minister. They included1 the particular recommendation to which the hon. gentleman has just referred.


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

Edgar Nelson Rhodes: With the consent of the house, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that we revert to the order of presenting reports of standing and select committees.


Mr. SPEAKER:: By consent of the house
we will revert to the order of presenting reports of standing and select committees.



REPORTS OF COMMITTEES


[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization-Mr. Senn.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. DAVID SPENCE (Parkdale) presented the sixth report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.
He moved:
That the private bills reported upon to-day in the sixth report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, viz:
Bill No. 101 (Letter DI of the Senate), an act for the relief of Angelo Stavrow;
Bill No. 102, an act respecting a certain patent of Genter Thickener Company; be placed upon the order paper of the house for consideration this diay in committee of the whole house and for third reading.
Motion agreed to.

Mr. DAVID SPENCE (Parkdale) moved:: That the recommendation contained in the sixth report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, respecting refund of charges on Bill No. 102. an act respecting a certain patent of Genter Thickener Company, be concurred in.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I must take exception to this motion which, I understand, calls for concurrence in the report of the committee in connection with Bill No. 102. This will have the effect of refunding to the parties interested in the bill the fee of $400 which they are called upon to pay under the rules. I may be mistaken., but the practice, I understand, has been to make the refund in the case of private bills where the applicant is an individual, but not in the case of an incorporated company to whom we give the powers they seek in the bill before the house. I would ask that the motion stand at least until such time as we have ascertained whether or not it is in conformity with the practice that has heretofore obtained.


David Spence: This was the recommendation of the private bills committee, and as the

Canada-France Trade Agreement
session is drawing to a close the company would like to have the matter dealt with tonight. I cannot see any difference, so far as this motion is concerned, between a private individual and a corporation. Sometimes the corporation is worse off. I am not making any particular fight, but I think the request should be granted.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am not so much concerned about the return of the $400, although that is not to be lightly overlooked, but I should not care to have a motion of this kind passed hastily, thereby establishing a precedent by widening the practice of returning fees which, under the rules, ought to be paid.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The motion stands.



AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE

George Gibson Coote: May I for
a moment speak to a question of privilege. With regard to the presentation of the report of the committee on agriculture, I notice that it was not read in the house, and I wondered whether it might be printed in Hansard.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It will appear fully in
votes and proceedings.


George Gibson Coote: When a report of a committee is read does it not appear in Hansard?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not always.


George Gibson Coote: I think there are many who would be interested in it.



CANADA-FRANCE TRADE AGREEMENT

Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I ask leave to lay on the table of the house a certain trade agreement between Canada and France which was signed this day, and to lay on the table also a certain convention between Canada and France concerning the rights of nationals, and commercial and shipping -matters, which was signed this day.



TRADE AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State) moved for leave to introduce Ball No. 107, respecting a certain trade agreement between Canada and France.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I suggest to the Secretary of State that he give to the house as full a statement as he can of what is embraced in the agreement so that we may have it before us in its essential features?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I should be very glad to do that, but I suggest to the right hon. gen-53719-313
tleman that I be allowed to introduce the bill now so that in its printed form it may be distributed to-night. When it comes up again on Monday morning all hon. members will have copies of it before them and that will very much facilitate my explanation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: With the schedules.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not wish in any way to prevent my hon. friend from introducing the -measure at once. With his customary courtesy he has given me a copy in advance, and, judging from the size of it, I think it would help us if, at the outset, he gave us an explanation, indicating the essential features. It is a considerable document as it stands.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It would be more convenient for me to deal with the schedules as printed and distributed, because the explanation will be rather lengthy.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Very well.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CONVENTION CONCERNING RIGHTS OF NATIONALS AND COMMERCIAL AND SHIPPING MATTERS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 108 respecting a certain convention between Canada and France concerning the rights of nationals, and commercial and shipping matters.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I assume that my hon. friend has considered the question whether this measure should have been preceded by a resolution.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Inasmuch as there is no increase in customs duty and there is no provision respecting which any expenditure of public .money is involved, we were advised by the law officers that a previous resolution was not necessary.
Motion agreed to and bill read the finst time.



SENATE BILLS-FIRST READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 104, respecting the Canadian and British Insurance Companies.-Mr. Rhodes.
Bill No. 105, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act.-Mr. Bennett.
Bill No. 106, to amend the Canada Shipping Act.-Mr. Duranleau.
Pierre Édouard Blondin: When shall said bills be read the second time?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Later this day.

4954	COMMONS
Supply-Post Office-Outside Service



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
The house again in committee of supply, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
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.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, I shall keep the committee only a few moments while I direct attention to a case of the appointment of a postmaster, which has been placed in my hands by the national organization of the Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League. This concerns the appointment of Mr. A. C. Belle Isle as postmaster at Campbellton, New Brunswick. I would like to give a few details in connection with this appointment. I am informed that the vacancy occurred in January, 1932, and that several returned soldiers applied for the position, among them being Messrs. Wetmore, Jardine, Duncan, Leblanc and Boucher. The appointment was actually made in January, 1932, when it was given to the present incumbent, Mr. Belle Isle. I understand that before the appointment was actually made the position was advertised as a bilingual position, and Mr. Belle Isle was appointed as temporary postmaster, I believe in August, 1932. About six weeks later in September, 1932, a second notice was posted. The second notice was in the usual form with the exception 'that it contained the following:
Applicants must have a sufficient knowledge of both French and English to satisfactorily discharge the duties of the office.
According to the evidence of one of the civil service examiners which appears on the file, this recommendation, which I am not criticizing, was made by the Post Office Department. This matter is referred to in a letter of January 30, 1933, addressed to the Postmaster General, reading in part as follows:
It appears that, at the examination conducted by the Civil Service Commission, the outstanding candidate for this office was Mr. J. S. Wetmore, a returned soldier. There were also other returned soldiers declared qualified. It appears, however, that the English speaking
[Mr. Rhodes.)
candidates were eliminated because it was declared that they had not a sufficient knowledge of the French language.
There are two grounds for complaint in connection with this competition. The first is the manner in which the bilingual qualification wa3 advertised. We are informed that this qualification was eliminated but was ' later inserted in the advertisement in a very misleading form. Whatever the influences may be which caused the last advertisement to be posted in the manner it appeared, the impression was created in the minds of a large number of people and certainly in the minds of the English speaking returned soldier applicants that bilingualism would not be a deciding factor.
The second ground for complaint has reference to the standing of the appointee-Mr. Belle Isle. Whatever his personal qualifications are, our information indicates that his business qualifications and relationships are most unsatisfactory and should be investigated. Something in regard to his past history and standing was reported by the Civil Service Commission examiner but, for some reason, neither the Civil Service Commission nor your department conducted any further investigation, notwithstanding the examiner's recommendation that this should be done. That this candidate, whose business reputation is well known locally, should have been accepted without further investigation while qualified returned soldier applicants of unquestioned character and standing were eliminated is surprising and is the cause of great indignation.
The last paragraph reads:
In view of all the circumstances, the Canadian Legion requests that you permit this appointment to be made without reference to the bilingual qualification, as was apparently originally intended. This may entail the elimination of Mr. Belle Isle but our Campbellton branch believes this to be justified in view of his poor business standing in the community.
According to a return which was made in this house earlier in the session, the Civil Service Commission examiner recommended a further investigation into Belle Isle's character. Inquiries were made of several citizens in the community who were familiar with the appointee, including Mr. F. C. Mortimer of Saint John and Mr. H. A. Carr of Campbellton. Included in this return is a financial statement furnished by the appointee in June, 1930, for the purpose of securing credit from the Dominion Rubber Company, Limited. This purports to be an accurate and true statement of the appointee's financial position and 3hows a net surplus of $21,614. The appointee was examined under oath in October, 1931, under the provisions of the Debtors Act, and according to the evidence it is shown that the surplus which was alleged to have existed in 1930 never existed at all. The evidence which was taken under oath showed the appointee to be insolvent. There

Supply-Post Office-Outside Service
is also -on the file an affidavit by Dr. L. Erie German to the effect that -the applicant is not physically reliable for his present duty because of his addiction to certain habits which render him entirely incompetent. The Civil Service Commission examiner made a further investigation into Belle Isle's character on December 15, 1932. On January 30, 1933, the Canadian Legion wrote to the Postmaster General protesting against this -appointment. This letter also appears on the file. On February 10, 1933, the Postmaster General was interviewed by a delegation which was introduced by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson). This delegation -consisted of Mr. J. C. Herwig and E. B. MacLatchy of the Canadian Legion. On February 10, 1933, a further letter was written by the legion pointing out its position in regard to this appointee. On February 21, 1933, the executive of the Campbellton branch of the legion wrote to the Postmaster General to ask that further inquiries be made with regard to -the fitness of this applicant. Under date of March 6, 1933, a letter was addressed to the Postmaster General -asking for an interview, which took place on March 7. A petition addressed to the Postmaster General and to the Prime Minister was circulated through the community. This petition reads: To the
Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, P.C., K.C., M.P.,
Prime Minister of Canada,
and
The Hon. Arthur Sauve, M.P.,
Postmaster General.
We, the undersigned, hereby strongly protest against the appointment of Mr. A. C. Belle Isle as postmaster at Campbellton, New Brunswick, and do respectfully but emphatically request that a returned soldier be appointed to this position.
The petition was signed in the course -of a few d-ays by 1,286 adults including the present mayor, four former mayors, four town councillors, the police magistrate, four lawyers, eight doctors, twenty-six merchants, twenty superintendents and firm managers, sixty semi-professional men, accountants, and so forth, and one hundred and one of the community outside the actual city of Campbellton.
The Prime Minister was interviewed with regard to the whole situation on March 31, 1933, and I understand he wrote a letter on that date to the Postmaster General asking him to look into the entire situation surrounding this appointment. I wish to -make it very clear in bringing this matter to the attention of the minister, that if in his opinion bilingual qualifications were necessary for that appointment, I am not criticizing that in the 53719-313J
slightest degree, but the information that has -been sent through the legion is to the contrary effect, namely, that bilingual qualifications were not required for the appointment in question. It would seem that the soldier preference was entirely ignored on this occasion. The present incumbent beyond question, if the sworn testimony on the file brought down in the house previously this session is worth while, has not the qualifications to render him a fit and competent person for this office. I am suggesting to the Postmaster General that he take into consideration the undoubted public opinion in that community with regard to this appointment and that he have this position vacated on account of the evidence existing against the present incumbent, have it readvertised and, if he is of the opinion that bilingual qualifications are absolutely necessary for it; then of course I cannot quarrel with that, but I have done my duty in bringing before my hon. friend and the committee a case submitted to me by the headquarters of the Canadian Legion.


Mr. SAUVE:: My hon-. friend will admit
that this was a case involving the -Civil Service Commission and Mr. Belle Isle was appointed by the commission after an examination-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I
interrupt my hon. friend? There is in the file in regard to that a letter from the Civil Service Commission examiner stating that when the temporary appointment was vacated in September, 1932, and when the actual notice in connection with the bilingual qualification, which I read, was inserted, that was done by some of the officials of the Post Office Department.
Mr. -SAUVE: The position was advertised as bilingual because it was assumed the population in Campbellton was about fifty-fifty French Canadians and English and it was requested that the appointee be bilingual, because the former postmaster was bilingual. Mr. Belle Isle, like -other candidates, was examined; he w-as rated by both inspectors, one of my department and the other of the Civil Service Commission and he was rated first. I have on file many testimonials from high personages of Campbellton, for instance, Monseigneur Melangon and other French and English Canadians, stating that Mr. Belle Isle was very well qualified to be appointed as postmaster. Following that, the Civil Service Commission appointed him. After hearing the remarks of my hon. friend, I assure him that I am disposed to consider the case very fairly.
4956	COMMONS
Supply-Post Office-Outside Service


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Thank
you.


Mr. BRASSET (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to hear that the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) wishes to be lair towards those who have cause to complain. That is why I shall inquire from him whether he is also equitably disposed towards the bilingual municipalities of the other provinces.
In the parish of Pre-Sainte-Marie, in Saskatchewan, it appears that a person named Snider was appointed postmaster on the recommendation of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir); the parish is almost entirely French Canadian. I request the hon. Postmaster General to be fair towards these people.
Will the hon. Postmaster General allow me to read a copy of a letter sent to him on February 22, 1933:
Dear Sir,-
Since November last, we have been in correspondence with the Postmaster General in connection with the transfer of our post office. Would you be kind enough to bring to bear .your influence for justice's sake, on our behalf, *and request the department to see that we get fair play.	, . , , ,
This letter is in no way tainted by party prejudice; it is written solely in a spirit of fairness and without bias of any sort.
We, Canadian pioneers of Pre-Sainte-Marie, who settled this parish in 1912, a parish 100 per cent French, until 1920, having our own Church, where the Fathers of Sainte-Marie officiate, also a French Canadian school and, moreover, having had a French Canadian postmistress from 1912 to 1932, were given the mule's kick last autumn.
I trust it is not the Postmaster General's kick.
Our postmistress, having resigned, was replaced by a person speaking only one language and a complete stranger to our parish and what is still more grievous, one whose family resides in Pre-Sainte-Marie since only 4 years, and is of Dutch descent, the father being one of the leading socialists. Such are the premises where was located the post office, in charge of Mr. Garnet Snider, junior.	_
Now, we, French Canadians of Pre-Sainte-Marie, have no more post office, since the latter is located in the district of Forest V-and cannot request our mail or postal money orders in French, because Mr. Snider does not understand a word of French. As we have settled close to our Church, our post office is 3i miles distant from our centre. Is it not shameful for a department or government which contends that it is anti-socialist, and when we French Canadians are the only ones to combat such false doctrine, that department forces us to call on these people each time we wish to post a letter.
This appointment was made on the recommendation of Doctor MacKay, of Tisdale-we have the written proof

and approved by a kind of committee whose members are mostly

K.K.IC., that is, anti-French and, especially, anti-Catholie. You can readily understand that a French Canadian had no chance of being appointed postmaster at Pre-Sainte-Marie.
These same gentlemen boasted in 1928 and 1929, that with the help of Mr. Anderson, Buckle and K.K.K. & company not a French Canadian would be left at Pre-Sainte-Marie. Allow me to state, sir, that they succeeded fairly well; in 1932, notwithstanding our protests they despoiled us of part of our school district. Now, they rob us of our post office -they rejoice over their triumph-for, as they state, it is from Ottawa that justice has come and from a French Canadian minister.
We can hardly realize that such a painful humiliation has been inflicted on our people, we French Canadians from Saskatchewan. If this humiliation had come from an English speaking minister or one of those night-caps of Long Lake, we would have felt wounded, but from a French Canadian minister it is doubly painful.


Arthur Sauvé: Will the hon.
member for Gaspe (Mr. Brasset) allow me to interrupt him?


Maurice Brasset: Certainly.


Arthur Sauvé: I am fully
aware of the Prd-Ste-Maiie case to- which the hon. member refers.
Mr. BRAiSSET (Translation):	May I request the hon. Postmaster General to allow me to complete the reading of this letter.


Arthur Sauvé: The hon. member will note that my intentions are of the very best. By my explanation, if he will only accept it, he will discover that I am not against those he wishes to defend. We are looking into this matter, and I think the occasion is not well chosen, under the circumstances-the hon. member knows my feelings -to read this correspondence to the house for insertion in Hansard; that is, if he wishes to help in -settling this difficult case, in a spirit of fairness.


Maurice Brasset: At the request of the -hon. Postmaster General, I Shall dispense reading this letter.
Mr.- SAUVE (Translation): Thank you.


Mr. POULIOT (Translation):: Pass it over to me, if you please; I shall read it.


Maurice Brasset: However,
under the circumstances, I would request the hon. Postmaster General to look into this case of flagrant injustice. Whether it is in Saskatchewan or any other part of Canada, the French Canadians, when in majority and especially in parishes almost entirely French Canadian, are entitled to have one of their own race as postmaster, especially, when a French Canadian has occupied that post for

Supply-Post Office-Outside Service
a long 'time. I would, therefore, request the hon. Postmaster General to exert his authority, as 'head oif the Post Office Department, so that justice be done to the people of Pre-Ste-Marie.


Arthur Sauvé: That is what
I am endeavouring to do; we must avoid making matters worse.


Mr. BOULANGER (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat familiar with the Pre-Ste-Marie affair to which the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Brasset) referred, and I wish to add a few words previous to taking up some other matter. The hon. Postmaster General has known of this Pre-Ste-Marie case for a long time past, and yet it has not been settled. The post office was taken away from that locality and placed 3 or 4 miles further. The municipality of Pre-Ste-Marie is at least 80 per cent French Canadian.


Arthur Sauvé: No, 49 per
cent. The post office is situated at 2 miles from the Catholic church and school. That is far enough.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: Their
church, school and municipal institutions were all grouped in French Canadian style. The post office "was located close to the church and school before it was transferred to the home of the gentleman mentioned by tire hon. member for Gaspe. The post office was taken away from this municipality and located three or four miles away. These facts were known to the hon. Postmaster General months and months ago and yet the question was never settled.
We made representations to the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) who represents the constituency in which is situated the parish of Pre-Ste-Marie. I received an answer from the hon. Minister of Agriculture [DOT]-unfortunately I have not got it with me- however, this is what he stated: I do not meddle in your affairs, please do not meddle in mine.
I do not doubt the good intentions of the hon. Postmaster General, however, I would request him to see that this case is settled, as soon as possible, in a fair-minded way- so as to prove satisfactory to the people of Pre-Ste-Marie.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr.. Chairman, the letter read by the hon. member for Gaspe, is dated February, 22, 1933 and continues as follows:
The last paragraph he read is the following :
We can hardly believe this shameful humiliation inflicted on our people, we French Canadians from Saskatchewan. If this humiliation had come from an English speaking minister or one of the night-caps of Long Lake, we would have felt wounded, but from a French Canadian minister, it is doubly painful. I do not know what intervened, however, they realize the injustice done, they are aware that we are protesting, they are now uneasy; they wish to bring into Pre-Sainte-Marie one of their conspirators, a returned soldier, and they state that "no Frenchman ever will have the post office" because, owing to the ignorance of these fanatics, they do not want any more French Canadians as postmasters.
We, French Canadians, cannot understand why our post office was transferred to Mr. Garnet Snider, our new postmaster. He is not a Conservative, having never voted, or is he a returned soldier, moreover, does not speak a word of French; yet, his appointment was approved-as they say-by a French Canadian minister. Furthermore, to crown matters, an anti-socialist government places our post office in the home of one of the leaders of this shameful movement.
However, sir, after taking cognizance of all the correspondence forwarded in connection with the Pre-Sainte-Marie post office and which must be on file in the Post Office Department, you will find that some French Canadians had sought the position of postmaster at Pre-Sainte-Marie. You will also note that the Post Office Department inspectors visited Pre-Sainte-Marie on November 7 and 8; but-a mystery -mot a French Canadian knew what the inspector was doing there. The same automobile bearing the letters O.H.M.S. returned shortly after but-another mystery- . . . "How did' you know I was here," said the inspector. Not a French Canadian came in touch with this important personage. Do not be shocked, sir,, if, in the near future, the honoured name of Pre-Sainte-Marie disappears and is replaced by Forest V. . . . Then their triumph will be complete and they may then laugh because such a-victory will only be possible through the help of a French Canadian.
Now, sir, we wish to know whether among our Quebec clan, there are still some with red blood in their veins, who are men of the type of our forebears or whether they are what the English call "mechanical robots" with a-rubber stamp.
If you belong to the first category, we request your help. Could you make it a point to see that the Post Office Department acts fairly towards us without offending the gentlemen above mentioned. But if, on the contrary, you are mechanical robots, we shall pray God that he may enlighten your souls and we shall look to the press which is free and independent from political affiliation to inform our brothers in the east of Canada of the insult received, perhaps, indirectly but nevertheless with the full knowledge of the Post Office Department.
We are forwarding a copy , of this letter to all worthy men who "we believe equal to the task ionfided to them by their constituents.
Trusting to receive an answer so as to convey it to every French Canadian in Pre-Sainte-Marie.
(Signed) Henri Mahussier.
Pre-Sainte-Marie,
Saskatchewan.
This letter, sir, is dated February 22, 1933. I am the more pleased to inform the com-
4958	COMMONS
Supply-Post Office-Outside Service
mittee, because you, yourself, sir, forwarded a copy to the hon. Postmaster General.
What is the use, sir, of discussing, here, in the house, the rights of our compatriots, when the Postmaster General is concocting a deal with some one, since February last, and that this case has been dragging since October? Is it a fact that the Minister of Agriculture is a S. M.-Sealed Member-of the Ku-Klux-Klan, and when some one calls out "Sanbag" he pricks his ears. That simply means, strangers are near, be on the watch. Moreover, we have members of the Ku-Klux-Klan, in the house; there is one who has not been seen for a few days, we also have the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull)-


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@Translation: The discussion must refer to the item under consideration.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, that is what I am discussing. In this letter a complaint is lodged against the Ku Klux K'lan which influenced the Postmaster General to appoint Snider.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@Translation: The
hon. member is fully aware that no personal attack against a oolleague is permitted, whatever may be his feelings towards him.


Jean-François Pouliot: If it is not
wrong to be a member of the Ku Klux Klan, it is neither wrong to tell them that they belong to that organization and explain the under-currents which influence certain appointments made here, in Ottawa. The time has come to throw light on the subject. The Postmaster General comes along with a smile and says: "I am settling this matter, do not read the letter, say nothing about it, you will harm their cause." It is more than time that the people in Canada he enlightened on what goes on at Ottawa and the disgraceful way French Canadians are treated by a French Canadian minister, who is so unfair to his race. It is more than time that the country should be made aware of the injustice committed.
When one stops to think that the post office in charge of a French Canadian was close to the church, that it was removed to a place 3 miles away, that it was given to a young man, son of a socialist, who never had voted, does not speak a word of French and, that these people are obliged to go to the next parish to mail their correspondence, one cannot help being shocked to note that the Postmaster General took the advice of fanatics rather than look after French Canadian interests. That is what took place. Then, we

have outbursts of patriotism on the part of the Postmaster General who makes the round of clubs in Quebec proclaiming equal rights for French Canadians, and stating that we show ourselves tolerant and a lot of such phrases. Let him act like a man, a man with a big heart, a real patriot! The minister has created more than 300 or 400 post offices. If he wished to give Snider a post office, he was perfectly free to do so; however, why did he not leave a French Canadian to serve French Canadians at the post office, close to the church, in Pre-Ste-Marie? Why did he not do so? Quite the contrary, he deprives French Canadians of their post office near the church in Pre-Ste-Marie, he transfers it 3i miles away, he appoints a young man who has never voted, a fanatic, son of a socialist. And that is called respect for the rights of French Canadians by the Postmaster General!
I have nothing further to add on the subject. All I can express is my deep indignation, and I feel certain that all who read the returns which were just tabled in the house, and from which a letter was read this afternoon, will share my indignation and will not expect any act of justice from the Postmaster General.


Mr. FAFARD (Translation):: The day
before yesterday, the hon. Postmaster General gave to the house figures tending to prove that under his administration, there had been much less dismissals than under others. To that effect, he stated that, from 1896 to 1911, there had been 1,788 dismissals and from 1922 to 1930, 1,148, while during the two years under his administration, there had only been 770 dismissals. According to his method of reckoning, the figures seem to show that, under the present regime, we have had less dismissals than under previous governments. The only way of calculating these figures would be to keep track of the years also. From 1896 to 1911, 15 years elapsed, and in the course of these 15 years, 118 postmasters were dismissed per year; from 1922 to 1930, 140 postmasters were dismissed per year, while during the two years that the hon. Postmaster General has had charge of the department, there were 380 dismissals per year. The figures are the same only shown under a different light. This proves that, under the present regime, we have had many more dismissals than under previous administrations.
A little further on, the hon. Postmaster General stated:
The dismissals are carried out on complaints made, not by myself, but by fellow citizens of the postmaster or by members, as it was practiced in the past; and when these complaints

Supply-Post Office-Outside Service
were found to be facts by a commissioner, after an inquiry, they are dismissed.
I have before me, sir, a return in connection with the station of the parish of Cap-St-Ignace. There is no need to go further back and quote all the correspondence which took place. At the request of Messrs. Dechene and Choquette, advocates, Mrs. Metivier, the postmistress, was granted the right or privilege -if it is one-to have an inquiry. The report of the inquiry which I do not want to entirely read, ends as follows:
I consider that she-Mrs. Metivier-does not come under the provisions of article 55 of the Civil Service Act, chapter 22-revised statutes of Canada, 1927, and, therefore, I find no ground for the complaint of political partisanship lodged against said Mrs. Amarilda Metivier, of Cap-St-Ignace station.
(Signed) Fanning Gosselin,
Commissioner.
This does not seem to agree with the statement of the hon. Postmaster General, because the report of the inquiry states that Mrs. Metivier is not guilty of political partisanship.
Not only have we the findings of the commissioner who held the inquiry, but we have moreover a letter from the deputy minister which partly reads as follows-addressing himself to Mr. Choquette:
It is unnecessary to continue the inquiry as nothing has been proved against the postmistress, your client. I feel convinced that the hon. Mr. Sauve will drop the case, as I mentioned when you last called at the department.
(Signed) L. J. Gaboury,
Deputy Minister.
There seems to be no ambiguity, the case of Mrs. Metivier seems definitely settled. On January 12 of that year, the Postmaster General writes to the member for Montmagny:
In reply I must inform you that the commissioner who held the inquiry found no ground for the complaint lodged against that postmistress, and, under the circumstances, the matter has been left in abeyance.
You will recall, no doubt, that I first had recommended the dismissal of this postmistress, pursuant to your statement to the effect that you had personal knowledge of her active political partisanship. However, previous to arrangements being made for the transfer of the post office, there was a request for an inquiry by Mr. Fernand Choquette, a request which I could hardly refuse and to which, moreover, you had no objection.
This letter is signed by the Postmaster General. After all this correspondence, a memo was prepared and addressed to the hon. Postmaster General, in which the Deputy Postmaster General inquires whether he will follow the suggestion of the member for Montmagny or else do what is right. On February 3, 1933, the hon. Postmaster General wrote to the member for Montmagny as follows :
The council has decided that the rules must be followed in this case as in others and that the findings of the commissioner holding the inquiry could not be set aside.
The hon. Mr. Meighen believes that this decision is in accordance with the rules established in 1923 and accepted by both parties.
Sincerely yours,
(Signed) Arthur Sauve,
Postmaster General.
There is also a letter from the hon. member for Montmagny to the hon. Postmaster General which is rather harsh in its tone. On February 15, 1933, the hon. Postmaster General stated himself that nothing was found against Mrs. Metivier at the inquiry held, following the complaints lodged by the hon. member for Montmagny. The latter had stated that to his personal knowledge Mrs. Metivier had taken an active part in politics. The member for Montmagny did not appear at the inquiry; he was not even a witness of what took place. I was never in court but I have been present at trials in the course of which persons were warned: to avoid hearsay evidence and only testify to what they themselves had heard or seen.
Something incredible happened. On February 15, 1933, the hon. Postmaster General, although he had stated that the privy council would not sanction the dismissal of Mrs. Metivier, that Mr. Meighen had given his views on the subject, notwithstanding all this, decided to dismiss Mrs. Metivier. Mrs. Metivier is entitled to our sympathy, and must earn a livelihood. I know that the hon. Postmaster General is usually gallant to ladies. In saying so I have no afterthought.


Arthur Sauvé: Not in matters connected with administration.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: Not in matters connected with administration, do you say? Nevertheless, it is a young lady that he appointed as postmistress at L'lslet.


Arthur Sauvé: I did not recommend her.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: That reminds me that a returned soldier had applied for the position of postmaster at Cap-St-Ignace station. I do not know why the hon. Postmaster General did not appoint him. Had he shown some backbone-he was asked just now to prove that he had some in connection with the Pre-Ste-Marie case-if he was firm in his own province, why did he not grant the request of the hon. member for Montmagny, with whom he is so friendly. I have here a
4960	COMMONS
Supply-Post Office-Outside Sendee
copy of a telegram recommending the returned soldier Romeo Bernier:
Re post office Cap-St-Ignace station would draw your attention to the request of returned soldier Romeo Bernier qualified-pursuant to act should be appointed immediately.
(Signed) Armand LaVergne.
The hon. Postmaster General has no excuse for not appointing him.
On September 7, 1932, the hon. member for Montmagny wrote to the hon. Postmaster General the following letter:
I enclose the form duly signed, recommending Mr. Romeo Bernier, returned soldier, for the position of postmaster at Cap-St-Ignace.
However, if there is to be a temporary appointment, I wish to recommend Mr. Jules Caron, from the same locality.
(Signed) Armand LaVergne.
That is Mr. Jules Caron not being conversant with the act, he is to be appointed temporarily, then it will be stated that the position comes under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission, and Mr. Romeo Bernier will get the appointment. I state that, in this case, the hon. Postmaster General was justified in appointing Mr. Romeo Bernier, he was a returned soldier. May I inquire why the hon. Postmaster General did not heed the inquiry?
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): Mr. Chair-main, before the hon. Postmaster General replies, as my name has been mentioned, I should like to give my version of the affair. Does the hon. member for L'lslet know the facts? He was probably informed by Messrs. Dechene and Choquette who often correspond with him in connection with Montmagny affairs. First, let us see how matters stood: Mrs. Metivier had replaced a widow, Mrs. Bergeron, who had 10 children and was dismissed without an inquiry, in 1926, by the then Postmaster General. I am not aware that the hon. member for L'lslet rose in the house, at that time, to protest. When the election took place, the postmistress for the time being slandered public men in general and in particular the member for Montmagny. I requested her dismissal. If the thing happened again, I would act likewise. She denied having used the words which were attributed to her and came to call on me. I told her: Madam if you deny having used these words, we shall hold an inquiry. If you did not use them, evidently, nothing will be found against you. The inquiry was held and it was proved by two witnesses and her own evidence that she had slandered public men and, in particular, the member for .Montmagny. The commissioner who held the inquiry declared that her case did not come .under the provisions of the Civil Service Act.

That was not the aim of the inquiry; the aim was to find out whether she had said the words complained of. The evidence having clearly shown that they had been uttered, I requested her dismissal, with a view to ensuring that public men, be entitled to some consideration on the part of the public, and not be subject to slanderous attacks, especially, coming from those who are in the public service.
Those are the facts. That is all what took place. The hon. member for L'lslet states that the commissioner, Mr. Fanning Gosselin, found that Mrs. Metivier was not guilty. That is not the case. He found, on the contrary, that she made use of the words reproached to her, but that, according to him, the provisions of the Civil Service Act were not applicable to her. However, the facts remain. Mrs. Metivier paid no attention to the evidence brought against her and carried on her gossip, in the post office. I again insisted that she be dismissed, because it was only just that she should be.
I recommended Mr. Bernier. Moreover, the act obliged me to do so. He had the first right to be appointed providing he fulfilled the requirements of the Civil Service Act. Not being able to fulfil them, he was not appointed. It was Mr. Caron who was appointed. He is an excellent postmaster, everybody is satisfied. Moreover, he generously made up for the unfair way Mrs. Bergeron was treated in the past, by renting her house, this helps Mrs. Bergeron and her ten children to earn a livelihood.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: Mr. Chairman, I wish to point out that on September 19, 1930, the hon. member for Montmagny had recommended Mrs. Bergeron.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): Yes.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: The charges made by the hon. member were denied under oath. There is no need of reading them, he knows them.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): They were proved to be true by two witnesses and corroborated by Mrs. Metivier, herself.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: The charges were not as serious as all that. There is one here, the third. Mrs. Metivier is supposed to have stated, referring to the member for Montmagny: "He is no better than the others, he has given his support to every political party." One cannot contend that what this person said on the threshold of the post office was very insulting. She stated that the hon. member belonged to all parties. He himself boasts of it.

Supply-Post Office-Outside Service
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): That is not what I complain of. That was not her only statement.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: I can read them:
1.	I am acquainted with Mrs. Metivier,
widow and postmistress of Cap-St-Ignace station;	_
2.	She is known for her Liberal views and her opposition to the Conservative party;
3.	Last spring and on two or three different occasions since then, in the presence of five or six persons, strangers to her family, Mrs. Metivier disapproved of the Conservative party's policy and even made personal attacks against Mr. Armand LaVergne, the present member for the county of Montmagny, stating: He is no better than others; he belonged to all political parties; he got elected so as to fill his pockets, as all others do, or other words of such nature.
And I have signed,
Onesiphore Fregeau.
On the other hand, according to the charges of Mr. Fregeau against the postmistress of Cap St. Ignace station, she is supposed to have made that statement in the presence of five or six persons. He evidently shows bad faith because these charges are entirely denied by Mrs. Noel Ouellet, Mr. William Bernier and Miss Aline Guimont. I have the documents here. These documents were not invented by me, they were furnished by the hon. Postmaster General.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	(Translation):	These
people made no denial, they simply said that they did not hear the statement.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: Did the hon. member for Montmagny hear the statement made by Mrs. Metivier.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): No, I did not hear it, however, I was given sufficient proof to request her dismissal. I requested it, and under the same circumstances, I would act likewise, because I consider that a post office is not a place in which to slander public men. If the hon. member for L'Islet thinks it is the right thing to state that a member gets elected to fill his pockets, well, it is up to him. That may not affect him but it does affect me.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: I think the member for l'lslet is just as honourable as the member for Montmagny.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): That is what I thought.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: At the moment, his pockets are >as full as mine.


Arthur Sauvé: I wish to give the hon. member' for ITslet some explanation with reference to Mrs. Metivier. Mr. Gosselin, who held the inquiry, in fact, sent in a report, as the hon. member for Montmagny stated, that he did not think that the charges made against this postmistress did not come within the four corners of the Civil Service Act, and on the representations made by the hon. member for Montmagny, who is best able to judge in this case, we wrote to Mr. Gosselin, the commissioner, to find out what he meant when he stated that the charge made against Mrs. Metivier was not a matter coming under the purview of the Civil Service Act. The commissioner replied that he had the proofs that these words had been said before the warrants were issued, that it was not in the course of the election. It has been an established rule long before to-day, long before I was put in charge of the Post Office Department, that a postmaster or postmistress has no right to take an active part in politics not only during election time, but from the moment he or she is appointed to that position.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: I regret that the hon. postmaster did not think proper to forward me this letter from Mr. Fanning Gosselin, the commissioner who held the inquiry, because I requested all correspondence and this letter never reached me.


Arthur Sauvé: I shall give
the hon. member another explanation which he will understand as he did the last. I communicated by telephone with Mr. Gosselin, in Quebec, to find out what he meant, since the hon. member for Montmagny persisted in maintaining his point and that we wished to be fair towards him. The hon. member for I'Islet will recognize that I took the necessary time to think over the matter and that in no way was I ill-disposed towards Mrs. Metivier, however, when a minister is given new proofs or new representations are made of a nature to change his views, he is forced to do so, if he has a conscience.


Charles Marcil: In my constituency I have the honour to represent a large number of people who speak the English language; nearly one-third of my constituents are English speaking, and the case I wish to submit to the minister and the committee concerns a post office in an English speaking centre Therefore I shall speak in English; otherwise I should have spoken in French. The minister is something of a countryman of mine, having been born in the parish adjoining my own, and I am going to submit this case to the hon. gentleman and ask him, as a fair-minded man, whether the action taken is in the interests of the postal service and of the dominion.
4962	COMMONS
Supply-Post Office-Outside Service
The town of Port Daniel Centre in the county of Bonaventure is largely English speaking. The postmaster who has been dismissed, Mr. E. E. Sweetman, had been in office twenty-five or thirty years and to the best of my knowledge no report had ever been made against him either by the department or by the patrons of the office. In 1917 or 1918, if I remember rightly, an attempt was made to have him removed but he appealed to Sir Robert Borden himself and was maintained in office.
The patronage in my county is in the hands of the Hon. Dr. Paquet, a former member of this house and of the Meighen administration. I have no objection to the minister receiving advice from him, but it is strange that my last opponent has apparently given up Bonaventure entirely and has taken no part in making recommendations to the Post Office Department. It must have been decided by the Conservatives of the district to have a change of postmasters made in that office, for there was no complaint of any kind against Mr. Sweetman. The following is the document recommending the appointment of John George Assels:
We, the undersigned officers of the Port Daniel West Conservative Committee, strongly recommend John George Assels, of Port Daniel Centre, for the positon of postmaster, replacing Mr. Edward Sweetman, at Port Daniel Centre, Que.
Arthur Lawrence, President.
Thos. B. Bisson, Asst. Sec'y.
J. Langlois, Tresorier.
William Ahern, Secretary.
Edgar Lawrence, Poll Representative.
To support this application, Dr. Paquet got into communication with the department and strongly urged the change in office. As it was a civil service appointment an investigation had to be held, and Mr. Gerard Simard of Rimouski was appointed investigator. This gentleman, who has made considerable money out of the department, making these investigations, was sent down to take the evidence. I will not read his report because I do not think it is very important, but I will quote from the testimony of Mr. Sweetman, who was under oath. Having been sworn, he said:
After the federal election, a few days after, M. Lawrence came at home and I told him that Mr. Bennett was a very^ clever man and he would not be a Prime Minister if he was not clever. At the last federal election, I think that a petition to get voters in favour of Mr. Maroil was put at the post office, in order to be signed by citizens, but I asked nobody to sign it. The petition was in the part of the house where we live. I don't remember to ask anybody to sign it; and to my knowledge, Mrs. Sweetman has not asked anybody to sign it. This petition remained at our house a very 
short time. I did not see any whiskey or liquors on my premises. Mrs. Sweetman is assistant postmaster since thirty-six years, As to the oar of my son, Edwin, this one is the only owner that I know. My wife may have help him to pay, but I don't know.
The Post Office Department had no complaints against this man. Joseph Jones, who had carried the mail for four years, said that he had never heard any complaint against this post office, and1 Mr. Robert Sullivan swore:
In my opinion, the post office has always been well kept, since they had it, and never had any complaint against them.
During the past thirty-six years there has never been any reason whatever for a change. The postmaster appealed from the decision that was given. He is an Anglican, and I will read one testimonial given this man, which I think should weigh with the minister. It is a testimonial that would certainly weigh in any other part of the empire, a letter from the Lord Bishop of Quebec:
Bishopthorpe, Quebec,
August 30, 1932.
Postmaster General,
Ottawa, Out.
Dear Sir,-
I take the liberty of writing to you about the post office at Port Daniel Centre, Bonaventure county, the Gaspe peninsula.
The postmaster, Mr. Edward Sweetman. has held the position for over thirty years. He is an invalid but his wife and daughter discharge the work of the office. They are people of irreproachable character and I understand from the office of the inspector at Quebec, as well as from two clergymen who have lived at Port Daniel, that the duties of the post office are carried on quite efficiently.
It is rumoured that the office is to be taken away from the Sweetmans and given to some other person.
Personally, I am and always have been a Conservative but I feel strongly that to take the office away from these worthy people would be a grave injustice. I express the hope that you will take the necessary steps in order that Mr. Edward Sweetman may be left in charge of the post office at Port Daniel Centre.
I remain,
Yours sincerely,
Lennox Quebec,
Lord Bishop of Quebec.
Now what do we find in this case? We find three applicants clamouring for the position, backed up by Dr. Paquet, and on the other hand we 'have the Lord Bishop of Quebec giving the evidence he does in this letter, backed up by the Anglican clergymen who had been in the district. Moreover, there was evidence in the possession of the department to prove that no charge had ever been made against the conduct of this post office. A returned soldier applied for the position but he was thrown aside on the ground that

Supply-Post Office-Outside Service
he had not the qualifications, being subject to fits. Mr. Ahern also applied but he too was rejected. Mr. Assels, however, was so insistent that he succeeded in getting Dr. Paquet into motion. Dr. Paquet first applied for the dismissal of Mr. Sweetman and was informed that an investigation would have to 'be held. The report of the investigator is of no significance, and it is contradicted by the postmaster himself.
I should like it to be clearly understood by the committee that the administration of the Post Office Department has become a matter of pure party patronage. In this district the postmaster had given long and efficient service, and he was highly recommended by the Bishop of Quebec. I would ask the minister also to read the evidence of Mr. Simard, and see whether the investigator was warranted in violating the act in the way he did. A petition was left at the residence of Mr. Sweetman but it was never presented to anyone; no one was ever asked to sign it either by the postmaster or by his wife. The son., who is a grown up man, owns an automobile, and as he had nothing to do with the post office he was free to come and go as he liked. No evidence was submitted against this postmaster except that Mrs. Sweetman, it is. said, made the remark on one occasion that Mr. Houde of Montreal was a tramp. That, however, is contradicted. As regards Mr. Bennett, she eulogized him, saying that if he were not clever he would not be Prime Minister.
The Postmaster General is a man of high standing in his party and enjoys a high reputation in Quebec as an honest man. I should like him to read over the evidence and say whether, in the light of the testimonial that has been given this man Sweetman and in view of the standing of these people in the community, their respectability and their long and faithful service to the department for thirty-six years, the department was justified in dismissing him simply in order to appoint a party hack who was not a returned soldier and who I am sure could not have rallied in any sense the majority of the patrons of the office. The fact of the matter is that the change was made purely for party purposes. I must leave the matter in the hands of the minister; I can do nothing now. I do hope, however, that when he has a moment of leisure the minister will look over the file and convince himself that I have made out a fair case.


Arthur Sauvé: I thank the hon. member for Bonaventure for his remark. I have always honoured him as a gentleman and my opinion
has not been changed to-day. With regard to the case he mentioned, it is quite true that Mr. Sweetman was dismissed upon the complaint of Mr. Paquet. The charge was denied by Mr. Sweetman but the commissioner, after holding an investigation on August 23, 1932, found the postmaster guilty on two counts. A witness Lawrence stated that Mr. Sweetman while discussing politics at his own home had declared that Mr. King was the best man and no one could be better. This same witness stated that Mr. Sweetman had stated to him that during the provincial elections of 1931, Liberal liquor had been left at his place for distribution. According to this same witness, Mr. Sweetman admitted that at the last federal elections a petition to be signed by the electors in favour of Mr. Marcil had been left at his home by his brother. The hon. member for Bonaventure knows that I have the highest respect for the bishop and the religious authorities, but this was not a matter of morals, it was one of fact. Certain regulations were enacted before my regime, and when the postmaster had been declared guilty of political partisanship, I could not do other than follow the regulations.


Charles Marcil: Did the minister take into consideration the thirty-six years of service which had been given without an adverse report being made by any officer of the department? Did the minister act merely on the opinion of a man from Rimouski who said that a petition had been left at the postmaster's house but that no one had been asked1 to sign? They could have left a similar petition at the home of the minister.


Mr. RHEAUME (Translation):: I wish to inquire from the hon. Postmaster General what decision he has reached with reference to the appointment of a postmaster for the town of Iberville?


Arthur Sauvé: I am aware that the hon. member for St. John's-Iberville (Mr. Rheaume) is well informed as regards this matter. A number of representations were made, as I wrote to Mr. Denicourt, one of the candidates chosen by the Civil Service Commission, and we are considering the matter. We shall have to conform to the regulations and make the appointment accordingly. It is true that it is a case which comes under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission. The hon. member is well acquainted with the facts. We have to proceed with great caution, listen to representations, and when they have all been heard we shall act accordingly, conforming to the act or the public interest.
4964	COMMONS
Supply-Post Office-Outside Service


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: Will the hon. Postmaster General allow me to point out to him that if he wishes to conform himself to the Civil Service Act and amendments introduced by his party last year-if my memory serves me right-I cannot see why he hesitates to appoint Mr. Denicourt?


Arthur Sauvé: The matter is not entirely under my jurisdiction. The revenue of the post office at Iberville is more than $3,000. It is true that my approval must be sought finally.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: I understand. That is why he should not have any hesitation; the Civil Service Commission has recommended the appointment of Denicourt and he has his appointment in his pocket since April 3. On April 19, 1933, I wrote the following letter to the hon. Postmaster General: Hon. Arthur Sauve,
Postmaster General,
Ottawa, Ont.
Hear Sir,-
I have been informed that the Civil Service Commission had chosen Mr. Wilfrid Denicourt as postmaster of Iberville, over fifteen days ago, but his appointment had not yet been approved by the Post Office Department.
I have no doubt that the department will approve the appointment of Mr. Denicourt because he is a returned soldier and qualified for the position.
I am aware that influences were brought to bear to appoint another person, however, I trust that nothing will come of it, because it would be very unfair to Mr. Denicourt and, furthermore, your department cannot disregard the Civil Service Commission's choice. I am in no way interested in this appointment. All that I request is that the act should take its course.
The following is the answer received from the Postmaster General, on April 20, 1933: Dear Mr. Rheaume,-
I am in receipt of your letter dated April 19 with reference to Mr. Wilfrid Denicourt who, as you stated was chosen to be postmaster at Iberville.
In reply, I wish to state that my department is awaiting the inspector's report to settle the appointment permanently.
If, my memory serves me right, there are two returned soldiers who have applied for the position.
As you are also aware, the new Civil Service Commission is not complete.
According to the examination list Mr. Denicourt came first with 84 points and Mr. de Beaujour is fifth out of six candidates, with 71 points. I trust that the hon. Postmaster General will approve the choice of the Commission. The latter when advertising the vacant position stated:
The secretary .of the commission will receive applications up to February 17, 1933.
 '
According to the report, before me, from the commission, five candidates out of six complied to that order of the commission; the only one who did not comply was Mr. de Beaujour, who forwarded his application on March 10. I cannot see why one should hesitate in appointing Mr. Denicourt who is a returned soldier, has five children and has had no work for over a year, while Mr. de Beaujour has been employed over 3 years at the locks in St. John; he earns $450 to $500 per year and draws a pension of $175 from the State. Moreover, he owns a lot where he has a garden. He therefore, is fairly well-to-do. Denicourt is a returned soldier, a brave lad who joined the 22nd Battalion, passed the Civil Service test and came out first. Mr. de Beaujour came out 5th; however, I am aware that he has been pulling strings and the hon. Postmaster is aware of that fact. When Mr. Goyette died, last autumn, Mr. Ernest Thuot, a good conservative, probably the most Conservative partizan in the county of St. John's-Iberville-


Arthur Sauvé: There are not many in St. John's-Iberville?
Mr. RHEAUME (Translation) -who has been head clerk at the Liquor Commission,, ever since the store was open in Iberville, gave up his position to become temporary postmaster, if I am well informed, Thuot wants de Beaujour to be appointed on condition that he is kept on and that the salary and pension be split in two. I consider that Thuot's appointment was not regular and did not comply with the act. I can assure you that if ever the Liberal party returns to-powTer the first dismissal will be that of the postmaster at Iberville. I shall request it myself as an act of justice. Mr. Thuot had no business to give up his position at the Liquor Commission. He had been employed there for the last five or six years. He took an active part in politics, in 1931, he went to-the county of Rouville-when employed at the Quebec Liquor Commission to carry on conservative propaganda from door to door. The Quebec government did not even hold an inquiry about it. After the death of Mr. Goyette he gave up his position and deprived MisS Goyette of the position she had held at the post office for over twenty years, and threw-her on the street. To-day, if Denicourt is not appointed, it is because influence was-brought to hear to have de Beaujour appointed in his place, so as to keep Thuot there and divide the salary. If Thuot lost his position he, has but himself to blame and- I do not think that he can get that position, back at the Quebec Liquor Commission.

Supply-Post Office-Outside Service
I trust that, notwithstanding all the recrimination I have heard, the Postmaster General will comply with the act as regards this appointment. I wish to inquire from him after these explanations-he knows the facts as well as I do-whether he will accept the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission in connection with this appointment.


Arthur Sauvé: I think the hon. member will be satisfied when the case is definitely settled.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: I hope so. Now, sir, I do not wish to hold up the estimates, but I would request the hon. Postmaster General to state why, in the parish of St. Georges-dTIenriville, county of Iberville, two tenders were called in connection with the rural mail contract, when a third contract was awarded without calling for tenders.


Arthur Sauvé: May I request the hon. member to kindly postpone his inquiry as I have not the information with me. It is a question of contracts and there are many of them.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: There are but two.


Arthur Sauvé: I mean throughout Canada. St. John's-Iberville is but one county and there are many others. I shall be pleased to give him all the explanations and details he desires. I do not wish to conceal anything, he has a right to receive the information, and he shall have it.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: Thanks.
However, I would not like to have these details after the contract has been awarded.


Arthur Sauvé: No, no.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: May I
Inquire from the hon. Postmaster General why a contract was awarded without tenders being called and why tenders are necessary in the other case?


Arthur Sauvé: At present, I cannot answer. Had I this information I would willingly give it.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: When does the hon. minister expect to furnish this information.


Arthur Sauvé: I shall be able to give it on Monday morning.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: This will
be quite satisfactory. Now, sir, a contract held by Mr. Barriere, in St. Gregoire, was transferred. Can the hon. postmaster inform me to whom this contract was transferred?


Arthur Sauvé: I have not the name of the person here. The hon. member should have notified me that he desired this information; he could, in the course of the session, have secured that information either by putting a question on the order paper or otherwise. He would have 'been given a reply in the house, and, thereby, had it inserted in Hansard. I would have 'been pleased to have given the information as that is one of the aims of the session. We cannot furnish all information without knowing what hon. members require. I shall make a point to bring such information with me, on Monday morning.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: I would
like to know to whom the contract of Mr. Barriere of St-Gregoire-le-Grand has been transferred. I would also like to know why, in the same parish, two calls for tenders were posted, from March 27 to April 22, and why one of these posters was taken down. I think that one of these contracts was awarded to Mrs. Bessette of St-Gregoire-le-Grand.


Arthur Sauvé: There was
correspondence exchanged recently in this connection,


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: Will the
hon. Postmaster General furnish me with this information Monday morning?


Arthur Sauvé: Yes.


Mr. FOURNIER (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, western Canada is not the only place where English speaking postmasters were appointed in parishes entirely French Canadian. In my own county, adjacent to Ottawa, the thing was done a little over a year ago. In January, 1931, the postmaster of Val-des-tBois was dismissed because of political partisanship.


Arthur Sauvé: What parish?


Alphonse Fournier: Val-des-Bois, Hull county. On January 22, four applications were made to the Civil Service Commission by Messrs. Archie Larocque, Theodore Thibeault, Hermas Morin and Isidore Larocque. Some time later, after the position had been advertised, three candidates were given a test and Mr. Peck was appointed. He was the least qualified candidate, according to the report of the inspector who had charge of the test.
Representations were made to the Postmaster General. In the file which I have here, there is a memo from the Deputy Postmaster General, Mr. Gaboury:
The Postmaster General has received further representations concerning the above postmaster-
Private Bills

ship. Provided the assistant postmaster can take care of the bilingual requirements of the office, the appointment of Mr. Peck will be satisfactory.
However the examiner or inspector who had charge of the test refused to recommend the appointment of Mr. Peck because at Val-des-Bois, there is only one English speaking citizen and that is Mr. Peck; the entire population with this exception speak French. On April 23, Mr. Underwood wrote to the district superintendent:
Representations have been received by the Postmaster General concerning applicant Peck who, it is noted, is not considered by the investigating officer as having the necessary bilingual qualifications.
This matter has been examined and the department considers that, provided the assistant postmaster can fully take care of the bilingual requirements of the office, there would appear to be no objection to Mr. Peck's appointment if he is otherwise a recommendable applicant.
Mr. Peck does not speak a word of French. There is not an English family at Val-des-Bois. The commission requested on more than one occasion


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@Translation: Order!
It is six o'clock.


Alphonse Fournier: I shall be through in a minute. On more than one occasion the commission requested a report from the district superintendent. It took four months to obtain that report, and, finally, Mr. Peek was appointed. I take this opportunity to point out this affair to the house. I think, sir, that in the county of Hull, where there are few English speaking citizens, and at Val-des-Bois, in particular, where there are none, the department should have appointed a French speaking postmaster.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. R. S. WHITE (Mount Royal) moved:: That the following bills be placed upon the order paper for consideration in committee of the whole, this day:-
Bill No. 101 intituled: "An Act for the relief of Angelo Stavrow."
Bill No. 102, "An act respecting a certain patent of Genter Thickener Company."


Pierre Édouard Blondin: This can only be moved by unanimous consent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 68, for the relief of Birdie Glick-man Steinberg.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 69, for the relief of Harry Prupas. -Mr. Vallaace.
Bill No. 75, for the relief of Olga Shid-lowskaya Lowrey.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 76, respecting the Quebec, Montreal and Southern Railway Company.-Mr. Cas-grain.
Bill No. 85, for the relief of Emily Florence Lawrence Knight.-^Mr. Heaps.
Bill No. 86, for the relief of Marjorie Bertha Willcox.-Mr. Bothwell.
Bill No. 87, for the relief of George Andrew Carruthers.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 88, for the relief of Lilias Torrance Newton.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 89, for the relief of Hilda Mary Falkenberg Gilmour.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 90, for the relief of Eva Amy Falle Jordan.-Mr. White (Mount Royal).
Bill No. 91, for the relief of Joseph Claremont Carroll.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 92, for the relief of Venita Angeline Scotten Kendall.-Mr. Heaps.
Bill No. 101, for the relief of Angelo Stavrow-Mr. White (Mount Royal).

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 102, respecting a certain patent of Genter Thickener Company, Mr. Stirling in the chair.
On section 1-Extension of time for application to revive patent.
Mr. BENNETT:: I think this bill should stand. It is a very serious matter, a patent of this character, and I have strong views as to what the duty of parliament is. The Secretary of State is not here. The bill has been placed on the order paper by consent of the house and if it stands there will be no inconvenience and there will be an opportunity of looking into it.
Progress reported.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East) moved:: That the order of the house for the second reading of Bill No. 57, an act respecting the criminal code (appeals to privy council) be discharged.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the object sought by this bill has been attained by the amend1-

Supply-Post Office-Outside Service
ment of the criminal code which passed the house last week.
Motion agreed to and order discharged. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE



SATURDAY SITTING

Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the
motion standing in my name in the notices of motion be allowed to stand.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Leader of the Opposition):	Is that the
one with relation to the possibility of sitting to-morrow?


Richard Bedford Bennett: We will not sit tomorrow.
Motion stands.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
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.
Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, there was a postal station on St. John street in Quebec which was closed recently, and I have received many letters and resolutions protesting against the closing. Would the hon. gentleman say what were the reasons which induced him to make that change?


Arthur Sauvé: The reason is that the closing of that
postal station on May 1 will result in an immediate saving of about $1,800 per annum. The ultimate saving through the withdrawal of the staff and subsequent adjustments will amount to about $5,000 per annum. At the same time we are improving the service by two suboffices.


Ernest Lapointe: I must tell my hon.
friend that the people of that section of the city do not seem to agree with him as to the improvement resulting from this change, because I am receiving many protests about it. This post office is situated in one of
the most important sections of the city of Quebec. The citizens of both Quebec South and Quebec East were taking advantage of the facilities there. However, I hope if the result is not what my hon. friend expects, it will be possible to persuade him to revert to the former situation.


Arthur Sauvé: We will see at the end of
this year. I myself received several protests, but I sent letters to the Quebec papers explaining our purpose, and after the explanation given I think my hon. friend from Quebec East will accept our action. I did not receive any further protests since.


Ernest Lapointe: We 'have much good
will for the minister.


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: I have a complaint from Dease Lake and Telegraph Creek post offices in British Columbia. A notice has been posted in those post offices that from now on the parcel post rate will be 12 cents a pound. They are the only places in British Columbia where that change has been made.
I have inquired as to the reason. I realize it is probably for the sake of economy, but I would like to ask the Postmaster General how much he anticipated will be saved by depriving those two post offices of that service. It is 5 cents a pound in other post offices in British Columbia, but it is raised to a flat rate of 12 cents for those two post offices. I have taken it up with the deputy minister but he could not give me any other answer than that it is done for the sake of economy. I can see no warrant for depriving those people of that convenience for the few dollars that may be saved; for I presume the mail has to go there anyway, whether there are few parcels or many, and I cannot see what saving can be accomplished.


Arthur Sauvé: We tried to do our best;
if we have not satisfied the people there we will seek to do so. But my hon. friend will understand the situation that faces us on account of the depression of business. We are trying bo do our best to serve the public and at the same time to serve the interests of the country. If your people are not satisfied we will seek to satisfy them.


Olof Hanson: May I also ask
the Postmaster General this: in the same district the towns of Anyox and Alice Arm up to last spring had three mail services a week. Last spring they were cut to two, which was naturally a hardship on	those	communities.	The latest report that I have
received informs me that it is anticipated that the service will be put to once a week.
4968	COMMONS
Supply-Post Office-Outside Service
1 have several letters containing these complaints, but I do not think it is necessary to put them on record. I just want to register these complaints and I should like the minister to look into the matter very carefully before reducing the services from three to one a week. The population is the same as it was before, so I do not see why they should be deprived of that service.


Arthur Sauvé: We have asked for a better price for a weekly service. I suppose we will receive tenders, and we shall do our best.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Can the
hon. Postmaster General recall the facts in connection with the postoffice of Missanabie, county of Algoma, Ontario, which were the subject of quite a considerable correspondence between the Rev. Father Maynard, the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) and the hon. Postmaster General? The hon. Postmaster General, I presume,, recalls this post office and can reply to the questions which I desire to put to him?


Arthur Sauvé: Yes.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Will the
hon. Postmaster inform the house who is, at present, in charge of this post office?


Arthur Sauvé: Missanabie? Mr. Stuart.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: It is the same Mr. Stuart who was the subject of the correspondence referred to?


Arthur Sauvé: I think so.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Evidently, the Postmaster considers that Mr. Stuart has the qualifications necessary to fill this important post?	Silence is consent.


Arthur Sauvé: I beg your pardon! I was waiting for the hon. member to resume his seat before replying. I am still working on that case. We have done our utmost to settle it, endeavouring at the same time to protect the interest of the department and meet the wishes of people of Missanabie, in Algoma West. There are naturally two sides to this question of a postmaster. Charges were lodged against him because of his personal views and behaviour towards certain citizens. The charges were absolutely denied by the postmaster. We notified the district superintendent to look into this matter and hold an inquiry. The superintendent sent in a report stating that the charges against this postmaster were not substantiated. Moreover, I requested one of the higher officials of the department Mr. 
Underwood, who is General Superintendent of Postal Services, to make a thorough examination of this case and continue the inquiry in this respect. Mr. Underwood's report is as follows-


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Would the hon. minister give the date?


Arthur Sauvé: September 16, 1932.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Was there a report made after that date?


Arthur Sauvé: I do not think so. The report is as follows:
The undersigned discussed this question with the district superintendent, at North Bay. The Inspector Gagne who made the latest report on the case, was not at the office, I could not question him personally on the matter.
The district superintendent is of the opinion that there is no justification to take any definite action against that postmaster, considering the complaints lodged up to date. He added that there were no doubt people around Missanabie who are inimical to the postmaster and who are making every effort to have him dismissed.
On the other hand, the district superintendent considers that the efficient services rendered by the postmaster and the satisfactory way he manages the post office from the financial viewpoint, etc., justifies his maintenance in office. So far as we are specially concerned, namely, that an assistant postmistress unsealed a letter, it is clear that she did not do so with premeditation or malice. Had she acted thus, she could no doubt have destroyed this letter, while it has been clearly established that the moment she noticed that she had unsealed this letter, by mistake, thinking it was addressed to the postmaster, she immediately handed the letter to the son of the person to whom the letter was addressed, so that he might deliver it, explaining what had happened; moreover, the letter was never taken out of the envelope.
It was stated that the postmaster was hostile to French Canadians. This statement is denied by the postmaster who says that he gets along very well with the majority of the people but that there are some who spread trouble and discord and endeavour to bring charges against him. The present case is an instance of a case where it is difficult to get to the bottom of the affair; however, after discussing the subject with the district superintendent, who has personal knowledge of the facts, and considering how far the affair has gone, I think that we are not justified in taking immediate action by dismissing this postmaster.
(Signed) E. J. Underwood,
General Superintendent of Postal Services.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: The hon. Postmaster, I think, stated that this report was dated May 16, 1932?


Arthur Sauvé: September.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: September 1932?

Supply-Post Office-Outside Service


Arthur Sauvé: Yes.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: If I
understood the wording of this report, it is stated that action cannot be taken immediately? We are now in May, 1933; it is evident that no action was taken immediately. When does the hon. Postmaster General expect to take energetic action, in keeping with the actual situation as represented to the hon. Postmaster General?


Arthur Sauvé: Energetic
action? I do not wish people to think that I lack energy; however, I should like to be given credit for sound judgment. It is not a matter of energy only but of sound judgment.	.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: It is an
excellent thing to have both.


Arthur Sauvé: Yes, one
must have both. Since that date there has been some correspondence exchanged with Father Maynard, who seems quite unfriendly towards the postmaster. I inquired from the local member, who should be consulted in such matters, and he informed me that the postmaster enjoyed the confidence of the great majority of the citizens of that locality.


Ernest Lapointe: Who is
the member for that constituency?


Arthur Sauvé: It is Mr. Simpson, member for Algoma West. The hon. member for Quebec East must be acquainted with him.


Ernest Lapointe: There is
nothing wrong in asking his name.


Arthur Sauvé: No, on the
contrary. If some one inquired who was the member for Quebec East, everybody would know that it is the Hon. Mr. Lapointe.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: The hon.
member for Quebec East robbed me of my powder 1


Arthur Sauvé: I wish to state to the hon. senior member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) that, ever since then, we have received no request from any group of persons belonging to the constituency, protesting against his conduct and asking for his resignation.
As to the administration of this post office by Mr. Stuart-the report speaks for itself-[DOT] there are no complaints. Mention was made of a letter unsealed by an assistant. She gave an explanation, which is, moreover, that given by many postmasters. Furthermore, even under the preceding regime, I have knowledge 53719-314
of similar cases happening, and the then Postmaster General did not consider it sufficient, after listening to explanations given, to demand the resignation of the postmaster.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: The hon.
Postmaster .General is not quite consequent. Perhaps, he wishes, in his argument, to resort to the premises which he laid down just now, when he stated that not energy but sound judgment was needed.


Arthur Sauvé: No, both
energy and sound judgment.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I always
thought that, first, sound judgment was needed and, then, energy. At all events, the hon. Postmaster General states that no complaints have been received for a year past. It is unnecessary to have received complaints within a year; positive complaints were lodged and the correspondence is there to prove it. The Rev. Father Maynard openly complained of the administration of that post office in bitter terms, perhaps, not without cause. The Hudson Bay's representative also complained. An inquiry was held. The hon. Postmaster states that it is all over, that a report was made in September, 1932, and immediate action was to be taken. It is unnecessary to sift the whole affair again and to hear further complaints. It behooves the Postmaster General to act so as to arrive at some conclusion. This place, sir, is situated in the county of Algoma which is worthily represented in the house by the chief whip of the party on your right, sir, that is, perhaps, an explanation. However, faced with these specific charges which were lodged by the Rev. Father Maynard and others, I think that the Postmaster General shows much indolence and a great lack of energy. Perhaps, there is some sound judgment mingled with it, however, as the matter stands, it does not show very much.
On May 16, 1932, Mr. Ross-the latter cannot be charged with partizanship, as he does not know French and is the district administrator of North Bay-states:


Ernest Lapointe: Is he a
post office employee?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Quite so,
he is an inspector. It is the official report of the district superintendent of North Bay, to the general superintendent of Postal services. He states:
There is no doubt that the postmaster has some prejudice against French Canadians; if he has not against every one; he has, at all events, against the French element of his locality and has shown very little tact in his dealings with these people.

4970	COMMONS
Supply-Post Office-Outside Service


Jean-François Pouliot: Shame 1
shame!


Ernest Lapointe: Is that the report of an official of the Post Office Department?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Quite so. It is the report of Mr. John C. Ross, district superintendent to the general superintendent of postal services.
It is then unnecessary to search for a mare's nest and await charges to follow. Moreover, the hon. Postmaster General has the complete file before him and he can ascertain the wording of the complaints. On April 8, 1932, the Rev. Father Maynard wrote to the Postmaster General. I do not wish to insert in Hansard the whole letter, which is very long, however, the Rev. Father expresses himself in the following terms:
Often, complaints were lodged with the Post Office Department in connection with the post office of Missanabie. We have received promises that there would be improvement-
They are, perhaps, in the nature of the promises that the distinguished leader of the hon. minister made previous to the 1930 election. They are always promises of improvement but nothing coming out of them.
-but we have had, up to now, no satisfactory results.
The cause of the faulty service at the post office of Missanabie dates from when Mr. Stuart was appointed postmaster. Mr. Stuart has only been residing in Missanabie a few years. Up to last autumn he was the Hudson Bay's factor. From the day he arrived in Missanabie, Mr. Stuart, carried on an unrelenting war against Mr. Arthur Cote to rob him of his store customers.
Things were so unpleasant for Mr. Cotd, that he left the place.
Since Mr. Stuart has become postmaster he has ostensibly renewed his antipathy for French Canadians. Last month he roughly handled a young man-
The hon. Postmaster General knows to what I am alluding to.
-a crippled young man, a French Canadian, who presented himself at the post office to claim his mail. . . .
The following is another complaint. Mr. Arthur Godon, of Missanabie, had requested from the chief of police a letter of recommendation on his good standing. . . .
It is exactly the letter to which the hon. Postmaster General alluded just now. One may doubt the report of the inspector, to the effect that the letter in question had been unsealed but that the one who had opened it, Mrs. Stuart, had not read it. The hon. Postmaster General does not expect that we are going to gulp down that story. It was a most important letter concerning Mr. Stuart

himself as regards complaints made against him. Mrs. Stuart was well aware that the magistrate would forward this letter to the person it was addressed, and I am quite convinced that she did it knowingly, willingly and with the purpose of finding out what it contained. I shall continue the letter of the Rev. Father Maynard:
With this information you may realize, sir, that a change is necessary. French Canadians have a right to be treated with respect and justice.
With such a letter it is unnecessary to bring further complaints, so as to have an avalanche of them, to stir the sound judgment but, especially the energy of the hon. Postmaster General and to continue the inquiry. The inquiry had been started it should have continued.
Some time later-as the file shows-on May 26, 1932, the hon. Postmaster General wrote to the Rev. Father Maynard as follows:
I wish to refer to your letter of April 8, in connection with the administration of the Missanabie post office.
An inspector of the superintendent's office, at North Bay, recently visited your locality, and I understand he had an interview with you. The postmaster was warned about the complaints to which his attitude gave rise among his French Canadian post office clients. . . .
Naturally, the Postmaster General, notwithstanding all these complaints, will admonish him a little. He makes promises to the Rev. Father Maynard and imagines that the Canadians will rest content with admonitions and promises.
The postmaster was warned about the complaints to which his attitude gave rise among his French Canadian post office clients and I trust that this warning will have a beneficial and lasting effect.
It is rather a weak explanation.


Arthur Sauvé: Will the hon. member allow me to point out another fact to him.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Certainly.


Arthur Sauvé: I forgot to state, just now, that Mr. Stuart was granted leave to go to England to visit his sick mother. He returned a month ago.


Ernest Lapointe: He seems to be ill himself.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Before the postmaster left for England much water had run under the bridge. The Postmaster General showed little backbone; however, I trust that when the report is complete, he will give proof of a little more backbone. On May 25, the Rev. Father Maynard wrote to the Postmaster General the following letter. However, the

Supply-Post Office-Outside Service
Postmaster General took great pains not to include it in the returns tabled in the house. This letter does not appear on the file which was asked and tabled in the house. Father Maynard thus expresses himself:
I have just received your answer to my letter of April 8, last, complaining of the postmaster at Missanahie and strongly requesting his dismissal-
The Rev. Father Maynard had requested his dismissal.

on unimpeachable evidence. May I state that the settlement of this question-such as you state in your letter-does not satisfy those concerned, and with cause.
Yet, the hon. Postmaster General maintains that his judgment is sound and that he is particularly well provided with backbone. He has never done anything. Let us return to the letter. The Rev. Father mentions two grievances, and he has unimpeachable evidence.
And with this unimpeachable evidence you, the Postmaster General, are satisfied with a simple admonition against this enemy of the French Canadians, this strange brazen-faced person, while all wish that he be deprived of the management of the post office.
It is most unfortunate that one of our race, who could protect so easily the interest of our people, sacrifice them. We are moreover sufficiently scoffed at by the English element in all our dealings, not to do justice, at least, to our people in such a flagrant case.
The Rev. Father Maynard, who is a member of the eminent society of Jesuits, does not mince his words; he, perhaps, remembers that he is a soldier. Moreover, sir, he uses a very strong and appropriate term which, unfortunately is not parliamentary. I therefore do not wish to confide it to Hansard, in order that I may not be requested to withdraw it.
We shall remember-
Let us say here that there is a very energetic term which describes admirably the situation.
-this lack of energy on your part when the occasion offers.
I think, sir, if the hon. Postmaster General wished to prove that he 'had backbone and had been willing, he could have settled this case to the satisfaction of all who lodged complaints. Notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Stuiart went over to Europe to visit his sick mother, the inquiry could have been continued, even before his departure, but, especially, it could 'be continued now. I trust that the Postmaster General, with the complete returns he has, containing such scathing reprimands, will first give proof of his sound judgment and energy or energy and judgment or both together and that he will remedy the intolerable situation existing at Missanabie, 53719-314J
so that those of our people who guide public opinion and enjoy the confidence of the people may continue to do so.


Ernest Lapointe: Will my
hon. friend allow me to put a question? Has he any statistics as regards the proportion of French speaking people in that locality?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I have not the figures with me. The French population of that district is quite large, it is quite a large proportion. I could not state exactly what it is, however, the French influence in that district is considerable.


Mr. VALLANCE:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct the attention of the minister to a situation which exists no doubt throughout Canada, but which does exist in that part of Canada west of the great lakes. The transportation companies are practising economies by the cutting down of train services, especially on the branch lines throughout western Canada. Because of this reduction in railway service we are receiving a rather limited postal service. The branch line upon which I happen to live was built some twenty years ago. Originally we had a passenger train and a mixed train daily with a daily .mail delivery both east and west. This service has since been reduced to tri-weekly. There are other instances where the service has been reduced to bi-weekly. Because of these reductions in service the business men of the communities find themselves without the necessary postal accommodation, and I was wondering if it would be possible for the Post Office Department to consider the possibility of putting on a truck or automobile service in order to provide the necessary postal accommodation. Will the minister and his officials give consideration to this question?


Arthur Sauvé: The Post Office Department
is not responsible for the situation which has been created by the railways. In some cases where the railway service has been cut we have put on a special service and I hope that within a few months the situation of which my hon. friend complains will be remedied.


John Vallance: I appreciate and admit the argument advanced by the minister that the Post Office Department is not responsible for the economies being practised by the railway companies but it seems to me that this department of government which always boasts of the manner in which its business is carried on will be jeopardizing its efficiency if it does not take cognizance of these conditions. I suggest in my humblest way that the minister and the officials of his department
4972	COMMONS
Supply-Post Office-Outside Service
give consideration' to this question because it is working a hardship upon the business men located on these branch lines who are receiving only three mails a week and sometimes only two,, whereas the previous service was daily. They find; it impossible to carry on business under these conditions. I leave the matter with the minister for his consideration.


Arthur Sauvé: We are considering it.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Now that Mr. Stuart has returned to this country, the hon. Postmaster General would be very gracious if he would inform the house when he has the intention to continue the inquiry and when he expects to receive a report.


Arthur Sauvé: My hon. friend will recognize-he has had much public experience-that it is not always an easy matter to act quickly. Certain difficulties arise in a country composed of various elements like ours. The hon. member also knows that in the course of my few years in public life, I have never missed the opportunity to champion the cause of my compatriots, and this to the utmost. It is neither at my age nor at this phase. of my public life that I will become a traitor to their interests; however, conscious of my responsibility in the administration of the country, I think I am justified in talcing all possible means-I am not referring to violent means, my character is not such nor am I an extremist-to reach a settlement of this question, as I have done in the past without making a display of patriotism, and to work on behalf of my compatriots in Ontario, and, my own people know it. My character has not changed and the hon. member may rest assured of one thing, that, before long, he may, perhaps, have to reconsider the remarks he made this evening, when he again refers to the part I played in the final settlement of the question raised to-day.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I have never doubted the sincerity of the hon. Postmaster General. I have a great respect for his long and fruitful career. Only deeds speak louder than words.


Jean-François Pouliot: Hear, hear.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: If the hon. Postmaster will state that he has really the intention to settle as soon as possible this affair I shall be quite satisfied. If the hon. Postmaster will state that he has really the intention to settle this affair, I shall take hi.% word for it. Only let him remember that deeds speak louder than words.
IMr. Vallanee.]


Alphonse Fournier: I expected that the hon. Postmaster General would give some explanation-


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I would very much like that the minister be given an opportunity to reply to my question.


Arthur Sauvé: If members opposite would give me an opportunity and especially time. I cannot reply to everybody in the same breath.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Quite so.


Arthur Sauvé: I would not like the hon. member for Ottawa to think that I do not wish to reply because through courtesy I allowed the hon. member for Hull to address the house.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Quite so. But it was perhaps very much to the point.


Arthur Sauvé: The hon. member is clever, he has that reputation. He is also moderate in his views. That is how he has acquired some prestige in the house.
I know what I intended to convey; I can promise him one thing: I shall continue to look after this case with all the discernment possible, and I trust-I repeat it-that the hon. member will not have cause to reproach me next session.	.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I wish to thank the hon. Postmaster General.


Alphonse Fournier: When the house adjourned, I was explaining to the hon. Postmaster General the appointment of Mr. William Peck of Val-des-Bois, in Hull county. When the examination for this position was announced, the examiner came to Val-des-Bois. Three candidates presented themselves for the test. They were given marks on their test and classified by the examiner. The candidate who received the least marks, Mr. William Peck, was given the position. In a letter which the general superintendent of postal services wrote to the district superintendent, he pointed out to him that:
Representations have been received by the Postmaster General concerning applicant Peck, who, it is noted, is not considered by the investigating officer as having the necessary bilingual qualifications.
This matter has been examined and the department considers that, provided the assistant postmaster can fully take care of the bilingual requirements of the office, there would appear to be no objection to Mr. Peck's appointment if he is otherwise a recommendable applicant.
Under the circumstances


Arthur Sauvé: Will the hon. * member speak louder?

Supply-Post Office-Outside Service


Alphonse Fournier: -the district superintendent is requested to look into the situation further and if in the light of the above remarks his report can be amended, he will please make the necessary alteration and return it to the department.
This report was made following a request of the Civil Service Commission to. the Post Office Department in connection with the result of the examination. I do not know whether the examiner altered his report after the remarks of the superintendent, but I do know that a few days later, the commission announced the appointment of Mr. Peck, in the following terms:
This is to certify that the person named hereon has been selected to fill the position named above, after examination in conformity with the provision of the Civil Service Act and of the rules and regulations made thereunder; is qualified to be appointed on probation at the salary shown above.
If the hon. Postmaster General will refer to the file, he will note that the two other candidates had a higher rating and were better classified than Mr. Peck. I wish to inquire from the Postmaster General why the department appointed to this position the least qualified candidate? He is an English-speaking person who does not know a word of French, who resides in an exclusively French Canadian parish, 50 miles distant from Ottawa. There are a few German families but the majority are French Canadians. Mr. Morin and Mr. Larocque were better qualified. Mr. Larocque was even recommended by the parish priest. Mr. Peck who does not speak a word of French was appointed. I think the hon. Postmaster General might explain the reason of this appointment.


Ernest Lapointe: Another
question awaiting settlement.


Arthur Sauvé: To my regret the remarks of the hon. member did not all reach my ear; however, I can furnish him with the following information: Mr. Peck replaced Mr. Morin as postmaster. The latter was dismissed at the request of Mr. Noel Beauchamp, who charged him with political partizanship. It was proved that Mr. Morin had meddled in politics. Mr. Peck therefore replaced him. The hon. member contends that Mr. Peck does not speak or understand a word of French. I must say that I am rather surprised at that statement and, immediately after the session, I shall make a personal inquiry in this connection. I may state that, if an injustice has been done, if it was a case of partizanship in the appointment of Mr. Peck, and if he cannot speak
French in the midst of a French Canadian population, I shall see that the case is settled.


Alphonse Fournier: The hon. Postmaster General can look over the report of the examiner. I got my information from the returns furnished by the department and, this report states that Peck does not speak or understand French.


Arthur Sauvé: I shall quickly settle the matter.


Ernest Lapointe: It should never have happened. It has already lasted too long.


Arthur Sauvé: There are precedents.


Ernest Lapointe: Not so far as I am concerned.


Maurice Brasset: I would like to draw the attention of the Postmaster General to another matter. A few days ago I received a letter from the hon. postmaster General in connection with mail transportation from 1'Anse-arBeaufils to Val-d'Espoir, in the county of Gaspe. The hon. Postmaster General informed me that the post office at Val-d'Espoir only brought in a revenue of $96 per year and that, consequently, he could not establish a daily mail service between. l'Anse-a-Beaufils and Val-d'Espoir. .
I received, to-day, a letter from the parish>
priest who requests me to insist with the-Postmaster General to have a daily mail service. If the hon. Postmaster General will! permit me, I shall read the letter received this morning:
Sir,-
In reply to your letter of the 2nd instant, I must express my thanks for your entreaties with the Postmaster General. The report which the Postmaster General gave you is that of March 31, 1930, to March 31, 1931; the revenue -was .$96.45. That year there were 60 families at Val-d'Espoir. Last year, namely, from March 31. 1931, to March 31, 1932, the revenue was $104. There were that year 68 families.
This year, there are 151 families. It seems to me that this should be sufficient to permit our having our mail every day.
He adds that there are postal money orders at l'Anse-a-Beaufils but not at Val-d'Espoir. He further requests a regular post office at Val-d'Espoir where there are at present 160 families. They are families that have settled here and they always look forward, as a-, pastime, to the mail. I would request the hon. Postmaster General, owing to the earnest entreaties of the local parish priest and other persons, to take the matter into serious consideration and see if he could not establish
4974	COMMONS
Supply-Post Office-Outside Service
a daily mail service between. l'Anse-a-Beaufils and Val-d'Espoir also a regular post office in the latter place.
Mr. SAUViE (Translation): Would the hon. member have any objection in sending me over a copy of the letter he has just read so as to have it on file?


Maurice Brasset: I shall hand over this letter to the hon. Postmaster General.


Arthur Sauvé: I shall consider the suggestions of the hon. member in the best disposition possible.


Mr. NEILL:: I wish to say a few words that may not be strictly in order on this vote but I think I can say them in a shorter time than might be spent wrangling over a point of order. I wish to call the attention of the house to the indefensible waste of public money in having two fully equipped independent post offices in this building, within ten feet of each other. I wonder where anywhere in the whole world you could find a parallel condition. The most easterly one has a clientele at the most of ninety-six, and very often, as the records show, of not more than fifty, with perhaps a dozen officials as well. We have in our post office sufficient men who are competent to do the whole thing. The saving may not amount to more than $10,000, and $10,000 out of $345,000,000 is not a very big item, but it is the look of the thing. In these days of low incomes and high taxation people look at that sort of thing and they do not like it. It is the sort of thing that might suddenly sweep the country. Suppose some of the C.C.F. went about the country saying: "These two old parties have been perpetrating a thing like that for the last thirty years." A British government was defeated on a snap vote on a question of cordite. It was a trivial thing, there was no war on at the time, but there was a sudden flare-up and the government was defeated. It is the appearance of the thing I want to get at. If we allow these things to go on right under our nose, it will be argued, what will we do in bigger things. I am not saying anything against any official; I am simply saying that one post office would be ample for both houses.	*


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just one word in respect to that matter. For fifteen years that subject has been engaging the attention of successive governments. When the estimates were being prepared two years ago I had a report made on it. Not only has an effort been made with respect to that but also with respect to the accountant's office. It has been urged that there should not be two ac-

countants' offices for the Senate and the House of Commons; with the retirement of one of the officials an effort will be made to merge them into one, and with the retirement of one postmaster an effort will be made to bring about the reform to which the hon. gentleman has referred. But there are great difficulties in' the way. I think my predecessor made some effort in the same direction, but the Senate is a body that has a mind of its own when it comes to the question of dispensing with its post office. That I think is a short way of putting it.


Alan Webster Neill: We hold the purse strings.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know, but they also
claim the right to a post office.


Mr. GIROUARD (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, I wish to draw the attention of the hon. Postmaster General to a request just received. I could not better put my request than by reading a resolution of the parish council of Ste. Anne du Sault, county of Arthabaska. This resolution is as follows:
At a general and regular meeting of the municipal council of the parish of Ste-Anne-du-Sault, held in the ordinary place and at the regular hour of the council's meetings, Monday, May 1, 1933, at 7 p.m., those present being his worship, the mayor Alphonse Boissonnault and Messrs, the councillors Oscar Gentes, Pierre Sicard, Felix Nil Soucy, Joseph Morin, Alfred Loranger and Emile Beaudet, forming a quorum under the chairmanship of the mayor.
Whereas there is at present a refreshifying movement taking place in the province of Quebec and, that it would be well-timed to change the name of Bulstrode station for a French name, it is moved by councillor Oscar Gentes, seconded by councillor Pierre Sicard, that a request be made by the council to the management of the Canadian National Railways, also to the Postmaster General, at Ottawa, to change the name of the station and that of the post office, at present Bulstrode Station, to that of DeFoy.
Carried
(Signed) Alphonse Boissonnault,
Mayor.
(Signed) Maurice Plourde,
Sec,-Treas.
True copy.
Maurice Plourde,
Sec.-Treas.
It is simply a question of changing the name of the post office to that of De Foy. I must inform the Postmaster General that it is an entirely French Canadian parish, and I trust that he will be gracious enough to make the change.


Arthur Sauvé: For some time past we have been making changes and we shall continue.


Mr. BOUCHARD (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, I wish to apologize to the committee

Supply-Post Office-Outside Service
for drawing the attention of the hon. Postmaster General to an old or stale question. However, I always wonder whether the power of dismissal of the Postmaster General, which is quite extensive, is not out-weighed by his power of reinstatement of those whe were dismissed. At present, I do not wish to dwell, at length, on the absolutely unfair dismissal of the postmaster of Kamouraska, Mr. Edouard Guy. Much of the evidence is contradicted by affidavits, however, I do not intend to refer again to that particular phase. When the hon. Postmaster General appointed Mr. Louis Langlois, as postmaster of Kamouraska-naturally, he is one of his good supporters-I wondered whether he took the trouble to go through the entire file and whether he discovered that Mr. Langlois had been dismissed after an inquiry, not for political partisanship, as shown here, but because he had despatched by mail, free of postage, defamatory literature to the address of my predecessor in the house, the hon. Justice Stein. Therefore, he disregarded the regulations of the Post Office department in mailing these circulars without affixing any postage stamps. The literature was of a political nature. Consequently it was a political offence. I am given to understand that in this connection the hon. Postmaster General is very lenient-especially when they affect the Conservative party-there was, however, a flagrant disregard of the postal regulations. If I make such an inquiry, it is not that I wish to criticize the hon. Postmaster General's actions, but I wonder whether he took the trouble to thoroughly examine the file.


Arthur Sauvé: When was he reinstated? In what year?


Joseph Georges Bouchard: He was
dismissed about 1924, after a thorough inquiry.


Arthur Sauvé: In what year was he reinstated?


Joseph Georges Bouchard: He was reinstated in 1931. If I ask this question, it is because I am aware that the hon. Postmaster General has a very generous disposition and that if any document in the file escaped his eye, he may have an opportunity to verify the facts and act accordingly.


Arthur Sauvé: Had the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Bouchard) drawn my attention to this matter in 1931, I would have sifted the case thoroughly and given him an answer. I promise him to thoroughly examine this case and shall give him an answer next time.


Mr. TOTZKE:: I wish to ask the Postmaster General a question or two in connection with
the dismissal of a postmaster which I brought to the minister's attention last year. Before putting my question I wish to quote what the minister said in reply last year.


Arthur Sauvé: What case?


Albert Frederick Totzke: The Jansen case. It took me about half an hour to present the case and I think I successfully proved that the dismissal had been very unjust. The minister replied to me in two sentences, but his remarks were very much to the point and I did expect as a result of his remarks to get some action. His remarks will be found at page 3163 of Hansard of May 20, 1932:
Mr. Sauve:	In answer to the hon. member
for Humboldt (Mr. Totzke), all I can say is that my remarks in Montreal explained my feeling at that time and at the present time. I am sorry if a misunderstanding has arisen in the case mentioned by my hon. friend, and I shall be very glad to go further into the matter.
In view of all the circumstances I think it was justifiable that the minister should go further into that matter and see if anything could be done to rectify .the injustice. I would like to ask the minister if he took any steps to find out whether anything could be done to restore that post office to .that man.


Arthur Sauvé: I will review the case and give an explanation on Monday.


Albert Frederick Totzke: 1 have another case that I would like to bring to the attention of .the minister. This is in connection with the post office at Alvena, Saskatchewan. The postmaster at this office was charged with political partisanship by the defeated Conservative candidate on October 8, 1930. The postmaster denied the charge and furnished declarations to that effect, but he was later dismissed in spite of this and in spite of the report of the district superintendent in which he says:
I circulated the patrons of the Alvena office on November 14, asking for an expression of opinion as to service rendered and whether or not the charges made were correct. To date sixty replies have been received, and of the patrons responding forty-six have expressed satisfaction with Mr. Slusar and his conduct of the office. The remaining fourteen claim that Mr. Slusar is not capable of handling the business since the post office has assumed new importance. He is said to be very slow in the sorting of mail and writing of money orders, owing to bis lack of education, and to be, at times, disobliging and impolite. Complaint has also been made as to the present location of the office, which is across the railway tracks from the rest of the village.
The inspector was sent out, and the report further states:
In several replies to my circular-
1976	COMMONS
Supply-Post Office-Outside Service
The superintendent had sent out circulars to the various patrons of the office.
-it was intimated that the complainants were making an effort to have Mr. Slusar removed from his position so that they, or some one of them, might obtain charge of the office, and that Mr. Peter Drabinasty, garage man, was the leader of this agitation. This seems borne out by the fact that several replies to my circular are in this man's handwriting although signed by different parties. The same implication was made to Mr. Cumming,-
That is the inspector.
-and it was suggested by Mr. Dmetro Andrunyk, general merchant, and Mr. J. Gray, agent of the Searle Elevator Company (both considered to be men of dependable judgment) that it would be doubtful if a change for the better could be made at the present time on account of the general character of the persons available for the position. Experience has shown that the postmaster in a community of this kind is particularly the target for criticism.
Further on in his report the superintendent says:
I am doubtful if the present postmaster will prove able to rise to the responsibilities of this office and provide satisfactory service for the business of the growing village, but I think that no action should be taken against him at the present time.
That is the report of the district superintendent. I may say from my own personal knowledge of this particular office and the community that the report is quite correct. I know that when they did appoint a successor ,to this postmaster he was not as well able to carry on the business of the office as the previous postmaster. But in spite of this report of the superintendent an investigation was ordered into the charges of political partisanship, and the commissioner who held the investigation was again in this case, as in the case of the Jansen post office, the brother of the defeated Conservative candidate. Evidence was taken by this commissioner, and two witnesses were called. One mentioned that when he heard the remarks of the postmaster which were the basis of the charge of partisanship there were two men present whose names 'he mentioned, and who had heard the remarks at the same time. After the evidence was taken the postmaster secured declarations from these two men who were supposed to have heard him make the remarks, and forwarded them to the Post Office Department, and both men in their declarations say that the evidence given was incorrect. They both say:
I was at no political meeting at any time in Alvena during 1930 and at no time did the said Slusar talk politics to me or in my presence.

This, as I have said, was sent to the Postmaster General, and he was asked by the commissioner for advice as to whether further investigation, should be made. On May 12 a letter was sent to the commissioner, and there was no reply to that, but in spite of the production of new evidence and the desire of the postmaster to have it considered the order was issued that the postmaster should be dismissed and another man appointed in his place. I would like to ask the Postmaster General if he did give consideration to those declarations, which practically nullify all the evidence that was taken before the commissioner, and if he did after consideration of those declarations decide that there should be no further investigation?


Arthur Sauvé: Mr. Slusar was dismissed on
the charge of political partisanship. The charge was denied by the postmaster and was investigated by Commissioner Wilson on the 29th of April, 1931. He was found guilty on four counts: that the postmaster made partisan remarks among a number of persons at a meeting held in Alvena in the interests of the Conservative candidate for the purpose of inducing them to support the Liberal candidate; that the postmaster tried to induce persons to support the Liberal candidate; that the postmaster in the winter of 1930-31 at his store premises in the presence of at least three persons attacked the present administration with the intent of affecting the political views of persons present; and that during the provincial election campaign in 1929, on the store and post office premises the postmaster pointed out to an elector the advisability of voting for the Liberal party. He consequently was found guilty by the commissioner, and I followed the rule established by my predecessors. As to the new postmaster, I must say that the question raised by the hon. member is occupying the attention of the department, and we will continue to give attention to and review the case.


Albert Frederick Totzke: The hon. minister has not got my point at all. Perhaps in trying to be brief I have not put it very clearly. The minister just gave a review of the charges and the evidence heard and the finding of the commissioner. I was asking if the minister did consider the declarations that were sent in by the two men who had been stated by one witness as having been present and heard these remarks alleged to have been made by the postmaster. They denied that they had been present at the meeting, which to my mind absolutely nullifies the evidence given by the

Supply-Post Office-Outside Service
one witness. Did the Postmaster General give any consideration to that fact?


Arthur Sauvé: Yes, I understand that is what happened, and I understand that the former postmaster has made a complaint against the acting postmaster. The case of the former postmaster is settled; he has been replaced. However, in view of what has been said with regard to the administration of the new postmaster, we are disposed to review the case to see if we cannot satisfy my hon. friend.


Albert Frederick Totzke: I know the former postmaster was dismissed; I did not need to be told that. I am trying to find out why he was dismissed. I say that after the report of the inspector had been received by the department fresh evidence was brought in by means of these declarations, and I want to know if the minister considered that fresh evidence or if he just went on the report of the commissioner, who said:
You will note the witness George Zadvorny mentions two parties in his evidence named Michael Hrytzak and Bronko Zahretsky. These names do not correspond with the names mentioned in the declarations but the names are somewhat similar.
It is my belief that the reopening of the investigation would not result in a different finding than that I have already made notwithstanding the contents of the declarations. I shall not do anything further unless you instruct me otherwise.
In other words, the commissioner says that there would be no use in reopening the case, in spite of the fact that the evidence of one witness has been entirely nullified by the evidence contained in these declarations; he is determined to dismiss the postmaster on the evidence of one witness, despite the fact that the postmaster denied all the charges. Did the Postmaster General give consideration to the new evidence that was brought in?


Mr.   SAITVE@: AVe will proceed to review both cases.


Albert Frederick Totzke: I hope I will get some word in connection with this case before the year is up. In another case I waited for more than a year for a reply. My next case does not involve any question of political partisanship; the charge here is tampering with the mail, which I admit is a very serious charge. It appears that a number of samples of merchandise were sent to the post office at Lac Yert, in Saskatchewan. The postmaster there also conducts a general store, and has as a competitor another general merchant in the same village. The agent for the Kellogg food people had been through the village and had taken a list of names from the other merchant in connection with the distribution of samples of goods. When the samples arrived in the
office the postmaster's wife inadvertently, according to her claim, wrote the name of their own store on the packages in addition to the name of the other store which had been stencilled there. This lady claims that she did not notice the other name and said they had been expecting similar samples for distribution in connection with their own store. In this connection I should like to read the report of the district superintendent. After reviewing the whole situation this is what the superintendent says:
Mr. McRae has been postmaster at Lac Vert since June 6, 1921, and generally speaking, his services have been fairly satisfactory. My understanding is that he bears a good reputation in the district. He maintains that he had no knowledge whatever of what had been done by his wife in connection with the articles addressed to Mr. Rose, until advised by the addressee.
I am of the opinion that it would be hardly fair to the postmaster to carry out the drastic action demanded by Mr. Rose.
I would respectfully suggest that the postmaster be permitted to continue in charge of the office on the definite understanding that all duties pertaining to same must be performed in a fit and proper way and that should any further mistreatment of mail matter occur in the office, the question of declaring the postmastership vacant will be given immediate consideration.
Then the question arose as to whether the wife of the postmaster was correct in her contention that similar samples were expected for distribution from their store; that matter was investigated and it was found on inquiry of the Kellogg people that this was quite true. There is nothing on the file after that, no report, no suggestion, no request of any kind on the part of anyone that the postmaster be dismissed, until December 9, 1932. Then I find a memorandum from the Postmaster General to the deputy postmaster-general which reads as follows:
Referring to reports submitted by the district superintendent of postal service at Saskatoon, concerning complaints made in regard to the mistreatment of mail matter at the Lac Vert post office, will the deputy postmaster general please take steps to remove the present incumbent from office.
After the superintendent had written to the department advising that the postmaster be kept in charge of that office and given another chance the Postmaster General, without apparent reason, issued an order that the postmaster should be dismissed. I should like to ask the Postmaster General what his reasons were for overruling the recommendation of his district superintendent.


Arthur Sauvé: The inspector claims that
the postmaster's wife was at fault. AVe will consider the report and see what it is possible to do.
4978	COMMONS
Supply-Post Office-Outside Service


Albert Frederick Totzke: Does the Postmaster General say that the man has not been permanently removed?


Arthur Sauvé: I understand that the man
was dismissed because the matter was considered sufficiently serious to justify that action.


Albert Frederick Totzke: I understand that it was considered sufficiently serious to justify dismissal but I should like to know why the Postmaster General undertook to dismiss the man contrary to the recommendation of his inspector that this man should be retained in the office. What reasons had the department for dismissing this postmaster after the superintendent had recommended that he be retained?


Arthur Sauvé: The department is not always bound to follow the recommendations of the superintendent.


Albert Frederick Totzke: I realize that. But as a
rule does not the department take into consideration the report of the superintendent after he has sent out an inspector to the office to interview the patrons, and after he has given his best judgment to the various conditions that exist on the strength of which he makes his report? I know very well the superintendent in the Saskatoon district and he is one of the fairest men Whom I have met in the service. He makes excellent reports with regard to everything that happens, and I am convinced that if the superintendent, fair and unbiased as he is, had considered this a very serious breach of the postal regulations, he would not have recommended the retention of the man. I want to know what prompted the minister in spite of all this to dismiss this postmaster.


Arthur Sauvé: He had committed a serious breach of the regulations and in any event we are not bound to accept the report of the superintendent. It is a matter of departmental judgment.


Albert Frederick Totzke: I am free to admit that
perhaps the reports of the superintendent are not always followed; but what request or report prompted the minister to dismiss this man after the superintendent had recommended that he be retained? I can scarcely conceive that for his more or less trivial offence he should have been dismissed. It was only one complaint. The only complaint that had been made was in connection with the writing of the name of the postmaster's store on these samples, and I am informed that only three or four of them got out that way, and as soon it was drawn to his attention the error was 
rectified. Moreover, the mistake was not made by the postmaster himself but by the assistant postmaster. I should like to know what the minister based the dismissal on.


Arthur Sauvé: The department does not
consider the error trivial.


Albert Frederick Totzke: In that event, there are
certain regulations that must be followed. I take it that the superintendent at Saskatoon would follow those regulations, and if there was not any room for the exercise of discretion on the part of the Postmaster General there certainly would not have been a report like this from the district superintendent at Saskatoon. The action of the Postmaster General leads me to believe that there must have been something, some report from someone, which does not appear on the file.


Arthur Sauvé: I will review the facts and
I hope to give my hon. friend an explanation that will satisfy him.


Albert Frederick Totzke: I thank the minister, and
again I trust it will not be until next year that I shall have to wait.


Sir EUGENE FISET (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. Postmaster General be so kind, as to inform me whether he has received the letter forwarded to him the other day, requesting certain information in connection with the transportation of mail between St-Fabien station and the post office and, if so, may I expect a reply in the near future.


Arthur Sauvé: I certainly
received the letter of the hon. member and transmitted it to Mr. Anderson's branch who is making inquiries on the subject.


Mr. YOUNG:: I have here the auditor general's report for the year ended March 31, 1932, and I notice that the revenue from stamps and post cards amounted to $27,000,000 odd. How much of that was derived from stamps for other than postal purposes?


Arthur Sauvé: We cannot segregate the amount. They were excise stamps.


Edward James Young: Can the minister tell us, then, whether the department operated at a profit or at a loss last year?


Arthur Sauvé: We expect a surplus.


Edward James Young: The previous year there was a deficit of over $2,000,000. Does the minister expect a surplus this year?


Arthur Sauvé: Yes.


Edward James Young: For the year ended March 31 past?

Supply-Post Office-Outside Service


Arthur Sauvé: About $600,000.


Edward James Young: How much money is invested in post office buildings throughout the country?


Arthur Sauvé: It depends upon the policy of the Public Works department.


Edward James Young: Can the minister tell me in dollars and cents?


Arthur Sauvé: No.


Edward James Young: Has any other department spent money in connection with post' office work and if so how much?


Arthur Sauvé: I cannot answer that question.


Edward James Young: I have the estimates for this year and I notice on page 32 under the Department of Public Works, item 113, six subitems. One is for public buildings outside Ottawa: heating, light, power, rents, salaries of caretakers, engineers, firemen and so forth, supplies for caretakers, engineers, firemen and so on, amounting to $5,000,000 odd. How much of that is for post office buildings?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I do not think that is relevant to the discussion; that would come up under public works.


Edward James Young: I understood that there was one item reserved under each department in connection with which we might ask any question.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member may ask the question if there is no objection from the committee.


Arthur Sauvé: Those accounts are not charged to the department.


Edward James Young: I shall have to ask for a return next session.


John Vallance: Has the department of the Postmaster General ever figured out at what cost it has carried other departments of government in connection with postal services to those departments?


Arthur Sauvé: About $1,000,000.


John Vallance: Would that $1,000,000 cover what is expended by the Public Works department in the interests of the Post Office department?


Arthur Sauvé: I cannot say.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: Would the hon. Postmaster General inform the house as to how many employees over 65 years old are still retained in the department and what is the total amount of salary they draw?


Arthur Sauvé: The hon. member will readily recognize that it is preferable to put such questions, regularly, in
the course of the session. Had he done so, we could have made inquiries and given him the information now asked for. He will admit that it is impossible to answer on the spur of the moment a question of that nature without having previously made some inquiries.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: The
hon. Postmaster General is usually well informed. He has on the tip of his fingers all the details of the administration of his department. No douibt, without giving exact figures, he could possibly state approximately the number of employees in his department who are over 65 years old and also give approximately the amount they draw,


Arthur Sauvé: We are at
present making a complete census and I am not so conceited enough as to think that I can inform the House on every detail of my department which comprises more than 40,000 employees.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: I understand that, according to the Civil Service Act, when an employee has reached the age of 65, he can be superannuated.


Arthur Sauvé: Yes.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: However, his superannuation is left to the discretion of the Minister in charge of the department.


Arthur Sauvé: At 70, he is obliged to retire. But at the age of 65, it is a question for the department to decide according to the administration's interests involved.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: With
your kind permission, sir, I wish to point out to the house the case of the retirement of an employee of the Post Office department. I think that in the present case, the hon. Postmaster General used his discretion as head of a department to get rid of an excellent employee, fulfilling his duty well, enjoying all his faculties both physically and mentally, because there was no cause to retire him. It is unnecessary to state that this employee was guilty of being a Liberal. He took no active part in politics as he was of a too scrupulous and conscientious temperament; he could not be got rid of on the usual pretence of political partisanship.
However, as soon as he reached the age of 65, the hon. Postmaster General invited him to retire. The employee referred to is Robert Carrier, a brother of an ex-member in this house for the county of Levis. Mr. Robert
4980	COMMONS
Supply-Post Office-Outside Service
Carrier was postmaster at Levis. The retirement of Mr. Carrier was very unfair owing to the circumstances connected with it. He was postmaster at Levis during 26 or 27 years. Up to two years or three years ago, the Levis postmaster was not considered in the civil service and therefore not entitled to a pension. However, two or three years ago, the Levis post office was classified among the city post-offices, thereafter Mr. Carrier was called upon to contribute to the civil service pension fund, he was therefore obliged to contribute, yearly, 5 per cent of his salary.
This year, the hon. Postmaster notified him that, for economical reasons, he was retiring him. Mr. Carrier replied that he would retire providing a pension was given him. The hon. Postmaster wrote to him that it was impossible to grant him a pension, notwithstanding his, contribution to the pension fund, because, to be entitled to a pension a civil servant must have contributed to the pension fund during 10 years and that he had only contributed to the fund for a few years.
Mr. Carrier requested to be left in charge of the post office until he had completed the ten years which the act stipulates in order to be entitled to a pension.
I think that, owing to the excellent services of Carrier, and the fact that no fault could be found against him both from the viewpoint of his work and political activity, the hon. Postmaster General should have allowed him to complete the ten years stipulated by the Act, in order to enable this good servant to draw a pension. The hon. Postmaster General may reply: we have granted him a gratuity. That is so, a gratuity of ten or eleven months of salary was granted to him. That is all he received, a lump or fixed sum, once for all. He was granted ten or eleven months' salary as a gratuity. One must bear in mind that, in truth, this gratuity is nothing else than the money Mr. Carrier contributed to the superannuation fund. It is his own money which was returned to him. It strikes me, that as there was nothing against the character or services of Mr. Carrier, who is still in excellent health and could have given ten or fifteen years more of service to this country, the hon. Postmaster should have allowed him to complete bis ten years so as to entitle him to a pension.
The reason given for retiring him from the service was the saving this change would effect.
I frankly admit that I cannot see what saving the minister can effect by retiring Mr. Carrier. First, a gratuity is granted to him, then the person who replaces him must be paid about the same salary. The same reasons were given when the deputy ministers of National Defence and Agriculture were superannuated. It is a

very queer economy to practise. Dr. Grisdale, deputy minister of Agriculture is superannuated with a pension of $6,000 or $7,000, and a. successor is appointed to whom a large salary is paid. The outcome of it all is that the government instead of making one disbursement makes two disbursements. That is called economy! The case of the national defence is still more flagrant, since, beside paying a pension to the retiring deputy minister, Col. Lafleche is paid a salary and a pension as a disabled veteran of the Great War. In the latter department the government makes three disbursements, while only one was made when Mr. Desbarats was deputy minister.


Arthur Sauvé: I am not responsible for that.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: In these three oases, those of Mr. Carrier, Mr. Desbarats and Dr. Grisdale, civil servants with long experience were superannuated, they were eminently qualified to carry on their duties, enjoying all their faculties and were still able to render great services to the government. I wish to again protest against the unfair way Mr. Carrier was treated, and I trust that in the future the hon. postmaster will show more consideration for these old employees. It is not because a few among them are liberals-[DOT] there are still in the Post Office Department a few liberals-that the hon. Postmaster General should take advantage of this discretional power to retire employees at the age of 65, and thus worry them, when he cannot find other reasons to do so.


Arthur Sauvé: I am greatly surprised to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger) in connection with the retirement of Mr. Carrier, postmaster at Levis. Why state in this house that Mr. Carrier was retired because of his political leanings?


Ernest Lapointe: Why was he retired?


Arthur Sauvé: Because such are the regulations. The opposition appeals to the government to economize, economize, economize! The Postmaster General, for three years, and especially this year, has been practising the strictest economy, with a will, but not pleasurably. Consequently, we have wiped out deficits, considerably decreased expenditure-close to $7,000,000-which corresponds to the policy advocated by the opposition, and resulting, this year, in a surplus of more than $500,000. Does this not please members of the opposition?


Ernest Lapointe: Instead of boasting of its deeds...

Supply-Post Office-Outside Service
'Mr. SAUV.E (Translation): Just 'a minute. The ex-Minister of Justice knows better. There are regulations at the Post Office Department and I assert-I am amazed that the hon. member for Belleehasse ignores it- that in no case of the superannuation of an employee is there displayed the least intention of condemning his political views. Mr. Carrier is one among others, Conservatives, Liberals and many others who, at the age of 65, are obliged to retire pursuant to the regulations adapted in the interest of the administration.
What is the hon. member for Belleehasse saying?


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: I was
speaking to the hon. member for Quebec East.
Mr. SAUVF. (Translation):	Is the hon.
member for Belleehasse prompting the hon. member for Quebec East?
At times, representations were made to the department, specially by postal employee's unions, to have the superannuation act amended-at the time Mr. Carrier was an employee of the Post office department-in order that employees who had not 10 years service, when leaving the service, for one Teason or another, might be reimbursed of the amount of their contribution, pursuant to the act.
At present, the only means-the hon. member will note that the system followed in the administration of the department deserves his approval-by which we can reimburse these contributions is by having the amount included in the estimates, and all employees are aware of this. I am astonished that Mr. Carrier who placed his case in the hands of the hon. member for Belleehasse was not better informed. It is a usual practice between the Department of Finance and the .councils or representatives of the various civil service associations. I repeat it, sir, with the thousands of employees in the service and the regulations adopted at the request of civil servants for better protection, we are obliged to-day, to observe these regulations, as we do the act. And in the best interests of the administration of the department, I *wish to inform hon. members of the opposition that from the economic viewpoint we *conform to the regulation, but we are not unfair to employees and such protests would not come from the Postal Employees Association neither from their council.
Again, I state, I am astonished that the hon. member for Belleehasse should think that the Postmaster General shows bad faith when he takes an interest in the welfare of his department.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): Oh! oh!


Arthur Sauvé: There was
just as much solicitude shown to the e* postmaster Carrier as to others. Conservatives received the same notice. All were on the same footing. Why endeavour, to-day, to reproach me for doing my duty, when it is well known that the aim we are pursuing in acting thus-


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: The
hon. Postmaster General will readily admit that he has an absolute discretional power as to retiring from the service an employee who is not over 70 years old. When a civil servant has reached the age of 65, the minister may superannuate him but it is optional. When a civil servant is over 70 years, the minister is obliged to superannuate him or request a special vote in the house. However, between 65 and 70 years the minister has an absolute discretional power, he may retire him but it is an optional matter. Such is the case of Mr. Carrier. That is why I contend that the retirement of Mr. Carrier is unfair because he was not allowed to complete the period of 10 years which would have entitled him to a pension. The hon. Postmaster General is well aware that there are in his department perhaps hundreds of employees who are over 65 years old and have not been superannuated. According to a report made recently to the house, there are in the government service, at present, 815 civil servants who are over 65 years old, and who draw, in salaries, almost $2,000,000. Out of this number there must be one third in the Post Office Department. Again, whatever may be said to the contrary. I am convinced that Mr. Carrier was retired because there was a desire to replace a Liberal by a Conservative and no fault could be found with him.
Mr. SAUViE (Translation): The appointment was made by the Civil Service Commission.


Ernest Lapointe: The hon.
Postmaster General informed us that he wished to practise strict economy; he rejoices in the result he is obtaining. Will he state in what consists the saving he realized by retiring Mr. Carrier? He has not informed the house.


Arthur Sauvé: I wish to be more serious in my reply than the' exMinister of Justice has been in his question.


Ernest Lapointe: It behooves the Postmaster General to leave jokes aside, it does not suit him.
4982	COMMONS
Supply-Post Office-Outside Service


Arthur Sauvé: I wonder who is the joker of the two?


Ernest Lapointe: I am not,
I have put a serious question.


Arthur Sauvé: No, it is not a serious one.


Ernest Lapointe: Is that so?


Arthur Sauvé: No.


Ernest Lapointe: We can treat you as you deserve, if you so desire,
I am asking a simple question and I would appreciate a polite reply.


Arthur Sauvé: The hon.
member for Quebec East will readily admit that it is impossible to state that the dismissal of Mr. Carrier, at the age of 65, will result in a definite revenue. No. However the number of such cases will permit the department to replace them by other employees, at present in the postal service, and ' this will dispense us from taking on new employees. That is what happened at Levis.
It is not an outsider that replaced Mr. Carrier, but a postal employee appointed by the Civil Service Commission. Moreover, the hon. member for Bellechasse will admit that when he states there are so many employees who are over 65 years old and still in the service of the department, he forgets one thing -I do not wish to impute that he shows bad faith-that we are making at present, a census in this respect. A number of them have been notified that their services will end six months hence, others in four months, and the result will be apparent at the end of the year.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Could the hon. Postmaster General state whether there are in his department employees who are more than 75 years old?


Arthur Sauvé: There is but
one and, because of the special service he renders to the members of this house and the department he is kept on.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: The hon. Postmaster General has given a reply to suit his purpose, however, the gentleman referred to draws a salary of $5,220 per year. He has never rendered me a service, neither have I ever asked him for one nor do I intend to do so. There must be another reason for retaining the services of this gentleman after he has reached the age of 75. Not only are there some in the Post Office Department, but they are to be found in other departments.

The employee referred to would be well advised to retire from the service. Can the postmaster deny that, in the course of this year, a number of postal employees who earned much less than $5,220, were superannuated? Some of them draw but very small pensions, others do not even draw any, as in the case of Mr. Carrier; while the gentleman referred to, who is far from being poor, could retire from the service with quite a nice pension and, thereby, permit others to be promoted by the Civil Service Commission. Instead of praising so highly his department and rather than dismissing employees with small salaries and granting them petty pensions or none, why does the hon. Postmaster General not exert himself to superannuate employees who have passed the age of 75 and should be retired, so as to permit other civil servants to be rewarded for their services? The hon. postmaster would be very gracious if he could explain this anomaly otherwise than by the reply he has just given now and which is not a reply.


Arthur Sauvé: The hon. member will readily recognize that the civil servant he refers to has had a long experience and is at the head of an extremely complicated service which we are almost entirely reorganizing, owing to the situation created by the suppression of a large number of trains or railway lines. The rural mail service is being reorganized. This extremely difficult organization needs much experience and even if the hon. member has not come in touch with this official, all members opposite, especially those who have been here any length of time, have had the opportunity of judging of his judicious qualities and his remarkable efficiency due, not only to his ability but especially to his experience.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Would
the hon. Postmaster General find himself in a difficult situation, if Providence, unfortunately, decreed .that he should be deprived of the services of this remarkable official! What difference would there be if he were superannuated?


Arthur Sauvé: We would find ourselves in the same situation as the people of Ottawa, if, to-morrow, they were deprived of their member.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: There is
an enormous difference between the two cases.


Mr. BRADETTE (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, as I have already stated, I think that the hon. Postmaster General does his utmost to help the vast region that I have the honour

Supply-Post Office-Outside Service
of representing in the house. I have but one case to submit to the hon. Postmaster General; it is not a question of politics but one of the site of a post office. I refer to Val-Gagne. About 10 months ago, Mrs. Sigouin, the postmistress, died. The people of this beautiful rural village expected that the post office would not be removed, as it was the most central place of this locality. The position was given to a person who has all the qualifications required for a postmaster; however, the choice of the new locality for the post office is not rational, if the aim is an efficient service to the population. I have no criticism to make as regards the person appointed; however, the village of Val-Gagne is located to the south of the T. N. & O railway, while the dhurch is located on this side, as well as all stores, public places, hotels, etc., and though nine-tenths of the population reside in this part of the village.
To-day, owing to the post office having been transferred across the railway, these good people must cross the double track. The hon. Postmaster General can realize the danger threatening these people and the poor service which will result. The son of Mrs. Sigouin, who resided at Ste-Agathe when his mother died, has taken up residence at Val-Gagne and manages the hotel that Mrs. Sigouin owned. This young man is a veteran of the great war. If I am not mistaken, he was even wounded at the front. He was a candidate for the position of postmaster. As I stated, at the outset of my remarks, I am aware that the department, in every possible way, has endeavoured to give the pioneer population of our region a most efficient service. However, to-day, in Val-Gagne, there is an anomaly which inflicts on the population a serious handicap and exposes them, in some measure of risk when they cross the tracks to get their mail, owing to the location of the post office. If the department could possibly, without clashing with the interests of anyone, restore the post office to its original site of two years ago or so, I think that such a step would please at least nine-tenths of the population of this fine new centre.


Arthur Sauvé: I am pleased to state that I have noted the valuable suggestions made by the hon. member for Temiskaming North (Mr. Bradette) and shall make it a point to see that the population of that region are given satisfaction.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I have a very pleasant duty to perform in offering my respects and warmest congratulations to all my colleagues, on this side of the house, who have laid before the hon. Postmaster General, their grievances, and, especially, to the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) who so ably set forth the Missanabie case. I also have another agreeable duty to fulfil, namely, to publicly thank my distinguished colleague and friend, the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) for the help he extended to me in the matter of getting all the returns which the house had ordered, in connection with the Missanabie post office. The trouble we were put to in order to obtain these returns, is unbelievable! Repeatedly, I had recourse to every possible means, I wrote to the minister's secretary and also complained to the house. Once even, the hon. Minister of Finance will recall, on a motion for the house to resolve itself into committee of supply, I broached this subject, by courtesy for the hon. Minister of Finance, I interrupted my remarks. Later I returned to the attack. I then was seconded by the hon. member for Quebec East; no doubt, the right hon. Prime Minister himself was stirred by the arguments we submitted to the house, to the effect that, when a vote is taken in the house ordering certain returns these must be brought down conscientiously and without reserve by the minister interested. I would not be surprised if the right hon. Prime Minister himself had intervened to remind his colleague that it was his duty to table all the documents belonging to the file referred to, without restriction or concealment, and in their entirety. Finally, that is what happened. I am thankful to the Postmaster General and have given him credit for it.
How does it happen that members are obliged to fight to obtain documents when their return is ordered by the House of Commons itself?
One thing struck me in reading over the Hansard, page 3960. When the Postmaster General stated, when I requested the tabling of these documents:
(Text);
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, I cannot say more to-day.
(Translation):
He went no further. However, I note in Hansard:
(Text):
I know the rule.
(Translation):
These words were added, as an after thought, and the following day, when the question again came before the house, the member for Temiseouata spoke as follows:
4984	COMMONS
Supply-Post Office-Outside Service
(Text):
The Postmaster General is reported as having said, "I know the rule." He did not say it.
(Translation):
I said: "He is dumb"-and it is not reported in Hansard.
This is what happened. Hansard twice was tampered with. I gave the Postmaster General the benefit of the doubt, I thought that he was ignorant of the rule, that this was his justification; notwithstanding that ignorance is no excuse before the law, I thought it could be an excuse in politics; I imagined that the Postmaster General was not aware of the rule. Was he boasting when he said he knew the rule? I quoted the case of Sully; why did the Postmaster General have so much trouble with the Sully case? He has himself to blame, for not conforming to the act, as the act obliged him to submit this case to the Civil Service Commission and he failed to do so; he proceeded by delays, decrees of all kinds and in an entirely different way than the one he should have adopted had he wished to do his duty.
He failed in his duty, he endeavoured to free himself from the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission, he resorted to all kinds of delays to prevent the Civil Service Commission from deciding who should be postmaster of that locality. And it was because the hon. Postmaster General refused to conform himself to the Act, in this case, that he met with difficulties. They are not yet ended, because, as he stated yesterday, he is in no way certain that the Privy Council will approve his proposal to pay Jean $100 so as to indemnify him for all the trouble he had to undergo owing to the fault, negligence, ill-doing of the Postmaster General himself.
That is not all. I requested the tabling of certain documents, or, in other words, I put a question which was changed into an order of the house for returns, on April 19, 1933. What was this question?
1.	How many postmasters have been dismissed since the month of August, 1930?
2.	How many postmasters have been appointed (a) temporarily; (b) permanently since the month of August, 1930?
At the beginning of the sitting, to-day, I inquired from the Postmaster General when he would reply to these questions. He answered: "As soon as possible." What a clever answer. I waited all day, until 10.15 this evening, to receive this anwer to this motion ordered by the house on April 19-
[Mr. Pouliot.l


Arthur Sauvé: Will the hon. member allow me? These answers were sent to Mr. Mulvey, to-day.


Jean-François Pouliot: So much the better. Thanks.. Better late than never. I wish to thank the Postmaster General for having at last, answered this question just as his estimates are about to be adopted. I have the answer here.
How many postmasters have been dismissed since the month of August, 1930?
788.
On the other hand note this:
How many postmasters have been appointed
(a)	temporarily
1,153.
(b)	permanently since the month of August, 1930?
3,035.
- If the Postmaster General has dismissed 788 employees, if he has only created 300 or 400 new post offices, how has he been able to appoint 1,153 temporary employees and 3,035 permanent employees? He shoved three pegs in each hole. Will the hon. Postmaster General answer this question?


Arthur Sauvé: I beg your pardon?


Jean-François Pouliot: I am asking the hon. Postmaster General how it happens that if he only dismissed 788 employees, he was able to appoint 1,153 temporary employees and 3,035 permanent employees, making a total of 4,188 appointments?


Arthur Sauvé: We dismissed more than 700 postmasters, it is true, however, the hon. member must not confuse the temporary and permanent employees. The temporary employees are appointed for two or three months, they are then replaced. We are obliged to reply to questions exactly as they are put to us.


Jean-François Pouliot: Let us discuss the permanent employees and leave out the 1,153 temporary ones. How can the hon. Postmaster General explain that he dismissed only 788 postmasters, that he created only 300 or 400 new post offices and that he was able to appoint 3,035 permanent postmasters? That is a puzzle!


Arthur Sauvé: The hon. member should know that these figures refer to the service all over Canada, the changes-


Jean-François Pouliot: The dismissals refer also to all Canada.


Arthur Sauvé: -deceases,
changes not connected with dismissals for political reasons.

Supply-Post Office-Outside Service


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, sir, if there are so many postmasters that die, I shall be forced to conclude that all the Liberals are poisoned. I think, sir, that the hon. Postmaster General's reply is not satisfactory and is unworthy of a cabinet minister. I shall let those who heard the explanation given by the Postmaster General judge of their worth and shall not insist any further on the subject, because I do not wish to unduly delay the adoption of the estimates.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@Translation: Is the item carried?


Jean-François Pouliot: No, no! I have still further questions to ask. I wish to inquire from the hon. Postmaster General whether he was acquainted with a person named Emile Bourre, an ex-employee of the post office, in Montreal, but superannuated in 1931, and to whom leave of absence, with full salary, was granted, before being superannuated.


Arthur Sauvé: I am not personally acquainted with Mr. Bourre and I cannot answer this question the way it is put, I have not the details with me.


Jean-François Pouliot: I regret very much that the hon. Postmaster General has not the details with him because I am informed that Mr. Bourre bad a leave of absence for 720 days, with full salary, on the recommendation of the Deputy Postmaster General. I cannot vouch for the fact, I received the information through the mail. I cannot vouch for it as a fact. A letter received informs me that this chap was given 720 days leave of absence. He must be some kind of friend.
I have been requesting, sir, since April 19, from the hon. Postmaster General, the information which he gave me just now, be made a statement with reference to the dismissal of postmasters under various governments, he quietly passed over Louis Philippe Pelletier's mournful reign at the Post Office Department, when the guillotine was in constant motion.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member will have to restrict his remarks to the item under discussion.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am discussing it. I am asking the hon. Postmaster General to furnish me with certain information; it was the minister who set the example by quoting the number of dismissals since 1896.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I would request the hon. member to set the example.


Jean-François Pouliot: Certainly,
I am endeavouring, however, to nail the hon. Postmaster General to the discussion of the estimates such as they should be carried on. And when I inquired as to the dismissals of postmasters since August, 1930-the house having ordered the tabling of this information- his duty was to give the full information and there was no need of going back to 1896, while at the same time leaving a wide gap between 1911 and 1921. I have remained faithful to the great leader of the Liberal party, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and I recall how he reprimanded the then Postmaster General in 1911.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: We cannot discuss this evening, under item 272, the post office administration of Mr. Pelletier.


Jean-François Pouliot: Certainly,
and this is why: The Postmaster General made a statement-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member is out of order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I wonder why the chairman did not call the Postmaster General to order when he referred to the dismissals of 1896 to 1911?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I am not responsible for my actions to the hon. member.


Jean-François Pouliot: You are not responsible for your actions to me, sir; however, I think I am in order.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I would request the hon. member to adhere to the item under discussion.


Jean-François Pouliot: I shall not further insist. I am not going to start a boxing match in the house.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: This in nr way unnerves me.


Jean-François Pouliot: No. I regret that there seems at times to be two weights and two measures.
I am not going to discuss what has already been debated in the house. I found quite an interesting document in the patent records. It is the description of the letter box, the famous box, a marvel of Amedee Lesieur, patented under another name. Amedee Lesieur, I stated the other day, was a wine merchant of Montreal, who had carried on a profitable business when the Scott Act was in force in Quebec; now he is a manufacturing agent, an agent of applicants for patents. The following is what is found in the Canadian

4986	COMMONS
Supply-Post Office-Outside Service
Patent Office Record of February 9, 1932, p. 338-
You are aware, sir, that pure water is called in pharmaceutics aqua pura and that under that term a druggist always asks a higher price for a bottle of aqua pura than for an ordinary glass of water. I also am aware that chemists designate it as H20; it is a chemical formula which means water-pure water as obtained from a tap just like the water the Prime Minister sent, at the expense of the state, to Washington for the use of the Kiwanis club. That is called, sir, diplomatic water, it is a special water. However, the following is the description of the famous box of which you have a photograph under your eyes, that stove pipe which is described as if it were the eighth marvel of the world.
When the description of this stove pipe is read to you, sir, you will imagine it is made of platinum, with gold supports, covered with rubies and similar to the ancient jewels found in Tut-Ank-Ahmon's tomb. Allow me to read to you the marvellous description of Amedee Lesieur's box:
No. 319.598. Mail Box. Boite postale.
Alfred Edmund Guy Madiey, Westmount, Quebec, Canada, 9th February, 1932. Filed 3rd December, 1931. Serial No. 384,322.
1.	A rural mail box comprising a cylindrical casing closed at one end-
It is no longer a stovepipe closed at one end; it has become a cylindrical casing.
-and open at the other end-
As all stove pipes are.
-a hingedly mounted door for the open end, combined reinforcing and spring actuated supporting means for the box.
Is that not marvellous?
2.	A rural mail box comprising a cylindrical casing with a pivotally mounted door-
One is a hingedly mounted door and is a pivotally mounted door.
-at one end and closed at the other end, a bendable metallic band adapted to envelop and reinforce the box-
Apparently the box is reinforced at both ends.
-and having one end suitably bent, a standard provided with a cap having an opening therein, a retaining bolt spring pressed for engagement with the band and with the standard and a tensioning nut for said bolt.
So there is a nut for the bolt. This is very important, very difficult ,and very highly technical.
3.	In a rural mail box and in combination, a cylindrical casing closed at one end and provided with a gravity-operable door-

So we have three doors, the hingedly mounted door, the pivotally mounted door and now the gravity operable door.
-at the other end, a standard, a combined reinforcing and supporting member for the casing and pivotal spring pressed means connecting said member with the standard.
Is that not marvellous? Is it not a grand thing for which to grant $28,000 to this fellow? Mark you, sir, that the report of the Postmaster General is dated November 5, 1931. He speaks of the scarcity of rural mail boxes in the maritime provinces and in Quebec, and he goes on to say:
This box is a greatly improved one, is patented and cannot be purchased elsewhere, and is particularly adapted to use in the postal service. The minister states that the price of $2.75 is fair and reasonable.
I am sure the minister has never seen the box; he has only seen the description. The descriptions of the three doors are worth a dollar each; this man was a marvel to make such a wonderful thing for 25 cents less than the $3.


An hon. MEMBER:: How many did they
buy?


Jean-François Pouliot: 

E. J. UNDERWOOD,

[Stage Direction]
Chief Superintendent of Post Office Service.
S.P. No. 218, (p. 59)
Ref. No. 80,
January 25, 1933.
Supply-Post Office
[Stage Direction]
(Translation):
The same question was put to each of the candidates, to Voisine and Cote: Will you change the site of the post office, if you are appointed? Reply of Mr. Cote:	"No."
Reply of Mr. Voisine: "No." That is, the site was to be the same, in both cases. Yet, it was contended that the site suggested by Mr. Cote was unsuitable while the one suggested by Mr. Voisine was a suitable one. And an official, so important as Mr. Underwood wrote to Mr. Green, of Quebec, to request him to change the rating of Cote because he had offered an unsuitable site, when this site was exactly the same as the one offered by Voisine. What what was the rating of Voisine? Ninety per cent. Dominique Cote, 85 per cent. However, note, sir, that it *was said then that Voisine was offering a suitable site while Cote was offering a rather unsuitable one. For Voisine, it was said: "Private residence, very good accommodation." For Cote: "Private residence, poor accommodation."
This was evidently the reason for which the rating of Voisine was 90 per cent while that of Cote was 85 per cent.
Now, sir, what was the second report sent? I had all the trouble in the world to lay my hand on the first report of Mr. Green. I was obliged to have motion after motion adopted, and I had to write many a time to the Postmaster General and his officials, so as to obtain this report. Why is this information, which is requested by members who have a right to it, not given with good grace by the hon. Postmaster General? I have here the second report referring to Voisine and Cote:
Thomas Voisine: Class C, married, age 52; residence in "the" district 12; service overseas, no; education, primary; speaks, reads and writes French, but no English; has the candidate himself the required qualifications to perform efficiently the duties of this position, yes; character, very good; habits, very good; reputation, very good; what experience has the candidate had which may enable him to fill this position? None, except as temporary postmaster; other experience, secretary to the municipality of Ste-Rose.
Dominique Cote:
Class B, bachelor, age 35; residence in the district 35; service overseas, yes; education, primary; speaks, reads and writes French, but not English; has the candidate himself the required qualifications to perform efficiently the duties of that position? yes; character, very good; habits, very good; reputation, very good; what experience has the candidate had which may enable him to fill this position? none; other experience, always been a labourer.
The two candidates were questioned.
Rating: Thomas Voisine, 90 per cent; Dominique Cote, 75 per cent.
[Mr. Pouliot.l
That is, in the second report it was no more stated that Cote offered an unsuitable site, which was untrue, the first time. The qualifications of the two candidates were the same with this difference that one, Cote, was a returned soldier, and that the other, Voisine, was not, and the rating of Voisine is left at 90 per cent, while the rating of Cote is reduced from 85 per cent to 75 per cent. That is, according to Mr. Underwood, when the Postmaster General stated that Cote had offered an unsuitable site, he had 85 per cent; when he offers a suitable site, he is reduced to 75 per cent. The report continues:
The post office is no more in a public building, but in a separate one and a very good site. Even if there is no change.
Each candidate is willing to devote all his time to the duties which the post office necessitates. Voisine intends to obtain the help of his son and daughter and Cote the help of Miss Blanche Landry, who has had six years of postal experience.
Moreover, that is how post offices are kept in rural sections.
Do you consider this candidate sufficiently qualified as regards education, experience, personal qualifications, character, honesty, also do the premises and site answer the requirements of the post office in question?
Answer: yes. in both cases.
Signed by Jos. Lallier, Inspector of Postal Service, and countersigned by S. Tanner Green.
On March 23, 1932, Mr. Foran wrote to Mr. Gaboury:
(Text) Re Notre-Dame du Lac. I am to draw your attention to the fact that the time limit for receiving applications in this case was January 2, 1932, and to inquire whether the Department is yet in a position to submit the report on the qualifications of the candidates.
On April 1, 1932, Mr. Coolican writes to Mr. Foran:
(Text) I may say that the department is not yet in a position to furnish that report.
On April 15, 1932, temporary certificate from the Civil Service Commission, not to exceed two months from February 28, 1932.
On April 25,	1932, Mr. Foran to Mr. Gaboury:
(Text) As three months have now elapsed since the closing date for receiving public applications, will you kindly co-operate with the Commission in expediting the matter.
On May 11, 1932, temporary certificate from the Civil Service Commission, for a month, from April 28, 1932. Foran to Gaboury:
(Text) I am also directed to say that no further extension will be granted until the report has been received.
On May 17, 1932, another letter from the
returned soldier Dominique Cote to the minister :

Supply-Post Office
On May 18, reply of Gaboury to Cote:
I may state that the decision in this case entirely rests with the Civil Service Commission.
On May 19, 1932, Mr. C-E. Dube writes to Mr. Sauve:
I would suggest that Mr. Dominique Cote be examined as to-
In " au point de vue," the last word is wrongly spelt "vu."
In "son instruction" the first word is -wrongly spelt "sont."	_
Instead of "qu'on commence," he writes "qu'en" commence, etc.
On May 23, 1932, reply of the Postmaster General to Mr. Dube:
I noted your suggestions and I shall refer to them later.
On May 30, 1932, Mr. Grondin writes to the member for Temiscouata:
The report with reference to the candidates has not been forwarded to the Civil Service Commission and as the revenue of this post office last year was only $1,782, the permanent appointment will be made by the Post Office Department. This affair will receive the necessary attention, as soon as possible.
On May 30, 1932, three practically similar letters from Joseph Dube, harness merchant; from Georges Voisine, councillor of Notre-Dame-du-Lac and brother of the other Voisine-a letter without date-and from Philippe Morin, June 3, 1932, on behalf of Thomas Voisine and against Dominique Cote, to the Postmaster General.
This is what happened. Instead of submitting the case to the Civil Service Commission, the Postmaster General listened to the recommendations or gossip which came from three unqualified individuals of Notre-Dame-du-Lac.
The hon. Postmaster General wrote to me as follows, on July 13, 1932:
The superintendent has forwarded together with his report a letter from Mr. Cote, a photographed copy of which I am sending you, it gives a good idea of the education of this candidate. You will no doubt, be of my opinion, that the Postmaster General cannot entrust the postal administration, especially when it is a matter of such importance as the post office of Notre-Dame-du-Lac, to a candidate who has no experience in office work and who, judging from his writing, is not capable of personally taking charge of the post office.
And the Postmaster General sends me a photostat of a letter from the returned soldier Cote, of Notre-Dame-du-Lac. I replied to the Postmaster General that his writing was better than his or mine.
Another case. According to a return tabled recently, may I inquire what was decided with reference to the person who was appointed postmaster at Coaticooke? It is a much more important post office than.
Notre-Dame-du-Lac. The Coaticooke post office has a revenue of $5,255 per year.
(Text):
This certificate is number 5255, dated February 21, 1933, and reads:
The education of this candidate is, however, rather limited, and the first inclination of the examiners was to report it as inadequate. He did not complete the primary school course and his showing on the written test was not good. It was felt, however, that some allowance should be made in so far as the written examination is concerned for his obvious nervousness at the time of the examination.
(Translation):
There were ten other candidates. However, this chap, who was not qualified was appointed. The Postmaster General will contend that he was appointed by the Civil Service Commission. That is true. But, on the other hand, the Postmaster General accepted from the Civil Service Commission the appointment of an uneducated person, as postmaster of an office which has a revenue of $5,255 per year; yet he finds that a candidate considered sufficiently educated by an inspector, is unfit to take charge of a post office with a revenue of $900 per year.
As to the rating, the following is what the Deputy Minister wrote himself to the Civil Service Commission. Return No. 65 S-P. 192:
The department does not assume that the commission is bound to accept as unquestionable the rating given by the district superintendent of postal service. The department has had sufficient experience to know that this is not the case.
There is a complaint in connection with the Coaticooke post office and I trust that, in future, the hon. Postmaster will conform to the act when it is a question of making appointments or dismissals and that he will guard himself against doing an injustice and, moreover, not come to the house boasting like the Pharisees of the good deeds done and the prayers said.
The hon. Postmaster seems to have every theological virtue and all those that man may have inherited since Adam. That is splendid, but sounds like the Pharisees. It is much better to be a publican and not boast so much. The hon. Postmaster General would have been better advised to allow the members to give credit for good deeds rather than have him behead certain postmasters of their country. It would have been better for them to defend him when he was attacked. I think that it would have been more proper and decent for the party's sake that the members who requested the Postmaster General to be unjust, to rise themselves and defend his attitude. Perhaps,
Supply-Post Office
[Stage Direction]
many things were requested from the minister, which he now regrets and hon. members have not the courage to rise in the house and defend him.
I wish to state to the hon. Postmaster General: If he wishes to retain the esteem of our English speaking fellow-citizens in the Cabinet, the House of Commons and throughout the country, he should take as his motto these few words said by the most eminent of all French Canadians, Sir Louis Hippolyte Lafontaine: "Let us assert our rights." Let us prove our courage, let us never be intimidated by the cries of fish-hawks which fanatics set up all over the country. Fanaticism is of short duration. When an appeal is made to hatred of race, language and religion, sooner or later, it is certain to cause a revolution. Let one recall that in 1917 the election was made against Quebec, that the Union Cabinet denounced Quebec in every part of Canada and, four years later, it was Quebec who gave the majority to the party which triumphed.
Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to delay the house any longer, I stated part of what I had to say, I set aside much because we arc nearing the end of the session; however, I would request the government to see that the injustice perpetrated by the Post Office department be atoned and that it be courageous enough to refuse the requests of its partizans who are not, themselves called upon to defend the government. I trust that, in the future, they will better defend it, that no more injustice will be perpetrated against the French or English speaking Canadians, and that the Postmaster General will act so as to be equally respected by both French and English speaking Canadians.
Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: Before this item is carried, I wish to suggest to the Postmaster General some means to make amends for the wrong done to Mr. Carrier, ex-postmaster of Levis. It goes without saying that the Postmaster General was unfair to this man. He knew that his services had always been of the best, that his conduct was above reproach, that nothing could be said against him from a political viewpoint and, he was aware that in retiring from the service, Mr. Carrier, the latter could not enjoy a pension. I would request the hon. Postmaster General, so as to make amends for the wrong done, to reimburse him the contribution he made to the superannuation fund, beside the gratuity already paid to him. I trust that the hon. Postmaster General wishes to do a kind act before retiring for the night 
and that he will think over my suggestion and carry it out.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The notice standing for Saturday's sitting will have to be dropped from the order paper because it refers only to this Saturday. If it is desirable to move another motion for next Saturday we can do so. In order that the clerk may have his record correct, I suppose the house will have to consent to this motion being dropped, although no doubt it would be dropped automatically because it refers to no other Saturday except this.
Motion dropped.
On motion of Mr. Bennett the house adjourned at 10.50 p.m.
Monday, May 15, 1933