1934-05-31

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

Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Has the government reconsidered requests already made since the year 1930, with respect to repairs to be done to the wharf at Havre St. Pierre, on the north shore of the river St. Lawrence ?
2.	If so, will the government comply with such requests this year?


Mr. BENNETT:: With respect to this and the following question I mentioned the other day that these questions asking if the government will comply with certain requests involving the expenditure of public moneys are highly improper questions to be asked. They were stricken out when asked by other members, and I think the same rule should be followed with respect to these.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Questions 3 and 4 are stricken out.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: The other day the questions were answered in bulk. They asked if the government had considered the request and would later on make known their decision in the matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not so in this case.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: That means we will not get it, then.


BIG BEAVER, SASK., POSTMISTRESS
Mr. DONNELLY:: 1.	Who is the postmaster or postmistress at Big Beaver, Saskatchewan?
2.	Is he or she a British subject?
3.	If a British subject, is he or she such by birth or naturalization?
4.	I f by naturalization, when naturalized and by what process?


Mr. CAHAN:: An answer to this question cannot be given before a considerable length of time. The postmistress at Big Beaver is, of course, well known, but whether she is a British subject or not depends on a number of facts which we have to elicit, such as who is her father? Where was he born? Did he become naturalized in Canada? There are many other questions to be asked and it will therefore take us some time to ascertain the facts by inquiry of the family.
Question stands.


PUBLIC WORKS-EAST ESSEX
Mr. MORAND:: What was the total amount spent by the Department of Public Works for the years January, 1922, to June, 1930, in the following towns: Windsor, Sandwich, Walkerville, East Windsor (formerly Ford City), Riverside, Tecumseh, Sandwich East, Sandwich West?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Windsor, 8129,614.94; Sandwich, $26,391.31; Walkerville, 839,853.06; East Windsor, Nil; Riverside, Nil; Tecumseh, Nil; Sandwich East, Nil; Sandwich West, Nil.


WINDSOR, ONT.-PUBLIC BUILDING
Mr. MORAND:: 1.	What is the total cost of the new federal building in Windsor, Ontario?
2.	How much rent was paid to house the Post Office Department during the construction of the new federal building and to whom was it paid?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	$759,744.50.
2.	$7,001.88 paid to The Star Publishing Company of Windsor.


IMPERIAL ECONOMIC COMMITTEE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday last the right hon. leader of the opposition asked certain questions following a statement made by the hon. member for North Wellington (Mr. Blair) and I promised I would ascertain what the facts were.
Mr. Ferguson as High Commissioner for Canada succeeded Sir Horace Wilson as chairman of the imperial economic committee for one year on the first of March last. I said that I was not quite sure whether he held the office for one year. The election was on the first of March. The imperial economic committee came into being in 1925, its principal
352S
Imperial Economic Committee


FIRST NARROWS BRIDGE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. E. MUNN (Vancouver North):: On the ninth of May an order of the house was passed for a copy of all correspondence in connection with the First Narrows bridge, Vancouver. I would like to ask the minister in charge when we may expect this return.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If the hon. gentleman will allow that question to stand I will look into the facts and find out what the position is.


Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Following up that question may I ask the Minister of Public Works in view of representations that I have received from the city of Vancouver when we may expect a determination under the Navigable Waters Protection Act in regard to the First Narrows bridge at Vancouver?
Hon. II. A. STEWART (Minister of Public Works): There are some requirements of the department as to additional information which have not yet been complied with, and until that information is received a decision cannot be made.
KING'S BIRTHDAY On the orders of the day:


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. leader of the opposition asked yesterday whether the house would sit on Monday or not. It is the intention to sit on Monday.
TOURIST TRAFFIC On the orders of the day:


Mr. WILFRED HANBURY (Vancouver-Burrard):: I would like to direct a question
to the Prime Minister based on a telegram 
I have received from the Vancouver publicity bureau as follows:
The Vancouver publicity bureau strongly urge that you support the principle of federal tourist advertising.
I would ask the Prime Minister if the government has under consideration a grant for the purpose of encouraging tourists to come to Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The house is I suppose aware,
Mr. Speaker, that a report has been made by a committee of the other house of this parliament which has been considering the question of how the tourist trade of this country could be extended. Certain recommendations were made which have been submitted to the government and will receive the consideration that is usually accorded to recommendations that come from so responsible a quarter.



DOMINION COMPANIES ACT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, May 30, consideration in committee of Bill No. 64, respecting dominion companies-Mr. Cahan -Mr. Gagnon in the chair.
On section 14-Incidental and ancillary powers.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: After considering the suggestion made by the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Butcher), we have decided to strike out from paragraph (q) the words " the payment of dividends, or." This amendment will comply completely with his suggestion and I suggest that the hon. member move accordingly.


Mr. BUTCHER:: I move accordingly.
I should like to express my appreciation of the action of the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) in this regard.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The arguments of the hon. member were quite convincing, and, as he suggests, these powers may be inserted in special letters patent if they are found necessary.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There is another amendment to be made to paragraph (f), to insert the words " government or " after the word " such " in the thirteenth line. These words were omitted in the printing.


Mr. DUPRE:: I move accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.

Dominion Companies Act
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There is another amendment to paragraph (k), to delete the word "to" at the end of line fifty and insert a comma after the word " person " in line fifty-one.


Maurice Dupré: I move accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There is another amendment to paragraph (k). The words "to any company " in line two on page 10 should read " to any other company."


Maurice Dupré: I move accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There is an amendment to paragraph (u), that the same be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
(u) to distribute among the shareholders of the company in kind, specie or otherwise, any property or assets of the company including any proceeds of the sale or disposal of any property of the company and in particular any shares, debentures, or other securities of or in any other company belonging to the company, or of which it may have power to dispose; provided either that such distribution is made for the purpose of enabling the company to surrender its charter under the provisions of this act, or that such distribution, apart from the provisions of this paragraph, would have been lawful if made in cash.
This is practically the same as the present law, whereby a company in surrendering its charter and making a distribution of its assets may make that distribution of assets as such or in cash.


Maurice Dupré: I move accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 18-Contracts of agent binding on company.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I spent some time to-day examining this provision and have had the advantage of consulting with counsel. I have decided that subsection 1 of this section should be amended in accordance with the suggestion made yesterday by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston). I am sending a copy of this amendment to the hon. gentleman and perhaps he will move it.


Mr. RALSTON:: I move that section 18 be amended by striking out subsection 1 and inserting the following in substitution therefor:
(1) Every contract, agreement, engagement or bargain made, and every bill of exchange drawn, accepted or endorsed, and every promissory note and cheque made, drawn or endorsed on behalf of the company, by any
agent, officer or servant of the company, within the apparent scope of his authority as such agent, officer or servant, shall be binding upon the company.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: I notice this amendment contains the words "within the apparent scope of his authority," and for my own information I should like to know if that is the proper word to use. I understand the general custom is to use the words "general scope."


James Layton Ralston: I used the word "general" yesterday and then corrected myself. I have not looked up the decisions but I feel quite satisfied that "apparent" is the proper word.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I submitted it to counsel this morning and apparently this is in accord with the English decisions.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 48-By-law for subdivision, reduction, increase, etc., of share capital.
Harry Butcher: I would direct the attention of the committee to paragraph (d) which reads as follows:
(d) change all or any of its previously authorized shares with par value, issued or unissued, into the same or a different number of shares of any class or classes without par value and' not having priority as to capital or being subject to redemption;
This paragraph should be read with the first part of subsection 1, which reads:
(1) Subject to confirmation by supplementary letters patent, a company may from time to time by by-law ...
(d) change all or any of its previously authorized shares with par value, issued or unissued, into the same or a different number of shares of any class or classes without par value and not having priority as to capital or being subject to redemption;
It should also be read in conjunction with subsection 2:
No such by-law shall take effect until it is sanctioned by at least two-thirds of the votes of the holders of each class of shares thereby dealt with, cast at a special general meeting of shareholders called for the purpose and confirmed by supplementary letters patent.
This I notice is an innovation; the same provision apparently is not found in the sections which this section replaces, that is to say, sections 58, 59 and 60 of the present act. I am afraid it is fraught with danger. There are features that I personally do not like and I am going to move later on that subsection (d) be struck out. My reason for asking that it be deleted may be found in the case I referred to when speaking early in February, or perhaps later, on the subject
Dominion Companies Act

of company promotions in general. I will not refer by name to the company in regard to which I am about to speak; I will simply say that a certain company in western Canada during the past few months has made a change in its capital organization. This is the story. In the early history of the company certain shareholders bought 4,500 preferred shares at $100 par value. At the same time 3,000 shares of common stock were sold at $100 a share. The preferred stock became entitled to voting power after one year's default in the payment of dividends. In 1933, dividends were not paid and very naturally the holders of the preferred shares concluded that they had a right to step in, use their voting power and take possession of the company. What really happened was this. In the meantime the holders of the 3,000 common shares had passed a by-law to the effect that these 3,000 common shares of $100 par should be changed to 15,000 no par shares. When the petition was presented to the appropriate authority-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Is that a dominion company?


Harry Butcher: No. I said so in my
previous speech on the subject, but I see the same danger in this subsection. When these holders of the preferred shares, because their dividends were in default, assumed that by reason of their voting power they could take control of the company, they with 4,500 shares, were met by 15,000 shares of no par value. This apparently had been done perfectly legally. The petition presented to the proper authority had stated frankly that the dividends were not in arrears, and in fact they were not when the petition was presented; apparently everything was in order. But this is what really happened. Those men who had paid out their good money, no less a sum than $450,000, found that that money had no voting power and they were left without the relief which they had every right to expect when they purchased those shares.
I am afraid that under this subsection the same thing could happen again, and in the case of a company in a similar situation, the preferred shareholders having no vote until their dividends were in default, the holders of common stock having voting power might meet and pass a by-law and appeal to the Secretary of State for supplementary letters patent, and apparently there would be no reason why they should not be granted; because, so far as I can understand, it is not necessary to consult the preferred shareholders in such a case. The only shareholders
[Mr Butcher.]
whom it is necessary to consult are those who have votes with respect to the class of shares " thereby dealt with."


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The hon. member is entirely in error in that.


Harry Butcher: I shall be pleased to
have the minister show me wherein I am in error.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The hon. gentleman has
referred to a company which I understand was not under the jurisdiction of the Companies Act of Canada, and I can only assure him that if such a proposition had come before the Secretary of State during the past four years it would not have received approval. This clause is designed to prevent just such action as that to which he has referred, by providing, first, that in the case of these several transactions which are now being carried out frequently in the present days of depression and reorganization, they shall not be carried out except by the sanction of at least two-thirds of the votes of each class of shares thereby dealt with. Now whether or not the preferred shareholders have votes under the by-laws of the company, under this express enactment two-thirds of the shares affected must vote in favour of the reconstruction or reorganization proposed, and the votes must be cast at a special general meeting of shareholders held for that purpose, of which they have due notice. Moreover, as a further protection, even if the by-law is passed, even if each class of shareholders affected approve and confirm the proposed reorganization by a two-thirds vote of each class, then the whole matter comes before the Secretary of State, and the proposed reconstruction cannot be carried into effect except by the grant of supplementary letters patent. I cannot conceive of any other protective measures which I could throw about such proposed reconstruction,


James Layton Ralston: Would not the Secretary
of State feel safer if the words " dealt with " were changed?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: "Thereby affected."


James Layton Ralston: Yes, thereby affected.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am prepared to accept
that.


James Layton Ralston: That is used in section
144.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Will the hon. member move that amendment?

Dominion Companies Act


Harry Butcher: I notice that the
Secretary of State used the word " affected," and if that word were here I should be satisfied. I am pleased to move therefore that the words " dealt with " be struck out and the word " affected " be substituted therefor after the word " thereby."


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: I suggest that there will be some difficulty if you make that substitution. There is this difference: "shares dealt with" means the shares referred to in the subclause; "shares affected" might be other shares that might be affected. The change suggested is a dangerous one. The subclause had better be left alone.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I think the words "dealt with" are really more specific; in my statement I used the word "affected," but there has to be the vote of two-thirds of the shares dealt with in the reorganization. I would like to meet the hon. gentleman's wishes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It might read "of such shares," but I think the subclause is all right as it stands.


Harry Butcher: In the case I mentioned, which shares would the Secretary of State say were being dealt with-the common stock or the preferred shares? I would submit in the case I mentioned the preferred shares are not dealt with but they are affected.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: They were certainly dealt with in the reorganization of the company. The hon. member was complaining that although the preferred shares were dealt with, the preferred shareholders did not have a vote. All I say to the hon. gentleman is this, that in drafting legislation each draftsman prefers his own words as he is accustomed to use them and it is very difficult to find words which are acceptable to all parties. I think on reflection the words "dealt with" are probably well selected. I am not obstinate about this matter; I am subject to the approval of hon. members of the legal profession but their real safeguard in this is that no scheme of that kind can get through unless it is authorized by a by-law which has been confirmed by the vote of two-thirds majority of each class of shares thereby dealt with. I think "dealt with" is the proper term because there may be classes of shares which are not dealt with and the holders of which have therefor no interest in attending a special general meeting for the purpose of confirming the by-law. I prefer the words "dealt with," but I am in the judgment of the committee.


Mr. GEARY:: Would the minister tell us what is the practice of his department in just such a case as has been set forth by my hon. friend opposite? If voting power is not given to the preferred shareholders until a certain contingency arises in the way of passed dividends and if before that happens an application of the common shareholders comes before the department for an increase in the number of shares or a subdivision of them, would the department consider the application of the shareholders who have the right to vote?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The object of this clause is this: although the by-laws of the company provide that preferred shareholders shall vote only in certain contingencies, and although this may not be one of the contingencies under which they would ordinarily vote, I wish to provide in this clause that they shall have a vote for this particular confirmation, and that if two-thirds of them do not vote for this particular purpose, then the Secretary of State would not even consider their petition. as after all that is done, they have to petition for supplementary letters patent when the whole matter must be reviewed by the Secretary of State before such supplementary letters patent are granted.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: Would it meet the objection to insert the word "such" before the word "shares" so that the subclause would read:
Of each class of such shares.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think the word "such" would cover it.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gagnon):: Perhaps the hon. member for Last Mountain will withdraw his last amendment.


Harry Butcher: Just a moment. I was going to ask the Secretary of State: Can it be said that in the case I mentioned the preferred shares are being dealt with? They are affected but in my opinion they are not dealt with; the only shares that are dealt with are the common shares. Could the matter be handled in this way-"thereby dealt with or affected"?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not keep in mind the particular case referred to by the hon. gentleman and I do not think I should be asked to give an opinion as to the effect of a reconstruction under another companies act with which I am not familiar and one which has not come to my attention.
Dominion Companies Act


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would
like to make an observation. Anything that will be detrimental to the reorganization of companies now in difficulties and undergoing reorganization, short of providing against fraud and that sort of thing, ought not to be imposed in this clause. That is a sound principle. Parties engaged in reorganization of companies have to meet very difficult situations; they weigh the balance of equity as between different classes of shareholders and they make the best proposal that can be put forward having regard to all interests. If you impose too many obstacles, you just make the burden that much greater in the effort to put a company back on its feet. If the provision is for another purpose, for preventing manipulation of shares for gain, that is a horse of another colour.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: It seems to me that in this clause provision is made against what happened in the case to which the hon. member for Last Mountain referred. In that particular case 3,000 shares of common stock of a par value of S100 each were changed into 15,000 shares of no par value. The original incorporation of the company called for 4,500 preferred shares of S100 each with a provision that when dividends on the preferred stock became in arrears for one year the preferred shareholders then had a vote in the management of the affairs of the company.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Is that preferred or common stock?


Charles Edward Bothwell: There were 4,500 shares of preferred stock and 3,000 shares of common stock of a par value of $100 each. That meant that the preferred shareholders had $450,000 and the common stockholders had $300,000 in the company. The provision was that whenever dividends on the preferred stock were in arrears for a period of one year the preferred shareholders obtained a vote in the company.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And the
voting strength.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Yes. In the last year apparently the common shareholders who had the management of the company saw that they were not going to be able to pay dividends on. the prefered stock and they then passed a by-law changing their 3,000 shares of common stock of a par value of $100 each into 15.000 shares of no par value. When the preferred shareholders stepped in and expected to take over the management of the company they found that they had only 4,500 votes as against 15,000.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But that is exactly what this clause is intended to preclude and prevent. We are saying by statute enacted by this parliament that that thing cannot be done except with the consent of two-thirds majority of the holders of the 4,500 preference shares.


Charles Edward Bothwell: The way this clause stands now, the only shares dealt with were the common shares. The preferred shareholders' dividends were not in arrears at the time this was done, so they had no say, their shares were not dealt with in any way, but they were most seriously affected.


Mr. BURY:: They were affected in respect of voting power.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would it not meet the hon. gentleman's difficulty if both terms were used, "dealt with, or affected"? In one case you are dealing with shares actually changed, and the other shares would be affected. "Dealt with or prejudicially affected."


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am in the hands of the committee, but I do not agree with the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) in his construction. Although the common shareholders may have had their votes increased I do not yet see how that prejudices the rights of the preferred shareholders who had not the right to vote. Under the by-law they were given the right to vote in certain contingencies, but those contingencies had not arisen. I may be very stupid about it but I do not see how those preferred shareholders were affected, prejudicially or otherwise.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Both-well) made his point very plain. Three thou-, sand common shares, par value $100, were by virtue of a by-law passed in the ordinary way changed into 15,000 shares each having a vote. They multiplied the voting power of the common shareholders by five. I think it was a pretty sharp device to keep control of the company and prevent it falling into the hands of the preferred shareholders, so depriving the preferred shareholders of the rights contemplated when the fully paid preferred shares were set up and sold to the public.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am not going to discuss the thing at length, but if the preferred shareholders took their stock on the clear understanding that they had no vote, I fail to see how, it matters to them, not having a vote, whether there were 15,000 votes in the common shareholders or 3,000. But I am willing to accept any suggestion in order to make progress.

Dominion Companies Act


James Layton Ralston: I know my hon. friend is an excellent draftsman, and would like to use the same terms all through. Section 123 uses the word "affecting." Should not that word be used in both places?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am quite willing to accept that. Section 123 does not use the words "dealt with."


Onésime Gagnon: The amendment moved by Mr. Butcher is that subsection (d) of section 48 be struck out.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is withdrawn.


Onésime Gagnon: What is the next amendment?


Charles Edward Bothwell: "Dealt with or affected."


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No, the next amendment
is to subsection 2, in the third line, which is the 39th line of the page. I accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) that we strike out the words "dealt with" and in lieu thereof insert the word " affected."


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am
opposed to that. I think we should keep both in, if we want to meet the situation visualized by the hon. member for Swift Current.


Charles Edward Bothwell: If this would be satisfactory to the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) I would move:
That the words "or affected" be added after the word "with" in the third line of that subsection.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am perfectly willing to
accept that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: May I ask the hon. member for Swift Current whether he thinks that for the case he outlined he would find a remedy in the section as he proposes to have it? Were the preferred shareholders at that moment affected by the change? Not at all that I can see.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: They had no voting power at all.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They might be potentially affected, but they were not actually at the moment.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I think they were. At the time they bought the stock they knew what the situation was. They said: If this company is not able to make its way, if it defaults in dividends for twelve months we are going to be able to take charge. They knew they were putting up most of the
money; I do not know all the details but part of this common stock went to the promoters. The preferred shareholders believed that when necessary they would get control of the company.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And they were not prevented by anything the hon. gentleman has said.


Charles Edward Bothwell: They were absolutely
prevented.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: How?


Charles Edward Bothwell: Because they had only 4,500 votes as against 15,000.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But I state that in every
provision of that kind, where it is provided, as frequently it is, that in default of payment of dividends on the preferred stock the preferred shareholders shall have an exclusive right to vote, that exclusive right was preserved in that case, whether the common shareholders had 4,500 votes or 15,000.


Charles Edward Bothwell: This was not a case
of exclusive right, they were simply entitled to a vote.


George Reginald Geary: Let me assure the hon.
member for Swift Current that I entirely approve of the position he desires to get into, I only question the means he adopts. I do not believe that adding the word "affected" will achieve the result he desires. I think the best proof of that is that the present occupant of the office says that it will not. If you had that kind of proposition advanced to the present occupant of the office the case would not be taken care of by having the words "dealt with" or "affected." I think you must make it stronger.


Onésime Gagnon: Is there an amendment?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The motion before the
committee, I understand, is that the words "or affected" should be added after "dealt with" in the 39th line of page 25. I am prepared to accept that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If there
is any doubt, as suggested by the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary) I suggest that the clause be amended to read as follows:
No such by-law shall take effect until it is sanctioned by at least two-thirds of the votes of the holders of each class of shares thereby dealt with or which are or may be prejudicially affected. ...
That would surely cover it.


George Reginald Geary: I think it is the same thing.

Dominion Companies Act


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: What the hon. gentlemen are doing, I tell them at once, is this. This subsection 2 relates to each and every of the preceding provisions. That is it affects (g), increase of the capital stock of the company, and so on. By this you are clearly tying lip the necessary operations of a company very materially. All that is provided so far in this section as drafted is that the by-law dealing with any class of shares must first have the approval of at least a majority of all the shareholders. This clause then provides that the class of shares dealt with must, at this, general meeting, also vote as a class, and by a two-thirds majority approve of the contemplated action. After that the Secretary of State must thoroughly investigate the matter before he issues supplementary letters patent. I think those provisions are sufficient; on reflection I quite agree with the hon. member for York-Sunbury that the words "or affected" may cause a very great deal of trouble in the case of an increase or reduction of capital. I prefer to leave it as it is.


George Reginald Geary: May I add one further word? I think the minister has settled the whole question. I think up to the moment it has escaped our attention that in the ordinary course this by-law must receive the approval of all classes of shareholders.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


George Reginald Geary: The minister says that is the intention, but that the special class dealt with shall be represented by two-thirds of its number, so that you have the majority of all the shareholders-


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is nothing in the legislation which says that all shareholders must approve.


James Layton Ralston: It is the shares thereby dealt with.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The by-law must first be passed.


James Layton Ralston: The by-law is passed in the ordinary course.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And after the by-law is passed it must be sanctioned by two-thirds of each class dealt with.


James Layton Ralston: It has been suggested that we are perhaps restricting and tying up the operations of a company. Hon. members will recall that in practically all the provisions with regard to preferred shares there is an express provision that the rights of the preferred
[M** ^eary.]
shareholders are not to be modified, altered, changed, amended, revised-every word a lawyer can think of is used-without a vote, generally, of three-quarters of the preferred shareholders. So it seems to me that it is not unreasonable here to ask for a two-thirds majority of those who, as I say, are "affected" or, as the hon. member for York-Sunbury says, are "prejudicially affected," which is perhaps a better expression. I certainly agree with the hon. member for York-Sunbury; I prefer his amendment to what has been suggested from this side.


Onésime Gagnon: It has been moved by Mr. Bothwell that subsection (2) be amended by adding the words "or affected" after the words "dealt with" in line 39.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I was suggesting-I have not gone through the formality of moving it-that instead of those words we add after the word "with" in line 39 the words "or which are or may be prejudicially affected." The reason I interpolate the words "or may be" is to cover the case brought up by the hon. member for Swift Current. There was no actual default in that case, and the voting power was not actually vested when this move was made. But that action was anticipated, and that was a pretty sharp trick, in anticipation of what was going to happen. While strictly speaking the shares might not have been prejudicially affected at the moment, undoubtedly there was a potential affection. I know it is impossible to provide for every case, but this may help.


Charles Edward Bothwell: So far as I am concerned I am quite agreeable to the suggestion made by the hon. member for York-Sunbury, and I will withdraw my amendment in favour of his.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Then you simply throw
upon the Secretary of State the duty of investigating to see whether any other class of shares is prejudicially affected. That may be an impossible investigation in many cases, I should think.


Paul Mercier: It will not
change your position.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In regard to the suggestion
of the hon. member for Sbelburne-Yarmouth, the by-law must first be passed in the ordinary course, as he will admit, by a majority of the shareholders who have the right to vote.

Dominion Companies Act
Then, after having been passed, the by-law must be sanctioned by a vote of two-thirds of the majority of the holders of that class of share specially dealt with. All I can say to the hon. gentleman is that you cannot preclude all possibilities. If the proposition which he has suggested came before this present department of the Secretary of State it would have no chance at all-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I would prefer to have it
as it has been drafted, following consideration of nearly every aspect of the question, retaining the words " dealt with." If the committee is not favourable to that suggestion I would agree to " dealt with or affected." Then one can probably ascertain whether the other shares are affected at all, but the extent to which they are prejudicially affected is another matter.


Onésime Gagnon: Then do I understand that all amendments are withdrawn?


Charles Edward Bothwell: Under the circumstances I would urge the amendment I have suggested. It seems to me that with those words in the act, when a by-law is brought before the minister he will say to the applicants, " I think these shares are going to be affected, and you had better have that bylaw approved by those shareholders." It will strengthen the hands of the minister, so it seems to me advisable to include those words.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: While it may strengthen the hands of the minister at the same time it might enable a minority holding one class of shares, which shares are not dealt with, to disrupt the companj' in a time of crisis, if they saw fit to do so, by refusing to alow an increase of capital by the issue of new shares. That is the difficulty. In my experience, and I say it emphatically, I have seen more misdemeanors committed in company affairs by minorities than by majorities. That is the effect of it. If the shares that are to be dealt with support the by-law by a two-thirds majority, and if after that the Secretary of State exercises his discretion, having all the facts before him, I think that is sufficient. Having said that, the committee may take whatever alternative it wishes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have to go to the banking committee, so I cannot remain longer, but I will say that no class of junior security holders ought to be put in a position where they can affect the rights of senior security holders. That is a very sound
74726-224J
principle. If you once embark on a contrary policy you invite all kinds of trouble. The rights of senior security holders, who have put up their money in good faith on the strength of a by-law passed, ratified and sanctioned as contemplated in the act, should be respected unless and until the time arrives when they, by a large majority, voluntarily relinquish their rights, and no junior security holders such as common share holders should be put in a position where, by their own motion, they can over-ride the rights of senior security holders.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I quite agree, but I do not think that statement applies to the hypothetical ease mentioned by hon. gentlemen opposite. In that case the preferred shareholder had no vote and having no vote, no right was taken from him by the proceedings. But if the suggestion of the hon. member for Swift Current is accepted it would mean that if there were common or ordinary shareholders of capital stock to the extent of S100.000, they could not issue another 8100,000 of stock to increase the assets of the company even though thereby they placed the preferred shareholders in substantially and materially a better position. You have to look at it both ways, and from my experience I think it would be far better to leave it to the discretion and careful oversight of the department of the Secretary of State than to accept a suggestion which may preclude companies in these times of crisis from securing additional capital by the issue of ordinary common shares at their proper value.


Onésime Gagnon: Does the hon. member for Swift Current insist on his amendment?


Paul Mercier: Is the minister going to accept the words "or affected"?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am going to object. I am convinced that that proposal was wrong, and I have withdrawn my suggestion in that regard.


Paul Mercier: Will the minister accept the insertion of the word "such" before "shares" in line 39?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I would be willing to accept it but I do not think it clarifies the clause.


Onésime Gagnon: It is moved by Mr. Bothwell that subsection 2 of section 48 be amended by inserting the words "or affected" in line 39 after the words "dealt with."
Amendment negatived, on division.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Dominion Companies Act
[Stage Direction]
On section 59-Preference stock by by-law.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There is a motion already before the committee, Mr. Chairman, to strike out all the words after the word "Part" in the thirty-sixth line. I think the full meaning and effect is given to the section although these words be stricken out, as the rights of the preferred shareholders and others in respect of the ordinary shares are clearly provided for in other sections of the bill.


James Layton Ralston: And the words to be stricken out just underline it?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes, and they might cause confusion.


Maurice Dupré: I move accordingly, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Charles Edward Bothwell: There is one question I would ask the minister in regard to subsection 2 of this section dealing with the preferred or deferred shares. The proviso in subsection 2 reads:
Provided, however, that any term or provision of such by-laws, whereby the rights of holders of such preferred or deferred shares are limited or restricted, shall be fully set out in the certificates of such shares.
I was just curious to know the reason why all the restrictions are to be set out in the case of the preferred shares while nothing is said in that regard as to the common shares. Would it not be reasonable to have the restrictions also set out on the common shares? That does not affect this section alone.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There has been a practice by some of these companies of providing by their by-laws that the preferred shareholders shall not have the right to vote, and the holder of a preferred share who receives a certificate in the ordinary course knows nothing of that. He has not been informed as to that particular by-law. We have therefore deemed it advisable to insert that if the rights of these preferred shareholders have been restricted, in such a case as the hon. member himself mentioned this afternoon, it must be clearly set out on the certificate so that the holder will have knowledge of it from the time he obtains the certificate.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 61-When redemption or purchase not a reduction of capital.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I suppose hon. gentlemen have before them the amendment to strike out
[The Chairman.]
paragraph (b) on page 31 of the bill and substitute the following:
(b) if such redemption or purchase for cancellation of such fully paid shares is made without impairment of the company's capital by payments out of the ascertained net profits of the company which have been set aside by the directors for the purposes of such redemption or of such purchase for cancellation, and if such net profits are then available for such application as liquid assets of the company, as shown by the last balance sheet of the company, certified by the company's auditors, and being made up to a date not more than ninety days prior to such redemption or purchase for cancellation, and after giving effect to such redemption or purchase for cancellation;
This is a clearer expression, I think, of the purport of the section than was found in the original print. I do not understand that there is any objection to it.


Maurice Dupré: I move accordingly, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 63 to 65 inclusive agreed to.
James Layton Ralston: I understand, Mr. Chairman, that sections 63 to 65 inclusive were held at the request of the hon. member for York-Sunbury. He is not here at the moment.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I understand that he has no amendment to move in connection with these sections. These sections were held for further reflection, I think.
On section 67-Registration of order appointing receiver.


Harry Butcher: I notice that the word "wilfully" has been introduced into subsection 2. Would not the Secretary of State admit that the introduction of the word "wilfully" will make it exceedingly difficult to secure a conviction?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I think the hon. gentleman is right. I have a motion in the votes and proceedings striking out the words "knowingly and" in the first line of subsection 2.


Maurice Dupré: I move the amendment accordingly, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 73-Definition. "Prospectus."
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have an amendment in
connection with lines forty and forty-one on page 37, to strike out the words "any shares, debentures or obligations-herein sometimes collectively referred to as ' securities ' "-and substituting therefor the words "any securi-

Dominion Companies Act
ties." These words are defined elsewhere and the insertion of a definition at this point would simply obscure the meaning.


Maurice Dupré: I move accordingly.


James Layton Ralston: I understand securities
are covered by the definition section.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes. I am going to place
it clearly in the definition section.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There is another amendment to lines eighteen, nineteen and twenty on page 38, to strike out the words "securities of the company or its securities means securities of a company issued or to be issued by the company" and insert the words " 'securities of a company' or 'its securities' means shares, debentures or obligations of a company issued or to be issued by the company." This definition will cover all cases.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 67-Registration of order appointing receiver.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Subsection 1 reads:
If any person obtains an order for the appointment of a receiver or manager-
And so on. I intend to insert the words "receiver and" after the word "or" in line forty-four, and also after the word "or" in line forty-five.


Maurice Dupré: I move accordingly.


James Layton Ralston: Would it not be better
to use separate phrases such as receiver or manager or receiver and manager? I am afraid you are cutting off the receiver from the manager.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I was instructed that there
are only two alternatives; the courts may appoint a receiver but they do not appoint a manager alone except as receiver and manager.


James Layton Ralston: That is so; at least I
have never known it to be otherwise.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 74 agreed to.
On section 75-Applications not to be accepted before certain conditions fulfilled.
Harry Butcher: I should like to speak
upon all the prospectus sections at this time.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Certainly.


Harry Butcher: I shall not bs referring
to each section individually. I have considered these sections very carefully and I must admit that they are very comprehensive. They are probably more comprehensive than any other prospectus sections which I have read, but I think one must admit that they will not cure probably the greatest evil which we have to-day in the matter of company promotions. So far as I can see, they do not touch the underwriter.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: They touch completely the
underwriter who underwrites and who is in any sense an agent of the company. The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) touched upon this point yesterday and made it clear that after the shares are beyond the control of the company and the company's underwriter, there is then no restriction imposed, but, until that event happens, all these sections apply.


Harry Butcher: I am not familiar with the facts, but I have been informed that quite often an underwriter has purchased shares.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Then he is a purchaser.


Harry Butcher: But in many cases he is really acting as the broker or agent.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Then in that case there is absolutely no doubt that he is covered by all the prohibitions and restrictions here provided. There is no doubt about it.


Harry Butcher: Will the Secretary of State point out to me any particular section by which he is affected?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is made clear in several sections. I would refer the hon. member to the definition of underwriter, beginning at line 29 on page 38:
"underwriter" includes (a) any person who, to the knowledge of the company, proposes to subscribe for securities of the company with a view to the resale to the public of those securities or a part thereof, and (b) any person to whom a commission is proposed or intended to be paid by the company in consideration of his subscribing or agreeing to subscribe, w'hether absolutely or conditionally, or in consideration of his procuring or agreeing to procure subscriptions, whether absolute or conditional, for any securities of the company to be offered to the public for subscription.


Harry Butcher: That does reach the underwriter who is not a purchaser of shares-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But he is not an underwriter when he becomes a purchaser. When he becomes a purchaser, when he has pur-
Dominion Companies Act

chased, it is improper to refer to him as an underwriter; he is then a purchaser of shares and owns them completely.


Harry Butcher: Is not an individual who purchases a large block of the shares of a corporation described in many cases as an underwriter?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: He may be in certain parlance, and the fact is that in many cases where a colourable purchase is put through he certainly remains an underwriter; and this very elaborate definition on page 38 is given for the express purpose of catching the man who attempts a colourable proceeding of that kind.


Harry Butcher: And the minister is quite satisfied that we cannot reach the person who actually buys shares and then proceeds to sell them again?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: My best advice is this. Under the guise of dealing with companies, even with dominion companies, when we attempt to deal with transactions between individual stockholders or individual bondholders-the sale by one person of his bonds to another, or the sale by one person of his shares to another-these are matters relating to ordinary transactions with respect to property and civil rights which are under provincial jurisdiction, and we might endanger the act if we attempted to proceed otherwise than under the criminal law. I am clearly convinced of that.


Harry Butcher: Recently I have been reading a book, Shareholders' Money, by Horace B. Samuel, in which this writer suggests that all persons who allow their names to appear on the prospectus, even bankers, brokers, trustees for debenture holders, auditors or solicitors of the company offering shares for sale, should be deemed to have authorized the issue of the prospectus, as much as in the case of directors. There is no doubt whatsoever that many sales are induced because of the prestige of the persons whose names appear on the prospectus. Has the Secretary of State considered the advisability of making a provision of that kind?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: My own impression is that by this bill now before the house we may impose upon directors and auditors such severe restrictions that when the act takes effect it will be very difficult to procure directors to act or auditors to subject themselves to such penal provisions as there proposed. I think we have gone to the extreme.


Harry Butcher: I think some effort should be made to place upon the company the burden of proof that the shares have actually been sold to the so-called underwriter. To this end I move the following amendment, as subsection 6 of section 75:
When shares of a company are offered to the public for subscription by any person, firm or corporation who has directly or indirectly procured the disposition of such shares by the company, such shares shall be deemed to have been so offered by the company or on its behalf within the meaning of subsection (1) hereof, unless the company shall previously to such offer have filed with the Secretary of State a statutory declaration made by the president or vice-president or the secretary or treasurer verifying the number of shares so disposed of and stating that the company has no financial interest in any offer to the public for subscription which may be made by such person, firm or corporation of shares to the number specified.
My reason for the amendment is found in the fact that practically every one of the prospectus provisions, as the Secretary of State knows, contains the words "issued by or on behalf of." You will find those words on page 38, line 40; page 39, line 4; page 41, line 1; page 44, line 35. I quite understand that these words are very7 naturally there, but I am rather anxious to place the onus of proof on the company that their shares have been actually sold.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Does the hon. member comprehend the effect of what he suggests?


Harry Butcher: I think so.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Shares of the Canadian Pacific Railway were no doubt sold fifty years ago-is it not fifty years since the Canadian Pacific was organized? Yet, is the Canadian Pacific Railway to have the onus of filing an affidavit now, when a thousand shares of its stock are sold, to the effect that it is no longer interested in those shares? It must simply mean that the company would have to follow every share. You cannot impose that burden upon a company, and I cannot accept the suggestion.


James Layton Ralston: The hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Butcher) spoke to me about the amendment just before three o'clock and I went over it with him. The amendment is an endeavour to meet the point raised by the Secretary of State. The amendment is intended to cover only an offer of shares to the public made by someone who had directly or indirectly procured the disposition of the shares from the company; or in other words, the first purchaser. That is what makes the difference. The words "directly or indirectly" are used but they are used there in order that

Dominion Companies Act
the broker or underwriter might not be able to say: Well I did not get them directly from the company; it was my clerk or partner. Or it might be somebody else close to him but not the actual person who was offering the shares to the public. The amendment tries to make that clear. If it is not clear, of course I know my hon. friend will be only too glad to have it made clear. But as I apprehend the effect of my hon. friend's amendment, it does just one thing. It says to the company: When you dispose of shares, go and tell the Secretary of State if you have disposed of them for good and .all, and if you do not do that it will be presumed that the person selling them to the public is offering them on your behalf and the prospectus provisions will apply. All a company has to do when it has actually disposed of shares, that is, has sold them, is to file a statement with, the Secretary of State that so many shares have been disposed of to So-and-so and then any disposition made by that person of those shares is not on behalf of the company. It is a good deal easier for the company to do that than for the public to attempt to prove that the sale was by or on behalf of the company. The amendment does not impose a very serious burden on the officers of the company and it will help very considerably to accomplish the object we are trying to attain here, namely, tightening up at least a bit these provisions with regard to prospectuses.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I admit the good intention
of the hon. member for Last Mountain supported by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth in regard to the purpose of the amendment, but I suggest that as drawn it would mean that a company in respect of the sale of its shares would be compelled not only to return to the Secretary of State, as it does now, the number of shares which it has sold, because that is included in returns of capital, but also to indicate the persons to whom the shares were 6old. I fail to see how you can distinguish between the purchaser of one share and the purchaser of one thousand shares, although the sale of one thousand shares may be made to a so-called investment banker who intends to resell them. I do not think we should go that far and make more complex regulations with regard to the sale of shares by an ordinary vendor to an ordinary vendee. We are now in this position with respect to dominion companies: we have imposed the most serious restrictions upon the company, upon the company's underwriters, upon any person who acts directly or indirectly as an
agent of the company in putting out those shares to the public. When we have done that we have done all that is within the legislative competence of this parliament, and, moreover, of the nine provinces excepting one, each has imposed pains and penalties under the so-called securities acts upon those dealing with the subsequent sale of those shares. That is one thing that is necessarily beyond our jurisdiction, and I think the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth would agree with me that to every practising lawyer, it would be of very great assistance if those provinces could agree upon enacting their securities acts in the same terms so that everyone would be fully informed as to the restrictions imposed with respect to subsequent sales of shares. That is about as far as we can now go, because to impose this duty as it is stated in the amendment would keep a company making affidavits and filing 'them with the Secretary of State week by week and month by month so long as the company might remain in existence. I hope the hon. member for Last Mountain will leave something to be amended or restricted in years to come because I trust he will long remain a member of parliament with ample opportunities in that regard.


James Layton Ralston: I want to make it
abundantly clear to the committee what the effect of the amendment is. In a word, it is the intention to have the company make it clear that such and such a person is not its agent. The. person purveying the shares of the company who has dealt directly with the company in procuring those shares is presumed to be its agent unless the company files an affidavit saying that he is not. That is all there is in the amendment and I do not think that is imposing very much of a burden. When the Secretary of State spoke I thought perhaps that was a compromise he might accept.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: At the time a public sale
is being made the presumption is that the stockbroker or investment banker so-called is really acting as an underwriter within the terms of this clause, and in case the company sought to escape liability the burden of proof would be upon it to show that such and such a person was not its agent in placing those shares before the public. Let us look at the more comprehensive features of the clause, far more comprehensive than under any English Companies Act. Clause 76 which we have passed provides that:
Sections 74, 75, and sections 77 to 82 inclusive-
Dominion Companies Act

Which are the prospectus clauses.
-shall not apply in respect of an offer hy a company of its securities-
(a)	to existing holders of its securities exclusively, for subscription to or in exchange for the securities held by them, where no commission or other remuneration is paid or given directly or indirectly to others in connection with such transaction;
(b)	to existing holders of its securities or to other creditors pursuant to an arrangement or compromise or reorganization-
Which is usually sanctioned by the courts. Those are excepted, but except for those exceptions every sale made by a company directly or indirectly by its underwriters or agents comes within these prospectus clauses. I think they are so extensive and stringent that it will be quite impossible for investment brokers who are actually underwriters or agents of the company to becloud or colour the issue by insisting that they are purchasers. In fact, the prospectus has to be sent out by. the company. If the underwriter sends out a prospectus he is bound to make an affidavit that before he accepts an application for a single share the applicant has had the prospectus in his hands. This bill goes much further than that, it gives the purchaser a certain time in which he may renounce his contract if there is a single misstatement or misrepresentation in the terms of that prospectus. I hesitate to go much further at the present time.


James Layton Ralston: The Secretary of State
will notice that this amendment is only an amendment to section 75, which deals with just what he has spoken of, namely the obligation of the company to see that any applicant for shares has received a copy of the prospectus. If the idea were accepted a somewhat similar provision should appear in the other prospectus sections. To illustrate in a word what the section means; if Jones & Company are offering shares for sale, the company is liable under the prospectus section to see that a prospectus has been delivered to John Smith who applies to the company for shares, having been solicited to do so by Jones & Company. The company can easily get rid of that liability by filing with the Secretary of State at the time they make their arrangement with Jones & Company an affidavit stating that they have no interest in the sale by Jones & Company to Smith. We just come back to the old question: Is that throwing too much of a burden on the company? I submit that it is doing something in a very limited way to increase the protection to the public and to ensure to purchasers the benefit of these sections, which I admit are most liberal in their scope,

in so far as they apply. The purpose is to place the burden of proof on the company rather than to make Smith prove that Jones & Company were acting for or on behalf of the company. That is the effect of the amendment. When my hon. friend thinks it over I believe he will agree with me that there is not one case in a hundred where the company offers its shares either by itself or on behalf of itself to the public, and he will realize therefore how very little practical use these prospectus sections are unless we have something that was suggested yesterday, either an amendment to the criminal code, uniform provincial legislation, or some more effective and valid provision in the companies act itself. I submit that this amendment is only going one very short step further in the hope of making these prospectus sections available to some who would not otherwise be able to take advantage of them because they would not be able to prove agency between the person who disposes of the shares and the company.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: All I can say to the hon. gentleman is that perhaps in recent years my experience has not been so active, but in all these large issues made in Montreal in which I was counsel, sold by underwriters and agents, I prepared the prospectus of the company and had it published in the papers and sent out-


James Layton Ralston: By the company itself?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The company itself, because I found that where a company was liable if it received applications directly or indirectly, that was the only way in which it could really absolve itself. I know my hon. friend has a large practice of the same kind, perhaps a large part of my former practice. My experience leads me to think that this bill pretty well covers the difficulty, and I do not like to enter upon ground here of which I cannot foresee the prejudicial result. As long as a company is completely responsible for itself and its officers and its underwriters or agents, then I think that is going about as far as we should go at the present time.


Onésime Gagnon: The
amendment is withdrawn.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 76-Provisions not applicable in certain cases.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Hon. gentlemen will note
that the word "to" in the second line of paragraph (a) should be deleted. It is simply a clerical error.

Dominion Companies Act


Maurice Dupré: I move the amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 77-Specific requirements as to particulars of prospectus.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Since section 77 was held
over I have given it careful study. In the votes and proceedings of May 16, a certain number of the proposed amendments are already printed. In paragraph (p), line 16, the words used are "in excess of." Attention has been called to the fact that the words "more than" would be more effective. Therefore at the suggestion of some hon. member, I do not remember who, I propose to substitute the words "more than" for the words "in excess of"; and for correctness to strike out the comma after the word "property" in line 17.


Maurice Dupré: I move that amendment,
Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In view of our discussion
yesterday and the suggestion made by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote), I think, and also, I think, endorsed by the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Butcher), further consideration has been given to the matter of the balance sheet which the auditors must certify. I now suggest that on page 44, in subsection (3), clause (a) (i) after the word "company" in the 39th line we insert the words "or if the company has any subsidiaries a consolidated balance sheet of the company and all its subsidiaries."
I think I gave the impression that in case of companies having subsidiaries I would insist that this should be done, and I think that this amendment would be helpful.
Then I have to suggest a similar amendment in the 51st line on page 44 by inserting after the word "company" the same words, "or if the company has any subsidiaries a consolidated balance sheet of the company and all its subsidiaries."
Then the same amendment in the 19th line of page 45.
Mr. BOTHWEtLL: Which line?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Line 19, page 45; the amendment is to add the words "and if the company has any subsidiaries such report shall be made with respect to the profits or losses of the company and all its subsidiaries." After careful consideration I suggest to hon. gentlemen that I have fully carried out the
promise I made to review these clauses and make them more distinct than they were before.


Maurice Dupré: I move these three amendments accordingly.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: May I ask if this consolidated balance sheet of all the subsidiary companies involves particulars in respect of each or merely a summary of the financial standing of all the subsidiaries?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If the subsidiary companies are under this statute, under the other provisions they must make a full statement, but if one company is responsible for subsidiary companies it must present its own statement and in connection with that statement it must present a consolidated balance sheet in which all the material facts with respect to the profits and losses of its subsidiary companies shall appear. I think that is as far as I can go. I should like the approbation of the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth in this, but I think that is as far as it is now possible to go.


James Layton Ralston: It is a matter of accounting; I do not know very much about it. I should have thought the question of the hon. member for East Edmonton (Mr. Bury) very pertinent and the answer of the Secretary of State entirely correct, namely that you only require returns respecting companies which are under this act. I think what the committee wanted to be sure of was whether or not the company could by any chance mix up in the returns under this act the assets and liabilities of subsidiaries which are under other acts. It seems to me that it ought to be abundantly clear that under this act the company should present its own separate statement and, in addition certain particulars with regard to its subsidiaries.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I think that is true, that it has to make a consolidated statement showing in addition the profits or losses of its subsidiaries, and all material facts in relation thereto. I have consulted accountants; they think the amendment is going to an extreme, and that it will involve a great deal of additional labour. My reply has been that if the companies are wealthy enough to have subsidiaries they can pay the extra cost.


James Layton Ralston: Some of the taxing authorities require companies to break down their balance statements and show all their subsidiaries in separate balance sheets.
Dominion Companies Act


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: As I understand it the information given will not enable a shareholder of the parent company to see exactly where or in what particulars the losses or profits of subsidiary companies are being made. He will have simply the general result of the operations of a number of subsidiary companies, and as between them he will not know which company is making money and which is not.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If the company has any subsidiaries a consolidated balance sheet of the company and all its subsidiaries is required under several of the clauses. Finally, if the company has any subsidiaries, such report shall be made with respect to profits and losses of the company and of all its subsidiaries. In other words, there should be a distinction between the profits and losses of the parent company and the profits and losses of the subsidiaries. That would allow any shareholder to ascertain the situation from the auditor at the general meeting.


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have one other suggestion to make in subsection (3), paragraph (c), at line 29 of page 45. The suggestion is that the words "and the nature and source thereof" be inserted after the word "business."


Maurice Dupré: I move accordingly. Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 78, 79 and 80 agreed to.
On section 82-Unlawful to call at any house.


Charles Edward Bothwell: There is an amendment to this section in the votes and proceedings.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Quite so. It was drawn to my attention that although this canvass could not take place where the occupant resides permanently or temporarily, he might be called out to the side of the road for the purpose of being canvassed. I suggest that in subsection 2 of section 82 after the word "temporarily" in the eleventh line there be inserted the words "and any premises appurtenant thereto."


Maurice Dupré: I move accordingly, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 83 agreed to.	.

On section 96-Liability of directors for wages unsatisfied.
Harry Butcher: Has the minister considered the advisability of changing the word "two" in line 18 to the word "six" to make it correspond with a similar section in part 3?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I assume we ought to have the same term in the both cases, if the hon. gentleman will move it.


Harry Butcher: I move, Mr. Chairman, to substitute the word "six" for the word "two" in line 18 of section 96.


James Layton Ralston: I never could understand why a director should be personally liable for wages.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The provision was inserted many years ago when directors were the whole company and each was made liable for the employee's wages. I do not think it was ever intended to apply to companies which have many thousands of employees and in respect to whom a director would unwillingly become liable for such large arrears of wages, but as we have made a similar amendment in another part we are consistent in accepting this amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 108, 114 and 115 agreed to.
On section 120-Report.
Harry Butcher: I move, Mr. Chairman, to amend subsection 2 by inserting between the words "entitled" and "to" in the twenty-ninth line of page 71 the words "or on the request of shareholders holding ten per cent of the stock or ten per cent of any class of stock shall be required to."


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The hon. gentleman gave me notice of this amendment, and I made some inquiry in regard to it. I am informed that it is part of the domestic discipline in the regulations of auditors in all their auditors' associations that they attend upon the request of any shareholders who are interested inasmuch as they represent the shareholders. It is therefore their present practice to attend but this amendment which suggests that they should attend on the request of shareholders holding ten per cent of any class of stock, would not prove very effective. It would seem to impose upon them no duty to attend unless some shareholders undertook the task of seeking out individual shareholders and asking them to sign a request of this kind. The

Supply-Post Office
amendment is not objectionable to me but I am told that such is the practice of the * auditors, and perhaps the amendment would impose the difficult task of securing the written request of ten per cent of any class of shareholders, thereby making it more difficult than it is now.


Harry Butcher: I withdraw the amendment after what the Secretary of State has said.
Amendment (Mr. Butcher) withdrawn.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 182-Contracts by agents and officers.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I think we might amend this
as we did section 18.


Maurice Dupré: I move, Mr. Chairman, to strike out subsection 1 and to substitute the following therefor:
Every contract, agreement, engagement or bargain made, and every bill of exchange drawn, accepted or endorsed, and every promissory note and cheque made, drawn or endorsed on behalf of the company, by any agent, officer or servant of the company, within the apparent scope of his authority as such agent, officer or servant, shall be binding upon the company.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 182 agreed to.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Before reporting the bill I move, Mr. Chairman, that it be reprinted with the amendments that have been made.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton South) in the chair.
Salaries, including amounts required to pay allowances to office appliance operators, grade 2, operating mechanical audit card punching machines in accordance with the terms of order in council P.C. 280/383, dated February 17, 1930; and to pay allowances to typists, grade 1, employed cutting stencils in accordance with regulations approved by order in council; and to provide for continuance in office of G. C. Anderson, as superintendent of mail contracts from April 1,	1934, to March 31,	1935,
$1,145,124; contingencies, $174,840.
Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Can the
minister furnish the house with details?


Hon. ARTHUR SAUVE (Postmaster General) (Translation):: Quite easily. I am informed that the amount requested covers statutory expenditure. There is no new feature. The amount has been voted each year because it is required for the good administration of the department.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: It is for
the employees?


Arthur Sauvé: Yes.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The employees in the various branches?


Arthur Sauvé: Yes, inside service.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri) (Translation):: Can the hon. minister state how many typists grade 1 there are, or must we read the English version of the estimates "and to pay allowances to typists grade 1 employed in cutting stencils." How many typists are in the department?


Arthur Sauvé: The hon. member will admit that it is rather difficult to state off hand how many typists there are. I wonder whether there are any.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: At page 9 of the estimates one finds: " Salaries, including amounts required to pay allowances to office appliance operators-


Arthur Sauvé: They are not
typists, they are operators in charge of punching machines.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: -and to pay allowances to typists grade 1, employed cutting stencils-


Arthur Sauvé: There are
twelve.


Mr. BOUCHARD (Translation):: Will the hon. minister inform the house as to how many translators there are in his department, how many hours they work per day and how it is possible for them to work for other departments? I think they do some translation for the tariff commission.
Mr. SAUVE (Translation:	We have six
translators. I am not aware that they work for the tariff commission. However, it is possible, under certain circumstances.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: May I
inquire of the hon. minister whether a decision has been taken in connection with the position of Deputy Postmaster General? Does the official who was the assistant of the Deputy Minister act at present as Deputy Minister or has he been appointed to the position?


Arthur Sauvé: The Deputy Postmaster General who retired has not yet been replaced.
Supply-Post Office


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Has the
government the intention of replacing him in the near future?


Arthur Sauvé: I think so, in
fact, I feel certain.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Could the Postmaster General state whether Mr. Boutet is employed by his department and what are his duties.


Arthur Sauvé: I think that a reply has already been given to this question. Yes, he is secretary to the executive.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Would
the hon. Postmaster General accept a suggestion from the opposition as regards the appointment of the future Deputy Postmaster General?


Arthur Sauvé: The Postmaster General is willing to consider any suggestion made to him and accept the most suitable.


Mr. REID:: I should like to make another appeal to the minister on behalf of fifty-four householders in the city of New Westminster who are desirous of obtaining a house to house delivery of mail. I wrote to the minister on February 9 while he was away and received a reply from his deputy that he did not think the department could carry out this improvement this year. I think the circumstances are such that the minister should hear the case. This is not a case of fifty-four residents living outside the city or in a far off section, they live within the city of New Westminster and they are desirous of having their mail delivered at their doors. I would direct the attention of the minister to the fact that people who live around this particular area in which these people live receive house to house deliveries. It causes a good deal of inconvenience because they have to go eight or nine blocks and boxes have to be erected. These boxes are very often interfered with. In view of the fact that they are living in a well populated district, I am appealing to the minister to reconsider the case of these fifty-four householders and see whether it is not possible to provide a house to house delivery. With some rearrangement this could be accomplished.


Arthur Sauvé: I thank the hon. member for his representations. The matter is under consideration.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: At the end of the item under consideration I find: " And to provide for continuance in office of G. C.

Anderson, as superintendent of mail contracts from April 1, 1934, to March 31, 1935." Am I to understand that this item will be voted from year to year or is it anticipated that this official will retire from the service.


Arthur Sauvé: It is to be
anticipated.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What is
the age of this official?


Arthur Sauvé: I think he is
over 70 years of age.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: At what age, generally, does the Civil Service Act oblige employees to retire ?


Arthur Sauvé: At sixty-five years. In the present case, the Postmaster General had to revert to precedents which seemed to ham well founded.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Moreover, a man is as old as he feels.


Maurice Dupré: Not always.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: If he is an efficient employee, keep him.


Mr VENIOT (Translation):: It is worth
an order in council to keep him at work.


Mr. POULIOT (Translation):: I am pleased to note that the hon. Postmaster General has returned from his trip. I would like to inquire of him as to how many postmasters have been dismissed, for political partisanship since August, 1930.


Arthur Sauvé: The hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) whose return, after a few days of absence, I am pleased to note, will allow me to point out to him that the question rather concerns the outside service. Will he accept my sug

gestion and put the question when we take up the estimates of the outside service?


Jean-François Pouliot: Shall we
take up the outside service afterwards?


Arthur Sauvé: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: I regret to note, in the item under consideration, that the Postmaster General is keeping, in the service of the Post Office Department, Mr. Anderson who has passed, long ago, the age limit. The minister is well aware that the person who is doing all the work is Mr. Saint-Germain, a very humble and competent official who is entitled to promotion. Mr. Anderson simply smokes his pipe, says he is a

Supply-Post Office
friend of every member and makes the other do the work. I think it would be proper for the Postmaster General, who is in the habit of displaying his patriotism, to grant this promotion to Mr. Saint-Germain, who is as worthy as he is humble, and to alter this item so as to give Mr. Anderson the pension to which he is entitled.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Before the Postmaster General replies I wish to add a few words to what the hon. member for Temiscouata has just said. I am well acquainted with Mr. Anderson and I hold nothing against him. He is an official who has had much experience and has rendered great services to the Post Office Department, however, as the hon. member for Temiscouata stated, when an employee has been in the service of the state for many years after attaining the age fixed by the act for retirement, he prevents the promotion of all other employees of a lower rank. These employees receive no encouragement because they are aware that they cannot be promoted as long as this old official is not retired. Mr. Saint-Germain is as competent as any other employee in the department. I was acquainted with him at the university. He was a law student at the university of Montreal, in my time. I am aware that he has successfully passed his examinations and, to-day, occupies a high post without receiving the salary to which he is entitled. I cannot believe that Mr. Anderson, in the opinion of those who administer the department to-day is absolutely indispensable. Mr. Anderson acquired his efficiency since he is in the department. I think it most unfair to keep in the service employees who have passed the retiring age, because they are an obstacle, during numerous years, to the promotion of employees having the required qualification to give excellent service to the state. Moreover, this is of a nature to discourage personal initiative of employees. They have not the same interest to work because there is no promotion ahead owing to employees, who should be retired, clinging indefinitely to their position. Were the latter to retire, they would still have their pension. I am not referring to Mr. Anderson, but simply to the principle involved. It is unfair to deprive of promotion those who have worked and possess the required qualifications to fill higher posts, simply because persons who, at present, fill those positions are not retired although according to the Civil Service Act they should be.
If it were a matter of great emergency, for instance, in a time of war, when a deputy minister owing to his special and considerable experience at the head of his department or to the wide knowledge and indispensable information he has, I could understand that it would be difficult to replace him, and under the circumstances, an exception could be made, but the present case in not so. I wish it to be well understood that my remarks are not directed against Mr. Anderson personally-I highly esteem and respect him-however, it is a question of principle and administration.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: How long ago should he have been retired?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: He is
seventy-six years old.


Arthur Sauvé: What?


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: In what year should he have been retired?


Arthur Sauvé: According to the letter of the law, before I took office.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Then, he was kept on.


Mr. VENIOT (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, it is a fact that Mr. Anderson was kept on previous to the hon. Postmaster General taking office, when he had already reached the age of 70, and if I am not mistaken, there was an order in council passed in this respect. The intention was then to continue the services of Mr. Anderson until a reorganization of the staff of the department could be carried out. I really believe, especially, in these times when economy must be practised, that it is unnecessary to have a superintendent of mail contracts and that the reorganization of that departmental branch would permit saving the salary of this official who receives about $4,000 per year, while the results obtained would be the same, if not better. I am not opposed to having Mr. Anderson remain in the department while awmiting the reorganization of the branch; however, I think there is cause to criticize the department for not having earned out, in these days of depression, this reorganization. I wish to point out to the hon. Postmaster General the fact that a reorganization of this branch of the administration would save money to the country.
Mr. SAUVE (Translation); I wish to thank the hon. member, the ex-Postmaster General, for his suggestions. Apparently, he is aware that we have already begun a fusion and that we intend to continue the work of reorganizing.
Supply-Post Office


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: To what fusion does the hon. Postmaster General refer?


Arthur Sauvé: The staffs of the publicity bureau and the secretary's office.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Who is the secretary of the department?


Arthur Sauvé: Mr. Hormisdas Beaulieu.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. member for Gloucester must recall that when
he was Postmaster General, I had occasion to complain about Mr. Anderson, and I still insist that Mr. Anderson should be retired, which would permit him to live honourably. I do not agree with the views of the hon. member for Gloucester, with reference to abolishing that position. When an employee in a department carries out his duties, he is entitled to a promotion, and it is not because salaries have been reduced 10 per cent at present that we should abolish an important post to which employees may aspire. I now wish to draw the attention of the Postmaster General to another official. I want to ask him whether Mr. Edgar Boutet is paid out of this item.


Arthur Sauvé: Certainly.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is the Postmaster General aware that this person is secretary to the executive? That is the first part of my question. The second is: what are the duties of the executive of a department? I should like to be furnished with information in this respect.


Arthur Sauvé: To the first question, I reply yes. To the second, the executive of the Post Office department is similar to that of other departments.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Who are the persons that form part of the executive?


Arthur Sauvé: The Postmaster General, the Deputy Postmaster General, the Assistant Deputy, the Secretary of the department, the private secretary of the minister and the secretary of Postmaster General's office. Mr. Boutet is secretary of the latter.


Jean-François Pouliot: According to the hon. Postmaster General's statement, I understand that it is a kind of departmental council and, therefore, the duties of Mr. Boutet are those of a civil servant.


Arthur Sauvé: No.


Jean-François Pouliot: What is the difference between the private secretary and
the secretary to the executive.


Arthur Sauvé: The Postmaster General like all other ministers is entitled to a certain number of employees.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: How many?


Arthur Sauvé: Five.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What are the names of the employees to whom he has a right?


Arthur Sauvé: Their names are of no importance, he is entitled to five. Mr. Boutet carries out the duties that another person performed before I took office. Formerly it was Mr. Lalonde and before him Miss Theriault, if I am not mistaken. Mr. Boutet replaced Air. Lalonde.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Translation) :: I am amazed to hear the hon. Postmaster General state that the secretary to the executive in a department is not a civil servant. It is true that by virtue of an agreement with the Civil Service Commission, a minister is entitled to appoint certain employees such as a secretary to the executive, a stenographer, a confidential messenger, also his private secretary; however, these employees are civil servants.


Arthur Sauvé: No.


Ernest Lapointe: The only difference is that it is not necessary that they should be appointed by the Civil Service Commission. Their salaries appear in the budget of the civil service of each department. The position they occupy is included in the estimates and they are absolutely governed by the same rules as other civil servants. To state that these employees may take an active part in politics is absolutely contrary to all recognized principles.


Arthur Sauvé: I did not say active politics.


Ernest Lapointe: Looking at things in this light, all ministers could appoint, four or five partisans who could meddle in politics and take an active part in electoral controversies. It was never done- and my hon. friend can take my word for it -before he laid down this principle as the only one which should prevail. I am aware that -the private secretary has to look after the political correspondence of his minister, however, I shall not go as far as to state that a private secretary, paid by the state,

Supply-Post Office
may also take an active part in electoral controversies. At least, he would be more entitled to do so than the secretary to the executive who, personally, works for the department like the stenographers and other employees who, under an agreement with the Civil Service Commission, are exempted from passing tests and from certain other provisions of the act. However, the provision of the act which prohibits civil servants taking an active part in politics, certainly applies to those employees. I do not know what Mr. Boutet's work is, I did not even know that he was employed in the Post Office Department, but frankly, if he is now an election organizer, the minister should not tolerate such conduct.


Arthur Sauvé: Mr. Boutet is certainly not an organizer in the present election.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not know.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Louder!


Arthur Sauvé: Mr. Boutet is certainly not an organizer in any election at present. As secretary to the executive Mr. Boutet is not a permanent employee.


Ernest Lapointe: No, but he is a civil servant.
Mr. SAUVE (Translation); He is there for a definite period but not permanently.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: What are his working hours?


Arthur Sauvé: I am not
ashamed to state what are the working hours of Mr. Boutet, because he does not simply tie himself down to the regulation hours, but he is at his office from 8 a.m. There is no one who is more methodical in departmental work.


Mr. DUBOIS (Translation):: Did Mr. Boutet pass any examination before entering the service of the department?


Arthur Sauvé: It was unnecessary. The ex-Postmaster General can supply the information. I simply followed his example. I took in the same number of employees as he did. That is all.


Peter John Veniot: The Postmaster General .has just stated that he followed my example. Not in everything.


Arthur Sauvé: With reference to the subject under discussion.


Peter John Veniot: The hon.
Postmaster General followed my example as regards the way that this employee was chosen; he was not amenable to the Civil Service Act, that is true, but may I say to the hon. Postmaster General that while I had the honour of being at the head of the Post Office .Department, I did not allow my private secretary or the secretary clerk-I did not allow either one or the other to meddle in politics and even my political correspondence did not pass through their hands. I attended to this work personally, as all ministers should do, and I requested these two officials to simply attend to the official correspondence.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I inquire of the Postmaster General whether he is aware that this person is. if not one of the organizers at least one of those who prepare the campaign Eter-turp for the Conservative party in connection with the provincial election in Ontario, and especially for the counties of Prescott and Russell?


Arthur Sauvé: Not to my knowledge. I wish to state that since Mr. Boutet has been employed by the Post Office Department he has received no instruction either directly or indirectly from the Postmaster General to take an active part in politics.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: What is his salary?


Ernest Lapointe: Did he receive instructions from the Postmaster General not to take an active part?


Arthur Sauvé: His instructions from the Postmaster General were to carry out his duties, all his duties, in the department.


Ernest Lapointe: Nothing
with reference to politics?


Arthur Sauvé: I expressed
the wish that he should attend to his department and I do not think that, since my return, he has publicly meddled in any way in politics-I do not think so.


Mr. RAYMOND (Translation):: The hon.
Postmaster General gave him no orders?


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: What is his salary?


Arthur Sauvé: S2,100.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Did the
Postmaster General instruct him not to meddle in politics ?
Supply-Post Office


Arthur Sauvé: Yes.


Donat Raymond: It is not a wish, then?


Arthur Sauvé: To avoid
any criticism on the part of those who might find fault with his conduct, I wish to add that Mr. Boutet is an intelligent man; he has rendered services in the past-


Donat Raymond: To the
Conservative party.


Arthur Sauvé: I would
request the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Raymond) not to be so narrow-minded on this subject. We cannot restrict Mr. Boutet's activities to the Conservative party; he is so kindly disposed that he can render services to the hon. member for Beauharnois, should he request him to do so.


Donat Raymond: It is not a matter of narrow-mindedness, it is a question of knowing the facts.


Arthur Sauvé: Mr. Boutet
is a very intelligent person. He may, in the past, have written for various newspapers; however, since he has been on the departmental staff, I do not think that he has written for these newspapers. At least, so far as I am aware-especially since my return -I do not think that he has written for any newspapers.


Jean-François Pouliot: Can the
Postmaster General state why his salary was reduced from $2,200 to $2,100, following an order in council?


Arthur Sauvé: It was to
regularize his position.


Jean-François Pouliot: (Translation): How, regularize? He was first appointed at $2,200; a few days later, an order in council reduced his salary to $2,100. Why was his salary reduced $100? Was it to give him a warning or teach him a lesson?


Arthur Sauvé: Not at all.


Maurice Dupré: At the time,
the hon. Postmaster General was absent in Europe, we found out that the salary we had granted to Mr. Boutet-I do not recall what was the amount, $3,000, I think, the amount matters little-was not the regular salary to which he was entitled. To correct this irregularity, we passed a second order in council granting him the salary to which he was entitled, according to his position.


Jean-François Pouliot: I regret to note that the memory of the hon. Solicitor

General (Mr. Dupre) is at fault. The two orders in council were passed in November and December, previous to the departure of the hon. Postmaster General in January. Therefore, the hon. Postmaster General was here when these two orders in council were passed. Perhaps he was not present at this cabinet meeting, however, he was in Canada.


Maurice Dupré: I do not wish to contradict the hon. member. I think he is right when he states that the first order in council was passed when the hon. Postmaster General was present. However, if I remember right-I speak from memory-we discovered later on that he was not entitled to the salary we had granted him. That was the only reason why we subsequently put things right by order in council.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Did he not receive any payment on account on the salary to which he was not entitled?


Maurice Dupré: No, none.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Then, there is no reimbursement to be made?


Maurice Dupré: No. Not
only this, in order to set matters right, he received no salary during a month he was in the Post Office Department, because we thought it was not regular and Mr. Boutet owing to this lost nearly a month's salary.


Jean-François Pouliot: What the hon. minister has just stated would have astonished me less had it come from the lips of one of his colleagues. The Postmaster General has dismissed hundreds of postmasters, wrongfully charged of taking an active part in politics. I quoted numerous cases of flagrant injustice, cases where poor chaps who had never meddled in politics were dismissed on the charge, without any evidence of persons who coveted their position. In such cases the commissioner making the inquiry, wishing to please his party expressed the opinion that the postmaster had meddled in politics and should be dismissed, and, almost invariably the position was given to the person who had made the charge. To-day, the Postmaster Genera) protects a person who is only qualified to alter texts, the correspondent of a newspaper which misquotes the speeches of Liberals, a person who has no moral conscience. I am amazed that the Postmaster General and the Solicitor General plead in his favour. Surely there are among their supporters many persons more worthy than this individual.
In the absence of the Postmaster General, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett)

Supply-Post Office
stated that he recognized the right of the secretary to the executive to meddle in politics. I do not see how an employee has the right to take an active part in politics while postmasters are dismissed even when they keep out of politics, simply because they are charged with political partisanship by people who wish to step into their position.
I ask the hon. Postmaster General whether he would be willing to hold an inquiry on the dealings of Boutet, during his absence and to ascertain whether he is, if not the organizer, at least one of the editors of the conservative campaign literature for the provincial election, in the French speaking counties located along the Ottawa river?


Arthur Sauvé: Certainly.


Jean-François Pouliot: The answer
of the hon. Postmaster General is satisfactory to me, providing he can communicate the findings of the inquiry before the end of the session. The hon. Postmaster General nods affirmatively and I wish to thank him.
Now, sir, I wish to inquire of the Postmaster General whether this item includes his travelling expenses to Europe and Asia?


Arthur Sauvé: No, I do not
think so.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: He went around the world three times!


Arthur Sauvé: I did not quite catch the question of the hon. member.


Jean-François Pouliot: I cannot
imagine how the Postmaster General who saw so many attractive things at the outset of the session, has forgotten them so soon; he does not remember visiting the bewailing walls of Jerusalem, having seen king Fuad, in Egypt, having met Mr. Mussolini, in Italy, the President of the French Republic, in Paris and His Majesty King George V of Great Britain. I think he holds a record, for no other Canadian minister has been so privileged during a session of parliament, to meet so many distinguished persons.
During the absence of the hon. Postmaster General, I had occasion to ask a few questions. I would request him to kindly reply to some others; however, before putting them I wish to lay down the preliminaries. I find no fault with the Postmaster General's trip to attend the postal congress at Cairo. It was quite the thing, and quite in order, however, what amazed me were his numerous travels abroad while we were lonesome for him and were deprived in the house of his pleasant smile. Those were the reasons why we so much in-74726-225
sisted that he should return to this country. We were unhappy, there was a void in the house which no one could fill. It is true that the hon. Solicitor General did his best-


Maurice Dupré: He could not
fill that void.


Jean-François Pouliot: -however, it was not the same and we missed the presence of the hon. Postmaster General.
I had occasion to obtain copies of a few orders in council from which I gathered that the Postmaster General's mission, at the congress at Cairo, was to watch over the deliberations. I wondered whether he simply was satisfied with giving his instructions to the distinguished persons who met there and whether, afterwards, he trusted their sense of duty and allowed them to carry on their work while he was fulfilling another mission.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: While he himself acted in a "caire-less" way.


Jean-François Pouliot: I wish to
inquire of the Postmaster General whether there was an order in council entrusting him with another mission than that of attending to the Postal Congress at Cairo and taking part in the deliberations.


Arthur Sauvé: There was no other order in council than the one authorizing the Postmaster General to take part in the Postal Congress, at Cairo. It was not possible for the Postmaster General to go there by a direct route, he had to make certain stops. He served his country the best he could at that congress. I do not contend that the hon. member for Temiscouata might have served it better-I shall not gainsay that- however, wherever the Postmaster General went he endeavoured to represent his country the best he could.


Maurice Dupré: Hear, hear!


Arthur Sauvé: As far as
expenses go I think the Post Office Department saved sufficiently last year, on the travelling expenses of employees to cover those of this delegation.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: You practised thrift so that you might travel, that is economy!


Arthur Sauvé: The hon. member for St. Henri has a particular way to jump at conclusions and give any interpretation but the right one to certain questions. As to the bewailing walls, I made no stop there, I simply passed by so as to see whether they resembled the one we have in Canada.

Supply-Post Office


Jean-François Pouliot: There are
walls which speak. However, what I regret very much is that the Canadian government did not think proper to confide a diplomatic mission to the hon. Postmaster General. I feel sure that he would have well performed such a task.
He now states that he was to take part in the postal congress at Cairo. I wish to inquire of him as to how long this congress lasted and at how many sittings he was present.


Onésime Gagnon: I am absolutely at the disposal of the committee; however, I wish to point out that the question under discussion is not relevant to this item.


Jean-François Pouliot: I rise to a point of order.


Arthur Sauvé: I have no
objection.


Ernest Lapointe: It will expedite matters.


Arthur Sauvé: Will the hon. member repeat his question?


Jean-François Pouliot: How long
did the congress at Cairo last and at how many sittings was the Postmaster General present?


Arthur Sauvé: The congress
lasted seven weeks.


Jean-François Pouliot: At how many
sittings was the Postmaster General present?


Arthur Sauvé: I was present at all sittings during my two weeks' stay in Cairo.


Jean-François Pouliot: In other
words the hon. Postmaster General missed the sittings of the congress for five weeks, he was present at two-sevenths of the sittings. However, this does not tell us at how many sittings he was present. He states that he was present during fifteen days, that is all right, however, I greatly regret that the Postmaster General was not present at all the sittings. May I inquire of the Postmaster General as to what were the questions discussed while he was present and during his absence.


Arthur Sauvé: The report has not yet been prepared; it will be submitted to the- house next session. I am sure that the hon. member for Temiscouata will approve of it; he will find all the information he desires in this report which will be attached to the one of the Postmaster General.


Ernest Lapointe: Who will present it next session?


Arthur Sauvé: The one designated by providence.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: How many nations were represented at the postal congress held in Cairo.


Arthur Sauvé: Eighty-six
nations were represented at that congress.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What were the names of the members of the Canadian delegation?


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: What had King Fuad to do with this congress?


Arthur Sauvé: The hon. member for St. Henri will admit that my mission was not to inquire about King Fuad's actions.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Was he entitled to attend the sittings of the congress? Did he make any suggestions? Kings are not of a daily occurrence, because crowned heads are few.
Mr. SAUVE (Translation) The secretariat of this congress was perfectly aware that it was not proper to invite the king to attend the sittings and, therefore, did not invite him.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Was he in your company when you visited the pyramids and the sphinx?


Arthur Sauvé: Will the hon. member for St. Henri kindly put his question intelligently so that I may reply.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: On the other hand, the pyramids twenty centuries old passed in review before the Postmaster General.


Ernest Lapointe: Forty
centuries.


Arthur Sauvé: More than
that.


Jean-François Pouliot: Does this
item include the publication of the album presented to the delegates?


Arthur Sauvé: No.


Jean-François Pouliot: Does it include the travelling expenses of the delegates to British Columbia, last year?


Arthur Sauvé: No.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Mr. Chairman, I have heard a great deal of this album of the Post Office Department which created such a sensation in parliament,

Supply-Post Office
among the public and in the press of this country, and which apparently was responsible for the former Deputy Postmaster General, Mr. Gaboury, being suspended. Will the hon. Postmaster General narrate, briefly, the famous history, or legend of this postal album?


Arthur Sauvé: I am not
aware of any legend on the subject.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Then all that was said is true?


Arthur Sauvé: I beg your
pardon? Will the hon. member complete his question?


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: I wish to know all about the publication of this postal album distributed in Cairo and which was the cause of the dismissal of the former deputy minister of your department, during your absence.


Arthur Sauvé: It was not
during my absence. It is difficult to reply to the questions of the hon. member for St. Henri, because they somewhat are at variance with the facts, they should be more to the point. First, there is no postal album. Then the deputy minister was neither suspended nor dismissed in connection with the album.
In March 1933, Mr. Webster, the secretary of the department had planned to publish a souvenir-album on the occasion of the meeting of the executive committee which was to be held in the course of the summer, at Ottawa. A representative of the printing office of the Gazette had put in a tender. Thinking that this album would be too expensive, I instructed Mr. Webster, in the presence of Mr. Gaboury to drop the matter, for reasons of economy.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: I think that the hon. Postmaster General was giving us the history of the postal album.


Arthur Sauvé: The history
is a short one. I was stating that the department had planned to publish an album. Tenders were requested but the Postmaster General thought that, under the circumstances, the cost was too high-since we practise, in the department, a policy of strict economy-and decided that no album would be published. Mr. Webster, the secretary of 74726-225$
the department received instruction not to take any further steps in respect to this album. Later on I heard that an album had been prepared. I was assured, however, that such was not the case. After certain inquiries or investigation, I discovered that an album had been prepared and the secretary of the department informed me then


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Mr. Webster?


Arthur Sauvé: Yes, Mr. Webster.
-that there was an album but that the cost had been defrayed by the Pacific company.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: What was the cost?


Arthur Sauvé: I shall state it.


Peter John Veniot: Paid by whom?


Arthur Sauvé: Paid by the
Pacific company, according to Mr. Webster. One day I received an album to be forwarded to His Majesty the King with the compliments of the Postmaster General. I replied: if the Pacific company is paying the cost of this album, they are the ones who should forward it to His Majesty; and I refused to sign. Later on, after a further inquiry, we found out that the album had been paid out of the funds of the department.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: What amount was paid?


Arthur Sauvé: $21 per copy.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: How many copies were there?


Arthur Sauvé: 200 copies.


Peter John Veniot: 


Arthur Sauvé: The answer was given in the course of the session: $4,000.
If I may be allowed, as I have been asked to give the history of this album, I shall complete it. It was then that Mr. Webster was suspended, and he later confessed, in a written statement, that he had been guilty of insubordination, of having disobeyed the instructions of the Minister. After a number of days, he was reinstated.
Of course, a number of these copies were turned over to the department and we forwarded one to all the delegates to the Congress. The surplus was distributed among very respectable people.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: I did
not receive one.
Supply-Post Office

Mr. SA'UVE (Translation):	I regret it
very much, had I distributed them to all who would have liked to have a copy, after examining them, it would have cost some $20,000.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: What was the amount paid for these albums?


Arthur Sauvé: 84,000,


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: What firm printed them.


Arthur Sauvé: The Gazette
Printing Co.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: The Gazette Printing Co?


Arthur Sauvé: Yes, the Gazette Printing Company.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Of Montreal?


Donat Raymond: You state that you forwarded them to respectable people. Who made out the list of these respectable people?


Arthur Sauvé: There was no
list properly speaking. As the opportunity presented itself, we sent a copy.


Donat Raymond: At the request of some one?


Arthur Sauvé: Yes, sometimes. At other times, it was left to the discretion of the Postmaster General.


Donat Raymond: How many were thus distributed?


Arthur Sauvé: I do net know the exact number. What remained.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Are there any more at the department?


Arthur Sauvé: I do not think so. Perhaps, one or two copies.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Has the government the intention of having others printed for members?


Arthur Sauvé: No, because
I always was opposed to the printing of this album. I wish to be rational.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: How many employees are there at present, in the inside service?-the total only.


Arthur Sauvé: 830.


Donat Raymond: How many were there when you took over the department?


Arthur Sauvé: A few more,
about a hundred more.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Am I to conclude that there has not been, to your knowledge, any examination held by the Civil Service Commission, since 1930 for positions in the Post Office Department?


Arthur Sauvé: No, none.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Can you state how many employees have been placed on the retired list since two years?


Arthur Sauvé: I cannot state
the exact figures however, I think it is about forty-forty or fifty.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether my question has reference to the item under discussion. When the hon. Postmaster General figures out the revenue of his department, how does he proceed to separate the postage stamps which have been used on letters and those used on cheques which should be credited rather to the National Revenue Department? Has he any method of doing so? For instance, if I forward a cheque, or if I receive one from the hon. Postmaster General, with a three cents stamp, it may be a postage stamp or again it may be a national revenue stamp. In drawing up his balance sheet and determining the revenue of the Post Office Department; how can he tell whether a certain amount should be exclusively attributed to his department or what portion should be attributed to the national revenue.


Arthur Sauvé: It is not an
easy task to reply to the question of the hon. member for Kamouraska. I have not the details with me, however, I am aware that if we had to constantly separate the returns on both stamps it would be very costly to the department.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: I am not criticizing the policy followed by the department in this respect. Only, when later, and perhaps in the near future-I hope it will be as soon as possible-the public will be informed that the Post Office Department shows a considerable surplus, that the department was so well managed that surpluses were obtained which did not exist under the regime of the predecessor of the present Postmaster General, the minister could then be in a position to suggest the reply which his opponents might make to this assertion?

Supply-Post Office
Mr. SA'UVE (Translation):	When the
event happens, it is probable that there will be a way to explain it to the people.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: 
Arthur Sauvé: I did not
quite understand the hon. member's question.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: I find in item 21: Contingencies, $174,840. Would you be kind enough to give us the details of that expenditure?


Arthur Sauvé: Does the hon.
member require all the details?


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: I want the details of that expenditure. What is that amount for?


Arthur Sauvé: There are the
ordinary expenses and the expenses-the hon. member will get the explanation in the report of the Post Office Department.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: It is not the report that I want. You have that information in your file. I want to know the details of that amount of $174,840.


Arthur Sauvé: There are the
temporary employees; then the printing costs-


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: How much?


Arthur Sauvé: Temporary
employees, 877,840; printing costs, $70,000; sundries, $12,000; travelling expenses, $15,000, making a total of $174,840.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: To whom are these travelling expenses allowed in the course of the year?


Arthur Sauvé: To those who
travel.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Last year, you have had some travelling expenses yourself?


Arthur Sauvé: Yes, and also
the year before.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Who are those in the department who travel and are supposed to have their expenses paid out of that amount of $15,000?


Arthur Sauvé: Employees of
the department. Frequently the department's
secretary or other officials have to go to Montreal, Toronto or elsewhere, in the discharge of their duties.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: What is the amount for temporary employees?


Arthur Sauvé: The first item which I mentioned, namely, $77,840.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: How many temporary employees had you last year?


Arthur Sauvé: In 1933-34,
$77,840; it is the same thing. The hon. member can make the deduction.


Mr. JEAN (Translation):: Will the hon.
minister allow me a suggestion? At page 88, I see the details of this item 21. There is a sum of $10,000 for the deputy minister of the Post Office Department, the same as last year. At present there is no deputy minister in the Post Office Department; there has not been any for several months, and two months of the present fiscal year have already gone by. Would it not be more regular to reduce this item of $10,000? I understand that a deputy minister will be appointed in a few days or in a few months, but he will not draw his full salary.


Arthur Sauvé: The hon. member, at the next session, will notice, if he cares to do so, that the months during which there has not been any deputy minister are not included, and that the balance has been paid back to the treasury.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: This amount will not be used; however, if it were not voted, it would reduce the total expenditure of the department, and you could take the balance out of the contingencies, for you have a contingent account in the department.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Is it the minister's policy to keep on opening new rural routes?


Arthur Sauvé: As far as
possible and inasmuch as revenues will permit.


Donat Raymond: Are the
expenses incurred in connection with the investigations that lead to the dismissal of some of the employees included in the contingencies?


Arthur Sauvé: No; they
appear in the expenses of the outside service.


Joseph Jean: Would not the "post office special investigator" appear in this item, at page 88?
Supply-Post Office


Arthur Sauvé: Oh, no, it is
not the same.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Last year somebody brought up the question of mail boxes which had been bought for the rural routes and of which you had a large stock. How many are left this year?


Arthur Sauvé: Of course, we
have a certain number in stock, as usual.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: You always have letter boxes on hand for those who require them. How many had you in stock, last year?


Arthur Sauvé: For the whole of Canada, we had a total of 23,228 on April 30, 1934; and in Calgary, 3,140.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: And in other localities?


Arthur Sauvé: London, 1,097; Moncton, 30; Montreal, 4; Ottawa, 1,200; Toronto, 3,977.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: When you say: "Montreal, 4" do you mean 4,000 or 4,000'000?


Arthur Sauvé: Four letter
boxes, that is all. It is as easy to understand the word 4 as 4,000.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: May I inquire of the hon. Postmaster General how the Montreal postal employees are appointed? I do not know whether I am in order in discussing this question; however, I think it is important to know how the extra clerks are appointed, those who are employed during Yuletide and at other times when required, and to whom must we apply, also what are the necessary recommendations to be so employed?


Arthur Sauvé: Generally,
people apply to the Postmaster General but often, first, to members, even to those of the opposition. The Civil Service Commission appoint a certain number; war veterans are also chosen and the Postmaster General appoints a certain number, and he endeavours to distribute them in the fairest possible way, as required.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: About how many has the hon. Postmaster General himself appointed, this year?


Arthur Sauvé: I cannot recall.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: The hon. Postmaster General cannot recall those whom he has made happy?


Arthur Sauvé: The hon. member is quite aware how these appointments are made.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether I am in order; however, I have a case to submit to the hon. Postmaster General in connection with a mail contract in the county of Charlevoix-Sague-nay, which I have the privilege of representing in the house. If I am not in order, I shall bide another opportunity.


Arthur Sauvé: We are discussing the inside service.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Then I shall wait.


Peter John Veniot: I have a few questions to put to the Postmaster General; however, I shall do so in English, because I have before me the report in English and it will therefore be more convenient.


Peter John Veniot: I should like to get some information from the minister. I believe this would come under civil government as I understand the preparation of the report of the department is done by the staff. In the report of the Postmaster General for the year ended March 31, 1932, I find that the deductions from total revenue made in order to get the net include salaries, box rent and money order commissions, night allowances, forwarding allowances-I am not giving the figures-postal note commissions and other items in which I am not interested. In the report of the Post Office Department for the year ended March 31, 1933, the last year for which we have a report, I find that forwarding allowances are left out; that is to say, the commissions on postal notes and money orders are not indicated but seem to be bulked together under some other heading, and I should like to know the reason for the change in accounting. I do not want to impute any motives but it seems very strange that the itemized statement as it appeared in 1932 is not given in 1933 in the same way. I do not wish to say that the object is to conceal the method of carrying on the work of the department, but it would be interesting to have these itemized statements in every report of the department just as they had been given up to 1932 inclusive. In 1933 they were left out, bulked together in some other item which I cannot discover. What is the reason for the change?


Arthur Sauvé: I have no objection to meet the wishes of the hon. ex-

Su-p-ply-Post Office
Postmaster General. The revenue, less deductions for last year, amounts to $30,825,851.81. I have the detail sheets.


Peter John Veniot: Why?


Arthur Sauvé: The hon. member for Gloucester does not seem to have understood me. I say that I shall take under consideration the representations he made in connection with details.


Peter John Veniot: Are you going
to omit these details as you did in 1933?


Arthur Sauvé: I repeat that the hon. member did not understand me, when I said that I had no objection to agree to his suggestions.


Peter John Veniot: Thank you.


Arthur Sauvé: In future, the details will be inserted in the report. I have no objection to that.


Mr. RHEAUME (Translation):: Would the hon. minister give me this information? In St. John, last year, some farmers did not get their mail, because it was said that their boxes did not conform to the requirements of the law. Is it on account of the law or of the instructions of the minister, that these farmers, who have no government standard box, cannot get their mail?


Arthur Sauvé: The rule was established long before I came in, that you must get a box from the department, if you want your mail to be delivered at your home.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: Would the hon. minister tell me the price of that box?


Arthur Sauvé: Four dollars.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Then whoever has no department box cannot get his mail?


Arthur Sauvé: You must not say that he does not get his mail. He can go to the village post office to get it. We do not hold the mail simply because a farmer has no box coming from the department. I may add that three farmers can use the same box.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: Recently I had the privilege to visit the county of Two Mountains and I noticed that many farmers who had not the kind of box required by the law were getting their mail. I went to Brome-Missisquoi, last Saturday, and there they get their mail, although they have not the boxes required by the law. I know that in my own county the farmers must conform to the law, or else they do not get their mail. Those who have not the means of paying their taxes
thought it would be better to keep the few dollars which they have to buy food and grain seed. The department refused to leave their mail in the boxes they had made themselves and which somewhat resemble those that are sold by the department. So long as a farmer is satisfied with his mail box and undertakes not to sue nor claim any damages from the government, should his mail or parcels be damaged by rain, I find it strange that a rule is applied in St. John and not in Laval-Two Mountains, nor in Brome-Missisquoi, nor in Chambly-Vercheres, which I visited.


Arthur Sauvé: The hon. member has brought up two points. There is the question of administration. The rule existed long before I came, and I did not make it. It makes for order and good government. The rule says that, in order to get your mail delivered at home, you must pay to the department the price of a box.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Four dollars.


Arthur Sauvé: And that box must be procured from the department. It is a matter of uniformity which is somewhat important.
As regards the privileges mentioned by the hon. member for St. Johns'-Iberville (Mr. Rheaume), I would very much like to see the list of the favored ones in Laval-Two Mountains. I know that I encountered some difficulties there, and I have dealt with the county of Laval-Two Mountains as I did with other counties. It happened once or twice that we were lenient for some time, but in each case, notice was given to conform to the law. The hon. member, I am sure, will not find any other cases.
As regards the county of Brome-Missisquoi, I have not the slightest knowledge of the fact -if it is a fact-mentioned by the hon. member. I hope he will be kind enough to give me the list of the owners of these boxes and I promise to give him satisfaction.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: I do not complain, but I know that in our part of the country this was allowed for some years. I am not jealous because the same thing is being done in Brome-Missisquoi. I was there last Saturday and I know that in some places, farmers have boxes that they made themselves. I believe that at the present time there are many farmers who are unable to buy these boxes.


Arthur Sauvé: I shall note
the hon. member's remarks.
Supply-Post Office


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: The hon.
minister asked me to give him some names. I am not going to make an inspection of the counties of Brome-Missisquoi and Chambly-Vercheres.


Arthur Sauvé: Can the hon.
member say how many there are?


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: I saw
about ten last Saturday.


Arthur Sauvé: In Brome-
Missisquoi?


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: In Brome-Missisquoi. During a time of crisis and distress when farmers cannot even provide food for their family, the Post Office Department should make some allowance as it was done during a few years.


Arthur Sauvé: I shall look
into the matter.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: May I
inquire of the hon. Postmaster General whether he is acquainted with a Mr. Hector Warren of Pointe-au-Pic?


Arthur Sauvé: Not personally.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Mr. Chairman, I intend to make the comments which a moment ago I stated I would do. It is in connection with a mail contract between the post office of "1'Isle-aux-Coudres" and a section known as "La Baleine" in the county of Charlevoix. I made a motion for the production of a document relating to the correspondence and all details in connection with this mail contract. The following is what I find on the first page:
Ottawa, le 30 janvier 1934. Monsieur Hector Warren,
Pointe-au-Pic, P.Q.
Cher monsieur.
Sujet: Isle aux Coudres et La Baleine
Le contrat pour la transport des correspon-dances mentionne ci-dessus expirera le 30 juin 1934. L'entrepreneur est M. Elzear Diesgagnes et le prix $166.67 par annee.
Le ministere considere le prix paye comme raisonnable et il est dispose a renouveler le contrat.
Je vous saurai g.re de bien vouloir me dire s'il serait dans l'interet public de retenir les services du meme entrepreneur dont le nom est mentionne ci-dessus ou si vous etes d'avis qu'il serait plus avantageux pour le ministere de de-mander des soumissions en vue de faire une nouvelle adjudication.
Une prompte reponse obligerait.
Votre tout devoue,
(Signe) G. C. Anderson,
Surintendant.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: If the committee will bear with me, I should like to translate this letter into English because it is of great im-

portance not only to the county I have the honour to represent but to the country at large.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Properly translated.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I think I shall be able to translate it properly; if my hon. friend will bear with me, I think he will give me credit for that. The letter reads:
Ottawa, January 30, 1934. Mr. Hector Warren,
Pointe au Pic, P.Q.
Dear Sir:
Subject: Isle aux Coudres and La Baleine
The contract for the transport of mail above-mentioned expires June 30, 1934. The contractor is Mr. Elzear Desgagnes and the price is $166.67 per annum.
The department considers that the price paid is reasonable and it is disposed to renew the contract.
I would like you to let me know if it would be in the public interest to retain the services of the same contractor, whose name is above mentioned, or if you are of opinion that it would be more advantageous for the department to call for tenders in order that a new adjudication may be made.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a stock letter.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: A prompt reply will oblige.
Yours truly,
G. C. Anderson,
Superintendent.
This letter is addressed by the superintendent of mail of the Post Office Department to Mr. Hector Warren at Pointe au Pic in the county of Charlevoix. The subject matter is a mail contract at another place, lie aux Coudres, in another district. Thus the department under the signature of one of its officials states that the price paid for the contract is correct and is of the opinion that it should be renewed, but it says: If on the other hand you have any reason to believe that in the public interest the contract should not be renewed, please let us know and we will call for new tenders.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon. member's interpretation is wrong.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: No, my interpretation is not wrong. I will repeat what I said for the benefit of my hon. friend.


Paul Mercier: Don't do that; we are losing time.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I would like you to let me know if it would be in the public interest to retain the services of the same contractor, whose name is above mentioned, or if you are of the opinion that it

Supply-Post Office
would be more advantageous for the department to call for tenders in order that a new adjudication may be made.


Mr. HACKETT (Translation):: It is a
printed form.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: In this letter dated
January 30, the department says to Mr. Warren: We would like to know if you are of opinion that the contract should be renewed, but in case it is in the public interest that it should not be renewed, please let us know and we will call for new tenders.


Ernest Lapointe: Why Mr. Warren?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: That is why I put the first question to the Postmaster General. I asked him if he knew Mr. Warren. I would like to know why and how Mr. Anderson, superintendent of mail, wrote to Mr. Warren at Pointe au Pic for information in connection with a contract for the carriage of mail at He aux Coudres when Mr. Warren does not reside there. Why did Mr. Anderson not write to Mr. Bergeron or Mr. Seymour or Mr. Harvey or Mr. Gagnon or any other person rather than to Mr. Warren?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Because
there was not any Mr. Seymour or Mr. Harvey.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Why did Mr. Anderson write to Mr. Warren rather than to these gentlemen? How did he know to write to Mr. Warren first rather than to another gentleman?


Richard Burpee Hanson: A great mystery.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I represent the people of Charlevoix-Saguenay and I would like to know. Mr. Warren may be the mayor of the place. I do not say anything about him. I know him personally and he is a nice, amiable gentleman. Of course he happens to be a man of prominence; he is an engineer in the county. He had the good fortune to be a candidate once in 1925; he was nominated in the interests of the Conservative party, but a few days after he was nominated he withdrew because he could not get a good following and thought it was not worth while to run. There was another Conservative candidate at the same time and this gentleman was defeated by me.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What a
great man I ami


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I have had a good record in this house. I have had the honour to defeat all Conservative candidates who have
fun in my constituency ever since I have been a candidate there. I would like to ask the Postmaster General why Mr. Anderson wrote to Mr. Warren.


George Reginald Geary: And not to the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Yes, because after all,
what the hon. member for South Toronto has said is right and he knows it. I appreciate his kindness and courtesy. He is the representative of his county; I have the honour to be the representative of Charlevoix-Saguenay, and I think when anything is being done in a district like that, it ought to be brought to the attention of the member for the constituency.


Maurice Dupré: Was that what hon. gentlemen opposite did from 1921 to 1930?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Whether the member
concerned sits on the government or the opposition side, if he is not asked to give his opinion I think it is a wrong policy. If the government of the day do not see fit to ask the opinion of an hon. member on the opposite side, they should at least ask the responsible people in the parish in which the contract is to be let.


Maurice Dupré: Is that what hon. gentlemen opposite did during the nine years they were in power? Did they ever consult Conservatives?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: When we were in power
we administered matters not too badly, so that when my hon. friends opposite go out at the next election the people will not look for them any more.


Maurice Dupré: This is the second time the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay has made such a hint. I am willing to take it and if anybody is going to fall by the wayside at the next election, the hon. member himself will be one of the first.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I accept the challenge.
Let the hon. member come and run against me if he likes. He came one time and tried to get the nomination but he did not receive it.


Maurice Dupré: Let the hon. member accept the challenge.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I will not cross over
the river from Quebec to try to be elected in Levis. If the hon. member wants to come into my district where he knows Mr. Warren, I will give him the same medicine as my opponent got at the last election.
Supply-Post Office


Maurice Dupré: The hon. member for Char-levoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain) and the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) seem to be having a great deal of fun to-night. The only fun they have is when they boast about what they have done or are going to do, but there is a great difference between the boasting and the real facts.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The people will judge at the next election, and from the results of the last by-elections I think I am safe in saying that the good sound people of this country, to whatever race or creed they belong, can distinguish the good from the bad.


Arthur Sauvé: Will the hon.
member pardon me? I somewhat lost the trend of his inquiry.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I wish to inquire why Mr. Anderson wrote to Mr. Warren of Pointe-au-Pic, rather than to the member of the county or the mayor of the locality or to some one in the section where the contract was to be awarded, or, again, to the cure. I wish to know, sir, who gave instructions to Mr. Anderson to communicate with Mr. Hector Warren, at Pointe-au-Pic in order to obtain information in connection with this contract. The Postmaster General states that he is very little acquainted with that gentleman.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: He is not acquainted with him personally.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Is there
in the files of the Post Office Department instructions or a letter which contains instructions to officers of the department to communicate with Mr. Warren.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: There
are so many briefs!


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I should
like to have an answer from the hon. Postmaster General.


Arthur Sauvé: I am not
acquainted personally with Mr. Warren, although I have heard of him at various times. He was chosen as candidate, however, I do not contend that he withdrew his name to accept the new post which the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay endows him with.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: It was in
1925 that he was a candidate.


Arthur Sauvé: As to why he
was consulted, it was probably because the department was advised to communicate with him so as to obtain certain information. I do not know all the details in this matter, as this took place during my absence.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I wish to
be fair, sir, towards the hon. Postmaster General; perhaps he did not give such instructions. If Mr. Anderson wrote to Mr. Hector Warren, he certainly must have had a reason to do so.


Arthur Sauvé: Does Mr. Warren reside in the county?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Yes, but
not in the locality where the contract was to be awarded; he resides several miles away.


Arthur Sauvé: He resides in
the county?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Yes, but
not in that locality. Pointe-au-Pic forms part of Bay St. Paul, while 1'Isle-aux-Coudres is not in the same section. I wonder why Mr. Anderson wrote to Mr. Warren at Pointe-au-Pic to get information in connection with a contract to be awarded in a different part of the county, on an island, where he knew practically nothing of the existing conditions. I also wish to know- and the Postmaster General should be in a position to furnish the information-whether instructions were given or steps taken or orders issued to communicate with Mr. Warren, and who issued such orders?


Arthur Sauvé: I have not, at present, all the information requested by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay. The geographical particulars given to the house have greatly interested me.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: There are beautiful landscapes in that part of the country!


Arthur Sauvé: I have heard
that it was a rule under the regime of my hon. friends to refer such questions to the defeated candidate of the county, and it is a matter which seems to be of great import to our predecessors.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: You know nothing about it.


Arthur Sauvé: It is a rule-


Joseph Georges Bouchard: It is an exception because there were very few defeated.


Arthur Sauvé: The hon. member requests certain information. I have not all the details. It is perhaps the candidate who crossed swords with my hon. friend who suggested to apply to Mr. Warren for whatever information we required.

Supply-Post Office


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: That is, sir, just the point where I want to get at. The hon. Postmaster General stated that in the past he thought that one generally applied to the defeated candidate to obtain certain information in connection with patronage or the administration of public affairs in the county. In this instance, Mr. Warren is not a defeated candidate. Mr. Warren was so frightened in 1925 that he did not stick to the end. Two days after the nomination day, he withdrew.
Now, sir, the opponent with whom I crossed swords, the Conservative candidate who was defeated, was Mr. Thomas Maher, and we put up a great fight at the time. I have no personal ill-feeling against him, only Mr. Maher should not have been consulted in this matter. In 1934, my opponent already occupied, since a year, a public post in the Canadian Broadcasting Commission. I do not think that, occupying an official position in such an important public department, he wished to issue instruction as regards patronage in the county of Charlevoix-Saguenay, so that he suggested that Mr. Warren should be consulted. On January 30, 1934, an official of the department under his signature, wrote to Mr. Hector Warren, who was not the defeated candidate at the last election and who was neither the defeated candidate at the previous election in 1925, because he did not proceed to the polls, he wrote, as I said, to request information as regards a contract, not in his section but in another, in order to find out whether it would be in the public interest, or whether he was of the opinion that it would be more advantageous for the department to call for tenders in order that a new award might be made.
I strongly protest, sir, against such action on the part of the government. I protest against the fact that Mr. Anderson, the head of the mail contract branch, thought fit to communicate with Mr. Hector Warren, who does not reside in the locality. It is an insult to the local citizen, to the mayor, councillors and the parish priest, who are in a position to advise the government if the government thinks proper to do so and does not care to apply to your humble servant because I was fortunate enough to be elected against the government's forces. If the government do not wish to apply to me, let them apply to some local citizen, but not to a person who does not reside there, who has no knowledge of the requirements of the village, and does not know what should be done. I strongly protest, on my behalf and that of my constituents, on behalf of the people of the district of La Baleine and l'Isle-aux-Coudres, in the county of Charlevoix.
Mr. Anderson requested Mr. Warren to kindly inform him whether, in the public interest the services of the same contractor should be retained, at the same price or whether it would be more advantageous to call for tenders. The following is the reply of Mr. Warren, dated March 7, 1934.
M. G. C. Anderson, surintendant,
Ministere des Postes,
Ottawa, Ont.
Cher M. Anderson,
J'ai votre lettre du 30 janvier dernier relati-vement au contrat pour le transport des corres-pondanees entre ITsle-aux-Coudres et La Baleine eomte Charlevoix qui expirera le 30 juin 1934.
Je vous reeommande M. Edmond Bouchard de ITsle-aux-Coudres, comme entrepreneur pour ce dit contrat en remplaeement de M. Elzear Desgagnes, au prix de $166.67 par annee.
Exactement le meme montant que son ipre-decesseur.
Veuillez me croire, M. Anderson,
Votre tout devoue,
(signe) Hector Warren.
Now, sir, I wish to read in English the reply that Mr. Hector Warren addressed to Mr. Anderson.
If you remember, Mr. Chairman, when I translated the letter which I had read in French I was saying that Mr. Anderson was asking Mr. Warren if he would be kind enough to let him know if it was in the public interest to retain the services of the same mail contractor at the same price, or if he was of the opinion that it would be more advantageous in the interest of the public service to call for tenders and to have a new adjudication upon the mail contract. Mr. Warren said- I shall translate the letter as best I can:
March 7, 1934.
G. C. Anderson, Superintendent,
Post Office Department,
Ottawa.
Dear Mr. Anderson:
I have your letter of 30th January, 1934, regarding the contract for the transport of mail between Isle aux Coudres and La Baleine which will expire on the 30th June, 1934. I recommend to you Mr. Edmond Bouchard of Isle aux Coudres as mail contractor for the said contract to replace Mr. Elzear Desgagnes for the price of $166.67 per annum.
Please believe me, Mr. Anderson,
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) Hector Warren.
Mr. Warren did not comply with the request of Mr. Anderson to say whether or not it was in the public interest to retain the service at the same price. Apparently
Supply-Post Office

there was no complaint against the former contractor, and doubtless if the work had not been done satisfactorily there would have been complaints. So there was no reason to call for new tenders. Mr. Warren simply said, "Take the contract away from Mr. Desgagnes and give it to Mr. Edmond Bouchard" for the same price, with no tenders called for. There seems to be a curious development here; from the correspondence it would appear that this man might be a Liberal, but in any case in the letter of January 30 the department stated that the price was reasonable, and that they were disposed to renew the contract for another year. Then the department, through its officials, simply asked whether in the public interest new tenders should be called for.
I might say, Mr. Chairman, that in the parish of La Baleine only about sixty votes were cast for the government candidate in the last election; nearly all the people voted in support of your humble servant. I had a majority of 248, the largest since voting was introduced there. They are very intelligent people, and they are discussing this question to-day. It is a very important matter to them, and I think it is important from the point of view of the rights of the representatives of the people in the House of Commons. I believe the department was wrongly advised in asking the opinion of this gentleman, who was not the defeated candidate but who was simply a political henchman.
I think I have said enough to point out the danger the government must face when they try to please all the people who have political ambitions, because I think Mr. Warren has political ambitions. I do not know if he will run in the next election;
I know that he worked very hard during the last campaign, though without result. The people of that district have written the minister, giving reasons in support of their contention that an injustice was done in not renewing the contract with the man who had it previously.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Did you
supply the reasons?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: No, I did not. I may tell my good friend that this matter came to my notice in April after everything had been done. I did not know anything about it, and you can take my word for that. In March Mr. Warren was notified that a contract had been given his protege; later a letter was sent the postmaster of La Baleine containing a questionnaire as to the qualifications of the

man to whom the contract had been given. What occurred? The postmaster replied to the Postmaster General under date of March 15, 1934, and said:
b Do you consider Mr. Edmond Bouchard competent and qualified to carry His Majesty's mail four times a week between l'lsle-aux-Coudres and La Baleine by virtue of a contract for ... years.
We found out later on that the contract was for one year only.
Reply: Mr. Edmond Bouchard is not competent or qualified.
The postmaster in that district must know something about the people there; however, they applied to him only after hearing that the contract had been awarded in March. Then having felt some remorse, they wrote to Mr. Joseph Tremblay, and in a letter dated March 19, 1934, the postmaster, Mr. Tremblay, of 1'Isle-aux-Coudres, stated:
I must inform you that the two bondsmen are mortgagors and should you require any other information. I could supply it, seeing that Mr. Edmond Bouchard is not qualified for this service.
In spite of this, the contract was awarded to Mr. Bouchard at the same price awarded to his predecessor Mr. Elzear Desgagnes, who had carried the mail for 25 years from the central postoffi.ee to La Baleine, and as stated in the correspondence, and as I am pertinently aware.


Paul Mercier: (Translation): Were securities required?


Arthur Sauvé: What was the amount of the contract?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: S166.67. As I stated, they live almost like brothers in that parish, they are all liberals and there are no conservatives. It would have been just as well to award the contract to the person who had it previously. The only reason that a change was made is, perhaps, because Mr. Warren wishes to display some importance and endeavours to have the people believe that he has influence at Ottawa, and can obtain contracts for his Conservative friends in the county of Charlevoix.


Maurice Dupré: If there are no Conservatives the contract was awarded to another Liberal; therefore, everybody is happy.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: That is not the question. The principle involved is the liberty-


Maurice Dupré: I understand that my hon. friend is speaking in favour of the principle-the Magna Charta and the fundamental laws!

Supply-Post Office


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The principle involved is that a person who is not even a defeated candidate, who is not a member or does not reside in the locality, has no right to meddle in the affairs of a parish and tell the department: You intend letting the contract to so and so, simply because I, who live so many miles away, tell you to let it to that particular man. The very idea that any one who has absolutely nothing in common with the management of a parish should interfere and impose his will is in violation of the authority given to members and contrary to the principle of responsible government. The issue, Mr. Chairman, is a most important one, and I think that in this present case, such action as was taken was wrong. As they would say in the constituency of Charlevoix: We have not been dealt with fairly and our government is not efficient.
Mr. Chairman, may I read the petition submitted to the honourable Postmaster General by the interested parties in La Baleine range:
The undersigned petitioners of l'lsle-aux-Coudres respectfully submit:
That Air. Elzear Desgagnes should be maintained in the position he occupies at the present time in connection with the carrying of the mail between the central post office of St. Louis de l'lsle-aux-Coudres and the post office at La Baleine.
Wherefore your petitioners urge upon Your Honour to recommend Mr. Elzear Desgagnes, who always performed his duties in a satisfactory manner.
And your petitioners will ever pray.
(Sgd.) Joseph Gagnon,
Mayor.
And that petition contains fifty-five names. I could mention each of them; but I do not wish to take up the time of the house. Fifty-five citizens of that district-


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Of La Baleine.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: -in the La Baleine range signed the petition in favour of Mr. Desgagnes. That very fact shows that the position taken by the member for the constituency in this house was fully warranted and that the reasons I gave against the change made in the contract are not altogether without grounds.
The file contains a letter, under date of the 28th March, 1934, written by Mr. Tremblay, postmaster, to Mr. Tanner Green. It reads:
With reference to the qualifications of said Edmond Boucher, I may state the facts as they are.
That is signed by him.
The said gentleman having been elected as church warden took up subscriptions for the poor and he collected the sum of $130 from the parishioners. Instead of handing in that amount, he remitted $20 and a promissory note signed with another man's name. I leave it to you, sir. to decide as to how steps could be taken against him when the owner has a mere footing on his land.
A generous gentleman hired his son; after having insisted repeatedly, he got $5. He can swear that he was told that the balance would never be paid to him. Is that a man whose honesty and qualifications would justify entrusting him with such valuable property as the mail bags? Could he be trusted, in all security, with the valuable papers of a parish? Certainly not.
Should the recital of the facts that I have just mentioned not suffice, you can secure the same information from our parish priest, the Rev. Edmond Jean, who has all the papers in that connection, as well as from the local bank manager who refused the forged cheque.
You may depend, sir, that in signing this letter I am not actuated by any personal motive, but by a desire to safeguard the welfare and security of the public.
(Sgd.) Joseph Tremblay,
Postmaster.
Apparently, upon receiving these letters, in May and April, the department was impressed and Mr. Tanner Green wrote as follows to the Rev. Edmond Jean, parish priest of l'lsle-aux-Coudres:
The department would be prepared to let the contract to Air. Edmond Boucher for the above mentioned service, as from the 1st July next, but, according to the postmaster of your locality, he is more or less qualified on account of his questionable honesty.
This is from Mr. Tanner Green, and the same Mr. Tanner Green is post office superintendent in Quebec. I find fault with the department for not having obtained their information at first hand, and not having enquired from the parish priest or the mayor of the locality,- since it was not deemed advisable to enquire from your humble servant because he is in the opposition,-as to the situation, instead of going to Mr. Hector Warren, a man who lives fifteen or twenty miles away from the place, who has no connection whatever with the district, knows nothing about the locality, and who, nevertheless, in spite of representations made by the mayor and fifty-five citizens of the parish, recommended the appointment of a man who, as stated in the letter, was unable to give a bond.
Mr. Chairman, I think I have said enough to drive home the seriousness of the case. Although the amount involved is not very important, this being a contract for $166.67
only, the principle remains the same. When
Supply-Post Office

the government refuse to confer with certain members because they happen to be on the opposition side, although they hold their mandates from those who elected them to this house, one may expect things of that sort. When information is sought from a man who has no connection with a district, who is unfamiliar with public affairs, it follows that one deals with people bound to play politics.


Maurice Dupré: How did our Liberal friends act in former days?


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: We have never done anything of the kind.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I agree
with the statement made by the Solicitor general. Under the former regime, there may have been similar cases, but that is no reason why the same practices should be carried on. Two wrongs do not make a right. If, in the past, one acted improperly, it does not fallow that one should do so at the present time. The hon. gentlemen who sit at your right, Mr. Chairman, got themselves into power through promising the people in this country that they would give them full measure of justice. The conservative candidates made much of the evil practices of the previous government and stated that in the event of their party being successful at the polls, conditions would improve and that they would see to it that a better management of public affairs would result. I can safely say that the present government is being blamed for having acted in a manner unheard of in the past under the former government.


Mr. LAFLECHE (Translation):: It would not have been so bad, would you have been the ones to do it.


Joseph Jean: This is how our 'riends on the right side of the house view :he matter.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: When comparing what has been done by the present government during the last four years with the work done, in the course of nine years, by the previous government, one finds the former did a great deal more reprehensible work than the latter could be blamed for.


Maurice Dupré: Mere words!


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: These are not mere words.


Onésime Gagnon: The hon. member has spoken nearly an hour.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I shall
resume my remarks at some later time during the debate.


Arthur Sauvé: The hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay has just made a very interesting address; he managed to find in "the whale" (La Baleine) quite an important principle on which he discoursed for more than forty minutes.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: It was worth while.


Arthur Sauvé: I note his statement and he may be sure that, at the first opportunity, I intend to go over everything he said in connection with the S166.67 contract and then he will be satisfied that I shall have really looked into the matter.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I thank you.


Donat Raymond: Would the minister be kind enough to tell us what policy he follows when he has to deal with the appointment of a postmaster outside the purview of the civil service commission? Does he consider the domicile and efficiency of the candidate; does he consider the desire of the community Concerned? Those are questions that I am interested in, would the minister oblige me with an answer to them.


Arthur Sauvé: I consider all things concerning the case.


Donat Raymond: Are all
these facts taken into consideration?


Arthur Sauvé: Depending on the circumstances.


Donat Raymond: It being so, I wish to draw the minister's attention to a particular case. In the parish of St. Louis de Gonzague, in the constituency of Beauharnois, a Mr. Roeh Montpetit has been appointed postmaster. I moved for a copy of the correspondence exchanged in this connection and this is what I find. The postmaster had just died and his widow had been appointed temporarily in his stead, she having acted as postmistress for the four or five preceding years. A petition was signed by 225 people and was sent to the hon. Postmaster General. The petition reads as follows:
The undersigned, request that Mrs. Amanda G tn'rin, widow, who for the last five years acted as assistant at the post office of St. Louis de Gonzague, he appointed postmistress. She is fully qualified to fill efficiently the position.
Mrs. Guerin owns the premises where the post office is located at the present time.

Supply-Post Office
Thus, Miss Germaine Lafrance, her helper, who is a member of a large family would retain her post.
You may rest assured that in complying with our request, you would make an appointment that will meet with the approval of all the ratepayers in this parish.
Mrs. Guerin, it is obvious, was a resident of the parish for five years since she acted as assistant during that length of time. The petition was signed by 225 -persons.. At about the same time, another petition was sent to the minister, signed by nine persons, in favor of Mr. Roch Montpetit, the appointee, and the petition in this case reads as follows:
We the undersigned, are submitting and supporting the choice of Mr. Roch Montpetit as a fit candidate to the postmastership of St. Louis de Gonzague.
Seeing, hon. minister, that the position is at the present time filled by Liberals, it is our desire that the new appointee should be a Conservative.
Mr. Roch Montpetit is the son of Mr. Magloire Montpetit, farmer, of St. Louis de Gonzague^ he is an honest man who always devoted himself to the Conservative cause and for that reason, it seems to us that in fairness he should be granted that favour. We hope for a favourable decision and pray that one of our own party be appointed postmaster, and we have signed:
Nine people signed this petition. I asked the minister to tell me where the appointee, Mr. Roch Montpetit, was living at the time of his appointment. And the minister answered: "No information." As a matter of fact, Mr. Montpetit was not a resident of Saint-Louis-de-Gonzague. If we refer to the Civil Service Act, as amended-


Mr.   SATJVE@Translation: What is the date of that letter?


Donat Raymond: August 26, 1932-we find the following provision:
3. Except as to appointments to positions in the headquarters of the several departments and other portions of the civil service at Ottawa, the appointees to any local positions in any province shall, so far as practicable, be made from persons having resided in such locality for a period of at least one year immediately preceding the date last fixed for receiving applications for such local positions.
The minister told me a few moments ago that all those conditions are respected, that is to say: the conditions respecting qualifications, domicile, and the wish of the local people.


Arthur Sauvé: And also the condition respecting the returned soldiers.


Donat Raymond: This was not the application of a returned soldier.


Arthur Sauvé: No, but generally.


Donat Raymond: In this
case, Montpetit had no experience. Mrs. Guerin, who had also made an application, had five years' experience and had been temporarily appointed after her husband's decease. The wish of the population of Saint-Louis-de-Gonzague was evident since her application had the support of 225 people, whilst the other applicant had the support of only nine people. Mrs. Guerin was a resident of Saint-Louis-de-Gonzague, while Montpetit was not. However, the minister decided to appoint Mr. Roch Montpetit contrary to the wishes of the population.
I am informed that since Mr. Mon-tpetit's appointment, numerous complaints have been received at the minister's office about the way the post office is managed. We are asked to-day to vote new supply to the Postmaster General, and it is our duty to show that the money voted last year was not spent in the public interest. When it is thought advisable to instruct the Civil Service Commission to appoint local people, it seems to me that the minister should put in practice the advice he gives to the Civil Service Commission.


Arthur Sauvé: I shall look
into that case. I have no knowledge of any complaints against Mr. Montpetit for at least one or two years. His appointment was made in 1932. The hon. member should realize that it is hard for the minister to have in mind all the details of thousands of cases.


Donat Raymond: That is so.


Mr. SAT  WE@Translation: I would like to find out if there were really that many complaints.


Donat Raymond: I would
like to know what inspired the minister when he appointed Mr. Montpetit rather than Mrs. Guerin.


Arthur Sauvé: I have no
doubt that I was moved by the representations made to me-


Donat Raymond: That he
was a Conservative.


Arthur Sauvé: I would not
have objected to his being a Conservative.


Donat Raymond: That was his main qualification.


Arthur Sauvé: No.


Donat Raymond: At least, apparently.


Arthur Sauvé: I would not go so far as to consider as a qualification the
Supply-Post Office

fact of being a Conservative or a Liberal. It is a respectable opinion. The fact of being a Liberal is a question of opinion.


Donat Raymond: It is a
disqualification.


Arthur Sauvé: The same thing applies to a Conservative. A man may have plenty of good qualities although he is a Liberal, and the same for a Conservative.


Ernest Lapointe: Unfortunately !


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: As the
hon. minister seems to be in good spirits, I shall remind him of the Iberville case. I have in my hand the Hansard of last year and I shall quote three answers that the minister gave me on the 12th of May, 1933.
Mr. Sauve (Translation): 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.
Page 4964 of the Hansard of May 12, I find the minister's answer of April 20, 1933, to my letter of the 19th of April:
In reply, I wish to state that my department is awaiting the inspector's report to settle the appointment permanently.
Further, the minister answered to one of my questions:
I think the hon. member will be satisfied when the case is definitely settled.
I would like the honourable minister to tell me if he finally received the inspector's report which he was awaiting to settle the appointment permanently, and the reason why the appointment has not been made.
In the absence of the minister, I placed a few questions on Hansard and I received the answers on March 14, 1934:
Mr. Rheaume:
1.	What is the name of the postmaster at Iberville, Quebec?
2.	What is his age?	4
3.	Is he in receipt of a salary or is he paid out of the revenue, etc. . .
I received the following answers from the Solicitor General: The name was Pierre Ernest Thuot, temporarily in charge of the post office. Age, 60 years. Paid out of revenue according to regular scale. Permanent appointment rests with commission.
About the permanent appointment, my ninth question was:
What person was recommended?
Answer: Wilfrid Denicourt, O.A.S.
The minister said a few minutes ago that he has much sympathy for the returned soldiers. The president of the Legion at St.

John's a good conservative and a returned soldier, urged the minister to appoint Mr. Denicourt. I met him last Monday at a banquet of the Board of Trade of St. John's. He asked me if I could give him any news about the appointment of the postmaster at Iberville. I told him I could not. I added: "I am waiting for the discussion of the estimates of the Post Office department and I shall ask the Postmaster General about it because last year he promised that everybody would be satisfied with the appointment." He asked me if I thought he should come to Ottawa about it. I answered that as his recommendation had produced no result it would be useless for him to come, unless he had money and time to lose; in that case I should like to see him, because he is a good fellow, although a conservative. Will the minister tell me if he has received the inspector's report-he has been awaiting it for a whole year-and why he does not appoint Mr. Denicourt? Mr. Ernest Thuot, a sixty year old man, is kept on the job, while good employees are let out after forty years of service, because they have attained the age of sixty-five. I have seen a testimonial signed by the minister in acknowledgment of the good service of an employee, although he was sixty-five years old, but he was dismissed like many others, because he was a good liberal. Why does not the minister appoint Mr. Denicourt? That appointment would be well received by the people of Iberville and the St. John's district.


Arthur Sauvé: I have no objection to give that information to the hon. member for St. John's-Iberville. It is a fact that Mr. Ernest Thuot is temporarily in charge of the post office at Iberville.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: Since
when?


Arthur Sauvé: Quite a long time-1932. But that is not the reason of the delay in making the permanent appointment. Mr. Thuot has not been appointed. That position is sought by two returned soldiers: Mr. Denicourt and Mr. Debeaujour. When I gave that answer last year to the hon. member for St.-John's-Iberville, I was sincere, and I was telling the truth. At the time, I thought that the appointment was soon to be made, but later the department received strong representations on behalf of Mr. Debeaujour, and there was a legal dispute. Lawyers do not place the same interpretation on the Civil Service Act in the case of returned soldiers. That point has not yet been settled.

Supply-Post Office
The hon. member for St. John's-Iberville says that I have a faible for returned soldiers. I have no faible but much sympathy, and it is for that reason that I still hesitate to appoint Mr. Denicourt, on account of the representations received. Here are the facts: Two returned soldiers have made application for the position of postmaster at Iberville. Mr. Denicourt went to the front because he was conscripted; Mr. Debeaujour enlisted voluntarily. His father also enlisted. His brother was killed at the front. In such circumstances, according to the interpretation of lawyers well known to the hon. member, Mr. Debeaujour should have preference over Mr. Denicourt. Such is the situation, at the present time.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: Two years ago the house wasted a lot of time revising the Civil Service Act. You have either to follow a definite procedure or you have not. I do not know Denicourt, but his application was made in time. It is not the case with Debeaujour. Last year-and I have the Hansard here-


Arthur Sauvé: His application has been accepted by the commission.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: If the minister goes to the commission, he will see that Debeaujour could not be a candidate as he sent his application too late, that is, after the date fixed by the Civil Service Commission. When they came to Iberville for the examination, they allowed Mr. Debeaujour to be a candidate. The Civil Service Commission ought to act according to regulations. If they admitted Mr. Debeaujour to the examination, it is because there was an agreement between Mr. Thuot and Mr. Debeaujour-I cannot say whether he is a returned soldier or not, as I do not know him. However, Mr. Debeaujour had a job, working at the locks in Saint Johns. There was an agreement between Mr. Thuot and Mr. Debeaujour; I think they are relatives. It was understood that, in case Mr. Debeaujour got the position-because he boasted at that time of having enough influence to be appointed postmaster-he would have kept his job as lock-keeper, Mr. Thuot would have acted as postmaster and the two salaries would have been divided between the two of them.
I happen to know that the minister received r.he visit of the chairman of the Veterans' Legion, Saint John's branch. The veterans supported Mr. Denicourt and made representations on his behalf. If there is a dispute with a conservative group and the minister is anxious to avoid the responsibility as far as returned soldiers are concerned-he has so 74726-226
much sympathy for them!-he might settle the problem by appointing Mr. Denicourt who has the support of the Veterans' association. Mr. Denicourt is the father of five children he has been a public charge these last three years. I do not know him anymore than Mr. Debeaujour, but the last named gentleman is receiving a pension and is a lock-keeper. Mr. Debeaujour comes at the end of the eligible list, whereas Mr. Denicourt is the first on the list. As far as legal difficulties are concerned, the more lawyers you put on the case, the more confused will the problem be. If you want to settle the case, the only thing to do is to appoint Denicourt. I had an interview with the Legion chairman, a good conservative-I will not give the details as the talk was of a private nature and I would not like to give the reasons. I know the minister is ready to appoint Denicourt, but he is opposed by a group and a notary well known to the minister and not as good a conservative as my hon. friend might think.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: The hon. member for St. John's-Iberville has just said that the more lawyers you put on a case the more entangled it will be. As a colleague of the hon. member, I want to say that I believe Mr. Denicourt a much better candidate than Mr. Debeaujour, considering Debeaujour has already a job as lock-keeper. If he occupies that position in St. Johns since 1930, he got it on account of the returned soldiers' preference. As for Mr. Denicourt, who has been successful in the civil service examinations, who is so well recommended and who only needs the approval of the department for his appointment, I think he ought to be appointed at once. The case has been pending for the last two years; I cannot see why it takes such a long time to reach a decision. If a judge was so slow in giving judgment we would impeach him before the house.
I think Mr. Denicourt is entitled to the appointment. The hon. member says that lawyers are there to confuse issues. He will admit, in the present case, that a lawyer was there to give him a friendly help.
Mr. RHEAL1ME (Translation): I wish to thank the hon. member for St. Henri for his remarks. I have before me the ratings given after the examinations I was asking for, a year ago. According to the report, Mr. Denicourt was first on the list, with 84 per cent; Mr. Debeaujour, fifth on a list of six candidates, with 71 per cent. I hope the minister will accept the commission's verdict. In its notice, the commission said that applications

Supply-Post Office

had to be sent before February 17, 1932. According to the report I have here, five candidates out of six acted accordingly; the only one who did not was Mr. Debeaujour, as he sent his application on March 10, 1933, I cannot see why you would hesitate in appointing Mr. Denicourt who is a returned soldier, the father of five children and has been without any work for over a year, whereas Mr. Debeaujour has been working as a lock-keeper for the last three years in St. Johns. He receives from $450 to $500 in the summer months and he is in receipt of a government pension amounting to $175.
The Postmaster General said a moment ago that Denicourt was conscripted. I heard that Denicourt enrolled in the 22nd Regiment and I do not think that conscription had been passed when the 22nd left for overseas. Here we have a returned soldier who was a member of the 22nd regiment; a man who is the father of five children, who has been a public charge for the last three years and who is strongly recommended by his old war comrades. Veterans have made representations upon representations on his behalf, they have come many times to see the Postmaster General on his account, Mr. Chairman, I consider that, under these circumstances, there is one thing to be done, and one only; that is for the Postmaster General to appoint Mr. Denicourt as soon as possible and in this way he will be giving justice to a number of veterans from the 22nd. I am not prepared to say that Debeaujour was conscripted, all I can say is that Denicourt enrolled in the 22nd.


Arthur Sauvé: The hon.
member said he did not know Denicourt nor Debeaujour.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: I do not
know either of them. I have never talked with either of them.


Arthur Sauvé: Will the hon.
member certify that Mr. Denicourt enlisted in the 22nd when the war broke out?


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: H the minister will accept my word, that is my information, and I think it is reliable.


Arthur Sauvé: I am informed that Mr. Denicourt enrolled at the end of the war, that he was just in time to go to France and that he never fought. That is my information. I do not know him, personally.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: If the hon. minister will permit me, not later than Monday, I will send him an affidavit to that effect.


Joseph-François Laflèche: I understood the hon. member for St. Johns Iberville to say, a few moments ago, that he met Mr. Denicourt at a banquet of the Chamber of Commerce, on Monday last, and now he says that he does not know either of them. Am I correct?


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: The hon.
member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Lafleohe) did not catch my words. I know there is an awful noise in the House. I said that I met the chairman of the Veterans' Legion in St. Johns, on Monday last, and he was in the war with Denicourt. He talked to me about him.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: And he is a good tory.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: Yes, a
good tory, editor of the conservative paper in St. Johns and a most genial chap. Mr. Denicourt went to the battlefields with the 22nd, and I will have an affidavit to that effect.


Arthur Sauvé: I would be
very glad to have it.


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Chairman, I beg to call the minister's attention to this fact:	Even if Denicourt was conscripted,
if he saw active service on the battlefields, that would qualify him under the law for the soldiers' preference. Even if he was conscripted, as long as he went to the battlefields, he has the same preference as any other soldier.


Arthur Sauvé: Two different
legal interpretations are given on this point.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: If I send
the minister a sworn statement to the effect that Mr. Denicourt enlisted in the 22nd, would the minister appoint him?


Arthur Sauvé: As I told the
hon. member, I have been informed that Mr. Denicourt only enlisted near the end of the war. I will take the sworn statement into consideration in arriving at a decision.


Donat Raymond: I would like to call the minister's attention to another discrimination in the electoral district of Beauhamois. After an inquiry, the department has dismissed the postmaster at Beauhamois. According to the investigator's report, during the elections of 1930, the postmaster had placed a bet on the result of the poll.


Arthur Sauvé: When was he dismissed?

Supply-Post Office


Donat Raymond: During the fall 1932, but he was not replaced until July, 1933.
As I have said, the report contains the proof that the postmaster, Duquette, had placed a bet on the result of the poll, in 1930. When I asked why he had been dismissed, the minister told me:	Guilty of active political
partisanship.
I would very much like to know what the Postmaster General means by " political activities." what constitutes, in his opinion, the fact of taking an active part in politics. Is the sole fact of making a wager sufficient to prove that a person took an active part in politics ?
Before he replies, I wish to draw his attention to the following words of the Civil Service Act:
No employee shall engage in partisan work.
But a wager does not constitute the work of a partisan. How was the Postmaster General, according to the report made to him by the commissioner holding the inquiry, able to arrive at the conclusion that Mr. Duquette was guilty of political interference during the last election.
It is the reason invoked by the Postmaster General, when he requested the governor in council to dismiss Mr. Duquette. Will the Postmaster General be kind enough to inform me what he means by "political activities"?


Arthur Sauvé: By "political
activities," I mean the acts of a person who displays his politics.


Donat Raymond: I am sure that the Postmaster General was not elected through such political activities in 1930.


Arthur Sauvé: There are
various kinds of political activities. I am certain that the political activities of the hon. member for Beauharnois is much greater than that of Mr. Duquette, the former postmaster of Beauharnois. With all due respect to the hon. member, I wish to point out to him that the fact of expressing his views on the eve of the election, is not the only score against him. However, it counts. The hon. member has had experience, he is fully aware that when a person of Beauharnois speaks in his favour, that does not mean that he is siding against him but with him. If he speaks before fifteen or twenty persons, it is a public act of political interference.
Moreover, in August, 1931, Mr. Duquette criticized at a public meeting in Beauharnois, the government. He was, perhaps, in a position where he could not entirely realize the 'bearing of his utterances.
74726-226J


Donat Raymond: Will the hon. Postmaster General allow me?


Arthur Sauvé: I wish to continue my explanation, and, afterwards, you may reply.


Donat Raymond: That was not the reason urged to request his dismissal. I have here a letter dated September 29, 1932, addressed to the governor general in council, and the only reason alleged in urging his dismissal is that he was guilty of "political partisanship" in the course of the last dominion election-nothing else.


Arthur Sauvé: If the hon.
member had put to me other questions, I would have replied to them. The postmaster of Beauharnois was dismissed following an inquiry ordered when a complaint duly worded by persons from county or town of Beauharnois was received. Therefore, according to the rule established not by the present Postmaster General, but even existing during the regime of my predecessor, a commissioner was sent to Beauharnois to hold an inquiry and the latter forwarded a report stating that the postmaster was guilty of " political partisanship;" first of all, the postmaster had made a wager on the results of the dominion election in 1930, favouring the Liberals, when he was in a public place-in a hotel-on the eve of the dominion election, in a manner such as to influence those present who were also discussing politics. He himself taking part in the discussion.
Moreover, on August 23, 1932, he uttered, at a public meeting in Beauharnois, words which showed his absolute lack of confidence in the present government.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): He was right.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: As a result they dismissed him.


Arthur Sauvé: If he was
right, we gave him the opportunity, the liberty of preaching according to his political convictions.


Mr. POLTLIOT (Translation):: It was
because he was right that you found fault with him.


Arthur Sauvé: No. It was because he was accomplishing the act referred to, that we concluded:	Here is a good partisan who will be free, when relieved from the position of postmaster, to preach the Liberal gospel.
Supply-Post Office


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: So as to preach to the Tories (bleus).


Arthur Sauvé: I understand that the hon. member for Beauharnois requested a reply to his questions?


Donat Raymond: Yes, I
requested a reply.


Arthur Sauvé: I have given my reply.


Donat Raymond: Such are the activities of which the Postmaster General makes a subject of reproach against this postmaster. On the other hand, I rely on the evidence submitted. Among the documents filed, we find a letter from the Postmaster General addressed to the Governor General in Council, invoking as the sole reason for this dismissal the fact that he had been guilty of political "partisanship" in the course of the last Dominion election. Now, according to the commissioner who held the inquiry, the only act with which he is reproached, in the course of the 1930 Dominion election, is having made a wager. I wish to inquire of the Postmaster General whether that constitutes within the meaning of the Civil Service Act, a deed sufficient to justify the dismissal of a postmaster? Section 55 of the Civil Service Act reads as follows:
No employee shall engage in partisan work.
Does the Postmaster General consider that the fact of having made a wager constitutes the work of a partisan?


Arthur Sauvé: -The Postmaster General accepted the report of the commissioner who held the inquiry, according to the rule established since 1921. The report of the commissioner is a judgment that the Postmaster General is not called upon to discuss. If the commissioner acted contrary to the facts and committed an injustice, it is to the public and the victim to take proceedings against him. It is the established rule of all departments and not only of the Post Office Department.


Donat Raymond: May I point out to the Postmaster General that it is very bad politics and a poor excuse to take refuge behind an employee to whom was entrusted the mandate of holding inquiries in connection with "partisanship." Mr. Pari-seault, the commissioner who held the inquiry, so as to retain his position, was obliged to render a decision stating that the person complained of had been guilty of an act of political "partisanship." And the Postmaster
[Mr. Sauve.1
General cannot excuse himself before the house by simply stating that Mr. Pariseault arrived at such a conclusion and thus evade his responsibility. The Postmaster General had but to read the report of the inquiry and he would have found that the conclusion of Mr. Pariseault was not justified. The proof is there. There was no other act to reproach him with, when addressing your letter to the Governor General in Council, than the one of being guilty of political "partisanship" and the only fact which justifies this statement is that of a wager, in the course of the 1930 election. This is certainly not pursuant to the provisions of the Civil Service Act. To be dismissed, according to the act, one must engage in partisan work. Is making a wager considered working? Let us be honest.


Arthur Sauvé: It is committing an act.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Mr. Chairman, I have another case to submit to the hon. Postmaster General in connection with a mail contract between Murray Bay and the "Grand Fonds" in the county of Charlevoix.


Peter John Veniot: "The whale (La Baleine) is now at the bottom (fond)."


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I received in May the following letter:
I have had the mail contract of the "Grand Fonds" for eight years. I have always carried out my duties and have never heard of complaints, at least that I know of. To-day, they are depriving me of the mail at the expiration of my contract, in order to give it to another under the same agreement as I held. At present, the contract was awarded to another person without calling for tenders. There are many in this section of "Grand Fonds" that are dissatisfied and want the mail contract awarded by tender. They are entitled to this and demand it. To that purpose, I am forwarding to your address a petition that they have signed requesting that the mail cantract be awarded by tender.
Hoping that you will work on our behalf, I thank you and sign.
Ludger Gerard,
Grand Fonds,
Murray Bay,
Charlevoix.
The petition reads as follows:
Petition of property owners of "Grand Fonds." Murray Bay. in order to award the mail contract by tender.
Rene Dufour, Anis Dufour, Paul Dufour,
Joseph Dufour. Henri Harvey, Edgar Maltais, Merilde Maltais, Ludoric Bouchard, Francois Dufour, Paul Dufour, Joseph Turcotte, Ludger Gireard, Henri Maltais, Louis Philippe Tur-

Supply-Post Office
cotte. I forwarded this letter to the hon. Postmaster General and he acknowledged receipt stating that the mail contract had been awarded.
I wish to state that the contract for this service has been duly signed by Mr. Johnny Harvey, Jr., and it is now too late to alter the decision taken.
This letter was signed by the assistant deputy minister. I wish to inquire of the Postmaster General, through you Mr. Chairman, whether this contract was altered at the request forwarded by the superintendent of mail contracts, Mr. Anderson, to Mr. Warren, in the county of Charlevoix, or whether other persons requested the Postmaster General or the superintendent of mail contracts to change the contract. I should like to ask if these facts are similar to the cases I just referred to a few minutes ago, and if the hon. minister will kindly give the matter the same consideration.


Arthur Sauvé: Yes, certainly.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I believe
it is nearly the same thing. If I ask for this information, Mr. Chairman, it is for the reasons I gave a moment ago, and which, to my mind, seem justified by the facts.


Peter John Veniot: To return to the question of investigations, I should like to correct an error regarding what the minister said was the practice of the department in the past. I understand that to-day, the evidence received by the inquiry commissioner is not submitted in its entirety to the department, but that he submits only a report of the opinion he has formed after hearing the evidence. We did not proceed in that way in my time. When I was Postmaster General, I would send for the evidence, as far as possible, and review it myself to be sure that the commissioner had arrived at a proper decision, one in accordance with the evidence received.
For instance: the postmaster of Lameque, county of Gloucester, was dismissed after an investigation. I went to the department to get the correspondence and the report of the investigator. In his report, the commissioner stated that the postmaster at Lameque had admitted having taken part or having been present at a political meeting, but he did not quote the evidence heard and which would justify that conclusion.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is Lameque in Egypt?


Peter John Veniot: No. I took
a copy of this report and sent it to my friend.
He was my friend, a good Liberal, and everybody knew that before his appointment to the postmastership he had taken active part in politics, but after his appointment, he no longer did, and kept very quiet. I sent him a copy of the investigator's report and received from the late postmaster a sworn statement in which he declared under oath he had never admitted anything of the sort. I forwarded this affidavit to the department, where it may be found on file to-day. I asked for another investigation. After making further inquiries, I discovered that this postmaster had been present at a public meeting, not at a political one. When your humble servant was appointed Postmaster General, he went to his constituency to get ready for the bye-election, for things were different then from what they are to-day. I went to Lameque, and the people of the district, headed by the parish priest, decided to give a reception to the first French-Acadian to be honoured by such a federal appointment. The president of the "Assomption nationale", an Acadian organization, who was at that time the chief conservative organizer for the parish, was chairman of the reception committee, and he it was who greeted me and tendered the congratulations of the crowd. The local postmaster was present at this meeting, like any other citizen of the place. Because of his presence, he was accused of taking part in a political meeting, and lost his position. I quote this incident to Show the minister that it is imperative to watch closely all the reports of the investigating commissioners, so that the minister himself may satisfy himself that the commissioner's judgment is not unfair. That is my only reason for telling of the incident.


Arthur Sauvé: The hon. gentleman must admit that in the case of Lameque, I took a long time to consider the facts, and had to implement the report of the commissioner,


Peter John Veniot: Certainly, but you had not before you the evidence heard at the time of the investigation.


Arthur Sauvé: I had other
evidence.


Peter John Veniot: You had only the report of the investigating commissioner, in which he stated such and such admissions had been made in the course of the evidence, while the accused produced a sworn statement saying: "I never admitted anything of the sort in my evidence."
Supply-Post Office


Arthur Sauvé: As for myself,
I followed the rule established by my predecessors. I never took it upon myself to dismiss a postmaster when the investigator reported that there were no grounds for doing so. In that respect, I did not follow certain precedents; I held strictly to the rule that the investigator's report must be implemented.


Mr. YENIOT (Translation):: Not always. In certain cases, the commissioner's report was not implemented when it was desired to dismiss the postmaster.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Mr. Chairman, I beg the committee's leave to speak a little further on a rural mail contract. Not long ago, I received a letter from Mr. Germain Gagnon, of Cap St. Fidele, county of Charlevoix, telling me that his contract for carrying the mail will expire on the 1st of October of this year, and asking that I should fevour renewal in his behalf. I replied that tenders would very likely be called for and that he might send one in, but considering the two incidents of which I told the committee this evening, I should like to call the minister's attention to this case. I earnestly hope that the precedent established in those two cases will not be followed again; that Mr. Anderson will not write letters stating that the department is ready to renew the contract, and asking if the man who receives the letter considers that it would be to the advantage of the department to ask for tenders, and then giving the contract to some one else without tender.


Arthur Sauvé: Is the contract for more than $200?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I do not know the amount of the contract. I understand that in cases where the amount is not more than $200, no tenders are called for. In the case of the contract for La Baleine, to which I referred a moment ago, I complained of the fact that Mr. Anderson called on Mr. Warren to tell him if tenders were necessary, or if it would be better to renew the old contract. Mr. Anderson must have decided that tenders might be called for in case the contract might be more than $166.67. And the letter was signed by Mr. Anderson himself. He said that the government was ready to renew the contract at the same price for another year, adding: Even if you believe that in the public interest it is better to ask for tenders, please notify us and we shall call for them.
. I should not like the same thing to happen again in the case of the contract for Cap St. Fidele. Let tenders be called for; if the
[Mr. Veniot.l
amount is too small to justify calling for tenders, consult local people-if you do not wish to consult me-the mayor, the parish priest, or other prominent citizens.
To show I was telling the truth, and that my observations in the case of La Baleine and Le Grand Fonds were justified, I shall read a letter from Mr. Leonidas Tremblay, of St. Fidele, who says this:
After receiving information from the Conservative dispenser of political favours, Mr. Hector Warren, states it is your fault if the mail did not run.
Mr. Chairman, I showed to the committee this evening that, as far as La Baleine is concerned, the member is not to blame if things did not run, or if they ran too well. Mr. Warren is the one to blame. In this case, a respectable citizen of St. Fidele states under date of January the 17th, 1934:
After receiving information from the Conservative dispenser of political favours, Mr. Hector Warren states it is your fault if things do not run well.
And the committee learned to-day that the member for Charlevoix is not the one to handle patronage in his constituency, that he is not consulted when a change of contractor is contemplated, or when something is to be done in the Post Office Department; Mr. Warren is consulted then, and if he fails to give everything to his own friends, he says: It's your member's fault if things do not run well.
I hope I said enough regarding the cases of La Baleine and Le Grand Fonds to show that if the mail service is badly organized in the county, the member cannot be blamed for it; the one to blame is the man who claimed for himself the member's privileges and the man-I do not know him and do not wish to make any charge-who recommended him to the Postmaster General as the best man to handle the patronage which was turned over to him.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. minister be kind enough to tell me if the meeting of the Executive Universal Postal Union in Ottawa was meant to plan for the postal congress in Cairo?


Arthur Sauvé: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: That was the amount voted for the postal congress at Ottawa?


Arthur Sauvé: 


Jean-François Pouliot: $62,400?


Arthur Sauvé: Yes.

Supply-Post Office


Jean-François Pouliot: 
Arthur Sauvé: The amounts were voted the preceding year.


Jean-François Pouliot: Was the
whole amount spent for the preliminary convention held in Ottawa? Was the whole amount spent last year and in the solar year 1933?


Arthur Sauvé: The expenditure out of the amount voted in 1932-33 for this meeting of the executive committee amounted to 810,05256; the expenditure out of the estimates of 1933-34 passed to cover the costs of this meeting of the executive committee amounted to $11,007.47; the expenditure out of the estimates of 1933-34 to allow the delegates of the executive committee to make a trip and inspect the Canadian Mails service amounted to $18,000.44; total, $39,060.47.


Jean-François Pouliot: What was the difference between the amount of $62,400 and the amount spent?


Arthur Sauvé: Amount voted in 1932-33 for the .ends of the executive committee, $25,000; 1933-34, expenditure entailed by the meeting of the executive committee, $12,400; 1933-34, trip made 'by the delegates of the said committee to inspect the Canadian Mails service, $25,000; total, $62,400.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is not what I want to know from the minister. I am asking the minister what amount out of these $62,400 has been spent actually.


Arthur Sauvé: I told you: $39,060.47.


Jean-François Pouliot: Has the hon. minister returned any of these amounts to the treasury?


Arthur Sauvé: Certainly; the balance.


Jean-François Pouliot: What is the
balance?


Arthur Sauvé: The difference between $62,000 and $39,000.
M. POULIOT (Translation): $25,000?
Mr. SAUVE (Translation); It can be figured u,p.


Jean-François Pouliot: Now how many delegates took part to the preliminary postal convention in Ottawa?


Arthur Sauvé: The foreign
delegates?


Jean-François Pouliot: Members of this Executive Postal Union Committee were in Ottawa, last year.


Arthur Sauvé: Do you mean the number of the countries represented?


Jean-François Pouliot: I mean the total number of delegates: ten, twenty or thirty persons.


Arthur Sauvé: There were
forty-two.


Jean-François Pouliot: Did these forty-two persons take in the excursion to the West?


Arthur Sauvé: Yes, but not the minister himself.


Jean-François Pouliot: How many officials of the department of the Postmaster General accompanied these people to the West?


Arthur Sauvé: Ten or eleven, I think. Note should be taken of one thing, however, I mean it was not merely a pleasure trip, but the committee continued to sit on the train. The executive committee held meetings during the trip and consequently a certain number of officials had to be on hand. Rather than to sit here at Ottawa the congress continued its meetings while travelling and we thought it was good policy, as the delegates attended to their work and saw at the same time the wealth and scenery of our country.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Very
sound.


Jean-François Pouliot: What was the cost of the trip, first for the officials of the department and then for the delegates?


Arthur Sauvé: I have not
here all the details. About $400 each. I don't think I am much mistaken in that.


Jean-François Pouliot: If the minister hasn't the details he should have the total, and I would like to ask him first whether the Canadian government have paid the travelling expenses of the foreign delegates to Victoria.


Arthur Sauvé: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: What was the cost of the trip, including the transportation of these delegates and of the officials of the department of the Postmaster General, the
Supply-Post Office

meals on the train and at the hotels, the tips and all? I do not want any details; I ask the minister to give me the total amount.


Arthur Sauvé: About $400 each.


Jean-François Pouliot: So, this was a meeting of the executive committee in view of the postal congress at Cairo?


Arthur Sauvé: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: What was the cost of the trip of the Canadian delegation who attended the postal congress at Cairo?


Arthur Sauvé: About $12,300
or $12,400. Maybe certain small details are still to be added-I am told it is $12,716.


Jean-François Pouliot: So, if we
take the meeting of the executive committee at Ottawa which has cost $62,000 and the cost of the trip to Cairo, $12,000, the postal congress of Cairo, in its preliminary stage-


Arthur Sauvé: The congress
did not cost $62,000 since there has been a remittal.


Jean-François Pouliot: It did cost
$39,000 and the trip to Cairo, S12.000, $51,000 in all, and besides $20,000 for a trip to the west.


Arthur Sauvé: The cost is
high enough without that.


Jean-François Pouliot: How many
albums have been published? 200?


Arthur Sauvé: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: Would the
hon. minister 'have any objection to give some to the members?


Arthur Sauvé: The minister
would not object if parliament voted an amount to print more. I think I still have two or three copies and will readily hand one to the hon. member for Temiscouata, if he wants one.


Jean-François Pouliot: Where are
the others? There were 42 delegates accompanied by 11 employees, a total of 53 persons. Out of the 200 albums published at the price of $24 each the members did not get one. Where did they go to? Have they been eaten up by moths and mice?


Arthur Sauvé: I think I have given all the necessary explanations this afternoon and to-night, at the beginning of the sitting.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon.
minister said he had handed some to the respectable folk; there are many respectable folk in Canada.


Arthur Sauvé: I said to
" respectable people." I did not say " to the respectable people," for they are too numerous.


Joseph Jean: The hon. member for Temiscouata could have been handed a copy?


Arthur Sauvé: Certainly.
Had I not feared to offend him-he could have interpreted my gesture as unfortunate

I would have been happy to send him one. But since he can't be without one, I will try and get one for him, to show him the value of the work.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the
minister very much.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: If there
is a spare one, I would like to have it.


Ernest Lapointe: Have you one also for me?


Arthur Sauvé: Let all those
who wish one stand up-
(Many members get up.)
-I will ask for a vote for this purpose.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Oh, no,
if it does not cost anything, if some are left.


Arthur Sauvé: I have not
enough to satisfy all demands.


Peter John Veniot: I will hand
you mine.


Arthur Sauvé: We thought
we should distribute the copies on hand. The fact is that these albums were not authorized by the authorities of the department. On the contrary, I had even instructed Mr. Webster not to print any, because they were too costly. I have given explanations on this matter which seem to be accepted by the opposition. The copies left after the distribution to the members of the congress were given away.


Ernest Lapointe: Why did
my hon. friend forget me in the course of this distribution?


Arthur Sauvé: Does the ex-
Minister of Justice believe that I have forgotten him so?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, I did not get any.


Arthur Sauvé: We shall see.

Supply-Post Office


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I did not
get any either, although I am a good friend of the Postmaster General.


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Chairman. I must say I am privileged, for I got a copy.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. Postmaster General if in the district called township Latour a mail distribution service will be established this coming summer, from Port-neuf? I have already written to the Postmaster General about it. There is a distance of approximately twenty-five miles between these two places. Townships Royal and Latour are two small colonization townships extending from Portneuf to Bersimis, and the people are asking for a mail service three times a week. I have not yet received a satisfactory answer from the department on this subject. In times like these when we are trying to get people settled on the land and when we are doing our utmost to improve the lot of the farming class and make farming attractive to them, it seems to me that this mail service is necessary.
I wish to put another question concerning another contract, from Riviere-Portneuf to Bersimis. The same contract might serve, if a stop were made at these two places. These people want this service which would be very important for them.
I ask the Postmaster General to answer thus further question. One of my constituents sent me a letter recently stating that certain documents, similar to those I hold in my hand-and I beg the hon. minister's attention at this point-had been distributed by the postmaster at a certain place. This document appears to be a circular advertising certain machines, stoves, etc., for which somebody in the district has the agency. It seems that the postmaster distributes these circulars, with the mail, to those who go to the post office. Am I to understand that this practice is allowed?


Arthur Sauvé: At what place?
Mr.	CASGRAIN	(Translation):	I	would
rather not say where.


Arthur Sauvé: I would like to know the name of the place.
Mr.	CASGRAIN	(Translation):	It	is in
Charlevoix county, at Cap-a-l'Aigle.


Arthur Sauvé: Does the hon. member wish to lodge a complaint against the postmaster there?
Mr.	CASGRAIN	(Translation):	I	wouldlike to	know if this practice is allowed	or not.


Arthur Sauvé: We have not had occasion to allow any postmaster to distribute circulars of this description.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Apparently the postmaster gives these circulars out at the same time as the mail.


Arthur Sauvé: That is contrary to the rules.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: That is
what I wanted to find out.


Arthur Sauvé: If the hon.
member wishes to make a complaint against the postmaster in his county, we will consider it.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I'll think it over. I would not like to lay a charge.
I was simply requested to ascertain if such a practice were permitted.


Arthur Sauvé: No.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Now there is something else that I wish to bring to the attention of the Postmaster General. Last year a certain request was made to me concerning Anticosti Island: what was wanted was a service around the island, in the interest of citizens living far from Port Menier. In answer to a letter I wrote on this subject on May 31, 1933, I received a reply dated June 1, 1933. I would like to know if the same contract has been let for another year. The continuance of the contract is necessary to ensure that the service be more satisfactory than it was previously.


Arthur Sauvé: That has already been done, I believe.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I wish to avoid any misunderstanding. A moment ago the minister said that he had no intention of annoying me by sending me a copy of the album. I am absolutely opposed to any further expenditure under this head. If there remain any spare copies of the album, I will not be annoyed if the minister will send me one.


Arthur Sauvé: May I add one condition?


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes.


Arthur Sauvé: The condition is that the hon. member for Temiscouata grant us the pleasure of sending to the Postmaster General a copy of his new book which we will be glad to keep.


Jean-François Pouliot: Certainly.
An exchange of courtesies. That suits me very well.
Supply-Post Office

Now, I wish to put a few questions to the Postmaster General, and I hope he can answer them right away. First of all, how many postmasters have been dismissed for partisanship since 1930?


Arthur Sauvé: About 800.


Jean-François Pouliot: How many post offices have been closed?


Arthur Sauvé: 513.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: 513?


Arthur Sauvé: Number of post offices closed from August 7, 1930, to April 30, 1934, 513, because of reduced revenue, or uselessness. Number of post offices closed on account of the establishing of the rural mail service, 193. Number of post offices in receipt of $25 or less, 876. Number of post offices in receipt of $100 or less, 3,835.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Were those closed?


Arthur Sauvé: No.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Then only 193 were closed.


Arthur Sauvé: 513.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: You mentioned the figure 193. What was that for?


Arthur Sauvé: 513.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Closed?


Arthur Sauvé: Closed, yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: In the case of how many post offices was there a change of premises?


Arthur Sauvé: Change of
premises, 112.


Jean-François Pouliot: Since August, 1930?


Arthur Sauvé: Since August 7, 1930.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: In the case of these changed premises was the postmaster dismissed?


Arthur Sauvé: Most of them.


Jean-François Pouliot: Does "a
change of premises" imply "a change of site"?


Arthur Sauvé: Sometimes.


Peter John Veniot: A change of premises does not involve the closing of the post office.
[Mr. Pouliot.l


Arthur Sauvé: A change of premises is effected: the post office is moved from one site to another.


Jean-François Pouliot: The number 800 represents the postmasters dismissed for reasons of partisanship, is that right?


Arthur Sauvé: 842?


Jean-François Pouliot: 842?


Arthur Sauvé: No, no: financial irregularities, change of premises, unsatisfactory management, etc.


Jean-François Pouliot: Out of these 842 how many were dismissed for reasons of political partisanship?


Arthur Sauvé: 137, on complaint of a member of parliament; 390 as a result of investigations; guilt admitted by postmaster, 18.


Jean-François Pouliot: How many appointments has the postmaster general made since August, 1930?


Arthur Sauvé: The postmaster general?


Mr POULIOT (Translation):: Yes.


Arthur Sauvé: The appointments to all the post offices under his jurisdiction.


Jean-François Pouliot: The minister's jurisdiction was considerably extended by the law, recently enacted, granting him powers which heretofore belonged to the Civil Service Commission.
Since the minister has not yet answered that question I shall ask him another:	How
many new post offices have been opened since 1930?


Arthur Sauvé: I have not the figures here.


Jean-François Pouliot: The minister will have no objection to furnishing us with them?


Arthur Sauvé: I shall give them to you to-morrow.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: 842 postmasters have been dismissed, and 513 post offices were closed, which means that as many more postmasters are out of a job; 112 cases of changed premises, with dismissals in most cases. That makes a total of 1,467 who have lost their positions. Is that correct?


Arthur Sauvé: No.

Supply-Post Office


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: There were 842 dismissals, 513 post offices were closed and in 112 cases the premises were changed. These are the figures you gave a moment ago. I find, accordingly, that a total of 1,467 postmasters have been dismissed throughout the country from 1930 up till now.


Arthur Sauvé: Would the hon. member please put that question again?


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Going over the figures you quoted just now- you may correct any inaccuracies-I find that there were 842 dismissals-


Arthur Sauvé: And changes.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: 513 post offices were closed.


Arthur Sauvé: Yes, closed.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: There are no postmasters?


Arthur Sauvé: No. there are no longer any post office.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: There are 112 changes of premises and mostly all dismissals?


Arthur Sauvé: Yes, but this figure is included in the 842.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: You did not mention that just now.


Jean-François Pouliot: How many
postmasters were appointed temporarily or permanently by the Postmaster General, since August, 1930?


Arthur Sauvé: I shall furnish that information at the same time as the other.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: On the total of dismissals you have just mentioned, how many were there in Quebec, in the way of change of premises, post offices closed or dismissals for political " partisanship"?


Arthur Sauvé: 295.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: How many were there in the other provinces? How many in Ontario?


Arthur Sauvé: I shall furnish
this information a little later. Meanwhile, you may put other questions.


Donat Raymond: I shall
put another question. Will the Postmaster Teneral be kind enough to inform me as to the age of Mr. Tanner Green, superintendent
of postal services, at Quebec, to whom reference was made just now, in the course of the remarks of the hon. member for Charle-voix-Saguenay?


Arthur Sauvé: I think he is
over 70 years of age.


Donat Raymond: Could the Postmaster General be more precise?


Arthur Sauvé: I would not
care to go as far back as his baptism.


Donat Raymond: No, but
after his baptism.


Arthur Sauvé: (Translation): I think he is 70 years old.


Donat Raymond: I am informed that he is over 75 years old.


Arthur Sauvé: Then, he is
older?


Donat Raymond: Could the Postmaster General make certain of his information?


Arthur Sauvé: Well! Will
the hon. member complete his question?


Donat Raymond: Complete
my question?


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Might we
not agree on 73 years of age?


Donat Raymond: What is the age limit in the service?


Arthur Sauvé: Sixty-five years.


Donat Raymond: Could the hon. Postmaster General state why, this gentleman, being over 70 years old, is still in the service?


Arthur Sauvé: I have no
objection, the hon. member for Gloucester is perfectly aware-


Donat Raymond: I would
prefer to obtain the information from the present Postmaster General.


Arthur Sauvé: The hon. member for Beauharnois will allow me, I trust, to credit his friend, the ex-Postmaster General with some experience and efficiency. Mr. Tanner Green is an efficient official-


Donat Raymond: In age!


Arthur Sauvé: When the
hon. member reaches his age, he will be very glad of being shown some regard.


Donat Raymond: I shall
die before I reach that age.
36/6
Supply-Post Office


Arthur Sauvé: Mr. Tanner
Green is an efficient official and, if the hon. member is not aware of it, the hon. members from the district of Quebec are aware that we have a new postmaster in that city, that we are carrying out a reorganization and we require for some time more the experience and efficiency of Mr. Green and it is on such representations that I consented to keep him for some time in the service


Donat Raymond: Could the hon. Postmaster General explain in what consists his efficiency. In political "partisanship"?


Arthur Sauvé: If he were
a political partisan, I would be at a loss to understand what is a partisan-


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Were he to die?


Arthur Sauvé: I beg your
pardon-because the Conservatives told me, when I became Postmaster General, that he was a downright grit.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: And what did you find out since you are there?


Arthur Sauvé: I found out
that he was a perfect civil employee.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: And a good tory?


Arthur Sauvé: He never
mixed into politics to my knowledge. I really do not know his political allegiance.


Donat Raymond: You could perhaps investigate on that?


Arthur Sauvé: Is the hon.
member serious?


Donat Raymond: Yes, because I know that such investigations were held.


Arthur Sauvé: Then we shall have one.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Were he to die, what would you do about reorganization?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Mr. Chairman, following the remarks made by the hon. member for Beauhamois about Mr. Tanner Green, I could repeat what I said this afternoon. I know him personally and all I said about Mr. Anderson can apply to him. I agree with the minister that he is very competent. Now, the same principle applies; all these high officials, however competent they are and while you must bow to their knowledge and authority, should 
retire from the service when they have reached the age fixed by the law. There always stands the question of justice towards the lower grade civil servants who spend the better part of their life trying to make good for their family and to get a better job. They are unable to get a promotion because the gentlemen who occupy the high positions do not retire when they have reached the age limit. Could the minister explain one thing about this matter? How is it that, in this item No. 21, it has been found necessary to add a last special paragraph about Mr. G. C. Anderson:
... and to provide for the continuance in office of G. C. Anderson as superintendent of mail contracts, from April 1, 1934, to March 31, 1935.
[DOT]-and that the same thing was omitted about Mr. Tanner Green, whose situation is the same and who has reached the age limit? Where can we find his salary mentioned? Since you have, in the case of Mr. Anderson, to mention his salary specifically, how is it that, the same thing does not apply in Mr. Tanner Green's case? I would like to have this information.


Arthur Sauvé: It is very
simple; it is because Mr. Anderson is over seventy-five years old and that consequently, according to an order-


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: He is required also for reorganization, is he not?


Arthur Sauvé: Does the hon.
member for Charlevoix-Saguenay accept the explanation given by the hon. member for St. Henri?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I prefer
to get explanations from the hon. minister, although I have the greatest regard for my hon. friend from St. Henri.


Arthur Sauvé: The reason is
that Mr. Anderson is over seventy-five years of age.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Shall I
understand that it is necessary to mention in the estimates the salary of a civil servant who is over seventy-five years old, but that this is not necessary in the case of an official who has exceeded by only five years the age of retirement?


Arthur Sauvé: An order in
council is sufficient in that case.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: I asked a moment ago if the Postmaster General could tell me how many postmasters have been dismissed in each province. I

Supply-Post Office
notice that the two excellent officials who sit near the minister have made the necessary calculations. The minister should be able to give us those figures now.


Arthur Sauvé: To satisfy the hon member for St. Henri.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Not only to satisfy me, but to satisfy the people of Canada.


Joseph-François Laflèche: This is
not a satisfaction.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: You had the satisfaction of dismissing them.


Arthur Sauvé: Will the hon.
member for St. Henri allow me to answer his question?


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: I was interrupted by the hon. member for Richmond-W olfe.


Arthur Sauvé: You were not more serious before that.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: This is rather serious.


Arthur Sauvé: Prince Edward Island, 10; Nova Scotia, 173; New Brunswick, 86; Ontario, 10; Saskatchewan, 28; Alberta, 22; British Columbia, 7.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Quebec?


Arthur Sauvé: The figure is the same as it was a moment ago.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What figure was given a moment ago?


Arthur Sauvé: 295.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The province of Quebec, your province, heads the list?


Arthur Sauvé: As always, just as was the case when the hon. member was lauding the government which he supported.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: How many were there under the previous government?


Joseph-François Laflèche: There were many. I was one of them.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: You do not know, because you were not here.


Arthur Sauvé: The hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe himself was dismissed.


Jean-François Pouliot: Will the hon. minister tell us how many postmasters were appointed by him, both temporarily and permanently, since August, 1930?


Arthur Sauvé: I have not
these figures here; I will be able to-morrow to give them to the hon. member.


Peter John Veniot: Will the
minister allow me to ask him some questions now, so that he may answer to-morrow. I know that he cannot give us that information to-night. I want to know what was for the year ending March 31, 1934 the revenue from first-class matter; also the amount received for the transportation of newspapers; the tax collected on postal notes and money orders. Then what are the gross receipts and net receipts of this last year? What was the amount spent during the year ended March 31, 1934?


Jean-François Pouliot: Adding
another question, I want the hon. minister to tell us what was the supplementary revenue accrued to the federal treasury from the additional cent charged for letter stamp since this tax was put into effect.


Arthur Sauvé: I will get that.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have a last question to put to the minister. Is it not a fact that he has appointed from 4,500 to 5,000 postmasters since he is Postmaster General?


Arthur Sauvé: No, I swear it is not so.


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Chairman, we are discussing to-night the item on civil government.


Arthur Sauvé: The discussion has gone beyond the limit of this item.


Peter John Veniot: The general estimates remain to be voted, and on these three items we shall be able to discuss all matters concerning the administration of the Postmaster General's department. Could I suggest that we carry to-night the item that we are discussing now? We could continue the discussion on the general estimates. I suggest that the item on civil government be adopted to-night.


Arthur Sauvé: The discussion has somewhat exceeded the limit of this item No. 21. Both items were discussed. The practice is to adopt item 21 without discussion.


Donat Raymond: There was a general discussion.


Arthur Sauvé: Both items were discussed to-day.
Supply-Post Office


Ernest Lapointe: When the other item comes up for discussion, there will be that much saved (sauve).


Arthur Sauvé: We can proceed until eleven o'clock.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: We shall continue on item 21 since you insist: the contingencies.


Arthur Sauvé: I understand
that item 21 is adopted.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: No, not yet. Would the minister give us the particulars about the contingencies?


Arthur Sauvé: I have not these particulars here; I will give them tomorrow.


Joseph Jean: Could the hon. Postmaster General inform the house whether, in the total of item No. 21 the ten per cent deducted from employees, during the year is taken into account?


Arthur Sauvé: Certainly.


Joseph Jean: Then, I gather that the ten per cent is deducted from this item of $1,145,000?


Arthur Sauvé: Certainly.


Joseph Jean: At page 88 of the budget's appropriations, we find the detail of salaries of item 21 and the ten per cent has not been deducted. The addition is made and it amounts to $1,145,000, the same amount as at page 9. It is the same question that was raised the other day in connection with another department; we actually vote the entire amount of the salaries?


Arthur Sauvé: No.


Joseph Jean: Such salaries are subject to the deductions of ten per cent?


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: The grand total, here, at page 89, is $1,145,000, exactly the same amount as the item we are discussing. We vote $1,145,000 without taking into account the ten per cent deduction.
Could the hon. Postmaster General furnish this information to-day?


Arthur Sauvé: I shall furnish it to-morrow.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: On the occasion of your trip to Europe, you stated, in France, at a large banquet, and rightly, that the French people should taste our maple syrup and also utilize it as much as possible, especially by mixing it with French tobacco so as to give it a better aroma. Did
r Mr. Sauve 1
the Minister of Agriculture avail himself of the services of the Post Office Department to send maple syrup samples to France? I was informed at the department that hundreds of gallons of maple syrup were shipped to France and that these shipments brought in a considerable revenue to the Post Office Department.
Mr. SAUVE	(Translation):	I would
request the hon. member to verify his information because I am unaware of the fact.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Did you state that more maple syrup should be mixed with French tobacco?
Mr. SAUVE	(Translation):	It was
simply a casual remark. I did not make any speech in this connection. Some one remarked that maple syrup was used with tobacco. I simply added that they should use more. The press gave this incident great importance, the same thing happens even for the speeches of the hon. member for St. Henri.


Jean-François Pouliot: If they
thought it so important, it is because the Postmaster General is a connoisseur in tobacco.


Peter John Veniot: Coming back to a question put by the hon. member for Maisonneuve, relating to the ten per cent cut, if the postmaster will look up page 89, he will note that the ten per cent has been deducted; $127,236 was deducted from $1,145,000, just as it appears in item No. 21, in which the ten per cent is not included. The Postmaster General will have no need to search any longer in order to give a reply to-morrow; it is here.


Mr. TOTZKE:: I have not been able to follow the discussion and I do not know what item we are on, but before the minister takes his estimates out of committee I should like to ask him to see that a report that I asked for, passed by the house on April 16, with reference to the dismissal of the postmaster at Hoey, Saskatchewan, is brought down.


Arthur Sauvé: The return asked for will be tabled to-morrow or on Monday next.


Albert Frederick Totzke: I should like it to be done before this estimate is taken out of the committee.


Peter John Veniot: I want to ask a couple more questions. I do not expect the minister to ' answer them to-night, because he may not have expected them and may have to look up the records.

Excise Act
Has there been any deficit in the air mail service between Montreal and Albany?


Arthur Sauvé: We shall give the answer tomorrow.


Peter John Veniot: What is the name of the contractor for the air mail service between Pembina, Winnipeg and the United States border?


Arthur Sauvé: It is Canadian Airways.


Peter John Veniot: I know it is Canadian Airways, but there is another question connected with that. What is the price per mile, or per pound if it is on a poundage basis, for carrying the mail; and does this company, Canadian Airways Limited, carry the mail over Canadian territory to the American border? I ask the question because my information is that while Canadian Airways have the contract from Winnipeg to the border they are not to-day carrying the mail by their own planes but have entered into an agreement with an American company to carry it through to Winnipeg over Canadian territory. I want to know if that information is correct.


Jean-François Pouliot: Has Mr. Joseph Arthur Morin, returned soldier, been appointed postmaster at St. Joseph d'Alma?


Arthur Sauvé: The case is still pending.


Jean-François Pouliot: The Postmaster General is aware of the fact that he has been appointed by the Civil Service Commission, but that his appointment has not been ratified by the department?


Arthur Sauvé: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: When will
the hon. Postmaster General be in a position to give a definite answer to Mr. Morin, in this respect?


Arthur Sauvé: As soon as
possible.


Jean-François Pouliot: What does "as soon as possible" mean? That may be the week where there are three Thursdays, that may mean next week or to-morrow.


Arthur Sauvé: Perhaps tomorrow, perhaps next week.


Jean-François Pouliot: Will it be
the week after next week?


Arthur Sauvé: As to a reply?


Jean-François Pouliot: As to a
definite reply.


Arthur Sauvé: I am waiting
for certain information and certain supporting documents.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not asking the Postmaster General what will be his decision, I am inquiring at what date he will be in a position to give a definite reply. Between now and the end of June?


Arthur Sauvé: Certainly.


Jean-François Pouliot: Before the end of the session?


Arthur Sauvé: I cannot tell
when the session will end.


Peter John Veniot: Preparatory to the minister coming to the committee again-we cannot get the estimate through to-night; it is now ten minutes to eleven-may I ask if he will have ready for the next sitting a report touching the situation in the city of Saint John in regard to the superintendent of postal service for New Brunswick, and let the committee know when we may expect the nomination.


Arthur Sauvé: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Peter John Veniot: May I suggest, in view of the fact that we may have some discussion on the three items that remain, that we move out of committee?


Richard Bedford Bennett: We are going to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Bennett the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Friday, June 1, 1934
.The house met at three o'clock.



FIRST NARROWS BRIDGE

Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Speaker, I beg to table parliamentary return number 185. This is the return which the hon. member for North Vancouver (Mr. Munn) was asking about yesterday, I do not think there has been any delay in its preparation as it is very comprehensive and was asked for only in the second week of May.



EXCISE ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. R. C. MATTHEWS (Minister of National Revenue) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 89, to amend and consolidate the Excise Act.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Explain.
Indian Act


Mr. MATTHEWS:: This bill is to amend and consolidate the Excise Act. This act was consolidated in 1927 at the time of the general revision of the statutes, but the last actual revision took place in 1883. A departmental committee consisting of the commissioner of excise, the law clerk of the House of Commons, the departmental solicitor and the former chief inspector of excise has been engaged on this work for the past six months. This bill should not be contentious because in the main it consists of the consolidation of the act to include the various amendments passed since 1927. There is some rearrangement and reduction of sections as well as a simplification of language without essential change in meaning, and it is intended to facilitate the general administrative work of the department.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Are there no new sections?


Robert Charles Matthews: There are no new sections of any great moment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I suppose the house can count on the minister letting it know as to anything it contains in the way of new legislation?


Robert Charles Matthews: Oh, yes, that will be shown in the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INDIAN ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. THOMAS G. MURPHY (Minister of the Interior) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 90, respecting the Caughnawaga Indian reserve and to amend the Indian Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. MURPHY:: Under the terms of an order in council, P.C. 466, of March 5, 1889, the provisions of the Indian Advancement Act, chapter 44, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1886, were applied to the Iroquois Indians of Caughnawaga, in the province of Quebec, and for the purpose of giving effect to the application of the act, the reserve at Caughnawaga was designated "Caughnawaga Indian reserve" and divided into six sections.
On July 12, 1906, an order in council, P.C. 1419, in the purported exercise of the powers conferred by section 4 of the Indian Advancement Act, it was provided that the division of the Caughnawaga Indian reserve into sections be done away with, and that the said reserve be comprised in one section.
It now appears there was no provision of the Indian Act, or of any statute, authorizing

the making of the last mentioned order in council.
It is provided under the terms of this bill that all acts committed pursuant to the provisions of the order in council of July 12, 1906, P.C. 1419, be made valid and effective, and provision is also made for again dividing the reserve into six sections.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Is this legislation being brought down at the request of the people living on the reserve?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is to validate invalid legislation by order in council.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 86, for the relief of Blanche Marjorie Short Hanson

Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 87, for the relief of Fenwick William Smith-Mr. Heaps.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved the first reading of Bill No. 88, respecting Courts of Admiralty.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Hugh Guthrie: This is a bill to amend
and consolidate the law in respect of courts of admiralty and to bring it under the jurisdiction of Canada, more particularly having regard to the statute of Westminster. The bill has been passed by the Senate.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I ask the Minister of Marine
when he expects to introduce the Canada Shipping Act Amendment bill and whether it is intended to refer it to a special committee of the house.


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):: I hope to move the first reading of the bill on Monday. I do not think it will have to go to a special committee; it will go before the committee of the whole house.



DOMINION COMPANIES ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State) moved the third reading of Bill No. 64, respecting dominion companies.
Motion agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
Bank Act


[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 18, respecting banks and banking.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
Sections 1 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
On section 5-Bank charters continued to July 1, 1944, as to some particulars.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I would
ask that this section stand.
Section stands.
Sections 6 to 19 inclusive agreed to.
On section 20-Qualification of directors.


Mr. IRVINE:: I would like to have this
clause stand.
Section stands.
On section 21-Election of directors.


William Irvine: I would like this clause to
stand also.
Section stands.
Sections 22 to 27 inclusive agreed to.
On section 28-General powers of directors.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Stand.
Section stands.
On section 29-Appointment of officers.


William Irvine: I would like this clause to
stand.
Section stands.
Sections 30 and 31 agreed to.
On section 32-Increase of capital.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Stand.
Section stands.
Sections 33 to 52 inclusive agreed to.
On section 53-Statement to be laid before annual general meeting.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Stand.
Section stands.
Section 54 agreed to.
On section 55-Who qualified to audit.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Stand.
Section stands.
On section 56-Inspector general of banks to be appointed.


Mr. RHODES:: I have an amendment to
move to this clause. I move:
That subsection 11 of section 56 be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
Whenever the inspector is satisfied that a bank is insolvent he shall report fully on the bank's condition to the minister, and the minister may, without waiting for the bank to suspend payment in specie or dominion or Bank of Canada notes, of any of its liabilities as they accrue, forthwith appoint in writing a curator to supervise the affairs of such bank, and such appointment shall have the same effect as if the bank had suspended payment in specie or dominion or Bank of Canada notes of any of its liabilities as they accrued.
This amendment is to bring the subclause into conformity with clauses 117 and 118 which were amended in similar fashion in the committee on banking and commerce.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It gives
the minister instead of the association power directly to appoint.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, it substitutes the
minister for the Canadian Bankers' Association.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 57

Quarterly or half-yearly dividends.
Mr. COOTE:: Stand.
Section stands.
Section 58 agreed to.
On section 59-Cash reserves in dominion notes.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Stand.
Section stands.
On section 60-Issue of notes.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Stand.
Section stands.
Sections 61 to 66 inclusive agreed to.
On section 67-Refund of deposit if bank is wound up.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I ask how far the powers of the treasury board will be limited or circumscribed as a result of the new legislation?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There will be no change in the position except that my hon. friend will recall that under the provisions as now outlined the circulation of the banks will dis-

Bank Act

appear stage by stage, and this section will be required until the circulation of the banks entirely disappears.
Section agreed to.
Sections 68 to 74 inclusive agreed to.
On section 75-Business and powers of bank.


George Gibson Coote: Stand.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Perhaps I had better give notice of an amendment which I propose to move, so that it will be before the committee, although of course the section will stand. The amendment is designed to permit the jank's name to appear on prospectuses or idvertisements in respect of certain types of securities which are peculiar to the province of Quebec. The proposed amendment is:
That paragraph (g) of subsection (2) of section 75 be amended by inserting the words "or related school board or parish trustees after the word "municipality" in line 6 of the said paragraph, and by inserting the words or unless provision is made for the payment thereof and' the interest thereon by a province pursuant to its statutes" at the end of the paragraph.
Section stands.
Sections 76 and 77 agreed to.
On section 78-Acquisition of real estate.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What was the section dealing with investment bankers, which it was arranged in the committee should stand for discussion in the house?


Mr. STANLEY:: Section 166.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 79 to 87 inclusive agreed to.
On section 88-Loans to certain wholesale dealers.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Stand.
Section stands.
On section 89-Goods manufactured from articles pledged.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: It goes with section 88.
Section stands.
Section 90 agreed to.
On section 91-Interest exceeding 7 per cent shall not be charged.	[DOT]


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Stand.
Section stands.
Sections 92 to 95 inclusive agreed to.

On section 96-Bank not bound to see to trust in deposits.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have an amendment to propose:
That subsection (2) of section 96 be amended by inserting after the words "such persons" in the fifth line of the said subsection the words "or of such of them as under the document creating the trust may be entitled to receive such deposit."
The purpose of this amendment is obvious of course. It is to permit the withdrawal of deposits subject to trusts of which the bank has notice to be made in accordance with the terms of the document creating the trust where such document does not require the signature of all parties to the trust.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 97 to 111 inclusive agreed to.
On section 112-Monthly returns.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Stand.
Section stands.
Section 113 agreed to.
On section 114-Annual returns of unpaid dividends and balances.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have an amendment:
That subsection (12) of section 114 be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
The returns referred to in subsections (1) to (9) inclusive of this section and a compilation for all banks of the respective items of information contained in the returns required by subsections (10) and (11) of this section shall be laid before parliament by the minister at the next session thereof.
By way of explanation it is submitted that the new returns required under subsections
(10)	and (11) of this section possibly should not, as in the case of lists of shareholders and returns of unclaimed balances, be tabled in parliament so as to show the information for individual banks. The proposed amendment accordingly provides that a summary for all banks of the information contained in these new returns shall be tabled, rather than the individual returns themselves. The committee will see the object of the amendment; it is intended that information with respect to individual banks shall not be disclosed, but that the total position shall be made known.
I have another amendment to subsection
(11)	. It is that the subsection be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
The bank shall once in each year transmit or deliver to the minister a return in respect of all deposits by the public held by the bank

Supply-Post Office
in Canada at a date to be specified by the treasury board, showing as to deposits payable on demand and also as to deposits payable after notice, the number and aggregate amount of such deposits in each of the following classes:
1.	Deposits under $1,000.
2.	Deposits over $1,000 to $5,000.
3.	Deposits over $5,000 to $25,000.
4.	Deposits over $25,000 to $100,000.
5.	Deposits in excess of $100,000.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is the alteration from the existing subsection?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is merely a change in
wording which is thought to be more precise than the subsection as passed by the committee, which was prepared somewhat hurriedly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 115 and 116 agreed to.
On section 117-Association to appoint curator.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not know that it
is material, but perhaps the side note ought to be changed from " association to appoint curator" to "minister to appoint curator." However, I am advised that in the ordinary course it is the duty of the law clerk to make such alterations.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 118 to 123 inclusive agreed to.
Sections 124 and 125 stand.
Sections 126 to 137 inclusive agreed to.
Section 138 stands.
Sections 139 to 150 inclusive agreed to.
Section 151 stands.
Sections 152 to 165 inclusive agreed to.
Section 166 stands.
Sections 167 to 170 inclusive agreed to.
George Gibson Coote: We have gone over the act
rather hurriedly, and I wonder if there would be any objection to letting section 99 stand. I did not hear that section called.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Certainly.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hanson, York-Sun-bury):: Section 99 will stand.
Schedules A to J inclusive agreed to.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Is it the wish of the committee that we should revert to the sections that stood or should we leave them for another day?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Some
of the members who are absent have expressed the desire that some of the sections men-
74726-227J
tioned should be left over for further discussion at a later date.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Then I move, Mr. Chairman, that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Mr. NEILL:: Would the minister be good enough to allow that section to stand which deals with the charge on cheques? Is it section 91?


George Gibson Coote: I think it is section 91, and it stood.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Section 91 stands. Does that cover what my hon. friend has in mind?


George Gibson Coote: Subsection 4 of section 91 I think was wanted to stand.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: At all events it can be understood that if this particular section does not cover all the matters my hon. friend has in mind there will be no objection to his reopening a section that has passed.


Mr. McINTOSH:: Is further discussion precluded on the clauses that have been announced as carried?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Of course, it would be desirable to have orderly procedure.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: There might be special circumstances under which a member might wish to discus a certain clause that has carried.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: As far as I am concerned I should make no objection.
Progress reported.



POST OFFICE-OUTSIDE SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
The 'house in committee of supply, Mr. Gobeil in the chair.
Salaries and allowances, $15,219,219.
Mail services, including mail service by air, $13,402,450.
Miscellaneous, including $5,000 to provide for payment of compassionate allowances to employees injured while in the performance of their duties or to other persons injured while performing duties in any way connected with the postal service or in protecting His Majesty's mails, or to the dependents of such employees or other persons who may be killed while so engaged, payments to be made only on the specific authority of the governor in council, $1,000,000.
Mr. LUCAS:: I would ask the Postmaster General if any action has been taken or consideration given to the position of the revenue postmasters who have had their remuneration greatly reduced by the fall in revenue and also by the ten per cent deduction. These
35S4
Supply-Post Office

postmasters are placed in a much different position from the average civil servant on a fixed salary, less the ten per cent deduction, for their remuneration is based on the revenue of their post office, and that revenue has been greatly reduced in recent years, automatically reducing their remuneration, and on top of that they have had the ten per cent deduction. So they are in a very unfavourable position as compared with the average civil servant. Is the Postmaster General doing anything for these postmasters?


Arthur Sauvé: As I said last night, the matter is under consideration. The revenues are increasing.


William Thomas Lucas: I would say to the Postmaster General that these revenue postmasters have been in this position for two years now, and I think it is time that some action was taken instead of further consideration. Can the Postmaster General not say that something will be done for them in a reasonable time?


Arthur Sauvé: As I have said, we expect so.


Peter John Veniot: When the budget was introduced I took this matter up in the house with the Minister of Finance. I called his attention to what I considered to be the injustice which has been referred to by the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Lucas), and the Minister of Finance promised he would go fully into the matter and that if such an injustice existed as I pointed out, it would be rectified. Might I suggest that the Postmaster General and the Minister of Finance get together on this question after interviewing the representatives of the postmasters concerned, that is, the officials of their association? The officials of the department may be able to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion without going to the trouble of interviewing representatives of the postmasters' association, but I think it would be more satisfactory if some of the officials of that association, say the president and the secretary, were called into consultation with the Postmaster General and the Minister of Finance. In that way I think an agreement could be mere readily reached.


Mr. HEAPS:: When a vacancy occurs in one of these positions how is it filled, may I ask?


Arthur Sauvé: Over $3,000, it is a matter for the civil service commission.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What about under $3,000?


Arthur Sauvé: Then it is the Post Office Department.
I Mr. Lucas.]


Abraham Albert Heaps: How does the Post Office Department appoint those postmasters?


Arthur Sauvé: It depends.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What is the consideration? I should like to know what qualifications a man has to have.


Arthur Sauvé: Returned soldiers have the preference.


Abraham Albert Heaps: How many returned soldiers were appointed in the past few years?


Arthur Sauvé: I have not the figures.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Does the Postmaster General say that only returned soldiers have been appointed to these vacancies?


Arthur Sauvé: The great majority.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Perhaps the Postmaster General is familiar with the case which I have in mind. Some time ago a vacancy occurred in my own constituency. I am not complaining because this vacancy was created by the person who had been appointed being dismissed but I have serious complaint to make as to the way in which the vacancy was filled. I realize that to the victor belongs the spoils and I have no objection to a Conservative being appointed to a position when there is a vacancy.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: If he is efficient.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That is one consideration. However, I do think that when these appointments are made some regard should be had for the kind of people appointed. As I said, a vacancy occurred in the district which I have the honour to represent in this house. When it became known who was to be appointed, protests were made by many individuals in Winnipeg. I protested against the appointment, I wrote to the Postmaster General but I got as much satisfaction from the department as I would have got if I had written to this desk. This man was not a returned man and I objected to his being appointed because he had a fairly long criminal record. However, he was appointed to handle His Majesty's mail and when I protested and kept on protesting, I got no satisfaction. A short time after this man was appointed his son came out of the penitentiary and he helped his father to handle the registered mail in the post office. I protested again and finally the post office was transferred from the father to the daughter as a means of evading the issue. Is this all the satisfaction a member of parliament can get from the department? I got in touch with

Supply-Post Office
35S5
the department on a question of policy but I could get no satisfaction. I actually went down to see the minister in his office, I made an appointment but I was unable to see him. I think it is a rather sad state of affairs when a man of this type is appointed to a position of this kind for purely political considerations. This man has been appointed to handle the mails and other valuables which go through the post office of a thickly populated district. To my own personal knowledge I know that many people in the district refuse to take their mail to this post office because of the record of the individual who has been appointed by the Postmaster General.


Arthur Sauvé: I regret very much that the hon. member could not see me at my office because every hon. member is welcome in my office when I am there.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is that all the answer the
Postmaster General is going to make to my complaint?


Arthur Sauvé: Oh, no, I shall take the
matter under consideration.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I complained in writing even before the appointment was made. I took it up with the officials w'ho were there and all that I have said can be confirmed. Yet I was unable to get anything in the way of satisfaction. It may be true that I am welcome in the office of the Postmaster General but I sat there for three-quarters of an hour and watched others going in and coming out while I was still waiting. I had given my name and stated that I wanted to see the Postmaster General on this particular question. This matter is a couple of years old now but this is the first chance I have had to raise it. I made an appointment with the Postmaster General for a certain time but I coidd not wait longer than three-quarters of an hour. Although this is in my own constituency I have no personal axe to grind. Possibly I may lose more than I may gain through creating antagonism in some of the individuals concerned. I think the main consideration in filling these vacancies should be efficiency and good character. I do not think the recommendation of a member of parliament should be taken into consideration. I would rather see the permanent officials of the government make these appointments. These appointments should be made purely on the basis of efficiency. At present they are just political footballs. When the Conservatives come into power they dismiss a large number of Liberals and a large number of Conservatives take their places; when the Liberals come into power I have no doubt
that they will replace a large number of Conservatives with a large number of Liberals.


James Layton Ralston: Hear, hear.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That may be anticipation.
I do not think any hon. member viewing this matter apart from ordinary party prejudice would say that that is good for the public service. I think it is detrimental to the public service and I think it would be a good thing for the department and for hon. members if hon. members had nothing whatsoever to do with the nomination of men to fill vacancies. I am pointing out this case as an example of the vicious system of party patronage. I know how the appointment was made as I saw some of the files subsequently. It was made on the recommendation of the defeated Conservative candidate. I do not know why any candidate or any member of parliament should want to interfere in these appointments. I believe that by doing so he makes more enemies than friends, because when the appointment is to be made by patronage he may receive as many as ten requests for the position and he can satisfy only one. I should like to get an undertaking from the Postmaster General-I hope hon. members on both sides will support me in this-that these appointments to vacancies will be made without any flavour of partisanship and be based purely on merit. If I had anything to do with the administration of this department I would not fire a single postmaster unless he were inefficient and unable to perform his duties. So long as he was doing his task efficiently he would have the opportunity of staying in his position. There may be a change in government in twelve months or so and if that happens a number of these postmasters will know that, metaphorically speaking, their heads are going to be chopped off. The efficiency of the public service is impaired by such action. Could I have some understanding from the Postmaster General that he will consider my suggestion? I do not want him just to say that he will take it into consideration, as that statement is becoming too much of a byword. I should like to have from both sides of the house something in the way of a definite understanding that in future political patronage will not play such a large part in the filling of these vacancies.


Arthur Sauvé: This postmaster was removed and replaced by his daughter. There is no complaint against the new postmistress. I shall be pleased to make an appointment with the hon. member and discuss the matter with him if he will let me know when he wishes to see me.
Supply-Post Office


Abraham Albert Heaps: I shall be only too pleased to see the Postmaster General at any time. In this particular case I felt that an injustice was being done and I went so far as to get in touch with the chief of police in Winnipeg from whom I got the whole record of the father and son. I had it all ready to submit to the Postmaster General and I am still prepared to show it to him. It seems to me that when men of this character are appointed parliament iteslf is bound to suffer.


Mr. BROWN:: The question raised by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) is one of the most serious we have had brought before this house, especially from the point of view of the particular instance he cites. However, I was going to ask for some general information. When two years ago we removed from the control of the civil service commission post offices with a revenue of less than $3,000 some of us expressed the opinion that in the actual working out of the new system the soldier preference would not be observed. We felt that in all probability the tendency would be to discard it since the department would be under no obligation by law to observe that preference as the civil service commission is. In regard to the filling of vacancies that have occurred since that time, we should like to know to what extent if any the preference to returned soldiers has been observed. Has it been taken into account in the filling of these positions?


Arthur Sauvé: It has been observed; the department is still under obligation by law in that regard.


Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: I fail to see the difference between a criminal given a post office job under Conservative regime and a criminal given a similar job under Liberal regime, unless it is that under Conservatives the criminal filches things conservatively and under Liberal regime he takes things liberally. I would ask the Postmaster General who advises him in regard to filling the vacancies in these small post offices. As far as I have been able to learn, the province of Quebec and the eastern provinces are more agitated over these vacancies than are the people in the west. I know a case in my own district where a man who had been the right hand man of an opponent in the election received the preference for a post office in Alberta, notwithstanding that he had participated in the election and that an absolutely new political regime had come into power since then. I have never been bothered with small post offices; indeed, we in the west regard these matters as too picayune to be worried about. There is however a post office in my district that needs

consideration. In fact, it should have had consideration away back in 1927 when the aforementioned postmaster was appointed to that position. Are these men dismissed because of political activites or for other reasons? If it is because of their political activities, who gives the Postmaster General information in this regard?


Arthur Sauvé: When it is under S400 the
department intervenes; where an amount in excess of that is involved a commissioner is appointed and an investigation held. We receive our information from members of parliament or from the defeated candidate.


Michael Luchkovich: But suppose he happens to be an independent member in this group, for instance; is that taken into consideration?


Arthur Sauvé: Surely.


George Gibson Coote: Can the minister give us the figures showing the extent of the rural mail service in each of the last four years?


Arthur Sauvé: Three and a quarter million dollars a year.


George Gibson Coote: What amount was spent in
each of the years from 1930 to 1932 inclusive?


Arthur Sauvé: That information appears in the auditor general's report.


George Gibson Coote: Perhaps the minister will
give us the information showing the amount spent in the mail service branch. Anything I might get out of the auditor general's report would be two years old, too ancient to suit my purpose. Will the minister give me the figures for that branch?


Arthur Sauvé: Yes.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I was going to ask the
minister what he would do in a case of this kind. Let us leave out of the question a politically appointed postmaster. Supposing the question of an appointment were to arise, for instance in a rural district, to a small post office; the postmaster in that district had served the public for five or ten or perhaps three or four years, had no enemies in the section, had been a splendid public servant, had done everything possible in fact to serve the public efficiently and yet a political clique in the district desired the appointment of maybe an outside man.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What is a political clique?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The hon. member ought to know that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The



C.C.F. JUNE 1, 1934

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Post Office
Cameron Ross McIntosh: And a petition is signed, for instance, by those in the district to the extent of eighty or ninety per cent asking that the services of the man should be retained in his position simply because they know he is honest, a first class public servant and one who has done his best by the district. What will the minister do in a case of that kind?


Arthur Sauvé: In what case?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Where a patronage
demand is made to have that man supplanted by someone else.


Arthur Sauvé: Can the hon. member give
me a specific case?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I could mention one
but I think I had better give it to the minister privately. In the North Battleford riding there is a case where that was done; [DOT]that is the case to which I refer and I can give the minister, whenever he wishes, the name of the post office. It is in a district where the man who was postmaster was also a retail merchant; he was looking after the post office for another man. The other man died and the position was declared vacant. This man who had been serving the public as a postmaster had to leave the office after eighty or ninety per cent of the people in the district had signed a petition asking that he be retained. Practically a political appointment was made.


Arthur Sauvé: The hon. member will be
welcome to discuss that case with me when he can give me the name.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Could the minister define his position in parliament with regard to a case of that kind? It is very important and I am satisfied that it is not the departmental officials who are back of such a move.


Arthur Sauvé: I do not understand the
question of the hon. member. We are not here to suppose a case; we are here to discuss concrete cases. We have to discuss the affairs of the department but not in a hypothetical manner.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The minister cannot
put anything like that over me although he may do it with some people.


Maurice Dupré: Will the hon. gentleman
allow me?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: What is bothering the
hon. gentleman? I am speaking to the question before the chair.


Maurice Dupré: Let the hon. member continue and I will replv.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I am speaking if the
hon. member will give me time.


Maurice Dupré: Take your time.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I will take my time;
do not bother about that. So far as the problem I am talking about is concerned, I may tell the minister there is no question that as a minister he is taking the advice of the patronage committees in the different ridings of western Canada and in particular the advice of the Conservative patronage committee in the riding of North Battle-ford. That is the cause of cases like the one I have mentioned. Even when ninety per cent of the people want a postmaster to remain, the minister listens to a small patronage committee and has a competent man dismissed or removed. I claim that is not fair and I stand for a public service that is efficient and has the unqualified support of the people concerned.


Peter John Veniot: Yesterday I submitted to
the minister several questions to which I understand he will be able to give the answers to-day. To these questions I would like to have the answers now if he can give them. For instance, I wanted to know the revenue received for the year ended March 31, 1934, from the sale of stamps, from newspaper postage, from the tax on postal notes and from the tax on money orders. By that I mean the war tax. Later on I wish to make some extended remarks in connection with the administration of the department and I shall require that information before I make those observations.


Arthur Sauvé: I have the information in
writing. I shall hand it to the hon. member.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Do I
understand the minister to say that the preference for ex-service men is still maintained by his department?


Arthur Sauvé: Yes.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I want
to bring to the minister's attention a case of glaring injustice to an ex-service man in connection with a mail contract at Armstrong, British Columbia. I want to read an extract from a complaint I received from the Canadian Legion which is the ex-service men's organization in that district. It reads:
Re: Mail Contract, R.R. No. 3, Armstrong, B.C.
I have received a complaint from our Armstrong branch concerning the awarding of the above-mentioned contract by the Post Offi * Denartment. Tt appears that this contract has been held for some time by a veteran, Wellington J. Smith, a good clean-
Supply-Post Office

living chap and one who has been an excellent worker for the legion and the community in Armstrong. He is pensioned for a leg wound.
We are further informed there have been no complaints concerning Mr. Smith but that when the contract was awarded recently it was given to a man called G. H. Game, who is not a returned man but is president of the local Conservative association. A member from our Armstrong branch has suggested your taking this up with the Postmaster General on the floor of the house.
Can the minister give me now the reasons for this change being made, why a disabled ex-service man who was apparently rendering satisfaction to the community was deprived of the contract which he had and the president of the local association was, obviously for political reasons, given the appointment.


Arthur Sauvé: There is a difference between postmasters and rural mail contractors. There is no preference for returned soldiers in connection with contracts for mail carriers. The matter depends on the tenders.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is the minister assuring me that in this case the man who got the contract was the lowest tenderer? He was not. It was taken away from the exservice man and given to the president of the local Conservative association.


Arthur Sauvé: I have not the details before me.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is the minister assuring me that this man was the lowest tenderer for this mail contract at Armstrong?


Arthur Sauvé: I suppose so, but I have not the details in hand.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I would be glad if the minister would look into the matter and before his estimates go through, give me the actual details of the various tenders. My information may not be correct; I do not know the facts.


Arthur Sauvé: I have no objection to giving the details.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have every desire to obtain them because if my information is incorrect, I would be glad to withdraw my question. My information is that the contract was not given to the lowest tenderer; that a disabled ex-service man who had given satisfaction to the community for some time was deprived of the contract and it was given for political reasons to the president of the local Conservative association. I cannot vouch for the correctness of my information, but if that is the case I think it reflects great discredit on someone in the department.


Arthur Sauvé: Did the hon. member ask information from my department about this case?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, indeed, I brought it to the attention of the department. It was during the session; I think the minister was away at the time.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Can the Postmaster General inform the committee how many changes have been made in postmasters under the jurisdiction of the department since he has been Postmaster General?


Arthur Sauvé: I will get the information.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is the information not available now?


Arthur Sauvé: No.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I would like that information, and I would like to have as well the reasons for the changes that have taken place. I know some may have been for good reasons, but a great many I doubt.


Mr.   MACKENZIZE@Vancouver: Do I
understand that the minister is going to give me that information later on?


Arthur Sauvé: Yes.


Mr. HOWDEN:: I would like to bring to the attention of the Postmaster General a matter which ought to appeal to himself. St. Boniface, which I have the honour to represent, is essentially a French-Canadian city. It was described at one time by the Duke of Connaught as the birthplace of Roman Catholicism in western Canada. Some little time ago there was occasion to appoint a janitor or caretaker for the post office there. It must have been well known to the various departments of this government that it was desirable that any appointee in St. Boniface should be bilingual. However, on this occasion, when the appointment was advertised by the civil service commission they failed to specify the bilingual qualification.


Arthur Sauvé: If the hon. member will permit me to interrupt, that appointment comes under the public works department.


John Power Howden: Quite so, I understood that, but we failed to obtain any satisfaction in appealing to the Public Works department, and I thought this was a good opportunity to mention it. At all events, they failed to get their bilingual servant as they wished, and there is a great deal of dissatisfaction and indignation in St. Boniface over the appointment.

Supply-Post Office


Peter John Veniot: The balance of the reduction is made up of smaller items. As I said before, Mr. Chairman, this reduction was made to the detriment of the public service. Let me point out a policy and principle which has been accepted by both sides of the house. In 1928, when I was in the position occupied by my friend opposite, it was pointed out that in the Post Office Department that year there was rather a heavy deficit. I undertook to justify that deficit by pointing out the necessity for the extension of the service, especially the air mail service; the need for new post offices and for the establishment of new public routes, and the fact that there were far flung sections of Canada that could not be reached except by air mail. At that time the expression of opinion on both sides of the house was to the effect that the Post Office Department was a department of public service. It was agreed that the department should give the best possible service to the people of Canada, that the better service given in the distribution of mail would add to the prosperity of the country. Deficits were not to be considered as serious. Of course it was understood that the minister and his officials would do the best they could to balance revenue and expenditure, but when the extension of service. throughout the country conflicted with the expenditure of public money the minister was not to be condemned for a deficit. That policy was accepted by the house. It was something of a pleasure to me to feel that I had the absolute support not only of the party to which I belonged, the government of the day, but of the 245 members of the house.
That policy has not been carried out. I understand as well as anyone does the need for economy, but I believe economy can be practised without crippling the service. When that economy results in a decreased service to
*
3590	COMMONS
Supply-Post Office
the country, especially in the postal service, I say it is poorly judged and badly applied, and is not real economy. Let me point out that if you follow the record for the last three years you will discover that whenever there has been a cut in the public service there has been a corresponding cut in the revenues of the department, and for that reason I say that economy of this kind is not to be encouraged. I am sure the public would approve of the government, even in the face of deficits, keeping up the service rendered by the post office in years gone by.
Now let me take another example; I refer to the transportation of mail by rail. In the year ending March 31, 1931, I find that the service by rail covered 42,543,511 miles. In 1932-33 the mileage was cut down to 35,584,087, showing a falling off of practically 7,000,000 miles of rail haul in the delivery of mail throughout this country. Will anyone be bold enough to undertake to say that this was rendering efficient service to the people of Canada? Not at all; it shows that the service has been crippled. Oh, I know I will be met with the argument that the department had to conform to the reduced service given by the railways, but that does not account for this whole decrease. The reduced railway service may have accounted for some part of that falling off, but when I look at the service by land and water I find a corresponding decrease. It is impossible for me to state the extent of that decrease, because I have not all the details, but the department have neglected to take any steps to make up for the lessening of railway service brought about by the railway companies themselves.
Let me go further and take the salaries of the men in the service. There was a cut of over S70,000 last year in salaries alone. In 1930-31 fixed salaries amounted to 81,289,524. In 1932-33 they amounted to only something over 8960.000, showing a decrease in salaries alone of S324.864. Could any stronger evidence be produced to prove that the service has been crippled than the figures I have just quoted? In looking over the report for the year ending March 31. 1933, however, I find that the Post Office Department claims a surplus of something over $600,000. In that report I find the following:
This surplus is particularly encouraging in view of the fact that the post office operates primarily for the purpose of serving the public, and is not expected to provide a surplus.
It is supposed to serve the public. It cuts down the service by millions of dollars and declares a surplus, which it says is encourag-

ing. Then, adding insult to injury, it states that the Post Office Department is not a surplus-producing branch of the government, but is supposed to give service. With that surplus of $600,000 or more in 1932, however, no improvement was made in 1933; the department continued cutting down and cutting out services. Last night the minister told us that some 500 post offices had been closed during his regime, from the fall of 1930 to the present time. I think in justice to himself at the same time the minister should have stated how many new post offices had been opened, though I do not think the number of new post offices would compare at all with the number of offices closed. Had the minister given that information last night I think it would have been of interest to the committee.
I now wish to deal with the surplus for a moment or two. The minister last night was asked by one of the hon. members on this side of the house if he could distinguish the revenue received by the Post Office Department from the war tax on postal notes and money orders, and on cheques and receipts generally which carry postage stamps. The minister could not give that information, and I am not blaming him for not being able to do it. One can only estimate the amount of money that would be collected through the Post Office Department through the sale of postage stamps, for use on receipts, and promissory notes. But there is a method, and a sure method, of calculating the war tax revenue collected on postal notes and money orders, and that information could have been given to the committee. In the budget that was brought down last year by the Minister of Finance a resolution was accepted by the house imposing a tax of three cents on all postal notes and money ord"rs. A postal note of even five or ten cents had to pay a tax of three cents, and money ,orders had to pay the same amount of tax up a certain figure. Between postal notes and money orders there were some 18,000,000 issued in Canada for the year ending March 31, 1932, and if I am to take that as a basis of calculation and attempt to compute the amount that would be received in 1933. which I would be safe in doing-I have the calculation here, Mr. Chairman, which I shall give to the committee before I get through-it will be found roughly speaking, that on postal notes and money orders alone over $550,000 or an amount in that vicinity was received if the tax applied throughout the whole year. I think I am quite safe in adding another $300,000 received by the Post Office Department from the sale of stamps that were bought to be

Supply-Post Office
affixed on notes, cheques, receipts and other documents requiring excise stamps.
I pointed out when that law was being passed that there should be a distinction made, that that was a tax that did not belong to the Post Office Department and that the revenue from it should go where it belongs, that it should be credited to the Department of National Revenue. Why? Because I did not want the people to be hoodwinked. I wanted no camouflage collection of that taxation. I wanted that tax which was collected for war taxation purposes to go into the Department of National Revenue where the people could find the details and know exactly how much direct taxation the government was imposing upon them. I was told at that time that the revenue accruing from this source went into the consolidated revenue. That was quite true. That was no information to me. My experience in government matters had taught me quite clearly that that revenue would find its way into the consolidated revenue of the country, but it would not find its way into the consolidated revenue in such a way that Tom Jones, or Bill Smith or anybody else could distinguish how much taxation the public had been called upon to pay in the form of excise stamps upon notes, and so forth.
Now is it any wonder that the Post Office Department can declare a surplus of over 8600,000 in its operations in 1933, when it has a revenue to-day such as it never had before? If this revenue was directed to the proper channels, Mr. Chairman, the Post Office Department last year would have had a deficit of somewhere around four or five hundred thousand dollars, instead of the surplus they claim.
In connection with this surplus which is claimed by the Postmaster General, I have a report which was handed to me this afternoon by the minister in answer to some questions I placed before the house last night, and in which he states that the surplus in the department for the year ending March 31, 1934. is 81,164,734.97. I wish to draw to the attention of the committee the contradiction there is between that reported surplus and a statement that was made by the Minister of Finance when delivering his budget speech in this house a few weeks ago. I quote from Hansard of April 18, 1934, at page 2275, where the Minister of Finance says:
The Post Office Department cost $30,800,000, being $300,000 in excess of revenues.
That was for last year, according to the Minister of Finance, and here I have in my hand and upon the records of this house the statement of the Postmaster General that
there was a surplus of $1,164,000 in round figures. I am not going to inquire who is right or who is wrong; I am going to leave the fight between the Minister of Finance and the Postmaster General.
Oh, it may be said by the Post Office Department, we received that money but the Department of National Revenue is now claiming it from us; the amount that we received as war tax revenue is being taken from us, and of course we shall not have the surplus that the Postmaster General stated in this report which he handed to me this afternoon.
If that is being done, Mr. Chairman, I feel somewhat proud of the position I took in 1933 when I claimed that that revenue, instead of going to the credit of the Post Office Department, should be placed to the credit of the Department of National Revenue in order that we might know exactly the burden of taxation that this government was placing upon the people of this country. If that practice is carried out then no longer will the public be deceived. I do hope that my remarks to-day will be brought to the attention of the Minister of Finance and that he will further consider the matter, if he has not already reached the decision to place that revenue where I claimed two years ago it should be placed, to the credit of the National Revenue Department.
I have pointed out, Mr. Chairman, that the service has been crippled. I have pointed out that last year the Post Office Department claimed a surplus of $600,000 and that this year they come in with a surplus of practically SI,125,000, and yet they continue the cutting down of the public service in the face of surpluses in two years which they claim amounted to around $1,800,000 or 81,900 000, or practically $2,000 000. In the face of a claimed surplus for the last two years they still continue to cripple the public service.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Will the hon. gentleman tell me where he obtains his figures?


Peter John Veniot: I obtained my figures from the reports of the Postmaster General, going back from 1933. The revenue of the Post Office Department has decreased by millions of dollars. The greatest revenue which the department ever had was in 1930 when the net revenue after making all deductions amounted to a little over $32,000,000. I know the argument will be used that in spite of that revenue there was a deficit at that time. There was a deficit but how was that brought about? There was no cutting down of the services even in the face of a deficit and there was no crippling of the service. In
Supply-Post Office

1928-29 the Post Office Department increased the salaries of rural postmasters to the extent of practically SI,000,000 The statutory increases were in effect at that time and these amounted to 8200,000 or S300,000. We were establishing an air mail service which was costing the country $1,255,000.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Which has been since scrapped.


Peter John Veniot: As my hon. friend says, this has been scrapped since to a large extent. If that air mail service had been kept up on the basis on which it was established and on which it was operated in 1928, 1929 and 1930, Canada to-day would stand in the foremost ranks as far as air mail service is concerned. Although the service had been established for only two years, in 1930 Canada held a record for the whole world for the fast distribution of mail by air. The speed of 258 miles per hour obtained in some districts is a record that has never been equalled so far as the distribution of air mail for short distances is concerned. But, to use a vulgar expression, to-day this service is going to the dogs.
We need a commercial air service for the development of this country but such a service cannot be established and carried on to success unless there is an air mail service as a nucleus. In 1927 and 1928 when the government of that day established the air mail service, there was hardly any commercial enterprise along those lines in this country. It was well known that unless a commercial air service had the backing up of air mail contracts it could not be continued. Both sides of the house accepted the principle that it was necessary to have air mail development and upon that air mail development has been developed the commercial air service of this country, a service which helped to develop our mineral resources in 1932 and 1933. The service which was established in 1930 has helped to open up different sections of the Dominion of Canada. This service has been flung right into Aklavik, three hundred miles inside the Arctic circle. In 1930 mail was delivered twice a month during the winter time, tvhere before there had been only one delivery during the winter season. The commercial air service has meant a great deal to the Arctic and this service has been brought about because of the expenditures on the air mail service. It was this expenditure and the increase in salaries to our rural postmasters which brought about the deficit in the Post Office Department in 1929 when it was under your humble servant. However, by

1930 things began to improve. The service was more efficient and the revenues increased to such an extent that the deficit was practically 8300,000 less than the deficit of 1929.
We now find that we have to have an air mail service from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Practically the whole service will have to be reorganized. We will have to try to induce our businessmen to help in this development and we will have to encourage the young men on the prairies, in the foothills of the Rockies and on the Pacific coast to come into the service. This is what was done in 1929 and 1930 and it will have to be done again if this service is to be an extensive one and one which will redound to the credit of Canada.
Notwithstanding the decrease in the salaries of postmasters, notwithstanding an increase of thirty-three and one-third per cent in letter postage, notwithstanding the increase in the postage rate on newspapers, last year the revenues of the department fell behind practically $2,500,000. When the increase in newspaper postage rates was suggested in 1932 I pointed out to the government that while it was true the newspapers were not paying sufficient postage to meet the expenditures of * the department, if the rate was increased, the revenue from this class of mail would decrease considerably. That statement has been proved to be correct. The revenue this year from the carriage of newspapers is $500,000 less than it was in 1932 before the increase came into effect. Why is that? This increase was put into effect in such a way that the newspapers figured that if it was paid they would have to throw the burden on the people and make the people pay an indirect tax through an increased price for their newspapers. Prior to that there was a special rate by express companies for the delivery of papers within certain distances- a limit of 300 miles-and they took advantage of that better rate by express to have their newspaper bundles delivered to news stands in the large cities, with the result that the Post Office Department lost that revenue. Further than that, within zones of twenty, thirty, or forty miles-someone says seventy-five miles-they delivered their bundles to various news stands in the small districts surrounding Montreal, Toronto, Kingston, Winnipeg and other places. These they delivered by motor truck.
When the letter rate was increased from one cent to three cents I pointed out that the government would lose revenue because there would be a diminution in business. People who could afford to mail six or seven letters

Supply-Post Office
a week at two cents would not write as often when they had to pay the higher rate, nor would there be as frequent communication in business as in the past. My statement in that regard has proved true, for since the establishment of the three cent rate the revenue has fallen to an enormous extent. In 1926 the government reduced the postage rate from three cents to two cents an ounce, and apparently at one fell swoop they prevented the department from earning between five and six million dollars. AVe felt then however that reduction fn postage on first class matter would result in a greater volume of business, and we were right. In eighteen months or two years the department had caught up to that lost revenue, and from 1928 to 1930 the postal revenue from the sale of stamps for first class matter increased by leaps and bounds. To-day the government has reverted to the three cent rate, and the revenue from postage stamps is accordingly diminishing steadily.
I may be told that in these times of depression people are not writing as much as they did in the past. I want to be fair in my argument and therefore I admit that this is one reason for the decrease; but it is not the main cause. The business man has recognized, especially within the last eighteen months, that he must advertise and advertise and advertise again. AVe had in the Post Office Department a system whereby the business houses of the country could advertise at a very cheap rate; more than that, it paid them to correspond by mail under the method we had of efficient delivery. But to-day, with the service of that department crippled as I have pointed out, the business men of Canada no longer rely on the mail service for communication. They are following other methods, and that is one of the reasons why the revenue has fallen.
I believe my time is nearly up, but there are other items coming up under which I wish to make some remarks, and for the present I resume my seat.


Arthur Sauvé: As regards money orders and postal notes, I can only repeat What I have already said; and the ex-Postmaster General will admit that, as I said yesterday, it is very difficult to segregate the value of the stamps used on cheques because it would be costly to do so. I think he will admit that. As regards the tax on postal notes and money orders, I oan give the exact figures. The tax on money orders amounted to-


Peter John Veniot: AVhat year?


Arthur Sauvé: Last year. It amounted to $361,818.09, and the tax on postal notes amounted to $143,712.67, making a total of 3505,530.76.
Mr. A7ENIOT: Does that include the full year of operation?


Arthur Sauvé: Yes. In regard to deficits, I was very much surprised to hear what the hon. member had to say. As he must remember, he was himself at one time Postmaster General.


Peter John Veniot: I do not forget it.


Arthur Sauvé: AA7ith reference to his statement regarding post office revenues and expenditures, the figures could not very well show a surplus in view of the information given the house by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech. My hon. friend remarked that in the budget speech this year the Minister of Finance added the estimated cost of civil government, Ottawa, to the expenditure for the outside service, and he was inclined to blame the method followed by the new Postmaster General, forgetting that it is absolutely the same method as was followed by himself.


Peter John Veniot: I did not speak of civil government.


Arthur Sauvé: If this method is to be applied to the year just closed, it should apply equally to the fiscal year 1929-30, when my hon. friend was in charge of the Post Office Department, with the result that the deficit, instead of being 82,067,336.59 as shown in the Postmaster General's report, would be 83,562,092.75. It should also apply to the fiscal year 1930-31, thereby increasing the deficit in that year from 85,876,496.66 to 87,446,166.23. In the case of civil government there can be no revenue to offset the expenditure. Therefore all my predecessors in office have adopted the fairer method of comparing the cost of actual service, such as post offices, mail services, letter carriers, et cetera, with the revenue collected by that service. That method has been followed since 1868.
As regards the aviation situation, the hon. member for Gloucester will admit that Canada occupies a strategic position among the great land masses of the world. In the meantime Canada's position is being properly safeguarded. As regards the east the government sent two representatives to a conference at St. John's, Newfoundland, to discuss with the Newfoundland government, representatives of the British Air Ministry and of the PanAmerican Airways, the question of a transAtlantic air service. The result of this con-
Supply-Post Office

ferenee was the full protection of Canadian interests. A contract was entered into between the Newfoundland government and the Imperial Airways of Great Britain, granting to the latter company exclusive rights for a period of years into and out of Newfoundland with particular reference to trans-Atlantie operations.
As regards the west, American interests are anxious to develop regular air communication through Alaska between the North American continent and Asia. At the present stage of aeronautical development this would necessitate flying over Canadian territory with one or more landings en route. Canada's attitude has been to retain aerial operations in Canadian territory for Canadian operators. Consequently, when such an intercontinental service is inaugurated there will be active participation to no small extent by Canadian interests. In the meantime data is being accumulated which will be of use when finances permit.


Peter John Veniot: There are one or two more items which I wish to touch on before these estimates go through and then I hope they will go through with a rush. Let me reply to the minister with respect to some of his remarks. He said that he was very much surprised to hear me give the statement made by the Minister of Finance to the house in regard to post office revenue. Then he added that in my time as Postmaster General the same system of accounting was adopted as is in vogue to-day and that that system had been inaugurated as far back as 1868. As to those dates the minister is quite correct; a system was inaugurated in 1866 and improved upon until to-day I think we have one of the best accounting systems of any industrial concern in the dominion. But it is also true, as the Postmaster General said, that the same system is being applied now as was in operation when I held the portfolio. I find no fault with that. I did not attempt to show that there was a different system adopted by the present Postmaster General from that which was adopted during my regime. If he thinks that, he has misunderstood me. I simply quoted the Minister of Finance; I do not know where he got his figures and I do not care where he got them; I quoted his statement and he made it plain in the house that last year in the Post Office Department there was a deficit between expenditures and revenues of more than $300,000. I leave the matter there. If the Postmaster General's report at the end of the fiscal year 1934-35 resembles the report he handed to me to-day, he will have to take the Minister of Finance

to task. I believe he is quite able to do so; he requires no help on my part to fight his own battles with the Minister of Finance and I leave the battle between the two of them.
It was not my intention from the very introduction of the Post Office estimates to go into any carping criticism of the department. It was not my intention to deal with my hon. friend as I was dealt with when I was Postmaster General and when I was taken along pretty rough roads in connection with the dismissal of postmasters and other matters which had a political aspect. I could if I wished place before this committee numerous instances where the Postmaster General of to-day is guilty of the very same things as those of which I was accused when I was Postmaster General. I do not blame him for catering to his friends if he will do it in a spirit of justice and fair play. I say to the present Postmaster General that when I occupied that position I catered to my friends and I was willing to take the responsibility, and if by the fortunes of war or of politics the Liberal party comes back into power within a short time and I am once more done the honour of being called into the cabinet as Postmaster General I shall play the same game as I played before.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is
frank.


Peter John Veniot: It is frank. Why should I criticize the Postmaster General to-day for the dismissal of eight or nine hundred postmasters, when if I become Postmaster General and my friends ask me to be as generous to them as the Postmaster General has been to his friends I could not do it after criticizing him. Therefore I do not criticize him; I congratulate him. He has set a pace for me if I ever get there again, and I will follow that pace.
Now, sir, having said that, and having been honest in my confession-they say open confession is good for the soul-


Cameron Ross McIntosh: It is a dark outlook
for a lot of Conservatives.


Peter John Veniot: -having said that much I wish to come now to a transaction of the department which I feel it my duty to condemn, and condemn very severely. I condemn this not because I want to put the blame on the minister, I am not attacking him personally, I am attacking what I consider or fear may be a policy adopted by that department with the consent and approval of the government, a policy that I would spurn and that I think will work to the detriment of the post office. It is the policy of giving out

Supply-Post Office
contracts without calling for public tender. I want to be fair; there are certain supplies required by the department for which there is no need to call for tenders. I can give instances; there is the stamp cancellation machine. The machine that the department is using in large part to-day is manufactured in Canada, the concern manufacturing it is the only concern that manufactures instruments of that kind in Canada. In the past we had to depend upon American machines, and we never could buy them outright, we had to take them under what is known as a lease contract, paying so much a year for the use, and in the end the sum became enormous. An effort was made to get a Canadian machine to replace them, and, in 1929, I think, such a machine was produced, and improvements have since been made so that today we have a Canadian cancellation machine that I think excels in speed, if not in absolute perfection, any American machine. That is to the credit of the inventive genius of our men in Canada. For a machine like that no tender can be asked, it is a matter of negotiation for the best price from the only concern that manufactures them.
Again there is no need to ask for tenders for typewriting machines of the standard in use to-day in the public offices of this country, because all makers of such machines have a standard price; no matter what company they are bought from the price is the same. Therefore the only thing that matters is to see that you give the order to the best man politically-speaking among the companies in that business. There is a certain lock for mail bags, there is no need of calling for tenders for that special style because it is sold at a standard price. And I could give other instances. I point out these in order to do full justice to the department. But I do condemn the idea and the practice of giving contracts for the manufacture of rural mail boxes without calling for tenders. It leaves in my mind the suspicion that there has been something behind the scenes in connection with the awarding of such contracts. In 1927, when I had the honour of being Postmaster General, we required a great many rural mail boxes. At that time the government accepted the policy that the department had recommended of extending as far as possible our rural mail routes, and in order to do so, having laid down a regular program which would take four or five years to carry out, we required a sufficient number of rural mail boxes to cover the period. I did not give nor sanction the giving of that contract without calling for tenders. We asked for tenders and received 47. We asked for designs, and
we received over 80 designs. These designs were all considered, as were the tenders, by a special departmental committee of experts in the work of mail delivery, presided over by myself. The minister himself did not decide who should get the contract. We proceeded by a system of elimination. The department itself had designed a rural mail box. We wished to do away with the old style boxes, at the request of the ministers of public works of many of the provinces, who pointed out to us that in view of the increasing automobile traffic on the highways the old boxes were dangerous because of the arms extending when the box was shoved out. We undertook to design a box that would be placed on top of the post with a swivel, so that in no position would it extend more than 7 or 8 inches beyond the post. We kept that design to ourselves. It was an invention of the department. At the same time word was given to those wishing to tender that we would prefer to do away with the arm style box, and asking them to submit something along the line of a swivel box or other improvement. They did so. By a process of elimination, after considering the matter for a couple of weeks, this committee brought it down to four designs, and four of the lowest tenderers, for swivel design boxes. Those designs were compared with our own and two out of the four came pretty close to the design invented by the expert in the department; and the contract was finally awarded on the swivel style basis. Some 35,000 or 40,000 boxes were ordered and we started in with the development of our large program for extended rural mail service. When I retired from the Post Office Department in August, 1930, there were 25,552 boxes on hand out of the large quantity we had ordered. But I find that as early as December, 1930, a contract was let for 10.000 rural mail boxes without calling for tenders. Further-and this is the part of the proceeding that I wish to condemn with all the force that I have-the information given on the floor of this house by the minister shows that these 10,000 boxes arranged for under that contract without calling for tenders are covered by a patent right. No box of that kind, accepted by the Post Office Department, has any right to a patent. The right lies in the government in the box we put into use in 1928, and the fact that the department has accepted the principle that the box shall be protected by a patent means that in the future that box alone shall be used in the rural service, and a monopoly is immediately created. That is the result of this system of giving out contracts without calling for tenders.
Supply-Post Office

Now let me proceed. I have notes here containing a great many figures, and I am going to follow my notes rather closely as I go along. I have stated that when the present government came into power they had 25,555 rural boxes still on hand. From August, 1930, to March 1, 1933, according to a statement submitted to parliament on March 8, 1933, only 5,546 boxes had been put into use, which would leave 20,000 of the 25,000 boxes still on hand, after a period of two and a half years.


Abraham Albert Heaps: How long would that supply last?


Peter John Veniot: It would not last very long
if the service I started had been maintained.


Abraham Albert Heaps: As they had been given
out previously, how long would that balance on hand last?


Peter John Veniot: I am coming to that; I
will develop it as I go along. In another . statement made by the minister in March, 1933, we find him saying that on December 22, 1931-about the time the order for ten thousand boxes was given-there were on hand 18,294 boxes. This would indicate that between September, 1930, and December, 1931, some 7,000 boxes had been used, but the former statement which I have quoted shows that only 5,546 boxes were put into use in the period from August, 1930, to March, 1933. I do not know where the discrepancy comes in, but that is the information that was given in this house. I ask the minister how he can reconcile these different figures. If the latter figure is correct the minister led the house astray-unwittingly, perhaps-when, on March 8, he stated that only 5,546 boxes had been put into use up to March, 1933. Therefore we had 25.555 boxes on hand in September, 1930, and an additional 10,000 boxes ordered in December, 1931, making a total of 35,555 boxes on hand or on order during the period between September, 1930, and December, 1931. The record shows that up to March 1, 1933, only 5,546 boxes were put into use. This would leave some 30,000 boxes still on hand. Even if no extra boxes had been purchased, using only 5,546 boxes up to March 1, 1933, it will be seen that 20,000 of the first lot of boxes would have been on hand as of that date.
In the light of these facts what becomes of the statement made by the minister, in an attempt to explain this order for 10,000 boxes, that the stock on hand was so low that an additional purchase had to be made? I do not wish to impute motives to the minister, but in the light of these facts I think I have the right to ask whether the purchase

was made to meet the demands of some hungry supporter, for it must be remembered that no tenders were called for and that the person who was given the contract was not a regular manufacturer but a retired commercial traveller who, I am informed, farmed out the work, on which he made a handsome profit.
The minister made several statements to the house in 1933, and some statements were made also by the acting minister in 1934. Let me refer to a third statement made in 1933. The hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) asked how many boxes were on hand as of January 1, 1931, 1932 and 1933 and also as of July 1, 1931 and 1932 and March 1, 1933. In . reply the minister said that in January, 1931, there were 25,000 boxes on hand; in July, 1931, there were 20,088; in January, 1932, there were 18,294 boxes and in July, 1932, there were 25,760 boxes. Evidently some of the new boxes had been received. In January, 1933, there were 25,638 boxes, and in March, 1933, there were 25,412 boxes bn hand. Now let me analyse this statement. I find that from January 1 to July 1, 1931, there were 2,912 boxes used. From July 1,
1931,	to January 1, 1932, there were 1,794 boxes used. From January, 1932, to July 1,
1932,	you will note that the number of boxes on hand increased to 25,760; it must have been about this time that the order for
10.000	boxes was being filled. Then from July, 1932, to January, 1933, only 122 boxes were used.
I am making this analysis to show that there was no need to buy the additional
10.000	boxes, especially when they were bought without tenders being called for. From January, 1933, to March, 1933, 226 boxes were used. In other words, according to this statement, from January 1, 1931, to March 1, 1933, a period of more than two years, 5,094 boxes were used. I am giving these three statements, which vary in each case. The committee will note that even in this statement the minister admits that there were 25,412 boxes on hand in March, 1933. According to one statement a calculation would show that there were 30,000 boxes on hand in March, 1933. I am not going to use that calculation; I will confine myself to the positive statement submitted by the minister in which it appears that 25,412 boxes were on hand at the end of March,
1933,	Accepting that figure as correct, for the sake of argument-and I have reason to doubt it, when I consider the previous statements referred to-I find that after placing 5,546 boxes in use from September, 1930, to March, 1933, more than 10,000 of the

Supply-Post Office
boxes on hand in September, 1930, would still remain. Again I ask what was the necessity for the purchase of 10,000 boxes?
Then I go on to develop the second feature of this contract which gives a patent right on these boxes to the person in whose name the contract was given. I shall not mention his name.


Arthur Sauvé: He is dead.


Peter John Veniot: I understood that that
poor gentleman was dead. I can hardly blame him for dying under such conditions, I want to be fair. I do not wish to refer to the gentleman who got this contract or to give his name because, as the minister says, in the past few months he passed on to a better world. But I wish to condemn, and I do condemn with all the force at my command, the practice of awarding contracts for rural mail boxes without first calling for tenders. I ask the minister now to do away with the practice that has been established under his regime. If anybody has a regular, legal contract with the Post Office Department, for the manufacture of a box along the line that we designed in 1927-and I understand there is very little difference between that design and the patent design, although I have not seen it-the holder of the patent right can step in to-day and enter action for damages for infringement of patent against such contractor. That is what I fear. I fear that the carrying out of a practice of that kind will establish a monopoly, and once a monopoly is established the Lord knows where it will end. It is time to put a stop to it, and I ask the minister now if it is not possible to do away with that patent right.


Arthur Sauvé: No boxes have been purchased since December, 1931.


Peter John Veniot: I know but-


Arthur Sauvé: The question was discussed at the last session.


Peter John Veniot: But I was not here. I almost took the same journey as the gentleman that made the boxes, to the next world, and I was not in a condition to discuss the question at that time, but I am in a position to do so now, and that is the reason I am bringing it to the attention of the minister. I hope the minister will take what I have said in the spirit in which I have offered it. It is not a personal attack at all but a criticism of a practice that I fear is growing up in the department and which should not be 74726-228
tolerated. I think the minister has sufficient backbone and determination, when he sees that it might grow into an abuse to put his foot down and to say that in future things will be done in a more regular way.


Arthur Sauvé: Certainly, if someone suggests something irregular to me.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Cameron Ross McIntosh: May I ask how many rural mail routes have been established in Saskatchewan in the last four years?


Arthur Sauvé: I will give that information to-morrow.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Not to-morrow. I presume the minister means Monday.


Arthur Sauvé: Perhaps to-night.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: That is better, and will the minister at the same time give the number of mail routes established in the other provinces in Canada?


Arthur Sauvé: With great pleasure.


Abraham Albert Heaps: 
Peter John Veniot: The figure of S657.000 is the surplus for the year ending March 31, 1933, but the minister submitted to me this afternoon a statement in answer to a question I asked him last night as to what was the revenue and expenditure for the year ending March 31, 1934, in which he showed that the total expenditure was $29,202,730.12, and the revenue $30,367,465.09, showing a surplus of $1,164,734.97 according to those figures.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Are the figures the former Postmaster General quoted for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1934?


Peter John Veniot: Yes, those figures.


Abraham Albert Heaps: There are one or two more questions which I should like to ask. Would the Postmaster General state the amount of revenue received from the sale of excise stamps? I ask that question because there has been a change made so that now an ordinary postage stamp can be used on cheques where formerly an excise stamp was necessary. If we had the actual facts it might show the revenue of the post office in a somewhat different light. Can the minister

Private Bills

give to the committee the last available figures for the year prior to the change that was made allowing the ordinary postage stamp to be used on cheques? What was the amount of excise stamps sold in the last year prior to that change being made, and the amount of excise stamps sold since?


Arthur Sauvé: The tax on money orders for the year 1933-34 amounted to 8361,818.09, and the tax on postal notes 8143,712.67.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That is hardly giving the information I requested. Perhaps I may be given the information after the recess.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE RILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 73, for the relief of Aziz Koudsy, otherwise known as Eddie Coudsy.-Mr. Gray.
Bill No. 74, for the relief of Marjorie Seymour Hammond Zavitz.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 75, for the relief of Lucille Margaret Turbin Kelly.-Mr. Vallance.
Bill No. 76, for the relief of Esther Liverman Kazenel.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 77, for the relief of Aileen Marie Thompson Robb.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 78, for the relief of Doris Jones Earp.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 79, for the relief of Jean Gordon Worden Ellis.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 80, for the relief of Mary Alice Beatrice Featherston Moxon.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 81, for the relief of Ethel Irene Probert.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).

[Stage Direction]
The house again in committee of supply, Mr. Gobeil in the chair.
Entomology, including investigations, and inspections relating to destructive insects and pests, $350,000.
Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Friday nights seem to be popular for grasshopper estimates, as I believe this is the third Friday night they

have been discussed. We should try to make this the last night. I recall that when discussing this vote last Friday the minister seemed to get huffed about something when asked a certain question. Well, we are not going to take scoldings from him to-night for replies, nor are we going to follow his example if we can avoid doing so. I want to ask him a question and I hope he will not try to imitate a fishwife in replying to me. I am referring to the grasshopper vote, or rather the grasshopper loan, and I want to state the situation as simply as possible to-night so that we or the minister shall not go off at a tangent. This particular loan is to be found at the top of page 360 of the votes and proceedings of May 23:
Order in council. P.C. 1051. dated 23rd May, 1934: authorizing loan of $1,500,000 to the province of Saskatchewan for the purpose of meeting commitments incurred or to be incurred in extending relief to farmers in the province by way of grasshopper control and by loans to the said farmers covering the seeding operations for the 1934 crop season, including the purchase of seed grain.
I emphasize particularly those words "grasshopper control." Now that is the only earmarked loan for grasshopper control I have been able to find. I do not think that I should be expected to have to hunt up all the orders in council to find all these loans made during the past four years to the prairie provinces. After a great deal of search this is the only one that I have been able to find which was made for the purpose of controlling grasshoppers and seed grain grants, in pursuance of the energetic campaign which I believe is still in progress there. In fact, I know that that campaign started last fall is still being waged. What I want to point out, however, is that the time to take weather precautions is not when the storm is on you; that is not the time to get your sails in shape, though I admit that it is better then than never. The time to have got ready was last year in the pre-hopper flight period. Vast flights of these pests darkened the sun at times, and with nothing to eat where they were, except just enough to enable them to grow into the stage where they could fly, they immediately sought pastures new in other parts of the province and affected large areas not previously affected. I congratulate the minister upon the fact that this year something is being done in a federal way. Both officers in front of him and especially the dominion entomologist, know that all that the dominion has ever done in the past until this year-there may have been something last year and I will therefore qualify the statement to that extent till the minister

Supply-Agriculture-Insect Pests
replies-has been to give expert advice and to oversee the campaign. There are a good many first class men in Saskatchewan and in the west generally doing that work but since there has been an entomological branch that has been the extent of their activities until this year. As I say, if the minister can assure us that there was some last year as well, that will go to qualify the general statement I make.
Now, does the minister know of any vote in any year, either during this administration or in any previous ones, or anything that has been earmarked like this loan for the purpose of grasshopper control? I do not think that I am flouting or taunting the government in askiqg that question; I do not think it is an offensive question. The question is a straight one and I should like to have it answered. I wish to know whether there are any other loans of this kind. If there are then they should be capable of being indicated without the discussion being diverted to something else about which I am not inquiring. I think I will give the minister an opportunity now to reply to that question because he may have an alibi; he may have another hopper control loan like this. These loans have been running for three or four years, and though I have not examined them all I examined them pretty well last year. If he will give us some information on this question that will throw some light upon it I shall be the first to congratulate him if it turns out that he did as the Americans did not only this year but last year, when they came to the relief of states affected and actually voted money for grasshopper control.


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: There is no difference in principle between what we have done this year and what has been done during the past two or three years. Last year at any rate money was advanced to Saskatchewan to enable them to carry on in the same way as ito the other provinces that presented the facts to us to show that they themselves could not finance their responsibilities as provincial governments. Last year money was sent, the same as this year, to assist in seeding operations, farm relief and other matters of that sort. The hon. member has himself been so long a member of governments that I am sure he will agree with me in this, that when a request is made for sums of money or for assistance the order in council is usually drafted using the phraseology of the request.
Last year we were asked by different provincial governments for assistance and money was loaned to the provincial governments: 74726-228J
and because it was loaned to them it was their money to use. They used the money we loaned them last year in purchasing poisoned bait for grasshoppers and in the carrying out of their campaign to combat the grasshopper menace. This year they were also assured, as they had previously been, that if they could not adequately finance the carrying out of what were their essential responsibilities they would similarly be given consideration and assistance.
As regards this money just being advanced, it has in no way affected the preparation for the campaign. Bran and bran substitutes have been bought as well as sawdust, poison and everything necessary in the way of equipment. Large commitments have been made, and this money so advanced has been used to meet these commitments. There has however arisen a difficulty as compared with last year, and it has been particularly aggravated during the past week or two, namely, the shortage of seed where the grasshopper menace is worst. This makes it impossible for the farmers to carry out a part of their campaign-the cultivation of land at the right time and in the right way in order to have as destructive an effect as possible on the grasshoppers.
The campaign this year has been organized much more thoroughly because of the greater menace over the three prairie provinces than a year ago. Reports were received from officials in charge of the campaign and also from those cooperating with them to the effect that the danger is all that had been forecast, even greater in some instances than could be imagined; and that has been made still worse by the fact that the conditions this year have been ideal for the grasshoppers to multiply to the greatest extent and, if not fought, to do the greatest possible damage. More than one thousand committees have been set up in Saskatchewan alone and the machinery with which they are working is and has been for some time going twenty-four hours a day, turning out this grasshopper bait. According to our latest report there is no lack of supplies or assistance, although it seems that more is needed than was estimated, because, as I have said, conditions have been so ideal for the grasshoppers to multiply. This year the young grasshoppers appeared from one to three weeks earlier than they did a year ago, and that has shown the necessity of the very careful planning that was done so that the whole machinery was ready to set in motion at any time. There are places where the stubble land was ploughed in the spring and not packed, where the grasshoppers are doing a lot of damage and destroying the crop to such an extent that the farmers feel there is

Supply-Agriculture-Insect Pests
little use in trying to save it and they are using those fields to distribute poison bait to keep the grasshoppers from the summer fallowed fields which so far have escaped any damage.


William Richard Motherwell: I hope I am not
too hard to satisfy in this matter. The minister has given us a very nice dissertation on the grasshopper situation in the west. He ought to know the conditions pretty well by this time because he has outlined them at least twice and he has done it well. I suppose practice will make him still better and the next time he outlines the situation he will do it the best of all. He has not, however, answered my question as to whether he can point to another earmarked vote like this in the history of Canada. His answer to this, if it were an answer, was that other loans were made and no doubt some of them might be and were used for grasshopper bait and so on. In that case the provinces did not observe the earmarkings; there was none. Does the minister mean to say that the Saskatchewan and other western governments get these loans and do what they like with them?
Let me indicate isome other earmarked votes. I would ask the minister whether he thinks the provinces could divert this to fighting grasshoppers or any purpose than that indicated:
Order in council P.C. 1046, dated 21st May, 1934: authorizing loans to be made from time to time to the province of Saskatchewan and the province of Alberta, not to exceed the sum of $750,000 to each province, for the purpose of assisting the said provinces to construct and maintain highways other than the trans-Canada highway.
That is an earmarked vote for a specific purpose just as this other hopper one is Does the minister really say that the provincial governments could divert that to hoppers or anything else? If they did that, they are very disobedient representatives.
I have another order in council:
Order in council P.C. 1022, dated 17th May. 1934: authorizing payment to the province of Saskatchewan of the sum of $10,324.54 for relief settlement.
When relief is required, surely they would not devote that relief, which I presume is for humans or perhaps animals, to feed grasshoppers even with poison. That explanation puts the provincial governments in the position of being very disobedient wards of this state. I recognize the fact that the federal government has been acting very generously to the provinces and the least they could do would be to observe the terms of the

loan. Therefore the minister's excuse involves disobedience on the part of the provinces and surely he does not want to put his friends, right at election time too, in that position. The minister will have to get up a better alibi than that, one that will not put his friends in wrong quite sc far. The more I listen to the minister's excuses and pleas the more I am convinced of the correctness of the ground I took two weeks ago that this was the first and only vote earmarked for grasshopper control ever given by any government.


Mr. BOWMAN:: Is the hon. member
objecting to it?


William Richard Motherwell: Surely to goodness
if I am wrong, some of the members of' the government should set me right when I am making these statements repeatedly and getting no answer. I can imagine what the minister said may have some accuracy in it; perhaps they did do that. In that case what is the position of the government? That they keep on giving, giving and giving indefinitely and then have no control over the money; the provinces can divert it to any purpose they like and in that case how much of it is diverted to election purposes?
Mr. 'BOWMAN:	Will the hon, gentleman permit a question?


William Richard Motherwell: I will remind my
hon. friend who is a lawyer that I am not in the witness box, but I will allow a question.


James Langstaff Bowman: What proof has the hon. member that a single dollar of the money to which he is referring has been spent for election purposes?


William Richard Motherwell: I have not any proof at all; I was merely trying to show that if the government winked at disobedience on the part of the Anderson or any other western government and allowed them to divert a vote earmarked for one purpose to something else, there was no reason why they could not do the same thing for election purposes; they might start up a campaign against grasshoppers and have the country flooded with alleged grasshopper hunters. I am not drawing on my imagination; it is for the ministerial benches, including my hon. friend, to get some other excuses on behalf of the western governments. To state that there was any other vote than this one devoted to the destruction of grasshoppers is only proving disobedience that was not so marked on the part of the Saskatchewan government.
I am going to ask the question again, and I will include my good friend the hon. member

Supply-Agriculture-Insect Pests
for Dauphin (Mr. Bowman) who is a very capable lawyer and an affable gentleman, although he is not called upon to answer; it is to the minister I am addressing my remarks because he has his officers in front of him, one of them being the chief entomologist. I do not know how long he has held that position, but it was long before my time. He is one of the most competent officers in the employ of the government. There is nothing he does not know about grasshoppers and all other pests of that nature. If the minister will just cuddle up to him a little bit, I am sure my hon. friend can get the information from him as to whether any other loan than this was given and earmarked for grasshopper control. Two weeks ago to-night the matter *was brought up in the house by the opposition including myself. Either the day after, which would be Saturday, or Monday, I cannot tell which, the thought struck the government it would be a good idea to earmark this million and a half loan for grasshopper control.
By the way, when the minister speaks again I wish he would tell me who made this recommendation to council. I do not think that is asking for any secret. The recommendation would naturally come from him, and from remarks made last Friday night by the minister and, I think, the Prime Minister, it was the Minister of Finance who recommended this loan to council. Well, it may be that that is right; the Minister of Finance having to do with loans and supervising the treasury-and I think he is doing it very acceptably

naturally it would be on his recommendation. But surely the minister would have the signature also of someone who knows something about the thing. The Minister of Finance will not mind my making that remark. He would expect to be advised by his colleagues the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Labour who has the administration of the Relief Act. It is quite a usual practice to have joint names on a recommendation of council; it may not be with this government, I do not know, but I know I had that experience many times in cases where two ministers were interested. May I ask the Minister of Agriculture if he "was a joint signer with the Minister of Finance of the recommendation to council on "which this order was based? If he can answer any of the questions at the same time that I have touched on, let him do so.


Robert Weir: Mr. Chairman, I think I answered fully the point under discussion. When the different provincial governments cannot finance their obligations and when
they show just reason why they should receive assistance in meeting responsibilities that cannot be evaded, this government has loaned them money. A year ago loans were made to the governments for seed, for farm relief and matters of that kind, after submissions to us by the different provincial governments showing why they needed the money, and satisfying this government that their claims were just. There is no doubt that some of that money was used for this purpose, and property used. It was not a case of our not checking up on it; we checked up and satisfied ourselves that it was necessary for them to have it -before the money was loaned to them, but when it was loaned it was their money, and it was used for the purposes for which they asked it.


William Richard Motherwell: But they did -not ask for that, did they?


Robert Weir: It was understood that that was one of the things they required money for. This year also requests were received, and assurances given earlier in the season that there would be assistance as far as necessary to enable them to carry out their responsibilities. It happens that in this case it was earmarked for grasshoppers, but as I told the committee the other evening the greater part of this money had already been spent. Commitments had been made, and our information at that time was that sufficient money had been advanced.


William Richard Motherwell: Well, I have made no progress yet in getting an answer. We have heard part of it three times now. The minister answered neither one question nor the other. He did not say who sent the recommendation to council and he did not tell me if any other such loan was ever made by any government in Canada since confederation- I shall make it as wide as that-specifically for grasshopper control; the hon. gentleman cannot mention one case. The only thing he can say is that he believes the government out there did use it for other purposes. Then I ask him, where is the limit? I cannot get any reply, and I am not going to ask for it a third time. But I will ask for a second time, and a third time if necessary, who signed the recommendation to council. If the Prime Minister thinks that is a violation of the secrecy of council-well I think possibly it may be a little doubtful; I do not think I should ask that question. Recommendations to council are not usually looked upon as public property as far as I know. Orders in council are. I do not think recommendations to council are secret, you know, but I do not
3602	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Insect Pests
think they are usually made public; I do not recall their ever being asked for. I do not want to put the responsibility all on the Minister of Finance when I say that; I shall not put any responsibility on him except that it was his duty to look after the issuance of the loan and see that it was for a proper purpose. That was his duty and he did it and I will not press the matter further. But I do not think much of the ministry for passing the buck to the Minister of Finance, and none of the rest of them acknowledging having anything to do in the way of signing it. I have often been a joint signer myself and often a triple one.
So much for this particular loan. The committee will be interested to know that there have been quite a number of loans sent out west since the last day this was discussed a week ago to-night. Most of them are relatively small-no million and a half dollar ones. And apparently this is going to be kept up, at least until the nineteenth, and may be longer. In looking over this I see the government is sending relief loans to nearly all the provinces, they are not confined to Saskatchewan. The only extraordinary feature about it is the large amount being sent to Saskatchewan. I do not want to tell any secrets, but if the Ontario members will look over the orders in council and loans to Ontario they will find that they are increasing with alarming rapidity. I did not count them; it took me all my time to count the prairie provinces loans. These money's are spent in advance, and I do not think that that can be avoided. There will be a good old bunch of them being spent right now, and these orders will be coming in and coming in and coming in, indefinitely or at 'least until after the 19th of June. They come down in showers, eight or ten of them being put through council at a time, as you can see by the dates. I think they will need it all too, because things are mighty' hard there. But what I want to know is, how do we know how much of this big vote goes for grasshopper control and how much for other kinds of aid? There is nothing here to show. If they can disobey in one case they can in another. Remember, it is not all for grasshoppers, it includes "grasshopper control and loans to the said farmers covering seeding operations and the purchase of seed grain." My hon. friends have been pluming themselves, but from the way that order is drafted, with nothing to indicate how much is for grasshoppers and how much for seed grain, there may not be a thousand dollars spent for grasshoppers; it all may go for seed grain, or vice versa. That indicates 
the looseness with which these loans are made. I am sure the committee will realize now, having regard to this particular incident, just how important it is for parliament to keep control of these public moneys, as my right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) has been pleading for the last four y'ears that it should. This is a complete vindication of the position taken by the leader of the opposition's policy in this .respect. And I might argue the other way if I liked; it is a complete vindication of the policy of the Prime Minister, because there is such an enormous number and variety of claims for help. If I wished I could make quite a case. But in all seriousness I think that a good deal more could be done to specify what these votes and loans are to be used for, making it possible for an auditor to keep track fully and exercise at least some parliamentary control.
I realize that I am not going to get much more information out of my good friend tonight. Since we were discussing this matter last Friday, it is almost incredible but eight new loans have been made to the three western provinces, since this day week. None of them is very big; they do not aggregate a million dollars each. The aggregates were: for Alberta, $844,633; for Saskatchewan, $46,233, and for Manitoba, $700,442. That equalizes things up a little bit as compared with a week ago, but there are more showers of blessings of this nature coming down. There have been showers, and there are more on the way; it just happens when they have a full council meeting, and then away they go. Naturally at this time a good deal is called for. There are other things as well; for instance, $750,000 for road work. I wonder if the road work will be in the north and the grasshopper bait in the south, thereby covering the entire province with electoral allurements at this critical time.
I am going to ask the minister now if he has any idea as to the possible limit of these loans for Saskatchewan for any purpose at all in Saskatchewan, or I will limit it to grasshoppers; that is what we are talking about. Has he any idea of the orders in council that have been signed even since May 31? Some might have been signed this afternoon. What is the limit to the loans to Saskatchewan, or the western provinces generally, during the next nineteen days? Will that depend upon how frequently they make requests, or what will it depend upon? I will ask this further question: will the limit be the extent to which the provinces can get advance credit at the bank? Apparently that is the way it

Supply-Agriculture-Insect Pests
lias to be done. They get a line of credit at the bank, and when they are told that their line of credit cannot be extended they turn in their vouchers to the federal treasury and are recouped. That is a pretty nice way of doing it, but I do not see that it can be done in any other way. I am not complaining at all; that is the usual way, but it shows the tremendous possibilities when they are allowed to spend their money in advance by borrowing it from a bank and then cashing in from Ottawa. I hope the Minister of Finance has some check on these borrowings; if he has not they will borrow to the limit for the leafy and election month of June. Then when the banks begin to get a little doubtful about letting them have any more money without further security, they will turn in their vouchers here. Really, the Conservatives should win in Saskatchewan but they wont as Saskatchewan is not on a bargain counter. I do not think I have ever heard of such preelection generosity. It is about the slickest position in which I ever saw a province placed. I felt a great deal of sympathy for the Prime Minister, and felt like patting him on the back, when he made that statement at the Pacific coast, "Do you think I am going to be a wet nurse for every derelict in Canada?" Of course that was injudicious, but he said a bibful, I can tell you, because he realized that this is exactly what almost all the provinces are trying to make of him.
This has been just a little digression while the minister was making up his mind; I saw him in profitable-I hope-conversation with his o'fficials in front of him, so I should like to ask him the possible maximum that may be asked by the governments for grasshoppers or anything else, between now and say July 1. We are talking of months; we have discussed last month, so now let us discuss the present month of June. I think that is specific enough. What is the possible maximum amount of these loans for this month?


Robert Weir: If the hon. member is in touch with conditions in Saskatchewan I am sure he will realize the futility of any attempt to answer that question. For example, three weeks ago in the three prairie provinces there was every hope of a break in the series of drought years from which they have suffered. There was much more subsoil moisture than there had been for years, but during the last three weeks, and particularly during the last ten days, our reports indicate that conditions are worse than they ever have been. If three weeks ago we had asked any
province what amount they would require to carry on relief work for farmers and others, though they had given the matter their best judgment they could not have foreseen what was to happen, as a result of conditions over which no human agency has any control. Within the last week I had a letter from a friend of mine who drove through the south of Saskatchewan. He was forced to make detour after detour from the main highway because soil had drifted across the highway to a depth of from two to four feet. There are thousands and millions of acres with nothing growing on them. Live stock are starving for want of feed where they seemed to have good prospects for feed two or three weeks ago. Plans are being made already to shift the live stock to the north where there is feed; they realize that if this is not done immediately or if very heavy rains do not fall, they will lose all they have been hanging on to in the way of their homes into which they have put so much work.
Therefore I think the hon. member, coming as he does from Saskatchewan, at least will be fair enough to admit that no matter how accurate an estimate might have been made with the knowledge that was at hand three weeks ago, it would have been far astray as to what will be required now in view of what has taken place. I would also remind the hon. gentleman that in Saskatchewan we have a relief commission with a record perhaps unequalled by any other relief commission in Canada. Its accounts have been closely scrutinized by those in opposition and by auditors of the federal government, and so far as I know there has been no blame or criticism as a result. No one can point a finger at any public funds that have been misspent. For two or three years, without remuneration, men have given their full time day after day in order to carry on the work of that commission.


Mr. DONNELLY:: What about the hay that was burned in the fall?


Robert Weir: The hon. member for Willow Bunch says something about hay. I do not know what he means.


James J. Donnelly: Hay was bought to be used in the south. It was burned up while cattle were starving in the south.


Robert Weir: I do know that in the legislature of Saskatchewan there are those who are just as anxious as the hon. member may be to obtain any possible information as to the misappropriation of funds, and my information is that although they have gone into the matter with every care, the relief
3604	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Insect Pests
commission still stands absolutely clear with reference to the money it has spent. I may be wrong in that, but certainly every effort has been made to find anything that might be wrong. I wish I could give the committee the picture of the situation as I see it and as I have seen it for some time. Time has been limited; difficulties have seemed insurmountable. Attempts have been made to supply feed, and all the time they have been hoping that there would be rain, that feed could be grown, that the winter might be open and so on. I do not think we have had anything in Canada to compare with this situation.


William Richard Motherwell: I think that was
rather clever of the minister, but the fault was mine for leaving the opening for such a wandering answer. I should have nailed him down to something more specific. He evaded my question well, and I take my hat off to him for that. I will be more specific now. There is an agreement between this federal government and the Saskatchewan government-I will restrict it to Saskatchewan for simplicity. What is the maximum loan which can be given to Saskatchewan under that agreement for 1934?


James J. Donnelly: Mr. Chairman-


William Richard Motherwell: If my hon. friend
from Willow Bunch will permit me a moment, [ should like to have my question answered first by the elusive minister.


James Langstaff Bowman: Mr. Chairman-


William Richard Motherwell: No, Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend from Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) kindly took his seat to allow the minister to answer my question and he should have the floor if the minister is not going to answer. I have the minister with his back to the wall and I want an answer.


James Langstaff Bowman: I was raising a point of
order, Mr. Chairman. It is this: No agreement between the province of Saskatchewan and the federal authorities has anything to do with the item before the committee, and I submit therefore that the hon. member for Melville is out of order.


William Richard Motherwell: That will suit me. I don't give a dash whether the discussion is choked off or not.


James J. Donnelly: I just wished to refer
to one thing about which I interjected a remark when the minister was speaking. It is a well known fact-it was brought out in the Saskatchewan legislature last winter- 
that some hundreds of tons of hay were bought and were never shipped. They were burned in the fall.
There is another pest that we have in Saskatchewan and which I brought to the minister's attention last year. Information was sent out from his department about this pest, and I say that the information that was sent out was entirely wrong and caused our farmers the loss of hundreds of dollars last year. I saw many farms myself where the farmers lost hundreds of dollars through following the information sent out by the federal Department of Agriculture in reference to the cut worm.
The instructions given by the Department of Agriculture were that the farmers should not summer fallow until after the fifteenth of August, that if they did not touch their land until after the fifteenth of August a crust would form which would make it impossible for the moth to lay its eggs on the summer fallow, and that therefore there would be no cut worms the following year. I want to tell the minister that the farmers who followed those instructions, and I saw many who did, lost their seed, practically one hundred per cent of them, while those who did not follow those instructions but cultivated their summer fallow as in the past had no cut worms at all. Parts of a farm which had weeds were cultivated and those parts that were cultivated had no cut worms, while the parts that were not cultivated, following the instructions, had cut worms all over and the seed never came up.
The contention of the entomologists is that wherever the land is not touched. until after the fifteenth of August a crust will form and the moth will not be able to lay its eggs. But- the result actually is this: if a crust does form, when it dries up, cracks appear in it and the moth lays. its eggs in these cracks, and the cut worm is just as plentiful there as anywhere else. I know of farmers having quarter sections side by side. Those who followed the instructions of the department lost their seed, while those who did not follow the instructions but cultivated their land all the year had no cut worms at all. I draw this to the attention of the minister once more so that he may have his entomologists look into the matter, because the present instructions are costing many farmers all their seed, and they have to sow their seed all over again. That is true not only of one or two but of many, and they are generally our best farmers because it is our best farmers who take these pamphlets and try to follow the advice of the experts.

Supply-Agriculture-Insect Pests


Robert Weir: I remember the hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) referring to this matter on a previous occasion. We have also received communications from many farmers in the west, particularly in the vicinity of Indian Head, and their statements were to the same effect as mentioned by the hon. member for Willow Bunch.
The date is not August 15, but from August 1 to September 15, because it is during that time that these moths lay their eggs. The reasons for giving these instructions are these: The summer fallow should be well worked and kept black, and no weeds allowed to grow in it, because if the weeds do grow in it, then with the wind blowing, the soil will be loosened somewhat and will make an ideal place for the moths to lay their eggs, and that is the case where the summer fallow is not well worked. But if the land is not ploughed from August 1 to September 15, a crust will form and as a result the moths will not have the same chance to lay their eggs there because of the lack of loose soil, and they will lay them elsewhere in suitable places where they find loose soil.
We received complaints two years ago and we made a close investigation to ascertain if there was any weakness in the advice given by the officials of the department or if we had received a complete statement from those who made the complaints, and we proved we think beyond a doubt that it was not the fault of the instructions which had been sent out, but that with the soil drifting as it did, and carrying not only the soil but the eggs that were deposited in it over the summer fallow that had been worked during that period, the eggs were in that way deposited.
The habits of these moths are well known; it is not a matter of opinion at all. They do look for loose soil in w'hich to lay their eggs, and soil that is free from vegetation as far as possible. Experiments have been carried out not only in this country but others that show that where the summer fallow was left as we instructed it to be left the results were according to the information that was given out. But if you have two or three horses running over it they break the soil, making conditions ideal for the depositing of the eggs and for the development of the cutworms the next season. You can trace where the cutworms are by the damage that has been done to the soil. Every attention is paid to the information which is sent in by expert farmers and their statements are
investigated and followed up, because there is no one more anxious than the entomologists themselves to get absolutely accurate information and to give correct instructions.


James J. Donnelly: I may have been wrong as to the date at which it was advised that the farmers should stop cultivating the land, because I was speaking from memory. Perhaps I should have said August 1. Last summer I had the experience myself of going over three quarter sections in the same district where the land had been under summer fallow in each quarter section. One man had certain low spots, draws where weeds got in, and he went into these draws and cultivated the land there in order to keep the weeds down. There were no weeds in the rest of his land, which he did not cultivate. Wherever he had cultivated in these draws he had no cutworms at all the next year, but in the rest of his land where he had followed the instructions not to cultivate, he had to re-seed it all. The seed was all eaten up with cutworms. All through that district I saw quarter sections that were cultivated and others that were not, and almost invariably those that were cultivated had no cutworms whatever while those that were cultivated according to instructions invariably had all their seed eaten up and the farmers had to re-seed. I could give the minister the names of some of these people who had their seed eaten up in this way by cutworms.


Robert Weir: We would appreciate very much having any information from the hon. member for Willow Bunch as to the names of the farmers so that we can follow up. the information he has given us by investigation and be in a position to give the farmers any assistance we can.


William Richard Motherwell: The hon. member for Dauphin raised a point of order and I want you to rule in his favour, Mr. Chairman, if I may express that wish.
Mr. B04VMAN: Thank you.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) referred to the Saskatchewan relief commission and intimated that there had been no criticism in the province of Saskatchewan of that body.


Robert Weir: There has been no criticism as far as the honest expenditure of money was concerned.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: It is fairly hard to find the dividing line between that and other kindred questions which might arise. My statement was with regard to the Saskatch-

Supply-Agriculture-Insect Pests
ewan relief commission as a medium of distribution of relief. I represent a riding in the northern part of the province and I have had considerable correspondence with the commission. In many cases I have had very good satisfaction but I want to say that the Saskatchewan relief commission is the subject of criticism during the provincial election which is to be held on the nineteenth. The minister knows that that is so. The prov-vincial Liberal party is taking the stand that there was no need for the establishment of this commission as up to date it has cost a million or more dollars. They claim that the work could have been more efficiently and economically done by the municipal councils and that the money spent in establishing the commission and running it up to date -could have been better spent for relief. It would have meant hundreds of thousands of dollars additional for relief purposes. I do not want to be too critical of the relief commission but I must say that the field men of the commission in the northern part of the province are politically inclined. I do not think the minister will contradict that statement. They are Conservatives.


William Richard Motherwell: They are political organizers, and well trained.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Yes, there is no doubt about that. I know what is going on in my own riding as I think I am as intimately in touch with my constituency as any hon. member. I must say that any case I brought before the commission was acted on, perhaps after a great deal of correspondence and a good deal of work. I am not going to say the action taken was entirely satisfactory but I believe the commission did make an attempt. After it obtained the information desired through investigations, it tried to meet the situation as well as it could. But the fact remains that some families were in dire need of relief-and the process of what is known as passing the buck was frequently resorted to. The commission would say that such and such a family was the care of the municipality, and the municipality concerned would claim the opposite, that it was not responsible. This would go on from week to week and from month to month, and families with seven, eight and nine children were suffering for lack of shoes, clothing and the necessities of life-a deplorable thing. The reason for this may have been the desire of the commission to know its ground thoroughly before spending any public money, but these things would not have occurred had this money been spent through the municipal 	Hj jgfj
councils, rural and urban. Under such a procedure the situation could have been sized up quickly, and action taken without delay. This is all I want to say with regard to this particular point, and perhaps the minister will want to reply.


Robert Weir: I think the best reply that could be made to the hon. member's criticism of the relief commission is to refer him to the speeches made by two hon. members of this house, in whom perhaps he has more confidence than in myself. The first speech to which I would refer him was that made last year by the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Butcher). That speech was one of the finest eulogies which could be paid to the excellent work of the Saskatchewan relief commission and I am sure his remarks were appreciated by the members of that body, many of whom are serving without remuneration. The second speech to which I would refer him was that of his right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King), who has stated over and over again that the ideal way in which to handle relief is by a commission. Not only that, but the government of Manitoba, which is not of the same party as the government in power in the dominion, were so much impressed with the work of the Saskatchewan relief commission that they asked that some of their municipalities be handled by that body.
The hon. member has stated that assistance was not granted to some families in dire need. The municipalities are responsible for their own people and they should advise the Minister of Municipal Affairs as to the. condition of any individuals living within the municipalities. I am sure that where that has been done every possible haste has been made to grant assistance.
I can scarcely credit the statements made by the hon. member in connection with the political activities of the field men. I know that there are bound to be many rumours to this effect before an election but I think the best answer is the fact that the commission itself is not made up of members of one party. I know it was, and I believe it is still, made up of members of three parties.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: In answer to the statement of the minister, let me say that the electors of the province will register their political opinion on the nineteenth, and this will be one of the subjects upon which an opinion will be registered. I will leave the answering of the statement made to-night by the minister to the electors of the province.

Supply-Agriculture-Insect Pests


An hon. MEMBER:: You will be apologizing after the nineteenth.
Mr. MeINTOSH: You will be the one that will be apologizing, and you will not only be apologizing; you will be hiding.
There is another point upon which I would like to touch. When the minister was discussing this grasshopper question on May 29 I think, he lost control of himself. I not only think that, but I feel sure he did. In any discussion in committee I think it behooves an hon. member to pay attention to three things. First, he should try to hold his head in the discussion. I do not think the minister held his head very well; I think I can prove a little later that he lost his head completely. Second, it is not well for an hon. member to let his passions rise too high when he is in discussion. He will not get very far by adopting that method of discussing public business. I think the minister made a slip there and took a few somersaults. Lastly, a member should know his subject. I think this is the reason why there is often so much acrimonious discussion. The minister did not seem to know his subject although he at times knows it very well. Answers were not forthcoming and it is very important that parliamentarians should have a thorough discussion of every item of public expenditure-the basis of control of the public purse. If hon. gentlemen opposite were on this side they would see to that, and they would be quite right in doing so. All that we are trying to do is to get as much information as we can, to get it as quickly as possible and to allow the item to pass, because we do not wish to hold up public business too long. Now, I hardly know why the minister was so hasty the other night. I thought that possibly he wanted to get on record some material for political consumption in Saskatchewan, but that is not necessary because I can tell hon. gentlemen opposite that their party will be in third place in the race two weeks from Tuesday next.


Mr. COWAN (Long Lake):: That is your
idea.
Mr. MeINTOSH:	It is the electors' idea,
as you will see when the time comes. Putting two and two together-


James Langstaff Bowman: What has that to do with entomology?
Mr. MeINTOSH:	Wait and see. If that
was not the reason, then I thought that perhaps the minister wanted to be critical with regard to the effort made on this side to get information touching public business; and if that is so, then I submit that his criticism cannot very well be justified. As regards
what was said on the former occasion, namely, May 29, the hon. member for Melville was discussing the grasshopper item and, coming in late, I asked at one point of the discussion this question: " Are they trying to buy them with their own money?" That was a perfectly legitimate question, to which no answer was given. At another stage of the proceedings I stated that three weeks from that day, that is last Tuesday, the voting would tell the tale as to what is and has been taking place in the province with respect to the federal end of public business.
Those were my two statements and the minister became quite angry about the support that I was giving the hon. member for Melville. I was not giving any special support to the member for Melville; I simply wanted to get certain information which I thought ought to be given to the house. And in a minute or so I will give one reason why I asked the minister the question I did. Of course, he pooh poohed the idea immediately;
I fancy he took the stand that it was a question that should not be answered. To show him what is going on in the province, by way of discussion may I refer to one or two editorials that have been appearing in the Regina Leader and, indeed, in the way of comment in many other newspapers. The item before the house is a matter of public discussion and consequently a matter of importance to the people. There is therefore nothing wrong in bringing it up in parliament.
I refer in the first place to an editorial that appeared in the Regina Leader of Friday, May 25. The following points are raised in this editorial. In the first part this newspaper is wondering why there is all this sudden financial interest on the part of the federal government in Saskatchewan. The question has become public property and thousands of people are reading these editorials every day; and the moment a matter becomes of editorial importance it becomes also of parliamentary importance, and vice versa. Next, the Leader wonders why the national government is showing so much belated interest in the welfare of Saskatchewan, with an election coming off in that province in the near future. Then it states the amount of money voted for the purpose of destroying grasshoppers and building highways in the province. Secondly, this editorial discusses the fact that these moneys will be helpful to the province. Well, as far as I am concerned, I am not arguing against the dominion government giving any money it wishes to Saskatchewan; it may give Saskatchewan ten times what it is giving and I will find no fault with that. But what
3608	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Insect Pests
we do want to know is how that money will be spent, how it is earmarked and who will be spending it and when. The idea put forward here is that the money will be helpful but, at the same time, that it will presumably be reserved for the election campaign. Lastly, in this editorial, the view is expressed that all this is not without a suggestion ; that is, that all this money pouring into the province at the time of an election suggests something, and this paper makes plain what that suggestion is. It states plainly that the suggestion is that the people of Saskatchewan can be bought. That was why I asked the question: " Are we trying to buy them with their own money?" Later, it uses the word "bribe." It admits that this is an ugly -word but asks whether what is transpiring can be described otherwise. I hope these remarks will enable hon. gentlemen to see the bearing of the question I asked the other night.
In another editorial, published on Saturday, May 26, the first thought put forward is that the Canadian government seems to have the idea that production should be restricted, that acreage should be cut down; and since the restriction of production is the very thing which the grasshoppers are attending to. this editorial wonders why the government is resorting to such an expensive method, voting million? to put down grasshoppers, when they are restricting production, doing the very thing in which the government believes. The second thought in the editorial of Saturday, May 26, is this. Here we have the spectacle in London and Rome of highly paid officials planning to restrict production-


Robert Weir: I hesitate to interrupt, but this is far afield from the item under discussion. I think we have been over generous in listening not only to the remarks made but especially to the quoting of editorials, which I believe is out of order. I have no hesitation in answering any question that may be asked with regard to the subject under discussion, but I would call the attention of the chair to the fact that the quotation from editorials is entirely out of order.


William Richard Motherwell: Can we have a
second point of order before the first one is decided? We ought to have a ruling on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Dauphin.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gobeil):: That has been disposed of.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I want to say a word on the point of order. There is a well established rule that editorials are not to be read-


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The editorial is not
being read at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -for the reason that
you cannot introduce another member into parliament. There are 245 members of parliament, and debate assumes that members make arguments for the purpose of trying to induce their colleagues to get their point of view. You cannot introduce another member into the house, and that is what is done when you introduce a newspaper's editorial for the purpose. I suggest that possibly, if the hon. gentleman's attention is directed to the fact, he will realize the desirability of ceasing to follow that course. The reason for it is so obvious that it is difficult to understand why the rule should be transgressed.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Speaking to the point
of order, may I say that I was not reading the editorial; and if it comes down to ruling me out of order because I am quoting from an editorial, I can throw the paper away and talk in the same way. It would make no difference to me.


Robert Weir: My point of order
is that the whole subject matter is out of order.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: In your opinion. It was not out of order when you were the first to put forward your partisan point of view the other night.


Robert Weir: In reply to statements made on the other side.


Samuel Gobeil: I had
better give my ruling.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: It is not necessary if I
am not going to refer to the editorial; you might as well save your time.


Samuel Gobeil: I think the point of order is well taken according to
paragraph 306 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms which reads thus:
It is not in order to read articles in newspapers, letters or communications emanating from persons outside the house and referring to, or commenting on, or denying anything said by a member or expressing any opinion reflecting on proceedings within the house.
In my opinion the discussion is out of order.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Your opinion does not, in my estimation, amount to a row of pins.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw!


Cameron Ross McIntosh: But I accept it.


Samuel Gobeil: I am quoting paragraph 306.

Supply-Agriculture-Insect Pests
Mr. MeINTOSH: I am accepting what you said, but that is my opinion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the common sense of the hon. member and his respect for the rules and amenities of parliament will induce him to want to do the right thing.
Mr. MeINTOSH: I am willing to do the right thing, but I am not doing what you stated; I am not reading the editorial.


Samuel Gobeil: The hon. member has insulted the chair.
Mr. MeINTOSH: You have done the same thing yourself once in a while.


Richard Bedford Bennett: One afternoon I happened to be sitting at a table discussing some matters and a question arose in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister left the Toom, wTent out and made the necessary motion that a member be relieved from further attendance in the house for a given number of days. The motion was carried and the Prime Minister went back to his work. If members are to defy the chair as has been done by the hon. member and bring into contempt the institutions of the house in the way in which this has been done, there remains nothing to be done but what was done on that occasion. I would suggest that when a chairman has discharged his duty, read the rule upon which he based his ruling that reading the editorial as well as referring to it was out of order, and any hon. member who has regard for the institutions of parliament should treat the chairman with that measure of respect which his office demands, leaving the occupant out of the question for the moment as we must do in dealing with matters of this kind, because this is purely an impersonal matter. In view of the hon. member's observations that in most places would be characterized in very severe terms, I suggest that he make a proper withdrawal and so place himself in a correct position in this house.
Mr. MeINTOSH:	I think I respected the
chair; I had no idea of not respecting it and I withdrew what I said, but I coupled with that the idea I was not actually reading from the editorial. I also stated that I did not need to quote any further from the editorial because it was simply a question of memory. I do not need to continue the debate on that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I refer to the insulting
remark addressed to the chair; that is all I am referring to. I have certain obligations and responsibilities which are sometimes not
the pleasantest to perform. But if a member of the house insists on insulting the chair, the chair being occupied by a fellow member, he places in a very difficult position whoever happens to have responsibility for the conduct of the house. I suggest that the hon. member should withdraw the insulting observations he made to the chair after the chairman had given his ruling on the point of order.
Mr. MeINTOSH:	I withdraw the reference mentioned. That is twice I have made that statement. May I go on to a statement made by the Minister of Agriculture with reference to my honoured leader. In the last part of his remarks that night the minister stated that the whole outlook of my honoured leader.was purely political and that the hon. member for Melville and the hon. member for North Battleford also made use of remarks that were entirely political. I am absolutely loyal to my leader and I know the hon. member for Melville is also; we are not only loyal but devoted to him and our desire is to cooperate wholly with him. I presume hon. members on the opposite side desire to do the same thing with regard to their leader, but when the question is one of loyalty and devotion to leadership I think my hon. friend ought to be the last man to introduce into the house a discussion on that point. If he knew history and read of "the nest of traitors," he would not accuse me of being loyal to my leader. That is an extraneous matter and should not have been brought into any discussion in the house. I will leave it at that.
Further, when the minister made the statement that those on this side of the house who wanted information were politically inclined, he was absolutely out of order, and was doing something he should not have done, because if we go back to his history everyone knows he ran as an independent member in Melfort and was elected absolutely as an independent member.


Robert Weir: Independent Conservative.
Mr. McINTOiSH:	The hon. member was
elected as an Independent.


Robert Weir: No.
Mr. MeINTOSH:	I know men who voted
for the hon. member in his riding and they confirm my statement. I will, however, take his word for it. The minister says that he ran as an Independent Conservative.


Mr. QUINN:: What is the item under
discussion?

Supply-Agriculture-Insect Pests


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I am referring to what
the minister stated a few days ago with regard to my leader. The minister was elected as an Independent Conservative. I do not know which was the larger portion, the Conservative or the Independent element.


William Richard Motherwell: It would be Independent Liberal Conservative.


Samuel Gobeil: This
seems to me to be altogether out of order.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: It is not out of order. I am referring to remarks made by the minister with regard to my honoured leader.


Samuel Gobeil: A discussion of the election of the hon. member for Melfort is out of order.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: They all bear on the remarks he made with regard to those who supported my honoured leader. I am just saying how the minister was elected and how he came to Ottawa and was made minister in a Conservative government. The minister should not say that those who seek information are politically minded; he is the last man in the house who should do that. I just wanted to eleam up that phase of the question. It is unnecessary to say anything further about it, but I would like to repeat that what he said about my right lion, leader not wanting to spend a five cent piece with regard to unemployment was in my estimation absolutely untrue and out of order. My right hon. leader said so far as money was concerned if he thought it would be spent purely politically he would not spend a five cent piece but he was willing to give any amount of money to ease unemployment, and to do this in an honourable and upright way. The minister should not have referred to that matter either and I take this occasion to put on Hansard my viewpoint with regard to the question. It is not necessary to say anything more.
I wanted to deal with just two or three phases of the remarks made by the minister a few days ago. I do not think I have been unfair in the remarks made; I have merely clarified his statements in the interests not only of parliament but of Canada.


Walter Davy Cowan: I want to register as strong a protest as I can against the insulting remarks made by the hon. member for North Battleford in connection with the Saskatchewan relief commission. I am a member for Saskatchewan right in the heart of the stricken area and if anybody knows I ought to know how that relief is operating. It is not operated as a political machine.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: If the hon. member will permit me, I did not say it was operated as a political machine.


Walter Davy Cowan: If my hon. friend will keep quiet a little he wall find there are more C.C.F.'s in his riding than in any other part of Saskatchewan. Now the Saskatchewan relief commission has been operating for years, and there has not been one single charge made against it. Not only that; I have been dealing all the time with municipalities within my' area and not one single municipality has sent me a protest against the manner in which its operations have been carried on. I have had a number of people write 'in saying they were not receiving fair treatment, and I at once communicated with the secretary of the commission, Mr. Oliver Dean, and he had the matter straightened out. But when the hon. member makes the statement that the commission is a political machine, or infers that it is, I tell him he does not know what he is talking about. I wish it was; I am Tory enough to wish it was.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: That is all the proof we need.


Walter Davy Cowan: If my hon. friend will keep quiet a while, he will have plenty to do to get back to this house.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: You look after yourself.


Walter Davy Cowan: I can do that easily.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: You will have to do it.


Walter Davy Cowan: There is not a single municipality that has made any protest against the manner in which the relief commission is operating, and if the municipalities who have to look after the relief do not, who should? The government are doing the best they can. If they had ten or fifteen million dollars a year more to spend, perhaps the people of Saskatchewan might be better satisfied, but we have not the money and cannot get it. Some people, like my hon. friend, seem to think that the whole country is just rolling in money to hand out to them to spend as they please. Well, we are not doing that, and the Saskatchewan relief commission is not doing that. They are spending their money honestly and fairly in the interests of Liberals and Conservatives alike; there is not a Liberal suffering any more than a Conservative in the stricken area of Saskatchewan. My hon. friend should remember that the area that is suffering is not in Canada alone, it is a northern extension from the

Supply-Agriculture-Insect Pests
American desert. It is the pioneers who have suffered. I want this committee to understand that we have just got a part of what the western states are getting, and we are getting it yet. I wish it were over. And then the Saskatchewan relief commission could close up their books, and when they do I venture to say that it will be found that not a dollar has been misappropriated. There may be a few mistakes, but as a commission they have done their duty and done it well. Why this sudden interest on the part of hon. members opposite in the commission and in the finances of Saskatchewan? Does the hon. gentleman not know that this government has been voting millions of dollars for relief there in the last three years? Has he been asleep?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Do not judge others by yourself.


Walter Davy Cowan: He regards us as being beneath him in dignity; he will not reply to us ordinary members of parliament. I do not care whether he does or not, but the fact remains that under this government Saskatchewan has 'been mighty well treated. I want to register that statement.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The remarks of the hon. member have proven exactly the statements I made; first, that the Saskatchewan relief commission is a costly proposition, and secondly that in my own riding the field men were inclined to be Conservative politcally. Beyond that I made no other statement. I did say that the relief commission has done a lot of good work, but I point out that it is a subject of political discussion in Saskatchewan for these two reasons, and we shall wait for the answer on the nineteenth.


Robert Weir: Perhaps it is
unnecessary to make any observation except in answer to some of the last remarks of the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh), that I objected to giving information, and his accusation that I was politically minded. I did not object to giving information-	i


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I said you appeared to.


Albert Joseph Brown: The minister does not want to carry his own estimates.


Robert Weir: The objection I did strenuously take was to the statement that this money was at this time being sent into Saskatchewan for political purposes. The hon. member for North Battleford, speaking on the point, touched on this editorial from the Leader Post, and if I followed him aright contended that this paper also had the idea
that this money was now being dumped into Saskatchewan for political purposes. This paper is published almost in the centre of the dried-out area. That conclusion is negatived by the fact that in the neighbourhood of $18,000,000 was advanced in previous years when there was no election. This winter has been one of our hardest winters; we have additional burdens to carry there this spring.
I stated very clearly on a previous occasion that the greater part of the money advanced has already been spent for the purposes of relief, seed grain, feed, and the high cost of obtaining feed. In the fiscal year 1932-33 the sum advanced was over $14,000,000. Coming from Saskatchewan, as does the hon. member himself, and knowing that the drought extended north even into his own constituency to a considerable extent last year, it was only with great effort and restraint I could keep my seat while these statements were being made. Anyone in touch with Saskatchewan and comparing conditions there this year with previous years knows that there has not been more money sent in this year than in previous years for the work that is to be done in the way of relief and assistance. Perhaps I was to blame in this respect, that I did think the hon. member. coming from Saskatchewan, would be sufficiently interested in the welfare of that province to know the comparison between what was required this year and previous years, and gave him credit for an intelligence of which I am afraid he is not giving evidence-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Oh, get your estimates through.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: That is about his size.


Robert Weir: -if he claims this money has been used for anything but relief. It was on that account, and that account oidy that I took objection to the statements he made.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I have heard the somewhat abusive remarks of the Minister of Agriculture, they are in line with his usual exibitions before this house.


Walter Davy Cowan: What about yourself?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Well, you come in that class too, about as well as any person I know of.


Walter Davy Cowan: Glad of it.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I was going to say that when it comes to the question of intelligence the Minister of Agriculture has made three of

Supply-Agriculture-Insect Pests
the worst exhibitions before parliament in the last twelve months, of any man who ever entered parliament. The remarks he made here a week ago constitute exhibition No. 1. He lost his head, he became angry and said things that a minister of the crown should not say, and got away with it. Then in connection with the marketing bill we had exhibition No. 2, the most pitiful exhibition on the [DOT]part of a minister that has ever taken place in parliament. The bill from first to last was a practical impossibility, and if he had anything to do with the drafting of it or cooperated in .putting the bill into shape, it simply signified imbecility.
Then let me refer to another exhibition on the part of the minister-to-night he has seen fit to digress, may I do the same. Last year when the redistribution debate was on the minister made one of the most pitiful exhibitions that any minister could make. What did the minister say in this house last year with regard to the riding of Prince Albert? He said that the last redistribution made it impossible for "the people" in the federal constituency of Prince Albert to express their will. I have here the electoral return for the district of Prince Albert, and I have here also the electoral return for the constituency of Melfort. In the latter constituency there were 160 polls.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: There were 160 polls
through which the people could express their opinions, and there were 17,000 votes polled-


Samuel Gobeil: Order.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: -out of 22,000 votes.


Samuel Gobeil: The hon. member is going back to the same question which was ruled out of order, and I ask him-*


Cameron Ross McIntosh: No, I did not touch on
this question before. You must be dreaming.


Samuel Gobeil: I am
suggesting that the hon. member speak to the item under discussion.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I did not touch this
matter at all to-night. The minister is not objecting, and I will finish it in a moment or two.


Samuel Gobeil: This is
out of order, and I so rule.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: In what way is it out
of order?


Samuel Gobeil: It is
absolutely out of order; it has nothing to do with the item.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
same rules of order should apply to both sides.


Peter John Veniot: If the minister is allowed
to refer to the intelligence or want of intelligence of a member on this side of the house, surely the hon. member on this side has the privilege of replying in kind.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
minister chooses a peculiar way of putting through his estimates, indulging in personal attacks on members on this side of the house. I suggest that the member has every right to reply.


Robert Weir: I did not make a
personal attack on the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh); I complimented the hon. member on his intelligence.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: You did not.


Robert Weir: Most decidedly I
did.


Samuel Gobeil: The
point of order was not raised against the minister.


Peter John Veniot: It was not raised against
the hon. member for North Battleford; you raised it.


Samuel Gobeil: The hon. member for Long Lake (Mr. Cowan) raised it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He
never rose to his feet and raised a point of order.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I think it is only right
that when a member is attacked, especially by a minister of the crown in the House of Commons, the member should have the right to reply. I merely want to show how partisan the minister is, that this is the cause of the exhibition he has made of himself in this house on more than one occasion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I think that is very plain language. This was the argument put up by the minister, that the people of Prince Albert were disfranchised, and I was merely saying-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: -that in the constituency of Melfort-[DOT]


Walter Davy Cowan: What has that to do with this item?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: -out of 22,000 votes 17,000 were polled, or 77 per cent. That was in the riding of which the minister is the representative. What do we find in Prince

Supply-A gricullure-Insect Pests
Albert? We find 161 polls through which the people could express their convictions on election day, and that of 20.000 votes in the constituency 17.000 or 85 per cent were polled. So 77 per cent of "the people" voted in Mel-lort while 85 per cent of the people voted in the riding of Prince Albert. Therefore in the riding of Prince Albert "the people" made (heir will known more completely than in the constituency of Melfort.
Then I should like to show another ease in which the minister was very partisan, just toll owing up what he has been doing for the last year or two. I am one of the members in the house from western Canada who have given the minister very little opposition; I have complimented him and have been fair with him, but he is not going to get away with this stuff with regard to me or with regard to Saskatchewan members. I want him to know that. He went ahead and attacked my right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) the other night, and I am defending my leader now. The minister said the only way the right hon. gentleman was elected was by the Liberals, in a former redistribution, hiving the votes of the German people, the Mennonites, in the southern part of the riding so that they had no chance to name a representative of their own, so that they were practically disfranchised. The minister made the further statement that all the polls in the northern part of the riding of Prince Albert voted against my right hon. leader, I say now that this statement is not correct. I have a list here which shows poll after poll that voted strongly Liberal in that election. Henribourg voted Liberal; so did Albertville, Marcelin, Leask, Debden and Big River. These are all in the northern part of the province. Last year the minister contended that the Anglo-Saxons were the only people in the north; he suggested that the Mennonites, the French, the Belgians, the Scotch and the Welsh and others were not people, but merely political cattle.


Robert Weir: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. The hon. member is not stating the position I took on the occasion to which he has referred.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: You give me time and I will state it.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member is not discussing anything in relation to item 46, which is before the committee.
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver); He is discussing entomology absolutely.


George Brecken Nicholson: He is discussing the election of 1930.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I know the hon. member, and I think he is fair enough to agree that when an attack is made upon my leader by a minister of the crown I have a perfect right to answer with regard to my province and my riding.


George Brecken Nicholson: There has been no attack made on my hon. friend's leader in this committee to-night.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I would ask the hon. member to read Hansard for May 29, and he will see what was said then. Further may I say this-


George Brecken Nicholson: I ask for your ruling, Mr. Chairman, as to whether the hon. member is in order under this item.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I am almost through; let me complete my statement or it will look much worse for your party than it will for mine.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You are discussing pests.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Yes-a very appropriate subject.


Samuel Gobeil: I am asked to give an opinion on the point of order.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. member is discussing pests.


George Brecken Nicholson: Does the hon. member for Vancouver Centre suggest that when the hon. member for North Battleford is discussing his leader he is discussing pests?


Samuel Gobeil: My decision is that certainly this is out of order, but this discussion has been out of order about half the time this afternoon and to-night, in my opinion.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: That may be quite true, but the minister commenced it. It ought to be concluded, and I am simply concluding it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I am just about through. May I say-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: -to prove that the minister meant that only Anglo-Saxons were "the people" in the constituency of Prince Albert, and that the French and others were not people-


George Brecken Nicholson: I rise to a point of
order.



Supply-Agriculture-Farms


Cameron Ross McIntosh: His remarks in the first place were changed in Hansard, and he qualified it by adding "French speaking" in the unrevised and revised edition.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
William Richard Motherwell: It is not carried,
Mr. Chairman. You did not rule on the point of order.


Samuel Gobeil: Yes, I
did.


William Richard Motherwell: Which way?


Samuel Gobeil: I ruled
the hon. member out of order.


William Richard Motherwell: Excellent.
Experimental farms, including investigations concerning plant diseases, $1,815,000.


William Richard Motherwell: From now until
eleven o'clock I am going to try to assist the minister to get his estimates through and I will make my remarks as brief as possible. I have been somewhat anxious about the ultimate fate of the experimental farm at Rosthern. It looks to me as if it is being starved to death. I can understand that. I recall when the Liberals came into power in the early days we did not seem to have enough money to keep all these farms going properly and, Rosthern, Nappan, and Windermere were among those we thought we could not keep going. I reported to my colleagues that either these three farms had to get more money or they would have to be closed. I half suspect that that is the position the minister is in with regard to some of these farms, and I have some sympathy for him if that is the situation. I pointed out to the Minister of Finance of that day that it was a question of either getting more money to keep all these farms going or some of them, and Rosthern was one, would have to be closed. Well, we decided to keep them all going and going strong, and not to start any more until we had more money in sight. That was our policy. The minister should be candid with us and tell us if that is the situation with himself and his colleagues now. If that is the situation the only thing for him to do is to tell his colleagues that there must be some more money supplied for experimental farms or they cannot all be kept going properly. It is better in my opinion to keep eighteen going properly than to keep twenty-two half starved. My good friend knows there was a lot of very fine experimental fruit work being done on that farm at Rosthern. It was coming along nicely, largely under the supervision of the Morden superintendent, Mr. 
Leslie, since Mr. Munro left, and I believe in some measure it is under his supervision yet. Mr. Hutton took Mr. Munro's place as superintendent of the Rosthern farm, after the latter was let out. I should very much like to know if that farm is going to be allowed to die or live, and not hang it up betwixt and between. It would be a relief to me and I am sure it would be to the minister himself. Rumours have gone abroad that the farm is up for sale. I have no reason for thinking there is anything authentic in that rumour, but I am just passing it along to the minister so that he will not keep the people interested in the work of this farm any longer in suspense. It is a terrible thing to have the people in a community who have become accustomed to an institution like the Rosthern farm wondering what is going to be its ultimate fate. Judging from what I know personally through going past the farm, and judging by the diminishing size of these votes, and knowing what it costs to keep these farms going properly I am a little anxious. Perhaps the minister will tell us what was set aside for this farm last year as compared with say four years ago. If he would do that, and it was a reasonable amount, I would not have much to say about it, because I went through the whole thing myself and finally decided to go ahead full steam with the Rosthern farm, so that I know the minister's position.


Robert Weir: In the first place the Rosthern farm has not been offered for sale, but I knew there were certain rumours to that effect and I assured the gentleman who wrote me that it had not been offered and that neither it nor any other farm would be offered for sale without tenders being called for. We do feel that Rosthern is doing a very valuable work. They are not carrying out so many small projects; none of the farms is except those where we have decided to specialize along certain lines like the farm at Swift Current, specializing in dry farming and so on. We are carrying out at Rosthern practical experiments chiefly with reference to dairying and the suitability of forage crops for that area north from Saskatoon that has been approved by our own dominion agrostolo-gist. The horticultural work is being directed, as the hon. member said, from Morden. It is very difficult to get men qualified to do this work in sufficient numbers for each of the experimental farms even if it was thought advisable. But Rosthern has been doing particularly good work along these lines, and also in connection with poultry and advanced

Supply-A gricul ture-Farms
registry in pigs. The experiments and the work done there is of a very practical nature, as near as we can get to the actual lines followed by the farmer himself.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I ask the minister for a list of all experimental farms in Canada and the relative cost of each last year?


William Richard Motherwell: The minister did not give the appropriation for Rosthern last year as compared with four years ago.


Robert Weir: The list of farms and expenditures is as follows:
List of Branch Dominion Experimental Farms
Expenditure 1934-35 1933-34
Charlottetown, P.E.I	
$35,000	$36,000Summerside. P.E.I	
12,000	12,000Kentville, N.S	
51,500	48,900Nappan, N.S	
41,500	43,000Fredericton, N.B	
43,000	45,500
Ste. Anne de la Poeatiere,
Que	
41,000	43,000St. Joachim, Que	
7,000	9,500Cap Rouge, Que	
25,000	23,500Lennoxville. Que	
40,000	42,350Farnham, Que	
14,500	15,000L'Assomption, Que	
27,000	28,000La Ferine, Que	
11,500	12,000Kapuskasing, Ont	
40,000	40,000Harrow, Ont	
38,000	40,000Delhi, Ont	
8,000	....Morden, Man	
39,000	41,000Brandon. Man	
40,000	40,000Indian Head, Sask	
40,000	41,000
Indian Head Forestry
Nursery Station..	29,000	32,000
Sutherland Nursery Station,
Sask	
17,000	18,000Rosthern, Sask	
14,000	15,000Scott, Sask	
36,500	38,000Swift Current, Sask	
39.000	42,250Regina Sub-station, Sask.. 5,500	5,500Lethbridge. Alta	
46,000	48,000Lacombe, Alta	
39,500	40,500Manyberries, Alta	
18,500	19,500Beaverlodge, Alta	
16,000	17,000Windermere, B.C	
13,000	14,000Summerland. B.C	
45,000	43,000Kelowna Sub-station	
6,000	6,500Agassiz, B.C	
37,000	39,000Saanichton, B.C	
28,500	30,000


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Would
the minister give the experimental farms in British Columbia separately, and the expenditure?


Robert Weir: They are as follows: Windermere, $14,000; Summerland, $43,000; Kelowna substation, $6,500; Agassiz, S39.000; Saanichton, $30,000; substations, $12,000.


Thomas Reid: Is a record kept of the visitors to the experimental farms?
74726-229J


Robert Weir: Of individual
visitors, yes, but not of visitors at picnics.


Thomas Reid: I have long held to the opinion that one of the great advantages of experimental farms is their accessibility to the neighbouring farmers so that they can visit them. I have also long held the opinion that the farm at Agassiz was established at the wrong place having regard to the whole Fraser valley. I think it would have been of more benefit to the district if it had been established in a place like Chilliwack, which is the centre of a richer and better farming district. Agassiz stands at the head of the valley so to speak, and it is out of the way for motor traffic to find its way down to the farm. The most of the traffic is on the south side of the river, and I think the minister would be well advised to look into the desirability of changing the location of the farm so that it would be more accessible to the whole Fraser valley, and thereby be of more benefit to those for whose benefit experimental farms are conducted.


John Power Howden: Is it the policy of the department to have a bilingual employee at the farm at Morden? Roughly one-third of the population of Manitoba is French speaking, and when a position was vacant some time ago they expressed the strongest desire to have a bilingual employee on the premises. I mentioned this to the minister at the time, and I should like to know if the department now maintains such an employee.


Robert Weir: I agree with the hon. member and this matter will be considered should a vacancy occur.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Following up the remarks of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid), is it the policy to have farms such as the one at Agassiz cooperate with the research departments of the universities?


Robert Weir: All the dominion
officials cooperate with the provincial officials and with the colleges in any research work. They meet together and lay out a general program. Everyone unites in the carrying out of that program and at the end of the experiments there is a further meeting at which results are noted. If necessary, new plans are laid out.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is no unnecessary overlapping?


Robert Weir: I would say at the present time it is at the minimum.

Supply -Agriculture-Farms


Peter John Veniot: Has the minister had any correspondence with the government of New Brunswick in connection with the establishment of an agricultural college at the experimental farm at Fredericton?


Robert Weir: For some time past there has been considerable work done at a number of the experimental farms by way of short classes.


Peter John Veniot: I understand that, but I was referring to work beyond that.


Robert Weir: This work is carried on especially in the winter and is much appreciated by the people in the community. Fredericton lias done especially good work in this regard, one of the reasons being Mr. .Bailey who has been superintendent for a number of years. In order to carry on this work in an ideal manner it is necessary that there should be a dormitory large enough to hold a small number of pupils who could stay for a short period to receive instruction on practical problems. Every consideration is being given to this matter in connection with Fredericton and other experimental farms.


Peter John Veniot: I might add my appreciation of the work which has been done. The short courses have been excellent and I have personal knowledge of the work. However, my question referred to the establishment of a regular agricultural college where yearly courses could be taken.


Robert Weir: There has been no communication in that connection.


Thomas Reid: Could the minister give us any information regarding the policy in connection with veterinary private practitioners?


Robert Weir: This is one subject to which we have given a great deal of consideration. In order to meet the demands of certain policies like the tuberculosis testing, it has been found necessary to draw men from private practice to headquarters. The result has been that there are large areas without any private practitioner. In the areas where there are private practitioner's our policy has been to provide free service through federal officials. In this connection it has been felt very important that as far as possible this work should be given to private practitioners who can give evidence through written examinations that they are qualified to do the work and that the farmers would be taking no chances in using their services. We held an examination last summer for practitioners who wished to avail themselves of this oppor-
'Mr. R. Weir.]
trinity, and we have been able to give work to some thirty or forty who passed the examinations. I am informed that it is the intention to take on more in the near future. I do not think there is anything more important in connection with the health of animals and live stock than to give even,' assistance to private practitioners who are qualified to do the work.


Mr. BOTH  WELL@: When speaking a few moments ago the minister referred to some special experimental work which was being carried on at the Swift Current experimental station. Can he give any information in this regard?


Robert Weir: I stated that there were certain farms which had special problems to deal with. There have been no new developments at the Swift Current station. The nature of the work carried on there, such as the studying of soil moisture, soil drifting and climatic conditions, due to the slight rainfall, makes it necessary to maintain a staff of highly trained specialists. The overhead expenses at- that farm are more than those at Rosthern, which operates under more normal conditions.


Charles Edward Bothwell: How do the appropriations for Swift Current and Rosthern compare?


Robert Weir: The appropriation for Swift Current is S42.250; for Rosthern, $15,000; for La Ferme, $12,000, and for Indian Head, $32,000.


Albert Joseph Brown: What is the figure for Mor-den?


Robert Weir: Morden is $11,000. The same conditions obtain there as obtain at Swift Current. We have a higher paid staff because of the specialized work in horticulture and the amount of labour necessary in dealing with the research work.


William Richard Motherwell: Rosthern is down pretty low. I wonder what it was four years ago? I think it used to be between $40,000 and $50,000.


Robert Weir: I would say $44,000 to $46,000.


William Richard Motherwell: It will soon be a cripple if it has -been reduced from $44,000 to $15,000. Would it not be better to close it than to have it going around 'like a rickle of bones? That is the shape it will soon be in. I do not feel like being cross about it but the minister should go to the Prime Minister and tell him that these farms will have to

Supply-Agriculture-Live Stock
dose if they do not get more money. I had to do that; I got more money when I was able to make a good case, and they were put in good shape. Whaft is the appropriation for Nappan?


Robert Weir: Nappan is S43,000.


William Richard Motherwell: I am glad of that, as there was some justification for complaining that it was so close to Truro. However, there seems to be work for both places. I regret the minister's attitude towards Rosthern. That was a special place for the development of fruit. This everlasting idea of growing wheat is not so popular as it used to be. The tendency to-day is more to the development of homes. This chasing of the almighty dollar by means of wheat fields is not so popular or profitable; it is now more popular to plant trees, including fruit and carry on horticulture generally where farmers can afford to do so. Now surely the minister, with all his opportunities, a university man, a man in the scholastic world, is not going to be the one to discourage this tendency. Look at the late Doctor William Saunders, a great London horticulturist and experimentalist. He came to Canada and did the opposite; he built up the home and aesthetic side of agriculture as well as the practical side. He was a man without any practical experience in agriculture but he had a vision of what the line in which he was interested would do for Canada. And look what was done by the late Doctor Macoun, through his apple breeding alone. Hut here is (he minister taking the opposite course. I am sure that if he makes up his mind to do it he can get Rosthern back on its feet, because that was one farm in the west which was doing special work along the line of fruit. I appeal to the minister, in the presence of the Prime Minister, and ask him ' not to allow Rosthern to languish and die, having regard to that side of the cultural life of Saskatchewan which that farm was developing. I say that in all sincerity and earnestness.


Robert Weir: With reference to horticultural work in Rosthern, because of the difficulty of getting highly trained specialists, the policy is to work out from a central organization, and I believe that as much work is being done in the way of experiments to find out the suitability of fruit trees for that northern area at the present time as there has been in the past. It is supervised directly from Morden. We find trees that are hardy enough to do well at Morden and they are sent north and planted
and watched in Rosthern, and that will be extended to include farms like Scott and other experimental farms. The same is true with regard to grain and grasses; instead of having so many projects in each farm, that work is done more intensively at headquarters and the farms are used rather for practical experiments in the use of these grains and grasses. As regards Rosthern, we feel it is doing a very definite work with these changes.


William Richard Motherwell: That is a nice reply and is most ingenious; it has all the appearance of being on the up and up. But is it? Did the minister not let out a first-class horticulturist in the person of Mr. Munro? Has that gentleman been replaced anywhere? We never had to go from Rosthern to Morden for supervision when Mr. Munro was there; but the minister lets out Mr. Munro and assures us that he will replace him at the first opportunity. Now he contends that he does not need to have anyone there because the work will be supervised from Morden. And it will be well supervised; but that does not justify the situation at all. We had a first-class superintendent in Mr. Munro, who had brought the horticultural side of that farm to its highest state of efficiency, and he could have continued it on that level. But he has been let out. What is the answer to that?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


William Richard Motherwell: All right; I will let it go, as there is no answer.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Live stock, including assistance to fairs and exhibitions, $1,518,302.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What are the grants to New Westminster and Vancouver respectively?


Robert Weir: There is no grant to New Westminster; the buildings that were destroyed have not been replaced. The grant that was given to the three fairs, New Westminster, Vancouver and Victoria, was divided into two parts.	.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Was
there any grant to the winter fair in Vancouver?


Robert Weir: Not last year. We
were prepared to give $3,000 but they did not think that sufficient.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They
did not get any.


Robert Weir: No; they did not
have a fair

Supply-Agriculture-Live Stock


Mr. McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: I see by
the votes and proceedings of May 18 that item 45 was carried.


Robert Weir: Yes.


Robert McKenzie: That, I
believe, was on the understanding that we might discuss anything relating to health of animals. The matter I want to take up is the examinations held last summer in Saskatoon for veterinary surgeons. There was an examination for part time service, but owing to economic conditions and the financial position of veterinary surgeons generally, some of them found it difficult to take the examinations; they could not stand the expense. I have received a letter from one of these gentlemen and also a letter from the registrar of the veterinary surgeons' association, informing me that the men who passed these examinations have not been able to get work.


Robert Weir: We have taken
between thirty and forty of the men who did pass, and where there is work anywhere near we are taking on more veterinaries. I was discussing the matter with the veterinary director general-because I have a special interest in it-and he is of the opinion that "we shall be able to give work to practically ail these men who have passed the examination, provided the work is within reasonable distance of their own practice. When it is decided to go ahead with the new testing areas in Saskatchewan these men will be given work in connection with that.


Robert McKenzie: There are
a number of our veterinary surgeons, fully qualified and registered, who think that it is unnecessary for them to be put to the expense of taking an examination for part time work. Do the veterinary director general and the veterinary department generally feel that the regularly qualified men who have passed examinations and are registered in their own province are unfit to do tuberculosis testing work?


Robert Weir: The men employed in the health of animals branch, except some taken on at a very early date, have themselves to pass an examination before they can act as officials in the health of animals branch. The hon. member for Assiniboia knows that many veterinary surgeons came to western Canada and engaged in farming or ranching or other work of that kind and naturally would become rusty in their veterinary science, and it was felt to be only fair as a protection to farmers that these men

should be asked to pass an examination. In Saskatchewan they were particularly fortunate, especially those who could afford to take the course, which was provided at very low cost, because Doctor Fulton, of Saskatchewan university, put on a short intensive brushing up course; and that will be offered again before the next examination is held. We are of the opinion that by holding these examinations once a year or once every two years a great boon is provided the practitioners themselves. The hon. member asks whether it is thought that these men are not qualified. With that question in mind, when the examination papers were prepared we had in members, and men recommended by members, of the veterinary colleges, because they might be of the same opinion, namely, that these men having once passed, it was a slur on the college that they should be asked to write again. They came in and sat at the reading of the papers which were gone into very carefully and I think these men would be the first now to acknowledge that these examinations are very necessary not only as a check but to have the veterinaries themselves brush up on their work.


Robert McKenzie: Did the result of the examination prove what the minister said, namely that many of them are getting rather rusty?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Robert McKenzie: I can believe that myself because I was a graduate of a veterinary college about thirty years ago and I do not know that I would care to re-register. But the thing that seems to annoy these veterinary surgeons is the fact that under present economic conditions they cannot afford to go to the expense of taking this short course. So far as tuberculosis work is concerned I do not think there is anything _ particular about it requiring any special examination, and I imagine that is the greater part of the work. Probably the minister has a copy of the memorandum that was passed at a meeting of the council of the Veterinary Association of Saskatchewan in February last. From the letter accompanying it I believe a copy was sent to practically every local member of the house as well as to the minister himself, but in case the minister has overlooked it I will just put it on Hansard so that we can see what is the feeling of the veterinary association. The memorandum reads;
1.	To draw the attention of the minister to the fact that the men who passed the parttime examinations held last summer have as yet received no work from the health of

Supply-Agriculture-Live Stock
animals branch, in spite of the fact that a list of available men is in the hands of the civil service commission. Also to urge the minister to see that work is given to these men, when it is available, in their own districts, as soon as possible.
2.	To suggest to the minister that the examinations for part-time veterinary surgeons held in future be partly oral if possible.
3.	To ask the minister that tuberculosis testing be given to accredited veterinarians in their own districts whether they passed the part-time examinations or not as these men have already passed a special examination held by the health of animals branch in tuberculosis and tuberculosis eradication work, and are quite capable of doing the work.
4.	To assure the minister of their continued support in his efforts to try out a system of state veterinary medicine and to ask him to put it into force along the lines suggested two or three years ago, as early as possible.
5.	The council of the Veterinary Association of Saskatchewan hopes that the minister will call the meeting as soon as possible looking towards the formation of a Dominion-wide veterinary association. If necessary, Saskatchewan would finance its own delegate.
6.	The economic condition of the veterinary surgeons in Saskatchewan is at a low ebb, many of them being unable to make calls any longer from inability to collect fees, which means that sick animals are often dying for the want of veterinary service; this is literally true. The council of the Veterinary Association of Saskatchewan considers that the above measures would materially help to remedy the situation.
The veterinary surgeons in my own district with whom I am well acquainted are finding it very hard under present conditions to make ends meet, and although this examination is probably being held for a quite laudable purpose, it seems to me that the test for tuberculosis, and probably other matters but particularly this test, could be carried on almost entirely by the local man. If it is found that he has become rusty, as the minister imagines, he probably would not be given any of the work, but at the same time, in order to keep these men in their particular districts, I would urge the minister to give them all the work it is possible to give them without the necessity of their taking these examinations.
Mr. WEIR (Melfort); I believe in Saskatchewan some seven out of the ten who passed the examination have been given work. No person, veterinary or anybody else, can give me any more enthusiasm than I have as regards the necessity of assisting private veterinaries, especially in western Canada, and every effort is being made to give them assistance and work because I feel that the veterinarian work has been one side of our live stock industry that has been receiving less care than it should because of the circumstances of which I have spoken before.
As regards the conference and our agreeing to pay the expenses of one, some two years ago I got in touch with the veterinary associations to discuss those problems with them and asked if we could have a dominion conference, but for some reason or another each of them named the same man as a delegate and it was a matter of practically this one man meeting with me. He could not speak with the authority of the veterinaries of each province nor on the problems I especially wished to discuss, that is from the practical veterinary point of view, because he had been a specialist and always engaged in research work institutions.


Albert Joseph Brown: I should like to speak in
support of what has been said by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. McKenzie). We all know veterinary surgeons have been having a difficult time; indeed, the price of live stock and horses has been so low it hardly pays to employ a veterinary surgeon, even if the man could pay him. One case was brought to my notice of a man who had for some years been employed by the department to test for tuberculosis. He was employed first at a port of entry in connection with stock coming in from the United States. Although he has the certificate which he had received at that time, of late he has not been permitted to practise. I know it is quite true, as the minister says, men may get rusty in regard to their early training.


Robert Weir: Would the hon.
member mind giving me the man's name?


Albert Joseph Brown: Not at the moment. I
shall speak again. All of us who have passed examinations in the past realize we would hardly like to be called upon to pass them to-day. A story is told of a professor who said that he had had a horrible dream; it was that he had to pass a freshman's examination. While it is quite possible that men may get rusty on their work it is also possible that the newcomers, smart young men, may set examination papers with which the men who have been in practice for a long time may hardly be familiar. I know when I began to write on examinations my teacher warned me that the worst examiner was a clever young man, and in the course of my experience I found that out to be true. There is just a possibility that examinations may be set on subjects that are rather new and not entirely necessary for the practical work that is required of veterinary surgeons, especially in establishing these tuberculosis areas. I would not for a moment like to interfere with the efficiency of the work
Supply-External Affairs

or to ask that inefficients be requested to do it, but I would urge that as much consideration as possible be given to men who passed their examinations some years ago and who have been in continuous practice ever since.


Michael Luchkovich: I notice this item
includes fairs and exhibitions. I understand fairs are divided into class A and1 class B. Is the department still continuing the grants to class B fairs, and how many of them are still in existence?


Robert Weir: The grant is being
continued although we call them regional fairs just to distinguish them. There are, I believe, thirty so-called B class fairs.


Michael Luchkovich: Is that more than
there were before?


Robert Weir: The same number, I am given to understand.


William Richard Motherwell: Some reference was made earlier in the session to an outbreak of glanders in Quebec. That is a very serious disease but in the past it has been well kept down throughout Canada. I was wondering whether the staff had discovered the source of that outbreak. Was it from the Maine lumber woods, where Quebec farmers sometimes go for winter occupation and might bring the glanders back with them?


Robert Weir: No; the first outbreak was in the eastern townships. For the hon. member's information I might refer him to my answer to the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) who wrote me asking that this information be put on record because of the misunderstanding in reference to it. On May 18 I put on Hansard a very full statement.. In the first place glanders was discovered in a mild form in the eastern townships of Quebec. Three light horses had been shipped in by truck from the United States, and it was felt that they might have been the source of the disease. The vet-erinaries went to the place from which these horses came, and after thorough inquiry found no trace of the disease. It was then concluded that the disease had existed in a mild form in the eastern townships, but difficulty was experienced in checking all the contacts because of the stables through which the horses had passed. That entailed a great deal of work. However, the outbreak is now well under control. The record I put on Hansard indicated that out of quite a large number of horses checked up to May 12, only three reacted. One of the reactors came from a place in Alberta, near Beiseker, so
[Mr. Brown.?	.
that we had to go to Alberta and check contacts there as well. As a further measure of protection to the people of the eastern townships all horses going through the horse yards in Montreal are being thoroughly checked, and we believe the disease is now well under control.


William Richard Motherwell: Would the minister let us know whether this work was in charge of regular officers of his department, or were they part time men?


Robert Weir: I am glad the hon. member asked that question, because every care was taken to have men who understood the work thoroughly and had had practice in it, and if we had to use any who did not have that experience they were first thoroughly schooled. Colonel Tamblyn, of the permanent force, who has had a lot of experience, came from Kingston and performed some post mortemis for the benefit of these people. In addition to that we brought men from the west who had had experience in dealing with glanders in Alberta.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Salaries, $684,144; contingencies, $90,600.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Why was this item held over?


Richard Bedford Bennett: We said we would let it stand the other evening.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
External Affairs-
Canada's contribution to the expenses of the League of Nations for 1934, including secretariat, international labour organization and permanent court of international justice, $205,569.42.
Richard Bedford Bennett: We allowed this item to stand because it is a League of Nations item, but in view of the discussion that took place at the recent annual meeting, and what has been said, probably there is no need of its standing longer.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I think there was an
understanding that one item, penitentiaries, should stand. On one item of pensions and national health the minister was to get some information for the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) and the hon. member for North Wellington (Mr. Blair). There is item No. 185, unemployment relief, and there is one in miscellaneous, child welfare. No. 239.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No. 185
is pensions?

Canada Shipping Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, unemployment relief. An item of trade and commerce was allowed to stand until a report is made by the committee that is considering garnet wheat. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING

[Stage Direction]
The house having reverted to the order for motions:
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That the estimates respecting the Canadian National Steamships and the Maritime Freight Rates Act, presented to the house on the 27th April, be referred to the select standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, and that the order referring the same to the committee of supply be discharged.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Bennett the house adjourned at 10.42 p.m.
Monday, June 4, 1934