[Stage Direction]
First and second reports of the select standing committee on railways and shipping.-Sir Eugene Fiset.
Fifth report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. Parent.
Fifth report of the select standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Hay.

Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, when the house was in committee of ways and means last Friday certain correspondence was tabled between the Minister of Finance and certain automobile manufacturers in Canada. My attention was directed to the omission of replies from some of the manufacturers, and particularly the reply from the president of the Automotive Association. That, gentleman arrived in Otta/wa this morning and he brought to me my own original letter acknowledging his reply, and a copy of his reply. I regret that the correspondence had been mislaid in my department, and I now desire to table it.



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING COMMITTEE

Sir EUGENE FISET moved:: That the first and second reports of the select standing committee on railways and shipping be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Mr. Veniot.3

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

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	What are the names and salaries of all deputy ministers, and of all acting deputy ministers for the fiscal year 1927-28?
2.	What is their present salary, respectively?


Mr. RINFRET:: Department of Agriculture :
1.	(a) Dr. J. H. Grisdale, deputy minister, 87,500 and use of house; (b) Dr. A. T. Charron, assistant deputy minister, $5,145.
2.	(a) $9,500 and use of house; (b) $5,220. Department of External Affairs:
1.	O. D. Skelton, deputy head. $8,000.
2.	$10,000.
Department of Finance:
1.	and 2. J. C. Saunders, deputy minister and secretary of the treasury board, $15,000. Department of Indian Affairs:
1.	(a) Duncan C. Scott, deputy superintendent general, $8,000; (b) John D. McLean, assistant, deputy superintendent general and secretary, $4,920.
2.	(a) $9,000; (b) $4,920.
Department of Insurance:
1.	G. D. Finlayson, superintendent, $10,000.
2.	$10,000.
Department of the Interior:
1.	W. W. Cory, deputy minister, $8,000.
2.	$10,000.
Department of Justice:
1.	(a) W. Stuart Edwards, deputy minister, $10,000; (b) John Chisholm, assistant deputy minister, $6,000; (c) J. A. Renaud, assistant deputy minister, $6,000.
2.	(a) $10,000; (b) $6,500; (c) $6,500. Department of Labour:
1.	(a) Howard H. Ward, deputy minister, $8,000; (b) Gerald H. Brown, asst, deputy minister, $4,620.
2.	(a) $9,000; (b) $4,620.
Department of Marine and Fisheries:
Marine Branch
1.	A. Johnston, deputy minister, $8,000.
2.	$10,000.
Fisheries Branch
1.	Wm. A. Found, appointed deputy minister July 12th, 1928. $6,000.
2.	$8,000.
Department of National Defence:
1.	G. J. Desbarats, deputy minister, $8,000.
2.	$10,000.

Questions
Department of Mines:
1.	(a) Dr. Charles Camsell, deputy minister, $8,000; (b) L. L. Bolton, acting deputy minister, $4,620.
2.	(a) $9,000; (b) $4,620.
Post Office Department:
1.	L. J. Gaboury, deputy postmaster general, $8,000.
2.	$10,000.
Public Works Department:
1.	J. B. Hunter, deputy minister, $8,000.
2.	$10,000.
Department of Public Printing and Stationery :
1.	F. A. Acland, deputy head, $8,000.
2.	$9,000.
Department of Railways and Canals:
1.	(a) Major G. A. Bell, deputy minister, S10,000; (b) Geo. W. Yates, asst, deputy minister, $4,920.
2.	(a) R. A. C. Henry, $10,000; (b) $4,920. Department Secretary of State:
1.	Thomas Mulvey, deputy head, $8,000.
2.	$9,000.
Department of Trade and Commerce:
1.	F. C. T. O'Hara, deputy minister, $8,000.
2.	$10,000.
Department of Immigration and Colonization :,
1.	(a) W. J. Egan, deputy minister, $8,000;
(b)	F. C. Blair, asst, deputy minister, S5,220.
2.	(a) $9,000; Ob) $5,220.'
Department of Pensions and National Health:
1.	Dr. J. A. Amyot, deputy minister, $8,000; N. F. Parkinson, deputy minister, $6,000.
2.	$9,000.
N. F. Parkinson (retired Dec. 31st, 1928). Answers to number 2 in all cases show the amounts as provided for in the main estimates for the fiscal year 1929-30.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	What aire the names and the present salaries of officials enjoying the rank of deputy minister or assistant deputy minister, who make use of publicly owned automobiles?
2.	How many heads of families employed in the departments of the deputy ministers referred to in the above question, receive less salary than $100 per month?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Department of Agriculture:
1.	Dr. J. H. Grisdale, deputy minister, $9,500 and use of house.
2.	Classified civil servants, 15; labourers, 186; total 201.
Public Archives:
1.	A. G. Doughty, deputy minister, $9,000; Wm. Smith, assistant deputy minister, $4,620.
2.	Nil.
Department of the Interior:
1.	W. W. Cory, deputy minister, $10,000.
2.	17.
Department of Marine and Fisheries (Marine Branch):
1.	A. Johnston, deputy minister, $10,000.
2.	124.
Department of Mines:
1. Dr. Charles Camsell, deputy minister, $9,000.
2.	Civil servants, 10; prevailing rate men, 13; total, 23.
Department of National Defence:
1.	G. J. Desbarats, deputy minister, $10,000; H. W. Brown, assistant deputy minister, $5,220.
2.	Fifty-two employees in permanent capacity; 131 employees in temporary capacity; total, 183.
Department of Public Works:
1.	J. B. Hunter, deputy minister, $10,000; R. C. Desrochers, assistant deputy minister, $5,220.
2.	Inside Service, heads of families:
Class	No.
Clerk, Grade	2	
1Clerk, Grade	1	
1Messengers	
2Museum helper	
1Outside Service:	Total number of employees who receive less than $100 per month. No information as to how many are heads
of families.
Class	No.
Firemen	 20
Cleaners and helpers	Ill
Watchmen	 21
Elevatormen	 68
Stenographers, grade 2	 3
Messenger	 1
Gardener	 1
Damkeepers	 2
Bridge motormen	 5
Lockmaster	 1
Dock and other labourers at monthly
rate	 '
Labourers whose wages are based on an hourly prevailing rate are not included.
Note: Salaries of the deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers, are as provided for in the main estimates for 1929-30.
Questions


TRANSLATING STAFFS
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	How many departments of tlie government support translating staffs?
2.	What is the number of officials concerned m each ease?
3.	What is the total cost of same?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Department of Agriculture:
1 and 2. 6 permanent, 1 temporary.
3.	$1,055 per month.
Public Archives:
1 and 2. 2.
3.	$5,280.
Auditor General:
1 and 2. One clerk engaged1 on translation work.
3.	The salary of this clerk in 1928-29 was $2,520.
Department of National Revenue:
1 and 2. 7.
3.	$13,560.
Department of External Affairs:
1 and 2. One official doing translation work.
3.	The salary for 1929-30 is $2,700. Department of Finance:
1 and 2. 2.
3.	$3,720 (annual salaries).
Department of Indian Affairs:
1 and 2. One.
3.	$3,000 per annum.
Department of Labour:
1 and 2. Three.
3.	$4,920 per annum.
Department of Marine and Fisheries:
Marine Branch
1 and 2. Two translators; three stenographers.
3.	Translators' salaries, $6,420 per annum; stenographers' salaries, $4,260 per annum; total salaries, $10,680 per annum.
Fisheries Branch 1 and 2. 1.
3.	$2,400.
Department of National Defence:
1 and 2. Four.
3.	$8,760 per annum.
Department of Mines:
1 and 2. A French translating staff is maintained. Two permanent French translators at present employed.
3.	Fiscal year 1929-30: salary of one principal translator, $2,790; salary of one senior translator, $1,920; total, $4,710.

Post Office Department:
1 and 2. Three.
3.	$7,500 per year.
Privy Council:
1 and 2. Two.
3.	Fiscal year 1928-29, $4,740.
Department of Public Works:
1 and 2. Three.
3.	$7,830 (1928-29).
Department of Railways and Canals:
1 andi 2. (a) Railways and canals, 1; (b) railway commission, 1; total, 2.
3.	1 senior translator at $2,400, railways and canals; 1 translator at $1,740, railway commission; total, $4,140.
Secretary of State Department:
1 and 2. One.
3.	$2,760.
Department of Trade and Commerce:
1 and 2. Headquarters, 2; Dominion Bureau of Statistics, 2.
3. Headquarters, $4,245 per annum; Dominion Bureau of Statistics, $4,560 per annum; total, $8,805 per annum.
Department of Immigration and Colonization :
1 and 2. Two, one of whom is temporary only.
3. One permanent translator at $1,860 per annum and one temporary senior translator at the rate of $1,920 per annum.
Pensions and National Health Department: 1 and 2. A translating staff of three: one translator, two stenographers.
3. Fiscal year 1928-29, $5,693.89.
Department of the Interior:
1 and 2. Thirteen.
3. Fiscal year 1928-29, $28,222.96.


ST. HUBERT, QUE., AIRPORT
Mr. CLARK:: 1.	Has ithe government purchased, leased, optioned or secured control of property in or near St. Hubert, east of Montreal, for the purposes of an airfield?
2.	What is the acreage of said airfield?
3.	What are its dimensions?
4.	What was the purchase price or rental value?
5.	What buildings were on the property at time of purchase?
6.	What buildings are now on the property?
7.	What was the cost of said buildings and the purpose thereof?
8.	Has a dirigible air mast or tower been erected, and at what cost?

9.	What area of 'land is reserved or to be used for dirigible purposes?
10.	Are private airplane companies privileged to use the field, and if so, what portion thereof and on what conditions?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Yes.
2.	716.09 arpents.
3.	The property is triangular in shape, the sides being 7,500 ft., 6,700 ft. and 7,770 ft. long respectively.
4.	$143,747.56 paid for 13 parcels. One lot containing 1 arpent has been expropriated but the price has not yet been determined.
5.	1 stone 'house, 4 barns and 3 small outbuildings.
6 and 7.	1 mooring tower, 1 temporary
(wooden) hangar, 1 permanent (steel) hangar, 1 wireless and meteorological hut, 1 power house for water supply and 3 temporary offices, for post office, customs house and public works, restaurant and 3 small workshops.
The farm buildings purchased with the property have not as yet been removed. A number of building structures have been undertaken, but not entirely completed, as follows:
Approx.
cost
(a)	Hangar No. 1	$ 42,000(b)	Movable wooden hangar No. 2..	8,000(c)	Pump-filter house, fire stationreservoir, including pumps and filter plant	
28,500(d)	Temporary radio hut	
2.000(e)	Office building	
2,300(f)	Two small buildings for Customs
and Immigration officers and
postal service	 800
8. (a) Yes; (b) Approximate total cost including special machinery and other equipment now in course of installation, $287,000.
9 and 10. The whole area was purchased and is available for 'handling the airship. A third of it has been prepared as an aerodrome for the use of aeroplanes. Sites may be leased. A charge is made for landing, storage and service, depending on the type of aircraft and the duration of its stay at St. Hubert.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-HOTEL AT CONSTANT SPRING, JAMAICA
Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: 1.	Has any branch of the government, including the Canadian National Railways, or Canadian National Steamships, guaranteed any bonds in connection with the company now building a hotel at Constant Spring. Jamaica, or become interested directly or indirectly in such hotel company?	_
2.	If so, to what extent, and what is the nature of the interest?
Questions


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	No department of the Dominion government or the Canadian National Railways or the Canadian National Steamships has guaranteed the bonds of the Canada-West Indies Hotels Company, Limited, which company is now building an hotel at Constant Spring, Jamaica, but the Canadian National Railways have purchased $50,000 of 7 per cent convertible notes of that company.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


DUTY ON BANANAS
Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: When does the change of duty on bananas come into effect?


James Alexander Robb: May 2, 1929.


WEST INDIAN FRUIT COMPANIES
William Anderson Black: 1 Has any department of the government or the Canadian National Railways, or Canadian National Steamships, any interest in any Iruit company or organization whatsoever in the West Indies or Jamaica, or elsewhere'
2.	If so. to what extent, and what is the nature of the liability?
3.	What is the name of the company, and
where is the head office located?	.
4.	What agencies has the company m Lan-ada or elsewhere?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	No department of the Dominion government or the Canadian National Railways oi the Canadian National Steamships has any interest in any such company.
2,	3 and 4. Answered by No. 1.


PLACE NAMES IN HONOUR OF COLONEL LINDBERGH, SIR JOHN ALCOCK AND SIR ARTHUR BROWN
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has an island or mountain been named bv the geographical board or the government, and a Canadian National station been named in honour of Colonel Lindbergh, an American
a.mtor.n precedent extended to include the most heroic work of the pioneers eight years before. Captain John Alcock. D.S.C., and Lieutenant Arthur Whitton Brown?
3.	In view of (11 and (2) aforesaid, will an island or mountain be named after these British aviators, and will a Canadian Rational station be called after them, also following precedent? If not. why not?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Department of the Interior:
1. Geographic board decisions do not include any feature named Lindbergh. In July 1927, the geographic board was informed that the owner of an island 25 acres in extent on the north shore of Lasqueti island, strait of Georgia, B.C., desired to apply the name Lindbergh to it. He was referred to the provincial

Questions
authorities. It is not known if any action was taken. On January 28, 1929, Mooswa, P.O., in Tp. 56-5-4, Alberta, was re-named Lindbergh by the Post Office Department. There is also a Lindbergh lake 15 miles long in Kenora district, Ontario. This name was placed on the map by the Department of the Interior.
2.	In April 1920, the geographic board approved Alco-ck as the name of a mountain in Cassiar district, B C. The name Brown has not been applied to any feature as there are so many existing features named Brown, that the addition of another would cause confusion.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
Department of Railways and Canals:
1.	A Canadian National station has been
named "Lindbergh" in honour of Colonel Cbas. A. Lindbergh, the first solo flier to cross the Atlantic.	[DOT]
2.	In May, 1929, the name of "Alcock" was assigned to our station at mileage 18.8 on the Ashmont-Bonnyville branch in Alberta, in honour of Sir John Alcock, the first flier t-o cross the Atlantic from Newfoundland to Ireland in 1919. This was done prior to1 assigning the name "Lindbergh". The use of the name "Brown" in honour of Sir Arthur Whitten Brown was also considered, but unfortunately it could not be used on account of several stations and post offices alreadty bearing that name in Canada. Consideration was also given to the use of the name "Whitten" but that was found to be out of the question on account of there already being a post office "Whittone" in Saskatchewan. It is a policy of the Canadian National Railways not to adopt station names that conflict with the names of any ot'heT stations or post offices in Canada.
3.	Answered by No. 2.


PRISONERS RELEASED ON PAROLE
Mr. IRVINE:: How many prisoners were released in each of the nine provinces, on parole, during the calendar year 1928?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Quebec	240
Ontario	 137
Saskatchewan	 75
Alberta	 68
Nova Scotia	 58
Manitoba	 52
British Columbia	 50
New Brunswick	 25
Prince Edward Island	 10
Total	715


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-SALES OP PROPERTY AT HALIFAX
Mr. QUINN:: 1.	Has the Canadian National Railways, the Department of Railways or any department of the government, sold any lands, houses or tenements in the city of Halifax, since the 31st of March, 1927?
2.	If so, which, and what are their respective locations?
3.	What was the amount received for each property sold?
4.	To whom were such sales, if any, made?
5.	Were the sales effected by tender or by private sale?
6.	If by tender, were tenders open to the public?
7.	If so, who tendered in each case and what were the respective tenders?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	Yes; by Department of Railways and Canals on recommendation of Canadian National Railways.
2.	Properties on the south side of Atlantic street, Nos. 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36 and 38.
3.	111,000 in all.
4.	F. W. Dickie and Samuel Buttler.
5.	By public tender.
6.	Yes.
7.	Ten tenders in all were received-five for the properties en bloc, and five for individual properties or groupings of same. The list of tenderers includes: A. J. Cote, Fried Bros., B. B. Bean, F. W. Bisset, J. H. Clark, E. Rafuse, W. G. Simpson, M. A. Miller, F. L. Weatherbe, F. WT. Dickie Co. Of the above tenders, only two cash offers covering all the properties were received, and the highest offer was also a cash offer. It is not the practice of the railway management to reveal the figures of unsuccessful tenderers.


FISHERIES EXPERIMENTAL STATION, HALIFAX
Mr. QUINN:: 1.	Does the Department of Fisheries pay the board and lodging of students attending the fisheries school at the biological or experimental station at Halifax, Nova Scotia?
2.	Does the department make an allowance to the board and lodging or maintenance of such students?
3.	If so, how and to what extent is such allowance or payment made?
4.	Does the department exercise any control over the choice of hotel or lodging houses of such students?
5.	If so, are such lodging houses selected by tender or otherwise?
6.	Did the department make inquiries of various hotels in Halifax during the current calendar year as to the rates at which the respective hotels would accommodate such students ?
7.	If so, what hotels were asked to furnish such quotations?

Questions
8.	What are the names of the hotels which
furnished quotations and what were the quotations in each case?	.
9.	Were the students referred to in question 1 allocated to or did they reside at any hotel or hotels in Halifax city?
10.	If so, at which?
11.	Why and how were these selected?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	No, but the biological board, following consideration of the matter with the department, made a grant of $45 each to fishermen who would take a six weeks course of instruction at the fisheries experimental station at Halifax, towards the cost of their maintenance during the course. These fishermen made their own arrangements for board and lodging.
2-11. Answered by No. 1.


LEASE OF BOAT FROM S. E. SEAMAN
Mr. SMITH (Cumberland):: 1.	Did the Department of Marine and Fisheries, or any other department of this government, purchase a boat from Mr. S. E. Seaman, of Wallace, Nova Scotia, during the years 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929?
2.	What price did they pay for same?
3.	For what service was said boat purchased?
4.	Did Mr. S. E. Seaman supply men to operate said boat? If so, how many, and what were the names and rate of pay to each?
5.	What amount of fuel was supplied, from whom was it purchased, stating quantity used, amount supplied and price paid, and whether same was supplied by tender or otherwise? If otherwise, state particulars.
6.	Were any provisions supplied by said Seaman? If so, give particulars as to kinds, quantities by tender or otherwise. If otherwise, state particulars.


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	No, but the Department of Marine and Fisheries hired the motor boat " Lulu T " from Mr. S. E. Seaman for about 2i months in each of the years 1927 and 1928 for lobster fisheries patrol.
2.	In 1927 at the rate of $600 per month the owner to provide and pay for the engineer and the department to supply the fuel and oil. In 1928 the rate was $400 per month, other conditions being the same.
3.	It was hired for lobster fishery patrol.
4.	Answered by No. 1.
5.	In 1927-415 gals, gasoline at 231 cents, $97.53. In 1928-435 gals, gasoline at 221 cents and 24 cents, $107.63. Purchased from the Imperial Oil Company. The above prices were the regular wholesale rate to the Dominion government.
6.	Not at the cost of the department.


NATURALIZATION CERTIFICATES
Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1. What is the total number of certificates of naturalization issued by the Secretary of State since January 1, 1927?
2.	What is the total number of such certificates issued to residents of each of the nine provinces?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Number of certificates of naturalization issued from the 1st January, 1927, to the 1st April, 1929-16,902.
2.	Naturalization is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Dominion and has no relation to the provinces, for that reason the certificates issued are not listed with respect to the provinces and the information is not available.


NATIONAL REVENUE COLLECTED AT NOVA SCOTIA PORTS
Mr. SMITH (Cumberland):: What was the amount of revenue at each of the ports of Oxford. Pugwash, Wallace. Advocate, Apple River, and River Hebert, in the county of Cumberland, province of Nova Scotia, in each of the fiscal years 1925-26, 1926-27, and 1927-28?


Mr. EULER:: 1925-26	1926-27	1927-28
Oxford-[DOT]
Import duty.. Excise taxes..	$2,820 47 . 8,109 93	$1,031 92 6,872 00	$1,033 68 5,642 27Total.. ..	.$10,930 40	$7,903 92	$6,675 95Pugwash- Import duty. Excise taxes.	. $250 81 . 444 52	$301 51 519 09	$162 89 256 45Total.. .	. $695 33	$820 60	$419 34River Hebert-Import duty. Excise taxes.	. $167 02 . 661 25	$156 65 684 98	$ 8 69 27 14Total.. .	. $828 27	$841 63	$35 83Wallace- Import duty. Excise taxes.	. S220 60 . 53 65	$404 22 107 48	$3,510 15 600 79Total.. .	. $274 25	$511 70	$4,110 94Apple River-Import duty. Excise taxes.	. $6 56 . 1 24	$4 15 89	$37 87 6 66Total.. .	. S7 80	$5 04	$44 53Advocate Harbour- Import duty.. $44 23 Excise taxes.. 8 83	$14 71 2 97	-Total.. .	.. $53 06	$17 68	-
Questions


PUBLIC WORKS-CHAR SERVICE
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	What is the total number of women cleaners engaged in Ottawa by the Public Works department?
2.	How many of these are widows?
3.	What are their working hours?
4.	Are they allowed wages in times of sickness? If so, on what conditions, and how much?
5.	What is the per diem allowance?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	779.
2.	636.
3.	Average working time two hours and one half.
4.	Yes, full time if they provide a substitute, otherwise ^ they are paid for actual working time, as in similar classes of employment at prevailing rates.
5.	$1.25.


MARINE AND FISHERIES-FISHERIES LABORATORY
Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: 
Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	A building for use as a fisheries labora tory was built there.
2.	Foundation work-R. K. Steeves, Halifax, NB. Building-A. S. MacMillan, Halifax, N.S.
3.	By tender and lowest tenders were accepted .
4.	Tenders were invited from various firms doing the class of work required.
5.	Foundation work-R. K. Steeves, Halifax,
$1,895; R. G. Beazley, Halifax, N.S., $2,200; Standard Construction Co., Halifax N.S., $2,260; W. F. Bedwin, Halifax, NS., $2,472; McDonald Construction Co., Halifax, N.S., $2,474; A. S'. MacMillan, Halifax, NS., $2,984; S. A. Marshall & Son, Halifax, Ns' $2,992.
Building-A. S. MacMillan, Halifax, N.S., $16,649; Standard Construction Co., Halifax,

XJ3., $18,212; R. G. Beazley, Halifax Dredging Co. Ltd., Halifax, N.S., $19,299.88; Keefe Construction Co., Halifax, N.S., $19,500; A. M. Stuart, Dartmouth, N.S., $21,056.
6.	Answered by No. 3.
7.	R. If. Steeves, contract for foundation, $1,895; A. S. MacMillan, contract for building, $16,649, extra for grading, $300.
8.	No.
9.	Answered by No. 8.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-PASSES TO CLERGYMEN
Mr. EVANS:: 1.	What are the names and addresses of all clergymen to whom free passes are issued on the Canadian National Railways?
2.	Why are these passes issued?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1 and 2. Clergymen as such are not entitled to free transportation on Canadian railways. The passes in question are issued on account of employees of either the Department of Colonization, Canadian National Railways, or of the Department of Immigration and Colonization, Ottawa.
The issue of this transportation is in accord with the provisions of the Railway Act and of the Immigration Act, which are applicable to all Canadian railways, and the issue of these and all other passes is subject to scrutiny by the Board of Railway Commissioners as provided by legislation.
As competing lines are not required to publish similar information, the Canadian National railways management feel that it is not in the interest of the national railways that the names and addresses of these employees should be published.


RIDEAU HALL-EMPLOYEES
Mr. EVANS:: 1.	How many government employees are kept at Rideau Hall?
2.	What are their respective names, duties and salaries?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	Thirty-eight.
2.	Name-Duties-Salaries or wages per month:
R. O. Croll, superintendent, S190 (plus house allowance).
J. E. Fagan, stenographer, $95.
A. E. Challies, head gardener, $140 (plus house allowance).
C. J. Schoenherr, greenhouseman, S120. Hubert S. Awcoek, greenhouseman, $100. Leo. A. Schroeder, greenhouseman, $120. Bertram C. Best, gardener, $90.
T. J. Smith, stationary engineer, grade 2, $125.

Unopposed Motions for Papers
A.	W. Hughes, stationary engineer, grade 2, $125.
Jos. Dicaire, fireman (seasonal), 5 months, $105.
S. Banning, fireman labourer, $105.
Philip Carpenti, fireman labourer, $105.
Leo Coyer, fireman labourer, $105.
Nap. St. Germain, fireman labourer, $105. Fred Stevenson, fireman labourer, $105. Zelph. Plouffe, fireman labourer, $105.
Mrs. Alice O'Hara, seamstress, $85.
Wm. L. Moore, upholsterer, $178.28.
Frank W. Rabbe, carpenter, $159.52.
U. Soucy, carpenter, $159.52.
Thos. Kingston, painter and paperhanger $131.36.
J. A. Handy, painter, $121.98.
Ed. McCann, plumber and fitter, S178.28.
E.	Richard, labourer, $84.44.
F.	Savard, labourer, $84.44.
N. Sarault, labourer, $84.44.
Theo. Dagenais, labourer, $84.44.
Frank Carpenti, labourer, $84.44.
Thos. Doyle, labourer, $84.44.
Jno. Letang, labourer, $84.44.
Jos. Poulin, labourer, $84.44.
Wm. Berthelette, labourer, $84.44.
Harvey Marion, labourer, $84.44.
Hermas Parent, labourer, $84.44.
J. A. Munro, labourer, $84.44.
A.	Grenier, electrician, $150.14.
Art. Wyman, teamster, 45 cents per hour. Mrs. A. Whittenberg, charwoman (part time), $2 per day.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. KENNEDY:: 1.	What elevator companies issued the socalled high powered grain tickets in: (a) the crop year of 1927-28;	(b) the crop year of
1928-29?
2.	What was the amount of grain received into store by each elevator company and for which the so-called high powered grain tickets were issued in: (a) the crop year of 1927-28; (b) the crop year of 1928-29?


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. CHURCH:: For a copy of all complaints received either by letter, telegram or otherwise, by the government or any member thereof, or by any official in relation to the periodic visits of American armed cruisers or other American craft in Canadian waters on the great lakes, or Canadian harbours, or boundary waterways, seeking enforcement of American revenue or American liquor laws, including any complaints received of said American ships firing on alleged offending vessels in Canadian waters, contrary to the
provisions of existing treaties, and a return showing what steps are being taken to protect Canadian interests and to collect damages for any breaches, if any, of treaty aforesaid.


VANCOUVER HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS-LEGAL FEES
Mr. ESLING:: For a return showing the amount paid out for legal fees by the Vancouver harbour commissioners for the years 1922 to date, and to whom the said legal fees were paid.


CANADUN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-LUNENBURG COUNTY BRANCH LINE
Mr. ERNST:: For a copy of all reports, surveys and other documents made or prepared by officials or engineers of the Halifax and South-Western Railway and/or the Canadian National Railways, or any person or persons acting on their behalf, relating to the construction, cost of construction, or anticipated revenues of a branch railway line from Riverport to Lunenburg and/or Riverport to Bridgewater, in the county of Lunenburg.


INSPECTION OF STOCK CARS
Mr. FRASER:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, memoranda or any other documents relating to the refusal of the Department of Agriculture (Health of Animals branch) to pay J. Pendrelt Smith, of Kamloops, British Columbia, for the inspection of 146 stock cars during the five months from August 1, 1926, to December 31, 1926.


INCOME TAX REFUNDS
Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River) moved:: For a return showing:
1.	The names of persons to whom refunds of not less than $500, under the Income Tax Act, have been made in the past five years, and the amount of such refund in each case.
2.	The names of all persons or corporations in arrears or default of income tax, during each of the past five years, and the amount involved in each case.


William Daum Euler: There is no disposition on my part to keep any information from the hon. member, but it is contrary to the principle laid down in section 81 of the Income Tax Act to disclose information respecting the private business of any person or concern. I hope, under the circumstances, the hon. gentleman will allow the motion to drop.


Edward Joseph Garland: I do not feel inclined to let the motion drop without a statement in regard to it. I am satisfied the time has come in this country as it has come in the United States-


Mr. SPEAKER:: The motion is not debatable. We will say: Stand.
Motions for Papers


Edward Joseph Garland: Possibly the minister could permit the amending of the motion so as to enable him to give the house the total amount of the refunds made in each of the past five years.


William Daum Euler: I will look into the matter. Motion stands.


BIENFAIT LIGNITE PLANT
Mr. THOMAS CANTLEY (Pictou) moved:: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the honourable Minister of Mines, or any officers or department of the government, and any persons or firms, in any way relating to the transfer to the Western Dominion Collieries of the rights of the Lignite Utilization Board in the Bienfait plant, undertaking or equipment; also a copy of all papers, contracts and other documents in the possession of the government in any way relating to this matter.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of Mines):: The government will be perfectly willing to bring down everything they have in their possession in accordance with the request of the hon. member, but more than one government has been interested in this plant and of course I cannot undertake to bring down documents in their possession.


Hewitt Bostock: Subject to that restriction, the motion is carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Thomas Cantley: For a copy of all agreements, contracts or releases thereof, entered into between the Minister of Mines or any department or officer of the government and Peat Fuels Limited; also a copy of all correspondence between the right honourable the Prime Minister, the honourable the Minister of Mines or any department of the government and Peat Fuels Limited, or any officer or employee of that corporation.


Charles A. Stewart: Perhaps it would be wise to let this motion stand until I have an opportunity of discussing the matter with the hon. gentleman because, while we are perfectly willing to bring down the correspondence, the motion, if passed in its present form, would necessitate bringing down a great deal of matter which is entirely foreign to the correspondence. If I could have a discussion with the hon. member, I think the motion could be amended to meet his wishes and so that all the relevant correspondence could be brought down.	.
Motion stands.


ADVISORY BOARD ON TARIFF AND TAXATION
Mr. THOMAS CANTLEY (Pictou) moved:: 1.	For a copy of report and recommendations made to the Advisory Board on Tariff and Taxation during 1927 and 1928 by Dr. W. A. McIntosh.
2.	A copy of reports of Dr. A. W. G. Wilson since 1926 on matters of metallurgical research.
3.	A copy of reports of Prof. W. R. Maxwell, when employed in 1928.
4.	A copy of reports made by J. D. Fraser since date of his employment in November, 1928.


James Alexander Robb: Frequently in the course of its inquiries the Advisory Board on Tariff and Taxation arranges with the different industries throughout Canada to send experts to examine their books with the understanding that the information will not be made public. I am sure my hon. friend and the house will at once see that if we break faith with those industries, the result will be that the activities of the board will be curtailed and it will be difficult to secure information that it is desirable the department should have in order to reach a fair conclusion. Having pointed that out to the hon. member, I hope he will drop the motion. In the first place, it is not in the public interest that we should give out this information and in the second place, to do so would be breaking faith with the different industries throughout Canada.


Thomas Cantley: I do not see why I should drop the motion. I do not think I am asking for any information to which the house is not entitled.
Motion negatived.


VANCOUVER HARBOUR DREDGING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: I should like to call attention to question No.
3 which I put on the order paper a month ago in reference to the cost of dredging for the new pier in Vancouver harbour west of the Ballantyne pier. The question is a very simple one and I think the answer ought to have been given before now. Will the minister please facilitate the answer to this question?


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: My hon. friend understands
of course, that we had to refer the question to the Vancouver harbour commission. The answer has not yet been received, but I will endeavour to expedite it.
1651.

Civil Service-Technical Officials


DISTRIBUTION OF HANSARD
Mr. J. ARTHUR DENIS (St. Denis) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, on March 6, last, the hon. member for Weyfourn (Mr. Young) presented the first report of the select standing committee to supervise the official report of the debates. The following recommendation was included in this report:
After careful consideration of the matter your committee beg leave to recommend that the present number of ten copies, four of which are delivered for the files and six for mailing purposes, be increased to twelve copies, two of which shall be for the files and ten. copies and no more for distribution by the King's Printer in accordance with names and addresses supplied by members of the House of Commons to the Editor of Debates, House of Commons.
Since that date, sir, French-speaking members do not receive Hansard at their rooms, while English-speaking members do. It strikes me that this is an unfair treatment towards the French-speaking members. For the last fifteen days I have in vain requested the Clerk of the House of Commons to have a copy addressed to my room. It seems to me that we should be placed on an equal footing with the English-speaking members, and that we should not be required to fill out certain forms in order to have Hansard sent to our rooms in the House of Commons.


Hewitt Bostock: I am informed that formal instructions have been given to the King's Printer that Hansard be sent to French-speaking members at the same time as they are to English-speaking members.


WELFARE OF PRISONERS' WIVES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. B. ADSHEAD (East Calgary):: Every year since I have been here I have asked the government what they intend to do in regard to the care of prisoners' wives, and I have always received the answer that the matter is receiving the careful consideration of the government. Would the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) be good enough to tell the house if any progress ha9 been made in that direction beyond further consideration?


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: The matter is still under consideration.


CIVIL SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: May I ask the right hon. the
Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) or the hon.'Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) whether they will lay on the table a copy of the order in council to which reference was made yesterday respecting the appointment of three gentlemen to deal with the question of salaries of the professional and technical employees of the government?


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Speaker, I beg to table the order in council appointing Mr. E. W. Beatty, Sir George Garneau, and Doctor Murray to inquire into and report on the question of salaries of the professional and technical officers of the civil service.
REJECTIONS UNDER CIVIL SERVICE ACT-INQUIRY FOR RETURN *
On the orders of the day:


Edward Joseph Garland: On
April 8 last the following motion was passed by this house:
For a return showing the names of persons appointed by the Civil Service Commission who have been rejected under section 24 of the Civil Service Act, in each department, for the last three years, with reason for the rejection in each case.
I would like to ask if that return, is not yet ready to be brought down. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that it is ready so far as some departments are concerned. As we require this information for discussion on the estimates, I would ask that the tabling of the return be expedited.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I understand that my hon. friend
alludes to a return from the Civil Service Commission. I shall endeavour to find out from them whether the return is ready, and shall table it at the earliest possible moment.


CUSTOMS AND EXCISE PROSECUTIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):: Last year some questions were directed from this corner of the house to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler) asking if it was the intention of the department to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Customs and Excise, in which they recommend that prosecution be entered against Harry Bronfman. May I ask if the department have considered that case?


Ernest Lapointe: If my hon. friend will agree, this will serve as a notice and I will endeavour to give him the information to-morrow.
1652	COMMONS
Simcoe Postmastership-Mr. Stewart (Leeds)


EXPLANATION-MR. POWER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):: My
attention has been called to the fact, though I have not yet been able to locate it in Hansard, that I committed a serious historical mistake in the course of my remarks yesterday in that I ascribed the building of the pyramids to one King Herod. My recollection of King Herod is that he was not mixed up with that, but with a lady by the name of Salome. The idea which I intended to convey was that the commission might very well ask questions in which the historical relations of people would be as much mixed as the words which I used in that connection yesterday. f



SUPPLY-SIMCOE POSTMASTERSHIP

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Mr. H. A. STEWART (Leeds):: 1654	COMMONS
Simcoe Postmastership-Mr. Stewart (Leeds)
and it is felt that before he is definitely eliminated on this ground, a careful examination of this aplicant should be made.
Officials of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment have also manifested interest in this case and for this reason it is suggested that this department be represented.
We understand that Mr. Whittaker is prepared to come to Ottawa at his own expense, for the purpose of being orally examined.
Yours truly,
J. C. G. Herwig, Canadian Legion of the B.E.S.L.
Mr. VENI'OT: What is the date?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: April 3, 1928. The next relevant letter which I find in the file, in answer to that, is one from the Deputy Postmaster General dated April 18, 1928. I do not know just how the letter got to the Deputy Postmaster General because, as I have said, the file appears to be in some respects incomplete. However, on April 18 we find the Deputy Postmaster General writing to the Hon. Doctor W. J. Roche, chairman of the Civil Service Commission, as follows: Dear Doctor Roche:
The attention of this department has been called to a letter for-warded to the Civil Service Commission on the 3rd instant by Mr. J. C. G. Herwig _ of the Canadian Legion, in which application is made for the special examination at Ottawa of Mr. George Edward Whittaker in connection with his application for appointment to the vacant postmastership at Simeoe.
This matter has been carefully discussed, and, in the opinion of this department, there would be no object in agreeing to the proposition outlined by Mr. Herwig. According to the inspector's report, Mr. Whittaker, an amputation ease and therefore entitled to every sympathy on the part of this department, has been re-established, and therefore his claim can only be considered in common with which are usually known as class B.
According to the inspector's report, there are other returned soldier candidates belonging to this class B who have superior qualifications to Mr. Whittaker, and, as the latter is apparently not entitled to the disability preference, it does not seem that special action is called for in his behalf.
Moreover, the experience of this department shows that it is very difficult to form an exact opinion of the physical capacity of an applicant in cases of this nature, and that it is onlir by actual performance of the duties that the applicant's qualifications in that respect can be judged.
Even assuming that Mr. Whittaker is capable of performing the post office duties at Simcoe, as pointed out hereabove, it does not seem that the aspect of the matter would be materially changed in view of the fact that there are other competitors better qualified.
In the opinion of the department, therefore, the interest of the service or the requirements of the case do not demand the special action requested by the Canadian Legion.
This matter has been brought to the personal attention of the Postmaster General.
Yours sincerely,
L. J. Gaboury.

So that the proposition for a special examination of this man was absolutely rejected and he was not given an opportunity, although the Deputy Postmaster General points out that it is only by actual trial that the man's capacity can be proved. The man was not given any such trial. Then the Civil Service Commission, after having seen Mr. Whittaker, appointed him on May 29, 1928. He was rejected by the Post Office Department on June 27, 1928. The only reason I find in the file is that the appointment is marked "rejected," and Mr. C. R. Bowyer was appointed on July 23, 1928.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to give to the house Mr. Whittaker's sworn statement in this transaction:
Dominion of Canada Province of Ontario County of Norfolk To Wit:
In the matter of the appointment of a Postmaster for the town of Simcoe, Province of Ontario.
I, George E. Whittaker, of the town of Simcoe, in the county of Norfolk, do solemnly declare:
1.	I am 30 years of age, I was married in 1920 and have two children aged seven and three years, respectively.
2.	That I enlisted as a member of the Canadian Forces in the month of May, 1916, when I was sixteen years of age and attending St. Andrew's college in the city of Toronto.
3.	About a month after my enlistment I proceeded overseas and in the month of October, 1916, was sent to France and subsequently became a member of the 22nd battery on the Somme.
4.	In the spring of 1917 this battery moved up to Vimy Ridge and at the end of the month of May. 1917, I was wounded in action at Thelus Wood and as a result sustained the loss of both my legs, my left leg being amputated below the ankle and my right leg below the knee.
5.	I returned to Canada in the month of December, 1917, and am in receipt of a 100 per cent disability pension.
6.	Iin the month of March. 1927, in answer to public advertisement by the Civil Service Commission, I made formal application to such commission to be appointed postmaster at the town of Simcoe.
7.	In the month of April, 1927, I went to Ottawa to personally interview the commission in order that the members thereof should be better able to judge of my ability to discharge the duties of the office for which I had made application. The two members of the commission whom I interviewed were surprised that I w-as able to move about so freely and promised to give my application their careful consideration.
8.	While in Ottawa I was introduced to the Hon. Peter J. Veniot, Postmaster General, and, after explaining to him the purpose of my visit to Ottawa, he suggested that we walk together along a corridor of the House of Commons in order that lie might be able to judge of my ability to walk about. I complied with his suggestion and he then said that he could
APRIL 17, 1929	R555
Sim.coe Postmaster ship-Mr. Stewart (Leeds)
not see anything in my condition that would prevent me from discharging the duties of the office for which I applied. He also stated that, as the Civil Service Commission gave a preference to disabled men. I should have an excellent chance of securing the appointment, and I rvas assured that he had no objection to such appointment.
Nearly a year later, and in the month of April, 1928, Mr. Murray, post office inspector from London, interviewed me regarding my disability, he having also interviewed me nearly a year previously.
I have since been informed that this inspector had reported that if I should be appointed it might be necessary to appoint an extra clerk. I then informed the member of parliament for the county in which Simcoe is situated that if I received the appointment, and it should appear after a fair trial that an extra clerk was required, I was prepared to pay the cost of such service.
About a month later I was informed that the appointment would likely soon be made and that one Charles R. Bowyer was likely to receive the same. After receiving this information I again went to Ottawa and had another interview with the Civil Service Commission and with the Postmaster General. On my second visit the Postmaster General regarded my disability more seriously than on the occasion of my first visit, but assured me several times that the Civil Service Commission had absolute control of the appointment.
About the 1st of June, 1928, I received from the Civil Service Commission notification of my appointment as Postmaster at Simcoe and, after receiving this notice, I disposed of the business which I had been carrying on, relying upon the appointment of which I had received notice.
About a month after I had received my notification of appointment, and after I had sold my business, I was informed by a newspaper reporter that the said Charles R. Bowyer had received notification of his appointment. I then interviewed him and he produced his notification and stated that he knew he was going to get the appointment before I sold my busines and had desired to speak to me about the matter but had been warned by some of his friends not to do so.
I have been informed and verily believe that my appointment as such postmaster was rejected by the Postmaster General, although I was not given an opportunity to prove that I could discharge the duties of the office to which I had been appointed.
I then wrote an open letter to the press setting forth my position and subsequently a gentleman prominent in the ranks of the Liberal party came to me and communicated an offer of a political appointment in Brantford, Ontario, on condition that I would agree not to discuss the matter any further and that I would sign a letter to be prepared for me absolving the Liberal party of all blame in connection with the cancellation of my appointment. I declined to accept this offer and subsequently the offer of this position was renewed without any condition, but I again declined to accept the position.
I have been informed and verily believe that, between the date of my appointment and the date of the appointment of the said Charles R. Bowyer, an inspector of the Post Office department came to Simcoe to interview me but, for some reason, did not do so after interviewing some other parties here.
At the time I received my appointment the postal staff at Simcoe consisted of a postmaster and five clerks and recently advertisement for an additional clerk has been posted.
Before making my application to the Civil Service Commission I made careful inquiries to ascertain the nature and extent of the duties of the postmaster at Simcoe and obtained full knowledge thereof. I am well satisfied that, notwithstanding my physical disability. I could discharge all the duties of the said office satisfactorily to the public and to all concerned. I am informed and verily believe that the Amputations Association has recommended to the Civil Service Commission that postal work is most suitable for men of my class.
I am informed and verily believe that under the provisions of the Civil Service Act I was entitled to be given a trial on probation to determine my suitability for the position to which I was appointed. Section 24 of the said act reads as follows:
"The deputy head may at any time before the expiration of six months reject any person appointed to any position under his control or he may extend the period of probation within which such person may be rejcted for another six months; and the cause of rejection or the reason for extending the period of probation shall be reported by the deputy head to the commission."
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true and knowing that it is of the same force and effet as if made under oath and by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act.
Declared before me at the town of Simcoe, in the county of Norfolk, in the province of Ontario, this 11th day of April, A.D. 1929.
(Sgd.) G. E. Whittaker.
(Sgd.) Harold L. Osborne,
A commissioner &e.
I have endeavoured to place before the house the bare facts of this transaction; I have not left out anything which I consider relevant, and I submit that the provisions of the Civil Service Act which I have read have been disregarded and overridden by the Postmaster General in a harsh and arbitrary manner. I submit that the plain provision of our law giving a special preference to disabled returned soldiers has been disregarded equally ruthlessly. The report was held back from the Civil Service Commission for a period of six months, and it is quite clear what was happening during that period; the gentleman who was subsequently appointed was being given an opportunity to acquire a residence in the town of Simcoe, which the inspector reported he did not have, in order that the Postmaster General might be able to insist that this man was qualified for the appointment, In the file there is a letter written from the Post Office Department to the Civil Service Commission calling attention to the fact that this gentleman, Mr. Charles Rex Bowyer, was then a resident or should1 be considered a resident of Simcoe. On the same file there is also a letter from Mr. Bowyer
1656	COMMONS
Simcoe Postmastership-Mr. Stewart (Leeds)
which is very ambiguous and which does not categorically and specifically answer the report of the post office inspector to the Postmaster General with regard to his residence. It is not at all clear; to the contrary, I think it is very plain that this gentleman was not a resident of Simcoe and was so disqualified, but for some reason which does not appear the Postmaster General seemed determined to have this man appointed. The question naturally arises:	Why was that attitude
taken? Why was the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission rejected? Why was the offer of a special examination made by this man and the Canadian Legion so summarily rejected, even though the deputy stated that the only way to find out whether or not this man could discharge the duties of the position was by a trial? Why was not this man given a chance? I feel, Mr. Speaker, that an important principle is involved in this matter. There has been a plain violation of the provisions of the statute, and we must consider whether the statutes of this parliament may be violated in this way, whether the spirit and intent of the act shall be observed, or whether, under some pretext, they may be defeated as has been done in this instance.
I draw attention to this matter because it is not an isolated case; returns have been brought down here time after time showing similar actions on the part of the Postmaster General. I think the house will agree with me that this case deserves some consideration and, as I have said, I have endeavoured to present the case fairly and to bring out all the relevant facts. I submit those facts to the consideration of the house and, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Stinson), I beg to move the following amendment:
That all the words after the word "that" in the motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"In the opinion of this house the Postmaster General has acted in a most arbitrary manner and in utter disregard of the letter and the spirit of the Civil Service Act in connection with the recent appointment of a 'postmaster at the town of Simcoe."


Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed indebted to the hon. member for having brought up this matter, but I am sorry that he brought it up in the manner in which he did. In replying to the remarks of the hon. member, I will first refer to the last remark he made. He said, " I have placed fairly before the house the facts; I have not left out anything that is relevant to the case." I wish to point out to the house that the hon. member has left out a good deal which is rele-

vant to the case, and which is to be found in the file, a copy of which he has in his possession.
For instance, the hon. member did not read to the house the reasons which were given for sending an inspector a second time to Simcoe. The Toronto Globe, in dealing with that feature of the case, accused the Postmaster General of sending an inspector the second time in an endeavour to find something against Whittaker so that he could satisfy his political friends around the town of Simcoe. What are the facts? It is true that this report was held back by the department-I will deal with that feature of it a little later- but it is equally true that the report was held back by the Civil Service Commission for seven months 'before they took any action in the matter. While they received that report from the department in October, it was not until some time in the month of February, I believe the 18th, that the Civil Service Commission wrote a letter to the Deputy Postmaster General requesting that he again send an inspector to Simcoe to interview Mr. Whittaker. They stated that the first report was not sufficiently definite as to Mr. Whittaker's physical Ability to perform the duties of that office. On receipt of that request from the Civil Service Commission, an inspector was sent there the second time. It is a source of pain to me to have to contradict a portion of Mr. Whittaker's affidavit, but the facts are against him. In his affidavit he states that an inspector had gone there the second time but had not seen him. That is quite true, but Mr. Whittaker forgot to state that when the inspector went there on February 28th, 1928, to interview him he discovered that Mr. Whittaker was in the hospital at Toronto. As soon as he ascertained that Mr. Whittaker had returned on the 3rd or 5th of March, he went again to Simcoe and presented a report to the Civil Service Commission, which report the hon. member did not read to the house. I would like to read a letter dated February 18, 1928, from the Civil Service Commission to the Deputy Postmaster General. The hon. member did not read this letter, but I will do so. It is as follows:
With reference to the postmastership at Simcoe, Ontario, I am directed by the commission to say that we will be prepared to select Mr. George E. Whittaker for this position, provided the department feels that he possesses the necessary physical fitness to perform the duties.
Then it continues.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Read it all.

Simcoe Postmastership-Mr. Veniot


Peter John Veniot: The hon. member need not be so anxious; I will read it all. The letter continues:
I am to point out that the commission is endeavouring, in common with the Post Office department, to provide for seriously handicapped cases to as great a degree as possible, and postmasters haive been mentioned as particularly suitable employment for such applications. In this case the Amputation Association is strongly supporting Mr. Whittaker, as well as the Department of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment. if his disability will not prevent the proper discharge of his duty. I should be glad, therefore, if the department could furnish the commission with a definite report at as early a date as possible with reference to Mr. Whittaker's physical fitness for the postmastership.
That was on February 18, and there was no time lost. An inspector who was qualified to make a report as to the physical, mental and other qualifications of the applicant was sent there on February 28. He did not find Mr. Whittaker at home, but he returned again on the 3rd or 5th of March, and then presented a report, which report the hon. member did not read to the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the date of that report?


Peter John Veniot: The hon. gentleman will get it in a minute if he will just take his time The report is dated March 5, and is as follows:
With reference to the memorandum from the chief superintendent of postal services, and the note from the Civil Service Commission regarding the physical fitness of Mr. Whittaker, an applicant for the Simcoe postmastership; I would say that on the 3rd instant I again interviewed Mr. Whittaker and would say that his right leg is amputated just below the knee,-
Then I break in with the letter.
M. GUTHRIE: Read it all.


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: He has only forty minutes.


Peter John Veniot: I have more than forty minutes. The report continues:
I again visited Mr. Whittaker and would say that his right leg is amputated three inches below the knee, his left at the ankle, and he walks with the use of a cane.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: "Without" the
use of a cane.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If we were not checking the hon. minister he would get away with that.


Peter John Veniot: I am not trying to get away with certain facts like some hon. gentlemen I know.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And a minister of the crown too.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Shame.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It makes all the difference in the world.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The difference between yes and no.


Peter John Veniot: The report continues:
He said he was with the St. Williams jam factory three years during which time he was away for one month with a blister on a stump, also that he has to go to Toronto frequently for adjustment of his appliances. He stated it would be impossible for him to do any heavy lifting.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Heavy lifting?


An hon. MEMBER:: Are letters so heavy?


Peter John Veniot: I did not interrupt the hon. gentleman. The report continues:
If the Simcoe post office were a revenue post office the post master might if necessary, hire an additional clerk to perform the necessary work in connection. . . but in the case of a class 2B post office like Simcoe what is required is a working postmaster. If the department requires a working postmaster at Simcoe then my opinion is that an additional mail clerk would be necessary in the event of Mr. Whittaker's appointment, as he is not physically capable of performing any heavy duties.
Mr. ROY1S: How does he know?


Peter John Veniot: That report is signed by the inspector.


Mr. BOYS:: Why did he not give him a chance?


Peter John Veniot: Does the hon. member
want to make a speech now?


Mr. CLARK:: Tell us his duties.


Peter John Veniot: Prior to the vacancy
occurring in Simcoe, Simcoe was an ordinary revenue office and its classification was changed to a class 2B office. Under the classification of an ordinary revenue office, which Simcoe was prior to the vacancy, the postmaster receives a salary and commission and employs his own help.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And the classification was changed after the application was made.


Peter John Veniot: No. The hon. gentleman
is not stating the exact truth. I do not mean that offensively at all.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But the Postmaster General will admit that the change to Class 2B took place after the application was made.


Peter John Veniot: As a matter of regulation
Simcoe dropped into class 2B when the vacancy occurred and, as a consequence, it was so advertised. Hon. members will see by
1658	COMMONS
Simcoe Postmastership-Mr. Veniot
the notice that applications were called for a postmaster in a class 2B office. That being the case, the class 2B postmaster comes directly under the Civil Service Commission and his salary is classed at S2,040 per annum as a minimum. He no longer has power to engage his help. That is done through the Civil Service Commission on the recommendation of the department as to the number required to carry on the work of the office. The Civil Service Commission regulates the salary and the number of employees in the office. That is why the inspector, in sending in his final report, stated that if we required a working postmaster, a class 2B postmaster, then Mr. Whittaker, on account of his disability, was not fitted for the position. The work of a class 2B postmaster is continuous from the time the office opens in the morning until it closes at night with the exception of the hours that he takes off for his meals. The class 2B postmaster as well as his assistants must handle mail bags and in this case there is onfy one male assistant, the others being lady assistants. When the condition of affairs was pointed out by the inspector to Mr. Whittaker, the latter stated that, according to that report, he did not feel he was physically fit to do that heavy work. I happened to go to Simcoe. I had been invited to go there months before this incident took place.


Mr. GOTT:: On a political mission?


Peter John Veniot: If it was on a political
mission, it would not have been different from what I know my hon. friends did on certain visits to the Civil Service Commission. One thing they can never accuse me of is going on a mission to the Civil Service Commission.


Eccles James Gott: I deny that I ever went on
a political mission to the Civil Service Commission.


Peter John Veniot: I do not say the hon.
member did. Of course my hon. friend has endeavoured to throw me off the track of my argument, but I will try to get back to it.


Eccles James Gott: Why does the minister make
an assertion like that?


Peter John Veniot: Because I can back it up.


Eccles James Gott: Let him give the evidence.


Peter John Veniot: I went to Simcoe, being
invited there before anything in connection with the Simcoe office took place. The people of Simcoe were giving a dinner in honour of their representative and I had accepted an invitation to attend the banquet and give an address. W'hen this matter came up, the Toronto Globe and other newspapers

starting hitting pretty heavily at the Postmaster General, but I have fairly broad shoulders and I bore up under it pretty well. It never made me lose any sleep or anything of that kind, because I felt I was acting as I should act and in justice to all. I did not at that time intend to carry out the promise to assist at that banquet until some of the newspapers twitted me and' said that I did not have the courage to meet the people of Simcoe. I went there and I want to say to the credit of the people of Simcoe that never before in all my political career of thirty-five years did I receive a heartier or warmer reception.


An hon. MEMBER:: The press did not say
so.


Peter John Veniot: Of course the hon. member may have his opinion of the people of Simcoe. I have a very high one. I addressed a gathering that night of 1,200 people and while I preferred discussing other subjects, I discussed the Simcoe matter. Mr. Whittaker was in the audience and I discussed the matter without any recrimination whatever. I pointed out the facts just as they were and when I came to the second report of the inspector, in reply to the criticism of the Globe that I had sent the inspector a second time in order to justify myself, and to prove that I had nothing to do with the matter, and that the statement in the press that the inspector had gone there and had never visited or interviewed Mr. Whittaker, was wrong I read that report as I have read it in the house. As I say, Mr. Whittaker was in the audience and I asked him whether that interview was correct or not. I there and then made the statement that if that were not correct and if the inspector had reported what was false; if Mr. Whittaker would tell me at the meeting or come to me after the meeting and show me it was false, I would have the inspector dismissed inside of twenty-four hours. Mr. WTuttaker never said a word in the meeting. He met me after the meeting and he did not attempt to contradict anything contained in that report.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: He has since
contradicted it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Under oath.


Peter John Veniot: Not under oath.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have not said, "under oath."


Peter John Veniot: Not under oath, because
under oath he does not refer to the visit of the 3rd of March. He refers only to the visit

Simcoe Postmastership-Mr. Veniot
somewhere around the 18th or 20th of February. Therefore he did not contradict the report, and he cannot contradict it.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: He has contradicted the minister's account of what occurred at the meeting.


Peter John Veniot: I make the statement that
that took place at the meeting. Does the hon. member wish to contradict that?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not know.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Whittaker contradicts it.


Peter John Veniot: If the hon. member for
Leeds does not know, I think, if I may say so without wishing to be impolite, that he ought to keep silent.


Charles A. Stewart: I know what
Mr. Whittaker said.


Peter John Veniot: I do not want to discuss
the matter with any heat if I can avoid doing so, although I feel I have been wrongly criticized.


Eccles James Gott: With or without occasion?


Peter John Veniot: I do not think my hon.
friend can complain very much of the Postmaster General.
Let me point out one other matter on which the hon. member for Leeds forgot to enlighten this house. He says that I acted in direct violation of the Civil Service Act; that under that act six months' probation or trial must be given to every successful applicant. I want to say to my hon. friend that if he had read all the documents on that file, and I think he did, he would have found a decision on that point given by no other than our friends opposite when they were in power in 1919. What is that decision? The Civil Service Commission was attempting to enforce that section of the act with reference to the six months' probation to which my hon. friend has referred, and the Tory government of that day, no doubt for political reasons, asked the Justice department to give a ruling on the point because they did not agree with the commission. Before giving that ruling, I will quote the section of the act. Subsection 1 of section 13 of the Civil Service Act of 1918, which is the same provision which my hon. friend quoted, reads:
The deputy head may at any time before the expiration of six months reject any person assigned or appointed to any position under his control or direction, or he may extend the period of probation within which such person may be rejected for another six months; and the cause of rejection, or the reason for extending the period of probation, shall be reported by the deputy head to the commission.
My hon. friend chose very carefully to stop reading right at that point, and that is the gentleman who wishes to give all the facts and details to the house. But let me go further. Let me show wherein the hon. gentleman erred and was not fair in his presentation of his case. Let me show that he was not fair when he attempted to say that I had acted in this matter in violation of the Civil Service Act. What do we find? Here is a ruling of the Department of Justice, dated December 9, 1919, asked for by the Tory government and given by a Tory department of justice, not by a Liberal department of justice. What do they say in that ruling? Here it is:
If the deputy be reasonably satisfied_ upon preliminary examination of the person nominated that the latter is unsuitable or not qualified for the duties of the office or employment to which he is assigned, I think he may, if he thinks it advisable, reject him without entrusting him with the charge of any duties; otherwise it is conceivable that' eases of considerable prejudice to the public service may arise.
There is the opinion of the Justice department.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Will the Postmaster General allow me a question? Does he say that that ruling is on this file?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Where is it?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: If he does, I
wish to say to him that he is mistaken. It is not on this file.


Peter John Veniot: It may not be.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then why say it wasf


Peter John Veniot: I had not the file in my
hand.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But you said it was on
the file, and you charged the hon. member for Leeds with deceiving the house.


Peter John Veniot: One moment, please. The
hon. member for Leeds asked me a question and I am going to answer him.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Postmaster General has charged me with bad faith in not disclosing to this house the ruling which he has just read, and which he said was on this file, but which I now tell him is not on this file, and I had no knowledge of it.


Peter John Veniot: Is the hon. gentleman
going to make a speech?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think the Postmaster General ought to accept my statement and withdraw any charge of unfairness or misrepresentation of the facts against me. I want to assure him that I have tried to present the facts fairly.
1660	COMMONS
Simcoe Postmastership-Mr. Veniot


Peter John Veniot: Since the hon. gentleman
says that I was mistaken in saying that that ruling was on the file, and he now states that it is not on the file, I certainly accept his statement, but I wish to point out to the hon. gentleman that ignorance of the law is no excuse.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Peter John Veniot: When the hon. gentleman
was preparing his brief to submit to this house he should have gone fully into everything connected with this matter.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Peter John Veniot: Let me go one step further.


Mr. MACDONALD (Richmond):: Where
are the files?


John Arthur Clark: The Postmaster General has no more teeth to put into it.


Peter John Veniot: There is one thing perhaps I can boast of; I think I have as much brains to spare as the hon. gentleman, if not more.


Mr. HANSON:: You have a good opinion of yourself.


Peter John Veniot: I take it that this is a little friendly banter, and I know that hon. gentlemen opposite who are interjecting will be sports enough to take my interjections in the same spirit.
Let me go a step further. I am told that the certificate issued by the Civil Service Commission should be accepted as a direct appointment of the applicant to the position, and that there is nothing which proves otherwise. Now, what does the notice contain which is sent out to the successful applicant who has qualified as eligible for the position? This is what it says-


Mr. CAHAN:: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Postmaster General has read from what purported to be an opinion of the Justice department. Having read from that opinion it is his duty to table it, so that it may be available for hon. members to read.


Peter John Veniot: I do not know that I will
unless the Chair says so. I do not think that is a proper point of order. However, I have no objection whatever to tabling it since that has been requested-not that I consider it a proper point of order-as soon as I have had the opinion of the Justice department properly certified. I have not got it here properly certified, but I know it is correct because I copied it myself.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I suggest that the hon.
gentleman lay on the table what he is reading from.
[Mr. H. A. Stewart.}


Peter John Veniot: I have no objection whatever to tabling it after I get through using it, although I am not compelled to do so. I was going on to refer to the certificate.


An hon. MEMBER:: Do not leave any
words out.


Peter John Veniot: That was only a slip of the tongue, not a slip of the mind.


Finlay MacDonald: My hon. friend the Postmaster General has referred to that very point on many an occasion. I may say that for my part I have not been educated along the line that I make slips that serve my own purpose.


Peter John Veniot: I think the hon. gentleman ought to be asked to take back those words, Mr. Speaker, if by those words he meant that I made a slip of the tongue here to-day to serve my purpose. That is unparliamentary, and I shall not go on with my speech until I get a ruling from the Chair.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: It is a well-known rule that the word of an hon. member must be accepted. The hon. minister in making his statement said it was merely a slip of the tongue, and his word in that respect must be accepted by the hon. member.


Eccles James Gott: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. You gave a ruling; then I asked the Postmaster General to accept my word and retract the intimation that he hurled at me.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Eccles James Gott: What do you want?


Charles Gavan Power: Show your education.


William Gordon Ernst: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman in his remarks made no reference whatever to the Postmaster General.


John Frederick Johnston: I take it that the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Macdonald) was referring to a statement made by the Postmaster General..


An hon. MEMBER:: He was not.


Peter John Veniot: Let him say so.
Sonne hon. MEMBERS: Withdraw.


Peter John Veniot: If the hon. member for Richmond in the remark he made was not referring to me, then I think he ought to say so and not leave another hon. gentleman to say it for him.

Simcoe Postmastership-Mr. Veniot


Eccles James Gott: But the Postmaster General-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


An hon. MEMBER:: Come on, Richmond.


John Frederick Johnston: Order. I think the hon. member for Richmond should be ready to comply with that request. If he was not referring to the Postmaster General, it is an easy matter for him to say so.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, bosh.


Mr. GEARY:: Do I understand the ruling of the chair to be that because an hon. member has made some reference which some other hon. member may apply to himself if he choose, the hon. member making the reference must withdraw it? He has not indicated anybody.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Take it back.


John Frederick Johnston: Order. I heard the hon. Postmaster General reading from a document, and it was charged that he had left out the word "without", referring to some gentleman using a cane. I also heard the statement of the hon. member for Richmond, and I took it that he was referring to that incident.
Some hon. MEMBERS': No.


John Frederick Johnston: If he was not, it is for the hon. gentleman to say so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He does not have to say so.


An hon. MEMBER:: Let him say so.


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Speaker, you have given your ruling, and until that ruling is obeyed by the hon. member, or reversed by this house, I do not think I should be called upon to go on with this debate.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


An hon. MEMBER:: Suit yourself.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


John Frederick Johnston: I do not feel that any injustice is being done to the hon. member for Richmond. I think Hansard will show that I am justified in asking him to say whether or not he referred to the hon. Postmaster General.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Absolutely no.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Speaker has no such right.


An hon. MEMBER:: Stand up, Richmond.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker has no right to cross-question a member of the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) will tell you that the Speaker's function is not to cross-examine a member as to what he said.


Mr. MARCIL:: In answer to the leader
of the opposition, I may say it is the invariable custom of the house that the ruling of the Speaker is not subject to debate, but may be appealed from.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no ruling.


John Frederick Johnston: I rule that in
my opinion the hon. member for Richmond did refer to the Postmaster General, and I ask him now to withdraw his statement as applied to the Postmaster General.


Finlay MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the remark I made was not applied to the Postmaster General. It referred to a certain statement which he made in reference to my mentality.


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to accept the hon. gentleman's statement,. I am very sorry indeed if-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Peter John Veniot: One moment. I am very
sorry indeed if any reference of mine to the mentality of the hon. gentleman has offended him.


An hon. MEMBER:: Well, withdraw it.


Peter John Veniot: I would be the last person
in the world to do so; but the hon. gentleman must not forget that there was considerable banter being exchanged across the floor, and if he is not sport enough to take, as well as give, some of it, it is not my fault.


Finlay MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Ernest Lapointe: That is enough.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Speaker is responsible.	[DOT]


Finlay MacDonald: I think
my hon. friend should go a little further,-


John Frederick Johnston: Is the hon.
member rising to a point of order?


Finlay MacDonald: Yes. I
think my hon. friend should go a little further as regards his remarks to certain members on this side of the house; he should withdraw those remarks.


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Speaker, when this
interruption took place I was referring to the certificate generally issued by the Civil Service Commission. This is what I find-
1662	COMMONS
Simcoe Post mastership-Mr. Veniot


Eccles James Gott: That is where I come in.


Peter John Veniot: I never referred to my hon. friend.


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
point of order. Surely the minister should be given an opportunity to make his speech to the house. During the last fifteen minutes there have been continuous interruptions.


Peter John Veniot: Perhaps hon. gentlemen
opposite do not want any speech. If so, there is one way open to them, and it is quite easy. There are old enough parliamentarians opposite to know what I mean by that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that a threat?


Peter John Veniot: Now, I find the following
in this certificate from the Civil Service Commission :
bins is to certify that you have been selected to fill the position named above after examination in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Act. 1918. as amended, and of the rules and regulations thereunder, and that you are qualified to be appointed on probation at the Salary shown above.
That is as far as the Civil Service Commission can go. But "appointment on probation" was in 1919 interpreted by the Justice department to mean that the deputy minister, who has the power to refuse a certificate, is not compelled to place anyone on probation. But allow me to read the next paragraph:
1*16050 note that no arrangements should be made to report for duty until instructed to do so by the Post Office Department. In this connection your attention is especially called to section 15 of the Civil Service Act and to the interpretation of that section as given by the law' officers of the crown as quoted below.
Here it is, and this is what I say was on the file that the hon. gentleman had before him.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the Postmaster
General permit a question there?


Peter John Veniot: Certainly'.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am asking this for the
sake of accuracy. I have before me the file, and in it I find, "Copy P.O. 37882 certificate of appointment of postmaster." I presume that this is the document to which the Postmaster General refers. It is addressed to Charles Rex Bowyer. Is that the one?


Peter John Veniot: No, I am reading from
the Whittaker one.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is no reference on
this form-


Peter John Veniot: It is the Whittaker one.
Now, the fourth clause in small type at the 
bottom of that certificate issued by the Civil Service Commission contains the ruling of the Justice department. It is here, and I will pass it to the hon. gentleman if he wishes.
_ Mr. STEVENS:	On this form I do not
find those words; that is all.


Peter John Veniot: At the time this controversy took place in the press all these points were brought out and published, and I am surprised if the hon. gentleman did not notice it. I know that from expressions of opinion I have heard this afternoon from the opposite side any statement I may make regarding my attitude towards the returned soldiers may be taken with a good deal of doubt by my hon. friends. But I want to say this: No man has a higher regard for the returned soldiers than I have. I had occasion during the war to pass many sleepless and worried nights because of my own boys who were fighting at the front; and xvhen such newspapers as the Toronto Globe and the London Free Press have seen fit to ask the public, "What has this man Veniot or his family ever done for Canada?" I think that to-day I may be excused if I make a personal reference to myself and my family in order to dispel that feeling which these newspapers are trying to spread abroad, that I acted as I did in connection with the Simcoe matter because I was antagonistic to returned soldiers being properly treated.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to go back to the records of the militia department, turning to the year 1915. The records then will show what the Veniot family did in the last war, beginning immediately after its outbreak. It will show that two of my sons went to the front and won their spurs on the battle field. It will show that the old man himself, when he felt that the enemy was pressing us, had enlisted to go to the front and was turned down for political reasons. It will show that two of my other sons, who are medical men, enlisted and that because they had to receive the title of honorary captain they too were turned down and others taken in their place. It will show that in 1917, when the destiny of the empire hung in the balance and it was thought necessary by some that conscription should be enforced, I gave my services to Canada and Great Britain free, and that I enlisted no less than almost one whole battalion of the French Acadian people of my native province. And it never cost the Dominion of Canada one dollar for my services. A public meeting was called in the town of Bathurst where I resided and the town council was asked to vote $500 for ex-

Simcoe Postmastership-Mr. Veniot
penses to keep up a recruiting office; and we were asked to name a volunteer recruiting officer who would give his time free. I was not blessed very much with the goods of this world; I could not contribute large amounts in cash to help to carry on the war. But I had my health; I had the ability; and I knew I could influence my own people to enlist. I was chosen at that meeting, a public meeting in the town of Bathurst, and within five hours after I was chosen word ca.me from military headquarters at St. John that P. J Veniot's services could not be accepted, although I offered them free. That is something to the credit of the Veniot family. And let me say here that the youngest boy of my family enlisted when he was only sixteen years of age. He was in the same position as this boy Bowyer of Simcoe. If you read the newspapers that have attacked me on this question you will find that never once in their editorial criticism did they mention the fact that Rex Bowyer wras a returned soldier; they left the impression throughout Canada that I had consented to the appointment of a civilian instead of a returned soldier by the name of Whittaker. So widespread was that impression in Canada that I received letters from branches of the legion in Kamloops, in Victoria and in Vancouver, calling my attention to the situation and condemning me for giving this position to a civilian. But when I pointed out the facts I received back from each one of these organizations the finest letter that could possibly be written to a man.
It is true that Mr. Whittaker as a returned soldier and a disabled man deserves all the sympathy and assistance that can possibly be given him, and it is not because he receives 100 per cent disability that I would attempt in any way to prevent him from earning anything so that he might add to the pension he already receives. But I wish to lay this down here and now and I wish it to be understood:	I know that the returned soldiers of
the Dominion of Canada do not require, in the public service of this country, that any of their comrades should be taken into positions where, under properly qualified officials, they are reported as being physically fit, thus preventing other returned soldiers from getting their due-soldiers who up to that time had received no recognition from the country for which they fought and bled.
What was the Bowyer case? Young Bowyer, sixteen years of age-


Richard Bedford Bennett: The same age as Whittaker.


Peter John Veniot: When Bowyer enlisted he
was sixteen; he was sixteen when he wished to go overseas. At that time, under the law, his parents had to give their consent, and the parents refusing to give such consent to their child sixteen years of age, the boy deserted home; he ran away and enlisted under the name of Musgrove. And as such he was recognized on the army list; as such he returned from the front; as such he got his certificate o'f discharge. When he applied and now I am coming to the point where I will explain why there was a delay in proceeding at the beginning-when, I say, young Bowyer applied for this position he applied under the name of A. Rex Bowyer-I am not quite sure of the initials, but the name was Rex Bowyer anyway. Report come in to my department from the inspector wherein it was pointed out, as read by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart), that the boy had enlisted under and was discharged under the name of Musgrove. But here he appeared applying as Rex Bowyer. I immediately gave instructions to discover what it meant. I felt there was fraud somewhere; I felt that somebody was attempting to perpetrate a fraud. Here was a returned soldier applying for a post office under the name of Rex Bowyer, while his discharge papers showed that he enlisted under the name of Musgrove. A quiet investigation took place; I interviewed the Department of National Defence and had them follow his record from the day he enlisted to the day he returned; I traced him from then until the date of his application, and it was about two months before I was sure that young Bowyer was not attempting to perpetrate a fraud on the department.
With reference to the question of residence, that file will show that it was I who took up the question of non-residence and directed an investigation to be made in order to ascertain the facts. That took more time and finally, after receiving a report from the inspector setting out the circumstances, I notified the commission that in my opinion Bowyer was a resident of that place. However, under the act the duty of deciding the residence of an applicant devolves upon the Civil Service Commission and not upon the Postmaster General.
That was the position to that point. I had to decide the matter on the report of the only officer qualified under the Civil Service Act to make a report as to the mental and physical qualifications of an applicant; when that report. was placed before me I decided that Mr. Whittaker was not physically fit for the work. Therefore, after consulting with the deputy
1664	COMMONS
Simcoe Postmastership-Mr. Veniot
minister, who had the power of accepting or rejecting the recommendation of the commission, the certificate was rejected. I did not recommend anyone to the commission; I never do. When there is a rejection the commission is asked to make another choice, and as their second choice they picked Rex Bowyer, who to my mind should have received the appointment, notwithstanding the suffering Mr. Whittaker went through and notwithstanding the affliction he endures. I believe a large number of the returned men throughout Canada will be satisfied with this decision when they learn the facts and when they find that I gave this recognition to a young man who, in order to serve his country, deserted his own home and went to the front under an assumed name. That is the position I take.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Does the Postmaster General regard it as a special merit that (his young man enlisted under an assumed name rather than under his own name?


Mr. Y ENIOT:: Certainly I would not consider it a disgrace to any young man to change his name and fight for his country after his people refused to permit him to enlist.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no evidence in
the record that his parents declined to give him permission to enlist. The parents of the other man consented to his enlistment.


Peter John Veniot: There is nothing in the
record to show that Whittaker's parents consented, but what difference does it make?


George Reginald Geary: Whittaker was also under
age when he enlisted, was he not? They were both mere lads of sixteen.


Peter John Veniot: Then they both deserve
credit for it. I am not attempting to disparage Mr. Whittaker at all; I did not know his age.
Before I conclude my remarks, or my defence-because I understand that this is a motion of censure against the Postmaster General-let me tell hon. gentlemen opposite that I find no fault with their method of procedure. If they are convinced that I should be censured because of my conduct in this matter they are quite at liberty to entertain that opinion, but that will not change my feeling that in all fairness and justice, after reviewing the case and considering my duty to the department, to the public and to the returned men, I did what was right.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Simply to satisfy my own
mind, would the Postmaster General state to the house the nature of the heavy work which

was required to be done at the Simcoe post office and which precluded Whittaker from the appointment?


Peter John Veniot: I have already defined the work of a class 2B postmaster.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have Listened very patiently but I l ave fc-'t been satisfied as to the nature of the 'leavp work which would have been imposed uptn this applicant if he had been appointed.
Mr. YrENIOT: I have said all I can say in that regard, and I do not think I should be called upon to say any more in order to attempt to satisfy my hon. friend.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If the hon. gentleman feels that way about it we will discuss the matter further later on.


Peter John Veniot: In case something may be thrown across the floor of the house after I have finished speaking, with regard to the general impression that while speaking at Simcoe I made a threat that if my decision was changed I would resign as Postmaster General-


Richard Burpee Hanson: No chance.
Mr. Y'ENIOT: That is another interjection to which I might reply in a like manner, but I am afraid my hon. friend would be offended if I did so.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not want to hurt the feelings of the Postmaster General; if he feels that way about it I will take it back.


Peter John Veniot: Thank you. I have here a certified verbatim report of what I said at Simcoe, including my remarks in that connection. Among the audience was a qualified shorthand reporter who took down what I said and who has prepared a certified transcript, and after reviewing the whole situation I went on to say:
And if I had for one moment a doubt that I did an injury; if I for one moment had a doubt that t did wrong-yes, I'd change that decision, and I would do it with a heart and a will. Convinced as I am that I have done no injustice-
I was speaking to about 1,200 people in Simcoe:
-to anybody, convinced as I am that I have kept strictly within justice and within the law, that decision will remain as it has been taken, and if changed P. J. Veniot can remain no longer Postmaster General of Canada under our system of responsible government.
There is no threat to resign in those words; I was stating facts. If my colleagues in the government considered that I had doDe

Simcoe Postmastership-Mr. Veniot
wrong; if they took up the point and decided against me, under our responsible government only one course would be left open to me. Of itself their action would have placed me outside the executive council, and I would have had to abide by that decision. That was the statement I made, but certain newspapers have called upon the government to take action because I threatened to resign. There was no necessity for me to make any threats of any kind. To-day I am administering one of the heaviest departments of the government; it has pleased the Prime Minister to call me to his cabinet, and he has entrusted me with the responsibilities of my present position. For that I feel deeply grateful to him; he has honoured me and the people whom I represent, and I should be loath indeed to do anything which would place an additional burden upon the shoulders of my leader and my colleagues in the government. Acting as I did in this case, I acted with the full responsibility of a head of the department. I reviewed the whole situation and took ample time to go into everything, and having reached that decision I have no remorse whatever. There is no remorse of conscience on my part, and were I called upon to-morrow to consider a similar question I would treat it in exactly the same way.
Our friends opposite seem to be so keen for the returned soldier, but allow me to direct their attention to a duty which they are not performing. If they are the champions of the returned soldiers, why did they not stand up for them at all times and upon all occasions? Why did they not stand up for them when the Civil Service Commission was turning down returned soldiers and appointing civilians in their place? I am accused of turning down returned soldiers, but I have never turned them down unless I felt I had a good reason to do so, and civilians were not always appointed in their places. I have a list of certain . appointments which were made by the Civil Service Commission and I would like to comment on a few of these cases.
The first case refers to Kinkora, P.E.I. The application of a returned soldier named Monoghan, was turned down by the commission and a civilian named Carvill was appointed in November, 1928.
The next is Becaneour, Que. A returned soldier named Peloquin was turned down and a Mrs. Dube, a civilian, was appointed by the commission in June, 1920.
The next case refers to Dutton, Ont. A returned soldier, named Henry Locke, was turned down and a Miss Kellop got the appointment in February, 1923.
The next refers to Fergus, Ont., where the vacancy occurred in 1922. Applications were received from six returned soldiers and two civilians. Three were found to be non-residents, another named McDonald, withdrew, and a returned soldier named Steele remained. Insinuations as to character were made, and J. B. Bayne, a civilian, was named by the commission in place of Steele.
The next case I wish to refer to is that of St. Marys, Ont. Postmaster Robson resigned in June, 1917. Doctor M. Steele, the representative of that county at the time, was written to and asked to recommend a soldier. He replied that there was no soldier available, and recommended Berton Fox Lancaster. Lincoln Rice, a soldier, applied but was not considered.
The next case refers to Stanley, N.B., and my hon. friend will see that I have not forgotten this case. There were several applications made in this instance, and I think two were from returned soldiers. A returned soldier suffering from tuberculosis was put in temporary charge of the office pending a permanent appointment through the commission. He applied for a permanent appointment along with another returned soldier. Two civilians also applied for this vacancy. When the inspector went to Stanley to investigate this matter he saw the returned soldier in charge of the office, and the civilian applicants, but did not see the other returned soldier. He reported to that effect, and said:
I had an interview with his wife. She is a well-educated and smart woman, and the neighbours tell me that this man is all right.
He had been a carpenter by trade previous to the war. On the basis of this report the commission issued a certificate in favour of the second returned soldier, but I refused to accept the certificate on the ground that the other man, who was temporarily in charge was a disabled soldier and should be recognized.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Was the report to the
effect that the returned soldier was not qualified or capable of filling the position?


Peter John Veniot: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is the report, because I have read it.


Peter John Veniot: The interim report was
not to that effect.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You tried to get your
district superintendent to change the report.


Peter John Veniot: I did not.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You had some of your
men do it for you.
1666	COMMONS
Simcoe Postmastership-Mr. Veniot


Peter John Veniot: It was not done at my
request nor at my suggestion.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I will have to take that
answer, I suppose.


Peter John Veniot: Of course you will.
The inspector reported that owing to the tubercular condition of this applicant, and from what he had heard from the people, it might be dangerous for this man to be left in the office. Acting under the regulations, I then ordered a medical examination of this man. That examination was held and I received a doctor's certificate to the effect that that infection would not be a danger to the public. After I received the letter from the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) with reference to the physical condition of this applicant and stating that he was about on his last legs and asking me to look into the matter, I immediately got in touch with the medical authorities. I received a report to the effect that this man had a very severe attack of tuberculosis and would live but a short time. I then gave instructions to my deputy to write to the Civil Service Commission withdrawing the refusal of the first returned soldier and accepting his certificate. I gave as my grounds for that action the fact that this man's physical condition prevented him from continuing at work, and also that he might die in a very short time.


Mr. JONJCS:: Why did the Postmaster
General not consider the four returned soldiers who made application for the postmastership at Norton? Messrs. Homer, Read, Ward and Price were all applicants, together with a number of civilians.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. member is taking me at a disadvantage, but I think I know something about the Norton case.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The Postmaster General
knows all about that case.


Peter John Veniot: The vacancy occurred in
either 1923 or 1924. An investigation was held into a charge against the postmaster of political partisanship. This occurred at least three years before my time.


Mr. JONES:: The postmaster was not
changed until last February.


Peter John Veniot: If the hon. member will
follow me he will see whether or not I am stating the facts. I may be a little out in my dates, but I know we received applications from returned soldiers. A certificate was issued in favour of Ward, a returned soldier, which was left in abeyance. I took charge of the department on either the 23rd or 25th of September, 1926. From 1927, on, between

times, I was going over the records of the department to ascertain what matters were left in abeyance, so that I might be able to dispose of them and start off with a clean sheet. Among others I found this case at Norton and I let it drift along as it had drifted along under the former Postmaster General. After about a year or less than a year in cleaning up these matters in abeyance, I refused to accept the certificate issued in 1924, I think it was, or 1925, as the case may be, in favour of Ward and I ordered that the postmastership be declared vacant and the position advertised.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why?


Peter John Veniot: Because I was not going
to accept responsibility for something that had been pending for five or six years. I wanted a clean sheet.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister wanted another man.


Peter John Veniot: The vacancy has been advertised and I believe the reports are in the department or before the commission, I do not know which.


George Burpee Jones: No postmaster is appointed
yet, only an acting one. The Civil Service Commission would not allow the minister to override them.


Peter John Veniot: I never appealed to the
Civil Service Commission in the matter. There cannot be found in the files of the Civil Service Commission a document to which my name is attached in connection with any of these appointments attempting to influence the commission one way or the other. When I had occasion to write to the Civil Service Commission, I wrote to them openly and freely. Everything is there to be seen. There is nothing to be hidden in the matter.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I understand that, under
the act referred to by the minister sometime ago, the Postmaster General or, I think, technically the Deputy Postmaster General, has the right, after an appointment has been made by the Civil Service Commission, to reject the nominee and ask for a further consideration. In each of these cases cited by the Postmaster General in regard to returned soldiers during recent years, did the Postmaster General exercise his power under that section?


Peter John Veniot: I have no power under that section.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Postmaster General
did not quite catch my question. I want to be fair to him. I said that technically it was the Deputy Postmaster General, but we all know it is the Postmaster General.

Simcoe Postmastership-Mr. Veniot


Peter John Veniot: I do not know that I am
bound to reveal to the house what takes place between my deputy and myself. We follow the act.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the Postmaster General be good enough to follow my question?


Peter John Veniot: I have answered the hon.
member's question.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I should like to make it
clear. Has the Deputy Postmaster General, whether in consultation with the minister or not, exercised his power under section 13 of the Civil Service Act of 1918 in regard to the appointments to which he has referred?


Peter John Veniot: I beg the hon. member's
pardon. I did not catch the first question. The deputy has exercised his power and he has a right to exercise it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I see a colleague of the
minister laughs. I am not deluded at all by the answer of the Postmaster General.


William Daum Euler: I laughed because the hon.
member laughed.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Go ahead. Our turn will
come later.


Peter John Veniot: Let me come to a case that
is quite close to home, that of Elora, Ontario. This occurred in the post office at Elora, I think sometime in the month of October, 1928. This was during the time when the newspapers were attacking me so severely in regard to the Simcoe matter and pointing out that the chairman of the commission was the proper person to state whether a man was qualified for the position of postmaster or not, and that, he having so pronounced, I should accept his decision. I want, if I may use the term, to clear the skirts of the chairman of the commission. I never received any official word from him pointing out that, in his opinion, Mr. Whittaker was the proper person and physically fit. I am referring only to what 1 saw in the press and I am taking it as I found it. It was stated in the press that the chairman of the commission was the one qualified to say whether Mr. Whittaker was physically fit or not and that, he having said so, I should accept Mr. Whittaker for the position as he was a disabled soldier. What do we find at Elora? Within fifteen days after all the trouble at Simcoe, a vacancy occurs at Elora; applications are made; the Civil Service Commission reoeive a report from the Post Office Department and they decide on the question. There are three soldiers who are applying for the position at Elora. One is Mr. Bell, a returned soldier, but not a disability man. The second is a Mr. Brikker. a 20 per cent disability man, and the third is Mr. J. K. Macdonald, an 85 per cent disability man, but with his limbs unaffected. I received a certificate from the Civil Service Commission in favour of Bell, a non-disability man. I held up that certificate and I am still holding it up because I consider under the ruling of the Civil Service Commission, fair play was not given to those two disability men. In this case 1 wrote a letter to the commission asking why the 20 per cent disability man and the 85 per cent disability man were not considered and the position given to a non-disability case and pointing out that each of these men was reported by the inspector as being physically fit to do the work of that office.	I received a reply something
to this effect: That in the Macdonald case in answering the question:	"Have you been
reestablished?" he said: "Yes, on my return from the war I was given a place by the Canadian National Railways, a lower position than I occupied before with less wages and with no hope of promotion." The Civil Service Commission consider that sufficient to reestablish a soldier. I say: It is not, and I have as much right to interpret reestablishment in that case as has any member of the Civil Service Commission. I am holding up the Bell appointment until the matter can be gone into further. I make reference to this matter to show that all the blame for the non-appointment of returned soldiers should not be placed upon the Postmaster General.
Let me take, as another illustration, the case of the Williamstown post office. A certificate of appointment was given in 1923 to Alexander T. Macdonald, a civilian, a man who is not a returned soldier, while another applicant, Angus B. Sullivan, a returned man, was turned down by the Civil Service Commission.
I do not wish to take up much more of the time of the house. Let me, in conclusion, refer to the great hullabaloo, if I can use the term, that has been made as to my political bias in questions of this kind. I want to admit to the house that I am a Liberal. I have always been a Liberal, believing in the policies of the part}' to which I am proud to belong. I have been a hard hitter, as is well known in my native province. I have been hit hard and I have hit hard. I ask for no quarter and I give none. I am prepared at all times to stand on the decisions I give, the actions I take, after mature deliberation in regard to them. But I wish to add to that: notwithstanding my adherence to Liberal principles, there is advocated by the Liberal party one principle from which
1668	COMMONS
Simcoe Postmastership-Mr. Veniot
during my whole political life I have never turned aside, and that is, conscientiously do your duty to yourself and your country, and brook no interference with what you consider to be such. I see some hon. gentlemen over there laughing. They are judging your humble servant by their own half-bushels; there is no doubt about that, because we have had example upon example when they were in power of the way in which they out the political hedge. Why, Mr. Speaker, the record of our friends apposite in the matter of dismissals and appointments when they were in power is such that really if I were a member of that party, when I compared its record with my own, I would hang my head in shame. What do we find hon. gentlemen opposite doing when they were in power? I do not mean the gentlemen opposite me to-d!ay, but their party, although some of them were no doubt members of the .party then. I have been accused of guillotining hundreds of postmasters since I came into office. It is true that I have dismissed some postmasters. It is true that some postmasters have had to go by the board for certain offences. It is true that there have been some dismissals- I am not talking now of civil service appointments-because I felt that the public would be better served by the appointment of someone else. But if you look at the record of our friends opposite, and compare that with my record in three years, during which 490 changes in the different post, offices throughout the country have taken place upon various grounds, which I shall not undertake to enumerate now-


George Burpee Jones: If that is the total number
of dismissals undter the present Postmaster General, they must have all been in the maritime provinces.


Peter John Veniot: No, they were not; they
were spread all over Canada, and these dismissals took place for reasons that could be given. But my hon. friends opposite never hesitated. There is the record to show that in the province of Quebec the dismissals were so numerous that the postal superintendent of the district of Quebec had to write to Ottawa and ask for more help because he could not get the new postmasters into their positions quickly enough to maintain the service. Inside of a period of eighteen months our friends opposite, when they were in power, dismissed no less than 1,890 postmasters.


An hon. MEMBER:: When was that?


Peter John Veniot: From 1912 to 1914.


Mr. ROWE:: That was when rural mail
delivery came in.


Peter John Veniot: They were not rural postmasters.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I want to ask the Postmaster General to state in fairness to this house whether these dismissals to which he refers in 1912 to 1914, totalling as I see by the record under my hand, some 1,600, were not caused by the closing of post offices due to the establishment of rural mail routes, the number of which established during that period was some 1,800, according to a return made by this government on April 4, 1929.


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to go into these matters. I was simply making a general statement, but if any hon. gentleman opposite wishes to have the evidence, I can produce it. The hon. gentleman wishes this house to believe that all those dismissals that took place when his party was in power were due to the establishment of rural mail routes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I did not say that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Most of them.


Peter John Veniot: I say not one-tenth of
them, and the records show it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, no.


Peter John Veniot: They were all postmasters
properly established, and let me give you an example of the way hon. gentlemen opposite were dismissing them.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The conditions
were different altogether. There was no Civil Service Act.


Peter John Veniot: No, there was no Civil
Service Act, but of the four hundred odd changes that I have made since I have been in office, seven-tenths of them did not come under the act, and yet my hon. friend says I am applying the political guillotine.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Many of them were taken
out from under the act.


Peter John Veniot: Not in the post office department.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, before your time.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. gentleman has
brought this matter up, so let us see how some of these dismissals were made. Take the Bankhead post office. Let us see how that dismissal was made in 1912.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was made on my
recommendation.


Peter John Veniot: Certainly; I knew the hon. gentleman would admit it. Let us take another one at-I will spell it-B-i-s-h-e-r, or c-h-e-r.

Simcoe Postmastership-Mr. Bennett


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not know it at all.


Peter John Veniot: Let us take the Carstairs
post office, there is another.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And Cochrane is another.


Peter John Veniot: Cochrane is another. The
hon. gentleman remembers them all. Let me go a little further. Last year or the year before I put on record in this house that during the time of that shadow government election, there were no less than eight postmasters in the county of Antigonish dismissed by telegram sent from Ottawa to the superintendent of the postal service in the province of Nova Scotia. I could go on ad infinitum with these dismissals by hon. gentlemen opposite.


Mr. MANION:: When the hon. gentleman was telling it in the house he did not stick very close to the facts.


Peter John Veniot: I stuck to the facts. I
had the telegrams and I read them in*the house, and I can produce the file if the hon. gentleman wishes to have it. I will produce it if he will read it in the house.
I think it is time, Mr. Speaker, that I was winding up my remarks. There is not much that I can add. I wish first to thank the members of this house for their patience in listening to me at such length. I wish to thank my friends of the opposition for their interruptions, because they always seem to stir me up and give me more spawl to defend myself. I wish to thank the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) for having brought this question up, so that now it can be properly aired on the floor of the house and a vote taken upon it, and I hope when the vote is taken, after the question has been thoroughly aired, that we shall have heard the last of it.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The Postmaster
General said that the delay in sending the reports to the Civil Service Commission was due to inquiries as to this man's residence.


Peter John Veniot: Part of the delay.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Would he be
good enough to tell the house when inquiry was first made as to BowyeEs residence? My reason for asking is that the first I find in the file was in December after these reports had been sent to the commission and long after the six months had expired.


Peter John Veniot: I do not feel that I should attempt to confine myself to dates. I do know that orders were issued to have this matter of his residence looked into long before that date.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why is it not on the file?


Peter John Veniot: We do not always issue
orders in writing. You call your officials in, direct them what to do, and they do it. That is done in every department. That I think was what was done in this case.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house
is much edified by the self-adulation of the Postmaster General. There is a saying, somewhat old, "Let another praise thee."


Peter John Veniot: You ought to follow that.


Mr. McINTOSH:: Take a hint.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sure the Postmaster General has not heard that saying, or if he has heard it he has not profited by it. A very considerable part of his speech consisted of self-adulation, self-glorification, a statement of his consistency in matters political, an affirmation of his convictions, and the great claims he had to public recognition because of the merits of the services he had rendered to Canada. I do not consider that to be at all relevant to the matter now under consideration.	-
The next part of his speech consisted of allegations in respect of dismissals that had taken place under former administrations. Some of them related to the time when there was no Civil Service Act, and, speaking for myself, a large number of those that he mentioned were cases in which dismissals were made because of violations of the terms and conditions of an order in council approved by the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, providing that where civil servants, including postmasters, bad been guilty of offensive partisanship, as certified by a member of parliament, dismissal should follow. This was the case in Willow Bunch last year; the offending postmaster was dismissed. It was the case in Cochrane and in Carstairs. That should be the case with respect to the chairman of the tariff board- and one day possibly will be.


Charles Avery Dunning: Will my hon. friend permit me? Why is it right when my hon. friend does it-and I do not question his right -and wrong in the case of the member for Willow Bunch and some other members? I am puzzled by the distinction.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not for a single
moment, Mr. Speaker, suggest it was wrong.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: What is wrong?


Richard Bedford Bennett: With that nice choice
of English that always characterizes the mem-

1670	COMMONS
Simcoe Pontmastership-Mr. Bennett
ber for Saskatoon, he has asked a question. But it is difficult to hear it. It is something like his objection a few days ago in connection with the conduct of this house-very violent in one place, very restrained here.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But at any rate, Mr. Speaker, I have not found any fault with respect to what has been done where there has been justification within the terms of the regulations to do it. What we are contending to-day is that the Postmaster General has himself given reasons why this house should censure him. The reasons that he himself has given this afternoon would of themselves be ample ground for the motion now launched, if there were no other reasons in the world; for I say no dispassionate, judicial body listening to the Postmaster General's speech could fail for a single moment to record the judgment which we ask this house to record, namely, that his conduct has been oppressive, unfair, and contrary to the spirit and intent of the Civil Service Act with respect to Whittaker, the applicant, for the postmastership of Simcoe.
This, like many other matters mentioned by the Postmaster General, to him seems to be just an insignificant instance in the history of a great country such as this. In that regard I cannot express my views better than by quoting from an editorial in the Toronto Globe:
During the past few days, in the consideration of this unusual and intensely human issue, the Globe has learned how largely the so-called little things of life loom in the public estimation-the tug on the heartstrings, the poignancy of sympathetic memories, the keen sense of decency and justice. There is nothing the matter with the sentiment and the spirit of Canadians. They have not forgotten, nor has the oft-deplored materialism of the age warped or destroyed the British instinct for fair play. The communications from women-from mothers - -in all parts of the province are most impressive, and it is a good omen for the weal of our Dominion that party politics are pushed into their proper place. A very considerable share of the protests-the most emphatic protests -are from Liberals. One mother whose eldest son is sleeping in France says that she was "brought up in a Liberal home, and have always worked for the Liberal cause, but gratitude and justice to the dear boys who sacrificed themselves for all of us come first. If Mr. Whittaker does not receive justice, then I am a Liberal no more, or at any rate not the kind of a Liberal who will support a party -who does that sort of thing."
That quotation from the great organ of Liberal opinion indicates how it regards this matter, small though it may be in importance
TMr. Bennett.]
so far as the great number of cases is concerned, but tremendously important as affecting the life of Whittaker.
Now, sir, it has been apparent during the latter part of the address made by the minister that his principal object in speaking as he did for the last twenty minutes was to attack the Civil Service Commission. He hurled complaint and criticism against that body. The Civil Ser vice Commission was set up by parliament in an endeavour to remove from this country the bane of political patronage. Whether or not it has succeeded remains to be seen. But every enemy of the commission cheered vigorously the observations of the Postmaster General, and every hon. gentleman who desired that the patronage of this country should be exercised on the basis of merit freed frrnr political control was silent during those attacks. For some reason that I cannot understand the bon. minister as one of his instances cited what took place in November of last year when he'said that a man who had disability as a returned soldier was passed over by the commission and someone else put in his place. The statute has never said that, being a returned soldier alone qualified a man for a position in the civil service. It merely said that preference should be given to him. I cannot understand why these attacks are being made against the Civil Service Commission, this continual sniping, the members of the commission not being here to answer for themselves, the attacks being in a sense a reflection on the administration itself, because it is the duty of the minister of the crown under whose department the Civil Service Commission may fall to see that the commission is defended in this house and ample opportunity given it properly to present its case to this tribunal. That opportunity was not afforded to the Civil Sendee Commission this afternoon. An attack was made-


Charles Gavan Power: What about the tariff board?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Minister of Finance defended that board. An attack was made against the Civil Service Commission this afternoon by the Postmaster Generail, and no attempt was made to point out what were the conditions applying to the cases he cited. I would remind him of this, the very procedure to which he had recourse in this case, namely, the refusal of his deputy to give his approval, has always been open to the minister with respect to all the cases he mentioned. Then why should he point out this case as one in which he exercised those powers and fail to state that he could have invoked those same powers in the other cases in refer-

Simcoe Postmastership-Mr. Bennett
ence to which he attacks the Civil Service Commission? That is the position which I am sure will suggest itself to every hon. member. I confess I cannot understand why he should have taken that course.
What are the facts of the Whittaker case? That is the case under discussion this afternoon, and upon the principle involved in the failure of the department to appoint Mr. Whittaker to the postmastership at Simcoe a motion of censure against the Postmaster General has been moved. He has seen fit to deal with a 'large number of cases in New Brunswick, Ontario and various other parts of Canada, and if the facts as he related them are correctly stated, and, as he said, he had to deal with them very hurriedly, then certainly this vote of censure should not be limited to the Simcoe case but should be general in its application to the whole conduct of the hon. gentleman as Postmaster General.
Now. let us look for a moment at the advertisement. It contained these words:
According to law preference is given among candidates possessing the necessary qualifications, first, to persons who are in receipt of a pension on account of disabilities received as a result of war service, who by reason of such service are unable to continue their prewar occupation, and who have not been successfully re-established:	and secondly, to persons
who have been on active service overseas or on the high seas.
Those terms are an integral part of the advertisement upon which Mr. Whittaker and others offered their services to the country. It gives a preference-mark you, not necessarily the whole preference, but a preference- first to the disabled man and secondly to the man who is not reestablished.
There were several applicants for this position. Amongst those applicants were Mr. Whittaker and Mr. Charles Rex Bowyer. Mr. Charles Rex Bowyer did not come within the first description of the preference mentioned in the advertisement. He was not a disabled soldier; he was not in receipt of any disability pension. That you will find at page 70 of the return. Therefore, so far as Mr. Bowyer wa3 concerned, he did not come within the conditions of the advertisement under which a preference was to be given. I do not think there will be any difficulty about that; it is clearly established. And that may be the explanation for the cases mentioned by the minister this afternoon when attacking the civil service. It may have been that the cases to which he referred, of returned soldiers having applied for other positions, were cases in which they were not disabled and therefore were not entitled to first preference.
78594-100j


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is not
leaving the impression that returned soldiers who are not disabled have no preference?


Richard Bedford Bennett: If my hon. friend had
followed me he would not ask that question.
I read the two sections of the advertisement.
I am sorry I read so rapidly; I will read them again for the minister.
According to law, preference is given among candidates possessing the necessary qualifications, first to persons who are in receipt of a pension on account of disabilities received as a result of war service, who by reason of such service are unable to continue their pre-war occupation, and who have not been successfully re-established.
That is the first. The second is:
To persons who have been on active service overseas or on the high seas.
Preference therefore is given to returned men, but there is a first preference given to disability cases, which preference does not attach to other returned men. But added to the disability there must be the other secondary conditions, namely, not having been successfully reestablished, and being unable to take up previous occupation. Mr. Bowyer came within the second class of cases. He was not in receipt of a disability pension, although he was a returned soldier.
Now the minister dwelt at some length on the fact that Bowyer enlisted under the name of Musgrove at the age of sixteen. The record shows that such was the case, stating that he was a minor. It also shows that Mr. Whittaker enlisted at the age of sixteen, presumably with the consent of his parents. Further, it is perfectly clear that when the applications came in, so far as the Civil Service Commission was concerned, they showed that there was no man named Bowyer who had war service. Therefore Mr. Bowyer did not come within the class entitled to first preference as returned soldiers. But the minister says it was disclosed later to the commission that he had a record as a returned soldier under the name of Musgrove, under which name he received his medals, his discharge and his recommendation. That was cleared up. But the Civil Service Commission had no knowledge of it. The minister said he had; and why did the minister intervene? Is not this the fact? The member for that riding, as I shall presently show, and the Liberal organization in that county, said, "We must interfere and get this job for Bowyer". That is the record, as I shall show in a moment. The name appears of Mr. Taylor, the member for the riding, and certain statements he made were printed in the Globe newspaper. It is clear that what transpired
1672	COMMONS
Simcoe Poslmastership-Mr. Bennett
was this-that friends came ito him as they come to all of us. And why should they not come to us? They come and ask to have certain appointments made. I am not going to be so unfair to the member for that riding as to suggest that it was not in good faith that friends of Bowyer came to him and proposed that this was a position he could fill, expressing (the desire that this man should be appointed as postmaster at Simcoe. But it was apparent, when this effort was made, that there was no man named Bowyer wlho came within the preferential class; and the facts were then uncovered, which appear on the file, showing that Bowyer had served in the war as Muegrove. But still there was a difficulty. The Civi-l Service Commission made a recommendation. Mark you, it is not denied in this house that Mr. Whittaker came to this city of Ottawa and met the Postmaster General, that he walked with him down the corridor in these halls and indicated to him jiust how well he could walk, how great his disability was, what his injuries were, and how fit he was to discharge the duties of the office at Simcoe. That is not denied. And bear in mind further that the Postmaster General, on the very thresh-hold of the matter, saw fit to write a letter in which-and I say this in fairness to him- he placed himself on record as indicating on whom he believed the responsibility rested. For in 1927, on February 28, he wrote a letter in which he said:
I am in receipt of yours of 21th instant with reference to the postmastership at Simcoe, and I note what you say in favour of Mr. Whittaker, who is an applicant. As Mr. Whittaker is a disabled returned soldier-
Mark these words, the minister himself drawing the distinction.
-and as the act gives a great deal of preference to such, no doubt he will stand an excellent chance before the Civil Service Commission, who have the absolute control in a position of this kind.
Now, those are the words the minister used, and which he used again this afternoon. Is it any wonder that a resolution is now before this house censuring him for his conduct, when he writes a letter in which he states that the Civil Service Commission has absolute control in a position of this kind? The Civil Service Commission, having the absolute control, having received the applications and having regard to the terms of the advertisement, sent out their notice in due course to Mr. Whittaker under date of May 29, 1928. However, before that notice was sent it is well for this house to remember that two mem-

bers of the Civil Service Commission, Doctor Roche and Mr. Tremblay, had seen Mr. Whittaker and that the minister himself had seen Mr. Whittaker, who had walked up and down the corridors of this building to indicate that he could walk without a cane, although he had had amputations below the knee in both cases. The knee joints articulated on both legs, as the minister pointed out, one leg having been amputated below the knee and the other below the ankle. Mr. Whittaker demonstrated that he could walk, and according to his affidavit which was read into the record this afternoon, and which in his solemn, sworn statement, the minister told him he could not see any reason why he was unfit to be postmaster. That statement has not been denied.
This is a serious situation. What happened? You have several applicants, one of them a disabled returned soldier, who therefore is entitled to first preference. In the second place you have a returned soldier who is not disabled and who is working on his father's farm; he does not come under the first preference but is included in the second preference.
Then my hon friend reminds me of something else of which I intended to speak. The advertisement required that applicants should reside in that locality. At the time it is quite apparent that Mr. Bowyer was residing at Mount Albion, which is not far from Hamilton, Ont., while Simcoe is some considerable distance from that city. According to Mr. Bowyer's own letter, which was read this afternoon, he would not take the responsibility of saying he was a resident of Simcoe; he had moved away to this place where he was looking after a farm. His residence would be designated as Mount Albion according to any standard which might be applied in order to determine residence, but he still had some property at Simcoe and he said, " I think I might be said to be a resident of Simcoe because I have property and am assessed there." That was the way he put it; he did not attempt to deceive anyone but merely stated the facts. Under these circumstances the following notice was sent to Mr. Whittaker: Civil Service Commission of Canada Notice of Appointment of Postmaster Date: May 29, 1928.
Post Office: Simcoe, county of Norfolk-Elgin, Ontario.
Name of appointee: Mr. George Edward Whittaker, O.A.S.
Address of appointee: Simcoe, Ontario.

The late Hon. J. W. Edwards
Salary rate:	$2,040 per annum, with an
annual increase of $120 until a maximum of $2,280 has been reached.
(Appointment subject to physical fitness.)
Then the certificate goes on to state:
This is to certify that you have been selected to fill the position named above, after examination, in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Act, 1918, as amended, and of the rules and regulations thereunder; and that you are qualified to be appointed on probation at the salary shown above.
Please note that no arrangements should be made to report for duty until instructed to do so by the Post Office department. In this connection your attention is especially called to section 13 of the Civil Service Act, and to the interpretation of that section given by the law officers of the crown, as quoted below.
By order of the commission,
Secretary.
There is no doubt that Mr. Whittaker received notice that he had been selected by the Civil Service Commission for the postmastership of Simcoe; that is quite clear. It is also clear that in the notification he received it was stated that he was not to go to work until he received notice from the Post Office department, and that his appointment might be only on probation. There can be no doubt on that point. That did not involve his appointment, but the Postmaster General says this afternoon-and I cannot understand any minister of the crown endeavouring to take that position-"I have no right to do this; it is the deputy minister who can approve or disapprove of these appointments, not the minister." I cannot conceive of any minister trying to shelter himself behind his deputy, because a deputy who would do what the minister did not permit or authorize would lose his position forthwith.


Peter John Veniot: I would like to offer a word of explanation, because I think my hon. friend misunderstood me. I am not trying to shelter myself behind my deputy; I take full responsibility.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not for a moment would I think the Postmaster General, after his strong statements as to his great courage, would endeavour to hide behind the skirts of anyone else in a matter of this kind, but the fact is that he blames the deputy minister and will not accept responsibility himself.


Peter John Veniot: I did not say that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We will see what Hansard says.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, April 18, 1929