[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 179 for the relief of Madelaine Virginia Lumsden.-Mr. Bothwell.
Bill No. 193, for the relief of Mary Bertha Dupuis Ranger.-Mr. Millar.

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

Mr. HANSON:: 1.	On whose recommendation was Canadian National Kail way baggage master, Robert J. Elliott, placed as conductor on Canadian National trains No. 23 and No. 24, between Sussex and St. John (Atlantic region) ?
2.	Was said appointment made with the approval of the order of railway conductors?
3.	If not, has that organization protested Elliott's appointment?
4.	What explanation has the Canadian National Railway Company to offer if Elliott has been advanced over those who are senior in the service to him.


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	The relationship between the men and the management is entirely an internal affair of the railway, and any question arising therefrom is dealt with under well recognized rules. In case of grievances there has been set up machinery by which such grievances may be adjusted between the representatives of the management and representatives of the employees. That being the case, the management feel that it is not in the interest of the railway, nor in the public interest, to attempt to deal with such matters except in the prescribed manner.
2,	3 and 4. Answered by No. 1.


CANADLIN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-APPRENTICE INSTRUCTION
Mr. SENN:: 1.	What is the total cost to Canadian National Railways for apprentice instruction on the entire Bystem?	_
2.	What is the total annual cost for each of the regions of the system?
3.	What is the total annual cost per apprentice for each region?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	377,551.48.
2.
Central			$ 48,977 74
Atlantic			 10,428 00
Western			 18,145 74
Central			 S115 29
Atlantic			 69 52
Western			 90 73


BEDFORD BASIN MAGAZINE
Mr. ERNST:: 1.	What was the total amount paid to A. S. McMillan and C. A. McNearney with respect to construction work at Bedford basin, in the county of Halifax, concerning which the payment of $100,000 appeared on page 270, volume 2, Auditor General's report, 1928?
2.	Of such total amount, how much represents: (a) the contract price; (b) extras?


Mr. RALSTON:: 1 and 2. The total amount paid to A. S. McMillan and C. A. McNearney in connection with their 1927-1928 contract for construction work at Bedford basin magazine is as follows: Amount of work done under contract dated August 1, 1927.. $107,900 00 Additional work ordered by
engineer in charge	 909 02
Total	$108,809 02


EXPERIMENTAL AND DEMONSTRATION FARMS
Mr. MANION:: 1.	How many Dominion experimental and demonstration farms are there in Canada?
2.	Where are they situated, by places and provinces?


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	There are twenty-two Dominion experimental farms and stations, besides one substation, three tobacco stations and one fox station.
The Dominion government does not operate any demonstration farms, but it does supervise the operation and, in a small way assist the owners of a considerable number (186 in 1928), of what are called illustration stations. The illustration station area of a man's farm includes only that part of it fronting on a
*2244
Questions

well travelled road and varies in area from eight or ten to forty acres. For the privilege of saying what crops shall be grown, what rotation shall be followed and how and when cultural operations shall be performed the department pays the owner or operator a small amount ($5 per acre) each year. The purpose of these stations is to demonstrate the varieties of the different crops, the cultural methods and the rotations that have been found to give the best results on an experimental farm or station where conditions are judged to be similar to those which maintain on the illustration station under consideration.
The crops harvested off these illustration stations are of course the property of the men operating them.
2.
Experimental station, Charlottetown, P.E.I.
Experimental station, Kentville, N.S.
Experimental farm, Nappan, N.S.
Experimental station, Fredericton, N.B.
Experimental station, Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere, Que.
Experimental station, Cap Rouge, Que.
Experimental station, Lennoxville, Que.
Experimental station, La Ferme, Que.
Experimental station, Kapuskasing, Ont.
Experimental farm, Ottawa.
Experimental station, Morden, Man.
Experimental farm, Brandon, Man.
Experimental farm, Indian Head, Sask.
Experimental station, Rosthern, Sask.
Experimental station, Scott, Sask.
Experimental station, Swift Current, Sask.
Experimental station, Lethbridge, Alta.
Experimental station, Lacombe, Alta.
Experimental station, Summerland, B.C.
Experimental farm, Agassiz, B.C.
Experimental station, Invermer, B.C.
Experimental station, Sidney, B.C.
Experimental substation, Beaverlodge, Alta.
Tobacco station, Farnham, Que.
Tobacco station, L'Assomption, Que.
Tobacco station, Harrow, Ont.
Experimental fox ranch, Summerside, P.E.I


PELAGIC SEALING TREATY CLAIMS
Mr. NEILL:: Is it the intention of the government to take my steps this session of parliament, or in the near future, towards meeting the wishes of the sealers regarding the matter referred to in their petition to the right honourable the premier, during 1927, which asked for an investigation of their modus vivendi sealing claims of 1892?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: These claims were against the British government. They were submitted to that

government through the government of Canada, but they were not favourably considered. The British government explained that the modus vivendi was adopted in the interests of the seal fishery, and due notice of it in the seasons of 1892 and 1893 was given. As the claims were fully considered by the British government, it is felt that no good purpose would be served by reopening the question at this time.


DR. W. A. GROVES
Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: 1.	Was Dr. W. A. Groves, Fergus, Ontario employed in the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment ?
2.	What length of time did he serve in this
department?	*
3.	In what year was his appointment made permanent?
4.	Was any agreement for superannuation made?
5.	When did Dr. Groves leave the service?
6.	How much had Dr. Groves paid into the superannuation fund?
7.	Has Dr. Groves been reimbursed for such payments or is he entitled to any?


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Including service with the Board of Pension Commissioners, from the 24th April, 1919, to the 30th June, 1926.
3.	Dr. Groves was granted permanency under the Department of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment Act, with effect from the 1st October, 1925, but was not made permanent under the civil service or superannuation regulations.
4.	No.
5.	30th June, 1926.
6.	$150.03.
7.	Dr. Groves was duly reimbursed. He is not entitled to any further payment.
sydnb:y-new waterford-glace bay mail


SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MaeDONALD (Cape Breton South):
1.	By whom is mail conveyed from Sydney to New Waterford?
2.	What amount is paid for the service?
3.	Is there a contract for the work?
4.	By whom is mail conveyed from Sydney to Glace Bay?
5.	What is paid for the service?
6.	Is there a contract for the work?
Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	Sydney and Louisburg Railway.
2.	$287.96 per annum, on mileage basis.
3.	No.
4.	Cape Breton Electric Railway.
5.	$1,687.80 for year 1928-29 on a mileage basis.
6.	No.

Questions


MONTREAL POSTAL STATION B
Mr. QUINN:: 1.	Is a portion of postal station "B", 676 St. Catherine street west, Montreal, occupied as a private residence?
2.	If so, is this the residence of the Deputy Postmaster General as indicated in the Montreal directory and telephone book?
3.	If so, how long has the said postal station been occupied as a residence, and what rental is paid for the same?
4.	What floor space is so occupied for residential purposes?	_
5.	Is the government renting any buildings for government offices in Montreal on or near St. Catherine street? If so. what rent per square foot per annum is paid?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	(a) The living quarters in this building have been occupied as a residence since its completion some twenty years ago; (b) $500 per annum.
4.	3,010 square feet.
5.	Government rents ground floor space for postal station purposes at two points on St. Catherine St. Postal station "N", comer St. Catherine St. E. and City Hall ave., at $2.64 per square foot. Postal station "T", St. Catherine St. E. and Amherst St., at $3.85 per square foot.


MR. W. M. CORY
Mr. MACDONALD (Richmond):: 1.	What is the position and salary of W. M. Cory in the Department of the Interior?
2.	How long has he been in the department?
3.	What was his salary when appointed?
4.	Is this man a son of the Deputy Minister
of the Interior?	_
5.	What sum has he drawn in travelling expenses during the past twelve months?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1.	Assistant departmental solicitor-$4,020, by Civil Service Commission.
2.	From January 1, 1916.
3.	S600.
4.	Yes.
5.	Nil.


MR. T. L. CORY
Mr. MACDONALD (Richmond):: 1.	What is the position and salary of T. L. Cory in the Department of the Interior?
2.	What was his salary when appointed to the
said department.	.
3.	Is this man a son of the Deputy Minister of the Interior?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1.	Special legal officer, international water problems-$4,140, by Civil1 Service Commission.
2.	$300 per month.
3.	Yes.



MARITIME FREIGHT RATES ACT

Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: 1.	Will the act based on the Duncan report with reference to preferential freight rates of 20 per cent in favour of the maritime provinces be amended during the present session in order to locate the railway terminus in the city of Quebec instead of in the city of Levis?
2.	if not, will this important question be soon settled, conforming to the request of public bodies in Quebec?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	The legislative program does not contemplate any revision of the Maritime Freight Rates Act during the present session.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



QUEBEC RAILWAY TERMINAL

Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: Is it the intention of the government to consider the question of the railway terminus in the city of Quebec at the same time as they consider the terminus in the city of Montreal, which is asking $50,000,000 for said terminus according to the Palmer report?


Mr. DUNNING:: The management of Canadian National Railways is at present considering the terminal situation at Quebec.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: What was the total number of enlistments during the Great War of 1914-1918:	(a)
voluntary : (b) compulsory, in each of the provinces of Canada.


BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS
Mr. BARBER:: 1.	How many cattle were slaughtered as
reactors under the bovine tuberculosis tost, during the twelve months ending January 31, 1929, in the provinces of:	(a) Quebec; (b)
British Columbia?
2.	What is the total amount of compensation awarded the owners in each of these provinces for the same period?
3.	What amount of the compensation was paid, and what amount is still due the owners as of April 30, 1929. in each of these provinces for the same period?


CONFEDERATION PARK
Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: 1. Has the government paid the purchase price of property recently acquired in the city of Ottawa, bounded as follows: on the north by

Questions

Wellington street, on the west by Elgin street, on the south by Queen street and on the east by the post office?
2.	Do the various properties mentioned in question 1 now stand in the name of the crown free from all liens, charges and encumbrances?
3.	Is the government aware that the municipal corporation of the city of Ottawa claims arrears of municipal taxes on the various properties mentioned in question 1?
4.	If the government has been advised of arrears of taxes on the various properties mentioned in question 1, what does the same amount to on: (a) Russell hotel property; (b) Francis McDougall estate; (c) C. W. Mitchell estate ?
5.	Has the government paid any taxes to the city of Ottawa in respect of arrears on the various properties mentioned in question 1? If so, what amount of arrears of taxes has been paid?
6.	What firm of solicitors acted for the government in the acquisition of the various properties mentioned in question 1, and did such solicitors give the government a certificate that said properties were free of all liens, charges and encumbrances when acquired?
7.	What were the names of the tenants or owners of the various properties mentioned in question 1?
8.	Was compensation paid to any of the said tenants or owners when the various properties were expropriated?
9.	If compensation was paid, what sum was paid to each tenant or owner?
10.	Was the government advised that the said tenants of any of them had any legal claim against the government rather than against the owner for compensation?


IMMIGRATION IN 1926-27-28
Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: How many immigrants entered Canada in 1926, 1927 and 1928 from: (a) British Isles; (b) United States; (c) other European countries, designating country of origin?


IONA, CAPE BRETON, PUBLIC WHARF
Mr. JOHNSTONE (Cape Breton North-Victoria) :: 1.	What was the expenditure on the government wharf at Iona, Cape Breton, 1928?
2.	How was the work done?
3.	What were the names of those engaged in this work and what was paid to each?
6.	Have any changes been made as regards charter price, and if so, why? If no change has been made, why?
7.	How many steamboats owned or chartered by Hendry's Limited, Halifax, are subsidized by the federal government for 1927 1928 and 1929, and what are the names, tonnage, route and subsidy of each, and when was each one built?
8.	Has each one of those boats passed favourable examination by the federal steamboat inspector ?
9.	Will the government hand down report of such examination?


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. BROWN:: For a copy of the report of the investigation of Judge Stubbs regarding the dismissal of Mr. A. M. Graham from the staff of the soldier settlement board.


HORNEPAYNE POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. COWAN:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, complaints, petitions, applications and reports from the Civil Service Commission in connection with the appointment of the present postmaster at Hornepayne, Ontario, and the dismissal of Mr. Leggatt from the postmastership at Hornepayne.


ONION LAKE INDIAN AGENCY
Mr. McQUARRIE:: For a copy of all correspondence and other documents relating to the appointment and dismissal of C. B. Rothery as clerk at the Onion Lake Indian agency, Saskatchewan, and the appointment of a successor to that office.


MANYBEREIES DOMINION RANGE EXPERIMENTAL STATION
Mr. GARDINER:: For a return showing: 1. The number and names of employees at the Dominion range experimental station at Manyberries, Alberta, from April 1 to November 30, 1928.
2. The actual wages paid monthly to each of the aforesaid employees from April 1 to November 30, 1928.
Hendry's limited, Halifax-charter of


STEAMBOATS
Mr. BARBER:: 1.	How many steamboats were chartered by various departments of the Dominion government from Hendry's Limited, of Halifax, for 1927, 1928 and 1929?
2.	Under what terms were these steamboats chartered?
3.	What are the names of the steamboats, the tonnage of each, when was each one built, and what is the charter price of each?
4.	What is the fitness of each boat for the service called for?
5.	Has any transfer of service of these boats been made from one department to another, and if so, what are the changes, and why?


PARK SITES
Mr. BISSETT:: 1.	The report of R. W. Cautley or any other officer of the government relative to any investigation made, (a) in the proposed eastern Manitoba park site; (b) in the proposed Ridin^ Mountain park site.
2.	All letters, telegrams or other documents between the Department of the Interior or any other department of the government and the government of Manitoba or any member of the government of Manitoba or any member of the Mouse of Commons, relative to the establish ment ol a national park in the province of Manitoba.
3.	All letters, telegrams or other documents between the Department of the Interior or anr ether department of the government and the

Procedure Respecting Divorce
government of Saskatchewan or any member of the government of Saskatchewan or_ any member of the House of Commons, relative to the establishment of the Prince Albert National Park in the province of Saskatchewan.
4.	All reports made in connection with any investigations relative to the establishment of Prince Albert national park in the province of Saskatchewan.


HARRY BRONFMAN
Mr. EVANS moved:: For a copy of all correspondence and other documents in the possession of the government in connection with the alleged charge of attempted bribery of Customs Officer Knowles against Harry Bronfman.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: This concerns more particularly the Minister of National Revenue, but I must say on behalf of tlhe Department of Justice that this must not include documents and papers which, under the rules and practice, must remain confidential. I have no objection to the motion passing with that understanding.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GARDINER moved':
For a return showing: 1. The total amount of money paid to or on behalf of Private George Gregory, No. 160599, since his discharge from the overseas expeditionary forces at Calgary, Alberta, on June 4, 1928.
2.	The amount of money paid directly to Gregory and for what purpose, namely, pension, etc.
3.	The amount of money paid on behalf of Gregory and for what purpose, namely, hospitalization, etc.
Mr. KING (Kootenay):: I would be glad if this question could stand until I have had an opportunity of inquiring of the pensions commissioners as to the information that should be brought down.
Motion stands.


PRIVATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
On the order:
House in committee on Bill No. 22 to incorporate Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge Company.
Mr. PETTIT:: I notice that the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) is not in his seat, and I would therefore ask that this bill stand.
Order stands.
78594-142J


ANNIE FORBES SANGSTER
[Stage Direction]
Mr. L. H. JELLIFF (Lethbridge) moved the second reading of Bill No. 200, for the relief of Annie Forbes Sangster.
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I would ask, do
these bills standing in the name of the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Jelliff) all relate to oases in his constituency?


Mr. JELLIFF:: I wish to inform the hon.
member that none of these bills standing in my name relate to cases in my constituency. I think most of them come from Toronto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the second time, on division.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. L. H. JELLIFF (Lethbridge) moved the second reading of Bill No. 203, for the relief of Charles Stanley Cuneo.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Some time ago
those of us who come from the west were criticized in this house because we had anything to say with regard to divorce bills simply because they related mostly to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. I think it is a very strange thing now that members from the province of Ontario cannot sponsor their own divorce bills. It seems to me that we ought to have an explanation of these bills since they have to be loaded on a man who comes from the province of Alberta. I would suggest that we have an explanation as to this particular bill.


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: It is one of the ordinary
cases that we have before us, of infidelity in the matrimonial relationship. I imagine that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) is most concerned as to the future of the children who are involved in these cases. In the particular case before us I can assure him that there are no children involved As to the bills standing in my name generally, I am pleased to inform the hon. member that I have examined the evidence in each case carefully, and I think it is amply sufficient to sustain the divorce applied for.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the second time, on division.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 178, for the relief of Adele Cawthra Rogers.-Mr. Matthews.
Bill No. 182, for the relief of Maud Parker. -Mr. McGibbon (for Mr. Church).
Canada's Gold Reserve
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 183, for the relief of Eleanor Vair. -Mr. MeGibbon (for Mr. Church).
Bill No. 186, for the relief of Isabel Honor Gilderoy.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 192, for the relief of Catherine Goring.-Mr. MeGibbon (for Mr. Church).
Bill No. 194, for the relief of Harvey Baden Powell Haney.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 196, for the relief of Ivy Georgina Lloyd.-Mr. Jelliff.
Bill No. 197, for the relief of Helen Steele. -Mr. Jelliff.
Bill No. 198. for the relief of John Campbell. -Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 202, for the relief of Joseph Nicholl. -Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 204, for the relief of William Allan Griffith.-Mr. Jelliff.
Bill No. 205, for the relief of Sydney Bishop. -Mr. Jelliff.
Bill No. 209, for the relief of Patrizio Nardini.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Motions for second readings agreed to on division.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston City):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the terminal at the lower lakes, may I ask that there be placed on the file the original correspondence addressed to the United States, between certain dates, I do not know specifically when, in which a summary of the note from the United States, dated July 28, 1928, is contained?


ST. JOHN AND QUEBEC RAILWAY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. MURRAY MacLAREN (St. John-Albert):: 
Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Postmaster General):: I think the hon. gentleman is right and that there is some correspondence between the
fMr. Jelliff.]
premier of New Brunswick and myself. I will see that it is produced. I was not aware that it was not on the file.


Murray MacLaren: This had probably not been 'brought to the attention of the Postmaster General?


Peter John Veniot: No, it had not.


CANADA'S GOLD RESERVE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Shaver Woodsworth: I wish, Mr. Speaker, to direct a question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb). There is an article in the current issue of the Monetary Times in which the statement is made that sixty million dollars would be required to bring Canadian exchange back to parity with .that of the United States, and that there is not that amount of gold in Canada's reserve. May I ask if that is the real reason why gold is not being shipped at present to the United States?


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet read the article. I will read it, and then I shall be in a better position to give my hon. friend an answer.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is not the article, Mr. Speaker, that I am concerned about; I want to get at the facts.


James Alexander Robb: I am not sure that the facts are as stated.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Secondly, I wish to ask the Minister of Finance: Is it true that it will require sixty million dollars to bring our exchange back to par in New York? According to the Minister's own statement there is not sixty million dollars in our treasury reserve. I think in a matter of this importance we have a right to hear from the Minister of Finance. Do I understand that the minister refuses to answer the question?


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Speaker, I have been some twenty years in this house and I have observed that it is not etiquette for a minister to rise to answer a question until the hon. gentleman putting the question has sat down. Let me say to my hon. friend that the Dominion of Canada is in a position to meet all obligations, at any time, anywhere.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that a general statement is not an answer to my specific question. I ask again: Is it true it will require sixty million dollars to bring Canadian exchange back to par in New York?

Western Postal Employees-Mr. Veniot


CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. A. ROYS@North Simcoe: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) when we may expect his opinion regarding appointments by the Civil Service Commission pursuant to the provisions of the Civil Service Act.


Ernest Lapointe: I have asked one of the officers of
the department to communicate with both the Civil Service Commission and the officers of the Post Office Department and to make a full report to me. I shall 'be quite pleased to communicate it to my !hon. friend.


NOVA SCOTIA FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. W. JOHNSTONE (Cape Breton North-Victoria):: I desire to ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin) when I may expect an answer to my question of April 29 with reference to the fisheries of Nova Scotia?


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: The officers of the department are working on the answer to the question of my hon. friend.


WESTERN POSTAL EMPLOYEES
[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Postmaster General) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide for the readjustment of the salaries of certain postal employees in western Canada who were dismissed in 1919 and subsequently re-employed, to give them the benefit of salary they would have received had they re-entered the service in the class equivalent to the one they were in when dismissed, and of subsequent salary revisons, and to make provision whereby certain former employees not now in the said service shall be eligible for reappointment as vacancies occur.
Mr. BENNETT:: Explain. The motion is very indefinite in its terms.


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Speaker, in bringing this resolution before the house I might refer to what happened last session. When the supplementary estimates were submitted, three or four days before prorogation, several hon. members took part in the discussion and it will be remembered that later the item was withdrawn, and I stated that the matter would be taken up next session. The reason I gave for withdrawing the item was that judging
i
from what appeared in the press and from the speeches in the house the matter had not been sufficiently studied, and I thought with a closer study of the question a better understanding could be reached. Now I am bringing the matter forward again in the shape of a bill which will be founded on this resolution. Its object is to provide for payment to the men taken back after the Winnipeg strike of 1919 of the salary they would have received had they re-entered the service in the class equivalent to the one they were in when dismissed.
It is not my intention to go into the merits or demerits of what happened at the time of the strike, but merely to relate what took place afterwards. On July 7, 1919, a special act was passed authorizing the Civil Service Commission to appoint to the permanent staff any person employed to replace anyone who went out on strike, and in January, 1920, the government agreed to an arrangement whereby employees who had gone out on strike would be re-employed, provided: First, that they had the approval of the governor in council; secondly, that they gave satisfactory assurance that a repetition of the offence would not occur; thirdly, that they passed the civil service examination; and in the fourth place, that they should begin anew in the service. The age limit was waived in their favour.
Now these ninety-six men who were taken on after the strike and reinstated as the agreement here states were demoted to lower positions; that is to say, they came in at the bottom of the ladder or as postal helpers to work their way up. That is what they were supposed to do. But when they did return to employment they were engaged in the same advanced class they had occupied in the service before the strike, although they weie paid the wages of employees of a lower grade. By way of comparison, although these figures may not be quite exact, I may put it this way in order to show what I mean. A postal clerk drawing a salary of S125 or $135 a month came back into the service as a postal helper at $85; he did the work of a postal clerk who would receive $125 but he himself received a remuneration of $85 only, or $90 as the case might be. There was that spread 'between the two.
On my tour to the coast in 1927 I stopped off at Winnipeg for three days, and this matter was brought to my attention. I went into it fully, and met a committee composed of some twenty-five or thirty persons representing all classes of postal workers in the city of Winnipeg. That committee was composed of men who had gone out on strike and had been taken back; of men who had replaced the
2250	COMMONS
Western Postal Employees-Mr. Veniot
strikers-there were some six hundred in all- and were working in the service; as well as of those who had not gone out on strike but had continued to work in the service. I met this committee representing these different classes of those concerned in the question, and they were all unanimous that those who had been token back, the ninety-six, should be paid the salaries which they earned. I would point out that if the intention was to punish those men by demoting them they should have been demoted not only as respects the amount of salary they received but, as well in the class or kind of work which they were to do. I have always believed in the principle that the labourer is worthy of his hire, and if these men were brought back and engaged in work of a higher class they should have been paid for that class of work; they should not have been demoted in the matter of salary alone.
After studying the situation very carefully and looking into all phases of it, without however inquiring into the pros and cons of the strike, or what may have brought aibout the strike, I submitted to the government that in my opinion these men for several reasons should receive the pay contemplated in section 1, the only section, of the bill to be brought down. As I stated before, I felt that they were worthy of their hire. I felt that other participants in the strike, those who had gone out from the service of the railways, industrial concerns and so forth having been taken back on the same conditions as previously, it would not be fair that the employees in the postal service should alone be signalled out for this demotion. That was one of the reasons on which I based my recommendation to the government, and it has been accepted. I do not intend to take up very much of the time of the house discussing the resolution; when the bill is before the committee we shall have an opportunity to go more fully into the merits of the question. Let me observe this, however. I read in one of the newspapers this statement:	"These men are in receipt
of larger salaries than they had at the time they went out.'' If that is so then there is nothing to pay them; it will not be necessary to put into operation this provision of the bill relating to those who went out, as regards any who may have reached after a few years the position wherein they would receive such salary as was paid them before the strike took place. Let me point out further that in this bill there is nothing which will give a preference in the way of seniority over the men who remained in the service or over those who were taken in to replace the strikers.


Mr. MacDONALD (South Cape Breton):: Did the ninety-six pass the civil service examination?


Peter John Veniot: Yes. As I say, there is
nothing to give these men a preference, in the way of seniority or classification, over the men who were taken in to replace the four or five hundred who were not taken back. When the resolution is in committee I shall ask to have it amended by the omission of these words:
And to make provision whereby certain former employees not now in the said service shall he eligible for reappointment as vacancies occur.
At the time this resolution was prepared I was not aware that there was an order in council which met that very condition. Having been made aware of it, and having obtained a copy of the order in council, I did not deem it necessary to go further than the first clause of the resolution in order to meet the conditions as I found them in Winnipeg. On January 7, 1920, an order in council was passed which reads:
Many evidences have reached the Department of Labour from ex-postal employees that they now recognize they participated unwisely in the sympathetic strike in western Canada last May, and that they sincerely regret the action they then took. The gravity of their offence against the state being now realized, the government has given consideration to the possibility of removing the bar to their application through the Civil Service Commission for re-employment in the public service, and His Excellency the Governor in Council is disposed to exercise clemency so far as reasonably consistent with necessary discipline.
Ex-postal employees may therefore be considered as eligible to be appointed to positions in the civil service for which they make application as vacancies occur, and to which, in the opinion of the commission, they are justly entitled under the regulations, subject to the following conditions:
Ex-postal workers must not be re-employed in the civil service without the approval in each ease of His Excellency the Governor in Council;
Inasmuch as a number of those affected have been a long time in the public service, and are now past the age limit fixed for new employees entering the service, it will be permissible for the commission to appoint them notwithstanding the age requirements.
The words which I wish to omit from the present resolution refer to the age limit.
In every ease before being reappointed satisfactory assurance must be obtained that a repetition of the offence will not occur.
This is order in council P.C. No. 1152, containing the report of the committee of the Privy Council, and approved by the Governor General on June 4, 1920.

Western Postal Employees-Mr. Bennett
There is nothing much more for me to say except to endeavour to correct a wrong impression which seems to have spread in certain quarters. The Montreal Gazette of April 8, 1929, contained this statement:
These men were dismissed from the service, and for some reason, which no one has ever been able successfully to explain or defend, were reinstated.
This order in council explains why these men were reinstated, and I merely draw attention to that statement in order to keep the record straight. A further reference was made to this matter, which I think should be corrected. The Gazette stated:
The Postmaster General failed to secure the passage of his bill; the measure -went through the House of Commons-to the discredit of that body, but it never left the Senate. That was Mr. Veniot's opportunity to do some learning.
Everyone knows no bill was introduced and no bill went to the senate last year; consequently this statement is without foundation.
I do not refer to it in a critical way but simply wish to keep the record clear.


Finlay MacDonald: How many men were dismissed?


Peter John Veniot: I can give all that information in committee, but speaking from memory I think 623 men were affected. I will have all those details when we go into committee-I think 96 men applied for reinstatement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mir. Speaker, the resolution
now before this house involves questions which have been fruitful sources of much unfortunate and painful discussion. I do not think it advisable to canvass the whole situation as we did last year; it is sufficient for my purposes to direct attention to the fact that a number of postal employees left the service of the crown under such circumstances as dislocated the public service and rendered it impossible for mail to be delivered in the city of Winnipeg. Later these men were offered the opportunity to go back to work but, not having availed themselves of that opportunity for reinstatement, they were later re-employed to the number of 96 on certain definite terms and conditions which constitute the contract between them and the state. Those conditions are contained in an order in council and are four in number. As the Postmaster General has stated, that order in council provided first that all who desired to re-enter the service should pass an examination before they were employed; secondly, that the age limit should be no bar to their re-employment as new employees; thirdly that they should be re-employed subject to
approval by the governor in council in each case and lastly that they should commence as new employees in the service.
That there was an unfortunate condition in Winnipeg in 1919 goes without saying. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) last year thought the observations which were made by myself were rather stronger than the facts warranted, and not having been in Winnipeg at the time of the strike I shall content myself for the moment by reading an editorial which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press of April 8 of this year. The Free Press was a daily newspaper at the time of this occurrence. The proprietors endeavoured to publish it as such during the strike and I take it that they had a clear appreciation and understanding of the situation which developed in that city during the progress of events. The following is the editorial, headed "The Vote for the Postal Workers" which appears in that newspaper:
It is regrettable that the Dominion government did not profit by its experience last year to the extent of declining to resubmit to parliament the vote for the Winnipeg postal strikers, which they found it advisable last year to withdraw. This matter cannot be considered without reopening the whole question of the Winnipeg strike of 1919. This is something which considerations of prudence and public welfare should suggest leaving alone; for the passage of time ^ has not in the least led to any adjustment in the -points of view of those who have disagreed as to the original, motives and purposes of the strike. Last year, in a brief but bitter debate which followed the submission of the vote to the house, Mr. Bennett said the strike was, in the minds of its promoters, a consciously revolutionary movement intended to subvert the government of the country and he cited the findings of the court in Winnipeg to support this view: while Mr. Woodsworth took the line that it was a comparatively innocent development, the character of which "had been grossly misrepresented. This involved, of course, the necessity of representing the court cases, which followed the strike, as part of a policy of injustice. Mr. Woodsworth did not boggle at this requirement. He talked about dastardly conspiracies, travesties of justice. farcicial trials. _	_ *	.
This interchange of views illustrates what is bound to happen whenever the Winnipeg strike of 1919 comes up for discussion. All the old bitternesses revive. By an agreement entered into by common consent the issue is left alone pretty much in Winnipeg on the principle of letting sleeping dogs lie; but the Dominion government is prepared, it seems, to have the question stirred rap anew and made the subject of discussions, which are bound to be violent, in both the Commons and the Senate. Because it is not possible to deal with this business of paying back money to present members of the post office staff who went on strike in 1919 without bringing up the question of the merits of the great strike. The justice of making these payments can only be established if certain things are first established; that the Winnipeg strike was in itself right; that the postal workers did right in striking in sym-
2252	COMMONS
Western Postal Employees-Mr. Bennett
pathy with it; that the Dominion government of that day had no business to issue an ultimatum that the workers must return to work or lose their jobs; that the Dominion government did wrong in trying to man the post office and give the public a service; and that the men who took the strikers' positions had no claims to consideration and should have been turned into the street when, after the strike, the strikers returned and asked for their positions. Mr. Heenan, the Minister of Labour, took all these positions flatfootedly in 1926 when he made a recommendation to Mr. Veniot, the Postmaster General, which was the immediate cause of Mr. Veniot's efforts to induce the government and parliament to make these grants.
It is not surprising, however, that the Dominion government does not relish being put in the position of appearing to confirm these conclusions; and last session Mr. Veniot and Mr Thorson made an attempt, which will doubtless be repeated this year, to make it appear that there is no connection between the granting of this money to the postal workers and the question of the merits of the action of the postal workers in leaving their employment and defying the state. They failed hopelessly because the connection is explicit and undeniable. Mr. Thorson argued that the Dominion government was under no obligation to take the strikers back, but that, having done so, it should have put them back in the positions they held when they went on strike and at the same salary; he intimated that the post office sought out these workers because it required their services and took advantage of their necessities to pay them the minimum wages. This is a very inaccurate account of what happened. Within three months of the close of the strike a concerted effort was begun by the strikers to get the government to lift the embargo and enable them to apply for employment on terms which governed entrants to the service. They appealed to every available agency to intercede with the government to induce it to recede from its position that they could never re-enter the service. Among others, the Free Press was asked to use its influence with the government to this end and gladly. did so. But there was no suggestion of reinstatement to their old positions and salaries. Had this been their demand, they would not have got the support which enabled them to overcome the reluctance of the government, well known at the time, to recede from its position.
Having regard to the seriousness of their offence and to the distinct understanding upon which they re-entered the service., it cannot be said that these postal workers have been harshly used. With respect to employment, they were given a preference, subject only to prior claims of returned soldiers; the age limit, where necessary, was waived; and they were, for purposes of pensions and service, allowed to count the period of previous employment. They have been so advanced in the service that with the exception of one or two, who have been taken on within the last two or three years, they are all in receipt of larger salaries than they.had at the time they went out. The average increase is about fifty per cent. There is good ground for doubting the spontaneousness of their demand for additional payment; but naturally, being human, they joined in the movement when they were advised that if they all pulled together and IMr. Bennett.3
used their influence they might force the government to hand them over the money. The proposed vote last year was $115,000; this year it will be larger-the assumed figure is $15(h000. The division of this sum among ninety persons, even allowing for handsome deductions for "legal expenses", would be a pretty fat thing for the recipients; and it is not surprising that there is a persistent push to secure it.
The sum, large though it is. does not. of course, mean much to the Dominion treasury; but the Dominion government ought not to delude itself with the idea that the simplest thing for it to do and the one having the least dangerous consequences, is to pay the money and stop the clamour. The Dominion government cannot accede to this demand and pay over the money without thereby agreeing to the propositions, with respect to the postal strike, set forth above; and it cannot agree to these propositions without taking a responsibility which we should think it would be to its great advantage to avoid.
That is the editorial in the Free Press. I will now quote from another newspaper, The Farmer's Advocate and Home Magazine of London, of April 18, 1929, which I think publishes a western edition. The paper is entirely out of politics and its criticism of what is being done is as follows;
Politics in the Postal Service
Canadians have had reason in the past to point to our postal service as an example of successful state ownership of a great public utility. Irrespective of partisanship and political affiliations the people of Canada have expressed their pride and confidence in this department of government; but if the Postmaster General succeeds in reinstating and reimbursing the post office employees of Winnipeg who sided with the red element during the desperate strike of 1919 the Post Office Department will soon be known as a mere political cesspool.
This action to restore the strikers to the same position and status they would now enjoy had they never defied the crown nor joined the revolutionary forces in those awful days of the Winnipeg strike is of more than local" political significance. A great principle is involved; a principle that no minister of the crown, not even a government, should be allowed to profane.
Last year a considerable item was included on the estimates to adjust the salaries of and compensate a number of the strikers dismissed from the service during the Winnipeg strike. Opposition to the measure was so strong in the commons that the item was finally struck out of the estimates and the Postmaster General executed a temporary retreat. This year, however, a bill is under consideration, and parliament will be asked to vote approximately $125,000 to reinstate and reimburse the strikers.
Anyone acquainted with the efforts put forth to prevent utter demoralization of public services in the city of Winnipeg during the hectic days of the strike is aware of the masterly manner in which Thomas Bower, postmaster at the time, kept the mail moving and prevented a total tie-up of the service that affected not only the city, but the prairie provinces as well. Mr Bower consistently refused to reinstate the striking post office employees and give them seniority over the staunch supporters who

Western Postal
Employees-Mt. Bennett
remained loyal to the crown and, even in the face of serious danger to themselves, remained long hours at their posts and made it possible for the office to function. Now as a reward for this service to the state, the Honourable Peter Veniot has forced a vacation and ultimate retirement oil the postmaster at \ymnipeg, for the purpose, obviously, of making it easier to reinstate the strikers and thus consummate some political bargain with the Labour party.
The postmaster at Winnipeg has been released from dutv in a manner quite characteristic of Honourable Mr. ATeniot's administration of the department. But the reinstatement of strikers and adjustment of salaries fortunately require a vote of money in the commons, and this provides the opportunity for the people of Canada, through their representatives in parliament, to rebuke the Postmaster General and put a stop to his high-handed political manoeuvering This abject surrender to the Winnipeg Labour party *would be an unpardonable affront to everyone who remained loyal to state laws and state institutions and struggled against fearful odds in 1919 to maintain them. More than that, anv officer of the crown merits and must have, in the honest and conscientious pursuit of his duties, the unfaltering support of the department of government under which he labours. That is one of the tenets of successful business and sound government administration. These principles the Postmaster General would violate for a mess of political pottage.
Without partisanship or political affiliations "The Farmers's Advocate" is forced to condemn untoward action in any administration. Principle is above party. The people, in the last analysis, are supreme.	,,	,
Under our system of government the people, fortunately, have a means of expression; and the opportunity here presents itself, before it is too late, to demand adherence to principle and honour in the conduct of public affairs.
As I have said, that article appears in an independent newspaper which in times past could not be charged with any particular lack of appreciation of the sendees rendered to the state by the government.
In common, I suppose, with most of the other members of the house, I have received a photographic copy of issues of the Western Labour News, taken from the provincial library of Manitoba. This was sent with the compliments of the Employers' Association of Manitoba, the prairie division of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Winnipeg board of trade, the Winnipeg builders' exchange and the Winnipeg realty exchange. These articles are four in number, the first one being dated May 17, 1919. The opening sentence is:
How does the idea of using the new- parliament buildings for a labour temple strike you?


Mr. THORSON:: I might explain to the
hon. leader of the opposition that the photographic copy is made up of a number of sentences which were cut out of various pages and pasted together before being photographed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am indebted to the
hon. member for the explanation, because ^ I was not aware of that fact until he stated it. This photographic copy which we have received-I suppose every member of the house has received it-is, as the hon. gentleman assures us, and he must know, being fiom Winnipeg, a photographic reproduction of a number of paragraphs cut out of different issues of the Labor News and then photographed' in the form in which we now have it.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I wanted to explain that
the sentences had been cut out of their contexts and then pasted together and the whole photographed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The sentences may have
been quoted apart from their contexts, but it seems to me I hat the sentence "How does the idea of using the new parliament buildings for a labour temple strike you? is certainly a sentence complete within itself. Another paragraph quoted is:
It is reported that certain rigs are delivering ice. bread, etc., without the printed card authorized by the strike committee, borne ot these carry written notices. We warn all such drivers that this is contrary to the orders ot the strike committee. Certified permits will be supplied on request by the food committee.
Another paragraph is:
Theatres and picture shows are running under strike permit so that the workers can keep off the streets.
Another one is:
All these concerns are organized fully and could be stopped on a minute's notice, but tor the present the strike committee believes that it is better to let them run-hence its order for them to stay on the job under permit.
Edition No. 2 contains this paragraph:
All telegraphers are out on strike. But. in order to avert unnecessary hardship, such men as are absolutely necessary have been sent back under strike permit to send out such wires as are passed by strike committee.
Special strike edition No. 8 contains the following:
The postal federation and the telephone operators have received their ultimatums. We wonder why they delayed so long to do this. Tn a few hours more it may be expected that the city council will do the same thing re its employees. Then the individual employers will
follow suit.	.	i _
The reply of labour is explicit. No worker will return to work until the principle ot collective bargaining and a living wage is recognized.
Then follows a paragraph from the last issue, as follows:
What will the governments, and the city councils, and the railroads, and the private
Western Postal

Employees-Mr. Bennett
bosses do? Not a single worker will go back till all are reinstated. The governments say that their employees are dismissed and that their dismissals are final. Then the issue is clear. Either the governments must eat humble pie or they must resign.
They have no other choice. Labour comprises the majority of the population. The 1,000 are so insignificant that it would need a magnifying glass to see them. It looks as if they will have to abandon the field and let their governments resign.
I think the sentences which I have just read are complete within themselves. I read them because they indicate the conditions which prevailed before and after the postal workers left their employment. The hon. minister quoted from an order in council which was passed in June, 1920, which contains very significant words; The ordler in council sets out the fact that it was a "sympathetic strike" under which the postal workers left their employment, that they were advised of "the gravity of their offence against 'the state," but that "clemency" would be extended consistent with "maintaining the necessary discipline." According to the admissions of the minister, it was a sympathetic strike which induced the postal men to quit their employment and tie up the postal service of Winnipeg. It is apparent that they left for no grievance of their own-they had none at the time-'but rather because others had grievances and they were in sympathy with them. I think that is abundantly clear from what the minister has said.
Then it occurs to me that we have to ask a very simple question. Is the attitude of the government different from that taken by most employers under similar circumstances?
I received, I dare say in company with other members of the house, a resolution passed by a body of locomotive engineers. It was signed by at least one engineer whom I know and I recall that within a very short space of time prior to that he with others had called upon me asking me if I could not use my influence, such as it was, for the purpose of helping them in seeking employment, not as engineers, but as men who had ceased to be in the service, because they had been dismissed for what their fellow employees said were just causes, as hostlers or in some other branch of the service of a great railway corporation, regardless of the fact that they were as well able to render service as engineers as they ever were. Having committed an offence against the rules of the corporation they had been dismissed :rom the service and now they sought reemployment not as engineers, with all the knowledge they had of that business, but in any capacity in which they could find employment as beginners in the service. They said 
very frankly that some of those who had been dismissed should not be entrusted again with a locomotive hauling a passenger train.
Need I remind the house that during the Great war, aye, prior to the Great war, we have the history of a great soldier who for an offence was cashiered from the British army. He volunteered as a private in a foreign army, rose to a position of great importance and became a commander. During the war I recall perhaps not many but some similar instances at least. I remember in particular one who was a friend of mine, who has since passed to his reward. He was employed as an officer. For good and sufficient causes he was dismissed from his position, and he enrolled as a private. He began again to work his way up the ladder to place and position in the force of which he was a member. So it is all through life. I venture to point it out in these words, words which I think we all have to keep in mind because we all at one time or another realize the soundness of them:
hot heaven itself upon the past has power, out what has been, has been.
The fact is that these unfortunate men, for sympathetic reasons only, left the employ of the state, tied up and dislocated the postal service of Winnipeg and, when they were afforded an opportunity to go back and be reinstated, declined to do so. When the period was extended; when the government saw fit to say to them: You may have a longer time in which to make up your mind, a number of them still declined to make up their minds to go back into the service of the state. Under those circumstances the question is: Have they a claim for retroactive pay from this parliament? Under the conditions mentioned iby the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot), have they a right now, seeing that they joined as new employees, to ask parliament to make them employees as from the date of their first employment, without taking into consideration any breach of employment or any time during which they were not employed? The principle is very far-reaching. Think what it means to this country to have the House of Commons declare to-day that men who were employed many years ago, who left their employment for sympathetic reasons, who declined to go back having two opportunities to do so, and who then went back under a distinct contract with the state that when they did so they joined as new employees, are now to be told that they are to be treated as though they had never left the service,^ as though there had never been a break in their employment, as though they had never gone on a sympathetic strike. I

for one cannot bring myself to that state of mind. When I remember the statements that have been made to me by dismissed employees of corporations in this country who have sought my assistance that they might get back to any employment, and who have gladly gone back to subordinate positions, positions where men who were once their juniors became their seniors and their superintendents,
I also remember that we do not take, with relation to ordinary transactions, the action that is now proposed. I remember further that, according to the very language of the Free Press newspaper, we put the imprimatur of the approval of this parliament upon the validity of that strike. As the House of Commons of Canada we will have said that that sympathetic strike was justified; that the leaving of their employment by the postal workers was justified, and that the consequences which follow every man for his act shall not follow in this particular case. As I have said, I cannot bring myself to agree to that reasoning. As a citizen, as a lawyer, as a member of parliament, I cannot give my assent to such propositions.
But let us for a moment ask us these further questions before we leave that phase of the matter. First, ninety-six men were employed by the state in the postal service.
Did they leave the service? Answer, yes.
Have they a grievance against the state that employed them? Answer, no.
Did they leave for sympathetic reasons because of grievances that others alleged they had? Answer, yes.
Were they afforded an opportunity for reinstatement? Answer, yes.
Did they avail themselves of it? Answer, no.
Were they afforded a further opportunity for reinstatement? Answer, yes.
Did they avail themselves of it? Answer, no.
Did they subsequently request the government to reemploy them? Answer, yes.
Was that request granted? Answer, yes.
By what method? Answer, by an order in council just read by the minister.
Did it impose conditions? Answer, it did.
W7as one of those conditions that they should be treated as new employees? Answer, yes.
Under those circumstances we are asked to disregard period of the unemployment and reinstate them in salary. They have already had many of the other benefits, and reinstatement as regards salary means putting them in the position as though they had never left
6, 1929	2255
Western Postal Employees-Mr. Bennett
their employment and giving them back their money from the date of the strike until today-


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: No, no.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -on the basis of the
salary they had before they left the service.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: There is no suggestion
at all that they should be paid for the time they were out on strike.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I mean from the date
of reemployment. I mean from the day they went to work after the strike, the day of reemployment after the strike. While, as I have said, I find it difficult to think that any government would' submit such a measure to parliament, it has been done, and we have to meet the situation. We who sit to the left of the Speaker are not unmindful of the fact that at the time of these unfortunate occurrences, the Hon, Gideon Robertson, who has been a supporter of those who sit to the left of the Speaker, was Minister of Labour. He visited Winnipeg at that time, under circumstances to which I referred last year and with which I shall not trouble the house again. I thought it desirable, in view of my inability to arrive at any conclusion that would permit me to support this measure in justice to my fellow-citizens, in justice to my fellow-Canadians in every walk of life, to consult with him, and he made to me a suggestion which I shall give to this house for what it is worth. Senator Robertson, being very familiar with the matter, suggested that after all punishment should not be eternal- none of us believes in eternal punishment. One of my colleagues suggests that there are still some who do believe in eternal punishment, but certainly my friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and I do not. It is now ten years since these men left the service and Senator Robertson suggested that as a period of ten years had since elapsed, justice would be done if those who had attained to the position which it was contended from their long service they were entitled, on recommendations made by their superior officers on the basis of their merit, regardless of the years of employment, received the increased salary up to the maximum of their class. I have thought over this suggestion very carefully.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Would my hon. friend explain that a little more clearly? Does he mean from the date of their employment?
2256	COMMONS
Western Postal Employees-Mr. Bennett


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. Let me make that clear; from a date to be fixed, from the 1st of June or the 1st of July or the 1st of May, if you like, and that they should receive upon the recommendation of their superior officers such increased compensation as their meritorious service would have entitled them to receive had that service been continuous. In other words, in the case of a postal worker who has worked in the service fifteen years, five years in the service before the strike and now for ten years more, if his superior officer recommends that by reason of that man having had five years' experience in the service previous to being re-employed he is better able to discharge the duties of his position he should receive the added salary or compensation to which he would have been entitled had he remained continuously in the service. It should not, however, be made retroactive, but should date only from the time this provision becomes effective, either the 1st of June or the 1st of July, or whatever date is thought desirable.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: On what principle would that be based?


Richard Bedford Bennett: On the principle that punishment should not be eternal, and that these men having served for fifteen years, in two instalments one of which was terminated by the employee himself, now as an act of " clemency "-to quote the wording of the order in council-we should consider the service as a whole for the purpose of future compensation, but not past compensation.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Would it not also be partly on the principle that that man was a more valuable employee to the public by reason of the service which he had rendered prior to his removal from the service?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the ground which was urged by the Postmaster General and by the hon. gentleman last year, and which is urged again here to-day. Of course you cannot apply that principle in life. The demoted officer was a better private than any other private in the battalion because of his knowledge; the demoted officer who went into the Egyptian army was a better man than the other men in that army, and rose to be its commander; the demoted locomotive engineer became a better hostler than the men engaged in that work; the demoted conductor who became a brakeman was a better brakeman because of his past experience. But in the particular cases to which I referred, these employees of a private corporation lost their seniority, their pensions, and their claims to consideration on the part of 
their employers, and now I say that in order to end this matter, in order to have it no longer dragged into parliament as it has been under the circumstances alluded to by the Postmaster General, in order to prevent these acrimonious discussions to which the Free Press refers, in order that it may not be said that one party in the strike triumphed over the other-which is, after all, apparently what is to be done-in order to prevent all that, I thought the suggestion of Senator Robertson not an unreasonable one. If therefore the government were disposed to provide that from a future date, on the recommendation of their superior officers as to the character of the service rendered, those employees who had terminated their employment and afterwards been reemployed by a contract of re-employment which is fixed by order in council should receive this increased compensation, we on this side would not be unwilling that they should receive that consideration which their superior officers might recommend, in the light of the services they had rendered counted in years of service without regard to any interruption that had taken place in it. That is the best compromise suggestion, if you call it such-because after all, statecraft they say is always compromise-that we can make. Neither as a lawyer nor as a citizen nor as a member of this parliament could I legally become a party to it, but because of a very earnest desire to bring about happy and peaceful relations between the state as employer and the postal workers as employees and to prevent the harrowing discussions that take place in this parliament with respect to what happened ten years ago, the then Minister of Labour, who has as warm a heart for the men who toil as any man in this Dominion, has offered this suggestion, and after listening to his observations and his reasons I am convinced that it would be fair solution of what is a difficult problem. It is a compromise, it is true, but it violates no principle. It places no imprimatur of the approval of this parliament upon the validity or invalidity of what has been done in days gone by. It leaves out all the harrowing discussions with respect to the strike. It does not deal with the problems of re-instatement or re-employment, but leaves the question to be considered whether or not in the light of the greater experience of the worker he is entitled to receive greater compensation than the one who has less experience in that particular class of work, although it is perfectly clear that in the ten years that have elapsed the new men who have come in must

Western
Postal Employees-Mr. Bennett
have become as experienced as it is possible for a man to become by reason of length of service in work of that kind.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: The hon. leader of the
opposition (Mr. Bennett) has cited as a parallel case the demoted commander who did the work of a private after his demotion, but I understand that these postal workers when they went back into the service did their old work, not new work at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely my hon. friend
knows that any man who engages in a job as postal worker does the work of a postal worker whether he be a new employee or a man of ten yeairs' experience. It may be that he could do more work because of his greater experience, but that is all that can be said with respect to it.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: There ds a class of work
that the newly engaged postal workers cannot do.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The demoted officer who became a private was better able to do his work by reason of his previous experience than the other privates, tout they were all privates. These men were all postal workers. True, one may have had greater experience than the either and therefore if he so desired he could do more work, just as the demoted locomotive engineer was a better hostler than the one who had no experience.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: But he was not an
engineer again.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He certainly was not.
But there were grades in the postal service, and these men came in under theiir contract as new employees. That is the point of the whole thing.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: They were put back in
their old work.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Excuse me, they went
back as new employees, and that is one of the conditions there stated.


Peter John Veniot: Will my hon. friend allow
me? If they went in as new employees they would have to begin as postal porters and postal helpers; but instead of that they were put to work as postal sorters and postal clerks -a higher grade of work. It is not the quantity, it is the class of work that oounts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And they received pay
as new employees in that class?


Peter John Veniot: No, they received pay as
postal clerks and postal sorters.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, they received pay
as new employees, as postal helpers.


Peter John Veniot: But the postal helpers and the postal clerks have different duties.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I realize that, but they
went to the work that was assigned to them in connection with the handling of the mail in the Winnipeg post office. And they agreed to it. They would never have been there but for that. These men would never again have been in the employ of the Dominion government, according to the order in council read by the minister, unless they had agreed to go back as new employees. Now they say: We want to break that contract. If so, why not put it on one side altogether? There was no coercion. They had failed to take advantage of the two offers made. Then, as the Free Press said, having sought new employment- mark you-they came back as new employees notwithstanding the provisions of the Civil Service Act. Having so come back, they now ask us to overlook all the circumstances under which they terminated their former employment and be treated as though there had never been any such termination. Can we do it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask my hoD. friend one question? It is a little aside from what he is discussing. On what authority did the government give anyone the right to return to the postal sendee notwithstanding the provisions of the Civil Service Act? I cannot understand how these men got back at all by order in council. I should think their appointment ought to have come under the provisions of the Civil Service Act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As a matter of fact, my understanding would be that as the War Measures Act was still in force, the wide provisions of that act enabled the order in council to be passed. I only say that to the right hon. gentleman because I asked the same question in relation to it, and that is the only answer I have at the moment. The War Measures Act conferred on the executive almost legislative-some have said wholly legislative-powers, in many regards. They thus had power, without coming to parliament, to override the provisions of the Civil Service Act to that extent. The men still had to pass examinations; the age limit was disregarded. Then they had to have the approval of the governor in council with respect to every specific case of employment. Lastly, they came in as new employees.
Now, I submit, the question is a very simple one. Why should parliament overlook the fact that the men themselves terminated their employment? Nobody asked
2258	COMMONS
Western Postal Employees-Mr. Bennett
them to leave the service. They did a grievous injury to the body politic by leaving their employment. What is more, it was stated in that order in council, and I once more direct attention to these words, that, first of all, it was a "sympathetic strike" that prevailed in Winnipeg; secondly, "they now realize the gravity of their offence against the state." Now we are going to reward them for realizing "the gravity of their offence against the state" by saying that they are to get full pay from the moment they went back to employment, regardless of the fact that they themselves acknowledge they were guilty of a grave offence against the state? That is what it gets down to.
It is my earnest desire, as I have said, to promote amity and good feeling between the great body of civil servants of this country and the state that employs them. Having had the benefit of a discussion with the gentleman whom I regard as being more fitted [DOT] to speak in relation to the matter than anyone else that we have in parliament at the moment, I can only say that the compromise as such violates no principle. It merely says that if the postmaster, or whoever is the superior officer, reports with respect to fitness, he shall not be limited by reason of the fact that these men have been in the employment of the department during a limited number of years, that having been in the post office before 1919 they have more experience by reason of that fact, and that experience shall be taken into account to increase their compensation or salary-not retroactively, not as a reward for their grave offence against the state, but at a future date, to be fixed either by the governor in council or by this parliament, in satisfaction of these long outstanding claims, in the hope that this action may change to some degree of harmony what has been a very discordant note in the history of this young country.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Mr. Speaker, may I at the outset congratulate the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) on the comparatively moderate tone of his contribution to the debate as compared with the tone of his remarks on this subject last session. I am very strongly in favour of this resolution as it stands. I think that the criticism which has been directed against it has been based upon a misconception of its purposes and a misunderstanding of the situation in Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Calgary and Vancouver which it is designed to correct. When that situation is 
clearly understood and the purposes of this resolution are fully appreciated, I think the resolution will commend itself to the members of this house.
In order to make the situation a little more clear and to meet some of the objections that have been raised against this proposal, I think certain facts ought to be brought to the attention of the house. It will not be possible in the short space of time at my disposal to deal with all the aspects of the question which have been brought up, but I intend to ideal iwith the more important ones at this stage and then when the house is in committee I shall be able to deal more fully with other aspects.
The postal employees of western Canada in 1919 belonged to an organization called the Amalgamated Postal Workers. The Winnipeg branch of that organization was and had been for some time affiliated with the Trades and Labour Council of Winnipeg. The fact of that affiliation was well known to the post office authorities at that time. When the general strike was called on May 15th, 1919, the Winnipeg branch of the Amalgamated Postal Workers went out, as did many other labour unions affiliated with the Trades and Labour Council of Winnipeg, and the strike spread to the post offices of Saskatoon and Calgary.
On May 24, when the strike had been in progress for some nine days, an ultimatum was issued by the postmaster at Winnipeg, on behalf of the government, to the postal workers who had gone on strike. The essential part of that ultimatum reads as follows:
To-day voluntary workers are temporarily taking the posts these people have left. The government announces that those returning before 12 o'clock noon on Monday the 26th instant, will he accepted and that all failing to resume their duties by that hour will be definitely refused thereafter a place in the federal service. Commencing at the above stated hour new employees will be engaged on the usual permanent basis.
It. will be noticed that this ultimatum was delivered on the 24th of May, a public holiday. It was also a Saturday and it called upon the employees to return to duty by noon of the following Monday. A number did return to duty but a great many did not. Those who did not return were removed from the postal service by two orders in council, the first being P.C. 89-1474, dated July 15, and the second, P.C. 2224, dated November 3. This latter dealt with those who had not been covered by the former. The ultimatum which I read a moment ago definitely notified the postal workers that if they did not return

Western Postal Employees-Mr. Thorson
before a certain hour they would be definitely refused thereafter a place in the federal service; that is, the federal service was to be closed to them completely.
I am trying to give the facts to the house fully so that the record may be accurate and as complete as I can make it. Representations were made on behalf of these men to the authorities at Ottawa with regard to the terms of the ultimatum. Many of these men had been trusted employees; they had been efficient and conscientious servants of the public; many of them were returned soldiers who had recently been demobilized and had returned to the postal service shortly before the general strike. The government listened to these representations and appointed a subcommittee of council consisting of the Hon. P. E. Blondin, who was then Postmaster General, and the Hon. G. D. Robertson, who was then Minister of Labour, to look into the whole question and see whether some solution of the difficulty could not be found. These two ministers prepared a memorandum to the Civil Service Commission dated January 7, 1920, and presented it to the Hon. N. W. Rowell, who was then president of the privy council. That memorandum was accepted by council and became the basis for the reemployment of the men who had been dismissed. Perhaps I might read it and comment upon some of its' terms. It is dated January 7, 1920, is entitled "Memorandum to the Civil Service Commissioners," and reads as follows:
Many evidences have reached the Department of Labour from ex-postal employees that they now recognize they participated unwisely in the sympathetic strike in western Canada last May, and that they sincerely regret the action they then took. The gravity of their offence against the state being now realized, the government has given consideration to the possibility of removing the bar to their application through the Civil Service Commission for reemployment in the public service, and His Excellency the Governor in Council is disposed to exercise clemency so far as reasonably consistent with necessary discipline.
Ex-postal employees may therefore be considered as eligible to be appointed to positions in the civil service for which they make application as vacancies occur, and to which, in the opinion of the commission, they are justly entitled under the regulations, subject to the following conditions:
Then three conditions are enumerated:
Ex-postal workers must not be reemployed in the civil service without the approval in each case of His Excellency the Governor in Council;
Inasmuch as a number of those affected have been a long time in the public service, and are now past the age limit fixed for new employees entering the service, it will be permissible for the commission to appoint them notwithstanding the age requirements.
In every case before being reappointed satisfactory assurance must be obtained that a repetition of the offence will not occur.
The only two conditions of reemployment referred to in this memorandum are that in each case approval by order in council must be obtained and satisfactory assurance must be given that a repetition of the offence will not occur. In other words, the government was prepared to recede from the position it had taken in the ultimatum, that these men would be forever barred from tlhe federal service; it came to a different decision, namely, that they might be reemployed in the federal service subject to certain conditions. I think the government took a very fair-minded attitude to the general situation and I should like to commend it for so doing. However, in my opinion, as I shall point out later, it did not go far enough.
In consequence of this change in the attitude of the government a number of men have been reemployed in the federal sendee notwithstanding the terms of the ultimatum of May 24, 1919, and I wish to emphasize this-that all the men who have been so reemployed have been specially approved by order in council; all of them have given satisfactory assurance that the offence for which they were dismissed will not be repeated.
In respect of all the ninety-six men who were dismissed and are now back in the service there are orders in council; so far as I can ascertain the first of these orders is P.C. 1152, dated June 4, 1920, which reads as follows:
The committee of the privy council have had before them a report, dated 31st May, 1920, from the Secretary of State, submitting that the Civil Service Commission has recently received applications for positions in the civil service from ex-postal employees who participated in the sympathetic strike in western Canada in the spring of 1919. In accordance with the understanding arrived at by the government, as embodied in a memorandum forwarded to the Civil Service Commission by Senator Robertson on the 7th January, 1920, ex-postal employees are to be considered eligible for appointment to positions in the civil service, subject to certain conditions therein mentioned. The ex-postal employees mentioned in the attached list have complied with the conditions of this memorandum. The minister, therefore, recommends that authority be granted for the appointment of these candidates to positions for which they are eligible. The committee advise that the requisite authority be granted accordingly.


Mr. MANION:: What is the date?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: June 4, 1920. That was the first order in council. I am told that similar orders in council were passed with regard to the men who have been taken back into the service from time to time. It will be

2260	COMMONS
Western Postal Employees-Mr. Thorson
noticed, Mr. Speaker, that order in council P.C. 1152, to which I referred a moment ago, incorporated the memorandum to the Civil Service Commission of January 7, 1920, in which reference was made to only two conditions, first that re-employment should be subject to approval by order in council and secondly that the men should give satisfactory assurance that they would not again participate in a sympathetic strike. The other consequences of their re-employment followed by reason of defects in the Civil Service Act with regard to re-employment, which this bill is designed to correct.


Mr. POWER:: May I ask a question?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I have only forty minutes; I would like to finish this part of my argument and then I shall be glad to answer questions.
In all there are now 79 men in the Winnipeg post office who were dismissed by reason of their participation in the general strike. There are also a few such men at Saskatoon, Calgary and Vancouver. I should like the house to take note of the numbers in which these men came back into the service. Of the 79 men in Winnipeg 35 came back in 1920, a year after the strike; 11 came back in 1921, 10 in 1922, 14 in 1923, 6 in 1925 and one in each of the years 1926, 1927 and 1928.
I should like to point out also that the regulations regarding the re-employment of these men, which were framed in 1920, are still in force. The government in 1920 reserved to itself the right to determine whether or not a man should be re-employed in the federal service. That right is still reserved; this resolution does not affect it at all. The memorandum of January 7, 1920, proposed that appointments should be made only as vacancies occurred, and that these appointments should be made by the Civil Service Commission. This resolution is not intended to change that procedure in any way. There is not a single man in the employ of the Dominion government either in the Winnipeg post office or elsewhere who will be prejudiced in the slightest degree by effect being given to the resolution now before the house.
I have endeavoured to outline very briefly the steps which led to the dismissal of these postal employees and to the framing of the regulations for their re-employment. I commend the action of the government of that day, a Conservative government, in going as far as it did; I think it acted in a humanitarian way, but I have one criticism to offer.
I think every member of this house will agree that the government of Canada should

#
set an example for other employers of labour to follow, and I was very glad indeed to have for that proposition the approval of the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary) who stated the other evening that the Dominion government should be a model employer. The Dominion government should at least be as fair to its employees as other employers of labour were to theirs. What happened? These men who were taken back into the employ of the government were in most cases, particularly in 1920 and 1921, put back at the identical work they had been doing previously; full use was made by the Dominion government of their training, their experience and their efficiency. This is not a case of rewarding these men for something they did not do but rather a case of paying them what they have already earned but have not received.
I have here a statement showing in detail with respect to the 79 men who were dismissed from the service by reason of their participation in the strike of 1919 and are now back on the staff of the Winnipeg post office, their length of service, their classification or rank and the salary they were receiving prior to their dismissal. Of these 79 men 20 had been in the service of the Post Office Department ten years or more at the time of their dismissal, and their average length of service was over eight years. I think that is proof that it was the trained, experienced, capable men who wanted to get back into the postal service and who were accepted into that service. This was the result of the policy of requiring approval by order in council in each case where these men were re-employed. Their classifications ranged from the lowest to the highest, from that of transfer agent to that of a comparatively high class clerk, and their salaries ranged all the way from $1,180 per year including bonus to $1,830 per year, including bonus.


Robert James Manion: That was before the strike?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Yes. Yet what happened? These men were all taken back as new employees. Notwithstanding their length of service, their training, their experience, the fact that they were put to the same work after the strike as they had' been doing before it, notwithstanding their classifications and the salaries they had been receiving, they were all taken back as new employees at the lowest grade in the postal service and at the minimum salary of the lowest grade. They did the same work, particularly those taken back in 1920 and 1921, after they were taken back into the service as they had been doing prior to their dismissal. Let me take as an example

Western Postal Employees-Mr. Thorson
the man whose name appears first on this list which I have before me. At the time of his dismissal he had served thirteen years in the Post Office Department; he occupied the rank of a high class clerk and received a salary of $1,830, including the bonus which was paid at that time. That man went on strike in May of 1919 and was taken back into the service on September 7, 1920. When he was taken back into the service he was placed at exactly the same work he had been doing previous to his dismissal; the value of his services to the state was just as great in 1920 as it had been in 1919! Why should he be paid differently? What happened to this man? He had been receiving $1,830 per year, which was the estimate which the state itself put upon his services, but when he came back he was taken on as a postal helper and paid $85 per month.


Mr. HEAPS:: And doing the same work.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: And doing the same work which he had been doing. I appeal to the sense of justice and fair play which exists in the mind of every member of this house and ask them to say whether that was fair. Are we going to rest upon an imperfection in the law when that imperfection can be cured? I say that the government of the day should have gone further and done what other employers did, even if it meant an amendment of the existing law.
What does the resolution which is now before the house propose to do? Simply this: that the postal employees shall be paid by the Dominion of Canada for the services which they have rendered according to the value of such services. The principle of the resolution is this: that the Dominion government should do as other employers of labour did and recognize the fundamental principle, of which the Postmaster General spoke, that the labourer is worthy of his hire. The government should pay its postal employees in Winnipeg and elsewhere what they have actually already earned. That is all that was involved in the item in the supplementary estimates last year. That is the fundamental principle underlying this resolution and every member of the house can accept that prin-liple as being sound and just.
Since the time at my disposal does not permit me to deal with it in detail, I shall deal very briefly with the argument of the hon. deader of the opposition. Why should not the Dominion government treat its former employees who went on strike as other employers
of labour treated theirs? It was quite within the rights of the railway companies not to reemploy their striking conductors; likewise it was quite within the rights of the Dominion government not to reemploy its postal employees who had gone on strike. They both did so, however, and in so doing they acted in a humanitarian way. We commend the railway companies for acting as they did, and we commend the Dominion government for its action, but there is this great difference between the action of the Dominion government and the action of the private railway companies; when the railway companies took back their conductors and used them as conductors they paid them the wages of a conductor and not the wages of a wiper; they paid them the wages of a conductor because that was what they were worth to them. What did the Dominion government do? It took back its postal employees, used their training and experience, had the full benefit of their services to the state, and paid them as green hands. What did employers of labour generally do? The employers of carpenters, masons, mechanics and other skilled workmen reemployed their men who had gone on strike as they saw fit; it is quite true that not all of them were reemployed, but tbpse who were reemployed were taken back at the current rate of wages-they were not paid as apprentices. Yet the Dominion government in all cases, regardless of the value of the services which these men were performing, paid them as green hands, as beginners in the service.
This resolution proposes to do two things; first of all, to pay these men as from the date of their re-employment the salary they would have received had they been taken back into the service at the salary they were receiving prior to their dismissal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I interrupt the hon. gentleman to ask a question?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Would the hon. gentleman be good enough to ask it after my time has expired? The resolution proposes also to put the government in the position which it would have occupied had it followed the example of other employers of labour.
I should like to deal with one more point, since it has been raised. It has been said that the approval of this resolution involves a justification of the strike. When, a year ago, I was discussing the item in the supplementary estimates relating to this question, I said that I did not intend to discuss the merits or demerits of the general strike of

2262	COMMONS
Western Postal Employees-Mr. Thorson
1919 in which these men had participated. I do mot intend to do so to-day; I do not think that the merits or demerits of the strike are in any way involved in the great principle that the labourer is worthy of his hire, and that the Dominion government should pay for services rendered according to the value of such services. Whether the strike was right or wrong, if a man was worth a certain sum of money in 1919 before the strike, then in 1920, after the strike, when he was domg the same kind of work as he had been doing before, he was worth just as much then as he was worth before. That is all that is involved. He is the same man, the value of his services to the state are the same; the value of his services to the state did not decrease merely because he participated in a general strike, perhaps after being unwisely advised. I take the view, notwithstanding the editorial in the Free Press-for the. editor of which I have a very high regard-that the questions involved in the general strike are in no way involved in this resolution. There is only one principle involved in this resolution. I have enunciated that principle several times.
May I refer, Mr. Speaker, to a precedent for the application of this general principle? I see no reason why this principle should be applied in the case of the Toronto strikers, who took part in the strike of 1924, and not applied in the case of the Winnipeg strikers, who took part in the strike of 1919. I know it will be said that in the case of the Toronto strikers the men were striking in respect of i grievance of their own and that in the case >f the Winnipeg strike it was a sympathetic strike and the men had no grievance of their own. I do not agree that that is altogether so, out I have not time to deal with that argument at this stage of the discussion. After all, the principle is the same; the men went on strike contrary to the terms of an ultimatum similar to that delivered at Winnipeg, and they were dismissed from the service, as the Winnipeg men had been dismissed; they were re-employed as postal helpers, as the Winipeg men had been re-employed. Yet, on March 20, 1926, the Hon. Charles Murphy, who was then postmaster general, listened to the representations which were made on behalf of the Toronto strikers and applied to them the same principle which we are asking this house to apply to the Winnipeg strikers. That principle was this: that these men were doing the same kind of work as before the strike and they should be paid accordingly. Hon. Mr. Murphy ordered that the Toronto strikers who had been taken back should be paid as from the date of their re-employment the

salary which they had been receiving at the time of their dismissal from the service. In this connection I should like to commend the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion). I think he has taken a very sympathetic attitude towards this question, and the principle that is involved. During the course of the election campaign of 1926 he paid us in Winnipeg a memorable visit which was much appreciated by many members on this side of the house. In the course of his visit to Winnipeg he had occasion, I believe, to meet a committee of the postal workers in the Winnipeg post office who had been dismissed because of their participation in the strike and who were back in the service. He was then Postmaster General, and I assume that in the attitude which he took towards that committee he was acting for the government of which he was then a member. The committee laid before him the facts of the Toronto strike: they explained to him the action which had been taken by the Hon. Charles Murphy, in 1926. I am told that the hon. member for Fort William in his capacity as Postmaster General told these men that, in his opinion, from the facts laid before him, their application Should be and would be favourably considered if the government of which he was a member should be sustained at the forthcoming election.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker-


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Might I complete my
statement?-and then if I have been incorrectly advised, I shall be glad to correct it. I am told further that he informed these men that he saw no reason why there should be any difference of treatment between the Toronto men and the Winnipeg men, and that if his government should be sustained he would give to the Winnipeg strikers 'the same favourable treatment as the Toronto strikers had received.
I hope I am reporting accurately what took place on that occasion because I consider that the attitude he then took was eminently just and fair.


Robert James Manion: Unless I put the hon.
gentleman right, I might be quoted later as having taken an attitude which I do not remember ever having taken. My attitude was this:	I was asked to meet these men.
I met them and listened to them. I told them that if we were returned to power the matter would be thoroughly discussed and that so far as I was concerned I would give it the fairest consideration I possibly could. I could not have promised them that they would be treated as the Toronto strikers were

Western Postal Employees-Mr. Thorson
treated; I could not have promised them anything because I was only one member ol the government.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I bad hoped that the
hon. member for Fort William would be willing to accept my version. I was informed as to what had taken place by persons whom I have reason to believe, and I thought the attitude he took on that occasion was eminently fair and just.


Robert James Manion: I think the attitude I took was eminently fair and just.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Then I think I may agree with the hon. member in these remarks. After all, the principle is the same even though the causes of the strikes were different. The Dominion government is proposing to pay these men for services rendered; it does not intend to give them something for nothing. The position that we have taken all along in connection with this resolution is that these men have earned what we now propose to pay them.
This resolution may now affect directly only very few men, but it will be of interest to many because of the nature of the principle involved. We on this side of the house do not intend to limit our efforts to do full justice and to follow the example of other employers of labour by reason of imperfections in the law if we can correct those imperfections by an act such as we now propose to have passed with the consent of the house.
I should like to bring to the attention of the house another feature of the matter. Canada has taken a very prominent place in the International Labour Organization which has its office at Geneva. Anyone who has heard our Canadian representatives speak of Canada's attitude at Geneva in international labour matters must be proud of the part that she has played. If we are to continue our pride in Canada's achievements, in Canada's attitude in labour matters, how can we justify that pride if Canada is not willing to follow the example of other employers of labour in recognizing the fundamental principle that the labourer is worthy of his hire whether he went on strike or not; that services should be paid for according to their value?
When the Hon. Charles Murphy adjusted the salaries of the postal workers in Toronto in 1926, he bad in mind the creation of greater harmony, greater cooperation between the government and its employees and increased efficiency in the public service. If this resolution is put into effect, I think it will pay handsome dividends to the public in the way of increased harmony, increased cooperation and greater efficiency of service. We should 78594-1431
all like to hear the last of the Winnipeg strike in this house, but we shall not do so as long as there are grievances to be remedied and the men involved in that strike who are back in the service still have a grievance. The passing of this resolution will remove that grievance and we from Winnipeg ask the members of this house to assist us in writing the last chapter of that great strike. I hope, when that last chapter is written, it will be entitled "Justice to the postal employees of the Dominion government."


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. gentleman's time is up.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Does the hon. member
justify that strike? All his arguments would lead to that conclusion.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Not at all. I say frankly to the house that I do not intend to discuss the merits or demerits of that strike. They are not involved in this matter in any way.
I do not know what the final history of that strike will be.


Peter McGibbon: The merits and demerits are very much involved.
Motion agreed to on division and the house went into committee on the resolution, Mr. Marcil in the chair.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: I move, Mr. Chairman, to strike out all the words after the word "revisions" in the fifth line of the resolution.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Just before the motion
is put, I should like to ask the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre a question; I did not desire to interrupt him as his time was nearly up. I wonder if he realizes the effect of what he said. It may be described in the words of the right hon. the Prime Minister as giving effect to "a vicious principle." This parliament is now going to make a new contract with these men; that is all, and it applies retroactively. That is what we are doing. Are we going to do that also for the unfortunate mail courier who tenders for SI,000 and holds his contract on that basis for four years; then on the expiry of the contract and the calling of new tenders, finding there is much competition he tenders for $800 and gets the contract only (because of that fact, whereas the evidence is that the contract is worth $1,000? Are we going to make up the $200 to him? My hon. friend says that the labourer is worthy of his hire. What about the unfortunate mail couriers? Are we going to make new contracts or not? Are we going to make their contracts retroactive because
Western Postal Employees

tiie prices at which they tender are not adequate? Where is it all going to end? The labourer is worthy of his hire, the hon. gentleman says. Well, go and tell the men who receive from this government less than $100 a month that .they are worthy of their hire. What about the 4,000 letter carriers, the mail carriers in the cities, carrying tons of mail each year? Are you going to make a new contract with them retroactively? They are worthy of their hire. Everybody agrees that their hire is not enough. Are we going to make it over again? That is what we are doing in this case. It is retroactive, and that is why I direct the attention of parliament to what is involved.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: That argument sounds
very convincing at first blush, but not so convincing when it is more carefully analysed. No one on this side of the house has suggested that we are overpaying the lower paid servants.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We are suggesting that
they are underpaid.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The hon. leader of the
opposition asks whether we are going to rewrite these contracts and make them retroactive. May I draw the attention of the committee to this distinction between these postal employees and the other classes of the service whom he mentions? The Dominion of Canada itself fixed the measure of the value of these men's services to the state by the salary they were receiving when they were dismissed; perhaps it was not correct, but the government did fix the value of their services, and we have that to proceed on. Is my hon. friend the leader of the opposition going to rely upon an imperfection in the law? He knows perfectly well 'that the only two conditions which were laid down for reemployment by Senator Robertson and the Hon. Mr. Blondin were these, that the men should renounce the principle of the sympathetic strike, and that they should be approved by order dn council. The other two that followed, namely that they must be reexamined, and that they must enter the service as beginners, were legal consequences due to the fact that the Civil Service Act makes no provision for doing justice in cases of this sort. That is why those other two conditions became attached to the reemployment. I think that the Hon. Mr. Robertson and the Hon. Mr. Blondin would have received favourable oomment from the public had they gone the whole way and saiid: We will do to you as other employers of labour are doing to their employees.


Robert James Manion: The hon. gentleman mentioned that I met the strikers in Winnipeg during the last election campaign, and he is quite correct in that. I met them as one member of the cabinet and as Postmaster General of that day. I must confess frankly that I did not know the circumstances very fully, that I had but a very general knowledge of them. I met these men in the most friendly spirit, I listened to their story, but I heard only one side of the case. I repeat, I did not know the circumstances as well as I have since learned them. I have always felt very friendly toward labour, I have always desired and I desire now to take what is a fair-minded Christian attitude towards a group of men like this; I say that sincerely. My attitude towards them when I met them in Winnipeg was this, that I was only one member of the cabinet, that I could nOt definitely promise anything, because being only one I was subject to the opinion of the whole cabinet, but I promised that if we were returned to power I would give most fair consideration to their demands after looking thoroughly into the case. Naturally I had to hear the other side of the case before I could commit even myself to anything, let alone the rest of the government. I certainly intended if we were returned to power to give their case fair consideration, and certainly so far as I am concerned I am willing to go as far as most men in a case of this kind. We were not returned to power, and therefore it is up to this government to deal with the matter as they see best.
I submit that the proposition put forward by my leader is an eminently fair one. I do not wish to get into a discussion of the whole case, but while my hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre says that he will not discuss the strike, he will neither justify it nor condemn it, at the same time he is absolutely justifying the strike by the attitude he takes, because his proposition is to put these men back exactly as they would have been if the strike had never occurred at all.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Not at all. I think the hon. member forgets that these men have lost their seniority rights by reason of their participation in the strike, and this resolution does not give them back any seniority rights whatsoever.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They could not retain their seniority rights because there was an interval of time during which they were not in the service.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I understand that they are keeping their superannuation benefits, but

Western Postal Employees
they have lost their seniority rights, so they are not being restored to exactly the same position they would have been in had they not gone on strike.


Robert James Manion: They lost their seniority rights by the very fact that they went on strike, and by putting them back with wages absolutely the same as if they had not gone on strike I submit that my hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre is justifying the strike. That is my feeling at all events; I do not wish to misinterpret the hon. gentleman's attitude; I want to be fair with regard to the whole matter.
I submit that the attitude taken by the leader of the opposition is a very fair one. It treats these men in the future as if they had not gone on strike, but for ten years they have been losing a certain amount of their wages. His attitude, in other words, is this, that they have been sufficiently punished by the loss of those wages in the past, and that we will now dean up the account, call it a thing of the past, and put these men in the position of receiving pay for the work they are doing. His attitude is that the men have been punished' for the tea years during which they have lost a certain amount of their wages. For those ten years they have been paying for having gone out on a sympathetic strike on a matter with which they were not directly concerned. That is my impression of it. I think it would be a very reasonable compromise for my right hon. friend the Prime Minister to accept on behalf of the government, and I am entirely in accord with it. Of course, I cannot go further than that, but I think it would be treating the men fairly, and I have been advised by some people from Winnipeg that the men themselves would be really well satisfied if that attitude were taken by the house.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Will the hon. member permit a question? He is fully conversant with railway affairs. If, for example, the engineers on the Canadian Pacific Railway were to go on strike, and afterwards were reinstated, would they be given engineers' wages or wipers' wages?


Robert James Manion: Much as I would like to answer my hon. friend's question I am sorry that I cannot; I am not familiar enough with railway conditions to do so. But I do know that many men engaged by private corporations are never taken back after going on strike.


Mr. MARCIL:: Will the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre tell us how much on an average these men lost in wages before going back to work?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I have not computed that. I have a statement of when they were taken back into the service, and I gave the figures of how many came back in the respective years. Thirty-five came back, for example, in 1920, eleven in 1921, ten in 1922, fourteen in 1923, six in 1925, and one in each of the years 1926, 1927 and 1928. I have not been able to compute the amount that they lost in those intervals. Some were out of the service for nine years, others for only a year or so.


Charles Marcil: During that time they received no wages at all?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I have no knowledge of that.


Peter John Veniot: Oh no, they were not entitled to any.


Finlay MacDonald: Perhaps the member for Winnipeg South Centre would help me to clear up a difficulty. I am sympathetic to labour, but I am not quite clear as to what is intended. The member mentioned one case of a man who was receiving $1,830 a year. He was taken back in 1920, the year after, at only $1,020. That man lost $810 a year.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Perhaps that is not quite correct. The $1,830 included bonus. I think the bonus in his case would be $430.


Peter John Veniot: It was $420.


Finlay MacDonald: We will say he was receiving $1,830, and was taken back at a salary of $1,020-a loss of $810 a year. He has been on duty ever since. I suppose he has received some raises during the ten years.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Yes, that particular man has reached his maximum again.


Finlay MacDonald: Is it proposed to pay that man at the rate of $1,830 during all those years?


Peter John Veniot: Yes.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Yes, that is the proposition, less the bonus.


Finlay MacDonald: That is the idea?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Yes.


Peter John Veniot: That is the principle on which it is being worked out.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: This particular man has now reached his maximum of $1,740, which happens to be less than the maximum he was receiving originally.
Western Postal Employees


Finlay MacDonald: But
it would be figured out on that line?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Yes.


Charles Marcil: This man was out of employment for a year?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: It is not proposed to pay for the period during which these men were out of employment.


Charles Marcil: He was penalized to that
extent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He was not penalized.
We should like to have the number of men affected; the salaries each one was receiving, less bonus; and what is meant by the observation with respect to legal expenses mentioned in the Free Press editorial.


Peter John Veniot: There will be absolutely
no consideration of legal expenses so far as the department is concerned. When I went to Winnipeg in 1927 this committee of twenty-five did have a legal gentlemen with them. I would1 not listen to him at all. I told the men they would have to state their case without any legal gentleman interfering. I did not want any legal gentleman to put anything over on me or on any of the men.


Mr. CLARK:: You did not want to have
any real justice around you?


Peter John Veniot: I do not admit that legal
gentlemen are always-what shall I say?- the personification of real justice. The information the hon. leader of the opposition asks for can be procured. I am sorry that I cannot get it this evening.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I certainly want to know what is involved financially in this proposal.


Peter John Veniot: Roughly speaking, between $120,000 and $125,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I want to know how it
is made up. That is not an unreasonable request.


Mr. GLEN:: Mr. Chairman, I had intended to take part in the discussion on the resolution, but I was getting some information at the time and the resolution was carried1 before I had an opportunity to intervene in the debate.
I wish to put myself on record with regard to this proposed settlement with the postal workers at Winnipeg. So far as I can understand the argument of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, it is based purely on the question of what in law we call

"quantum meruit," namely, that these postal strikers are entitled to wages for the period from their re-employment until to-day at the rate they were paid before the strike, and that they would be entitled to any raise that is usual in the service. He puts forward that as a very good argument in law. But, if I understand my law correctly, quantum meruit is usually invoked where there is no contract between the parties-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not usually, but always.


James Allison Glen: Yes; and therefore you must take into account the surrounding circumstances of the employment and then fix the amount of compensation accordingly. I think that is a correct statement of the law. But in this case there has been a contract between the postal employees and the department. That contract was based on an order in council, and whether or not the order injected two other provisions than those that were contained in the memorandum submitted by the Hon. Gideon Robertson, nevertheless the fact is that these postal employees entered into that contract knowing the effect of the conditions contained therein.
I saw a good deal of merit in the argument submitted by the leader of the opposition, and perhaps I would go a little further than he did, that in the recognition of these postal workers you are not merely compensating them for what they have done, but you are recognizing a principle which I do not think any government can afford to recognize, namtely, that employees of the state should have the right to strike. If I say that the police, or the army or the navy, have not the right to strike, the same principle must apply also to these postal workers. I do submit that in the circumstances of the strike, more especially as has been admitted 'by my hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre the men had no grievance-those were his words- but because they happened to be affiliated with the Trades and Labour Council-


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I do not admit that they had no grievance.


James Allison Glen: I took a note of my hon.
friend's words, and Hansard will correct me if I am wrong.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I am correcting my hon. friend now.


James Allison Glen: It is only a small point. You
say they had some grievance. But at all events it was a sympathetic strike with others affiliated with the Trades and Labour Council. I cannot for many reasons support this re-

Western Postal Employees
solution. I take the position that no government can afford to deal lightly or negligently with the tremendous principle involved, namely, the question of the public service. I realized when in Manitoba how throughout the country we were all affected by this strike. The whole of the postal service was disorganized, and, in the country of which I can speak, they were entirely hostile to all the principles involved in that strike. Having experienced the effects of the strike, and coming now to the question of settlement, there is not a man either in this house or elsewhere who would not wish that these postal strikers should be sympathetically dealt with. But unfortunately individuals must suffer in the general application of law; for no law ever was evolved whereby everyone benefits: in the application of the law some hardship is suffered by individuals. Now these individuals took upon themselves to enter a strike and they have been penalized. I am not going to deal at any length with all that has been said by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) or by my hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Thorson), but I take this postion:	In view of the fact that
these men had twice an opportunity to go back, which opportunity was not accepted; that they then had a meeting with the Hon. Gideon Robertson; that a memorandum was submitted to the government of the day admitting that they had seen the gravity of their offence, and that when the reinstatement took place they entered into a contract wheTe-in they undertook to perform the services which they had formerly rendered' on the condition laid down in the Civil Service Act, namely, that they were really new entrants into the postal service-a contract which they knew at the time carried only that minimum wage of the lower grade-and that they were satisfied to go back into the service on these terms, I must take the ground that, having done so, they must now suffer the consequences. Like the leader of the opposition however, and for the sake of compromise in the settlement of what is a very vexed question throughout the west and in Manitoba particularly, I think the bill might be amended so 'that these men who are receiving benefits to-day should also receive that seniority which would entitle them to further benefits. That would be a gracious act. I know it is in the very spirit of compromise. Of course, we cannot always be strictly logical in these matters, and I am glad to see the leader of the opposition taking that point of view, although the other night he was not so keen for it. I do think, however, that in this case a compromise might be accepted by the postal
workers in Winnipeg, recognizing them in the position they now occupy. The heat and passionate feeling in relation to that strike have to a large extent evaporated. No one wishes to revive those feelings. On the other hand, certainly no one wishes to create a precedent which will enable persons in the service in the future to come to parliament and say, "You did this for the strikers of 1919; you reinstated them, recompensing them for the loss of wages. And now we wish also to have that precedent considered as a basis for a similar claim in our behalf". If a precedent were created, strikers in the future would feel entitled to come to parliament and seek to have that precedent invoked to their advantage. I think it might be well for the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) to take into consideration the proposal that has been put forward. Certainly if the matter goes through in the form intended I shall vote against it.


Peter McGibbon: Like otheTs who have spoken with reference to this bill, I am sympathetic so far as certain parts of it are concerned. I too think that the time is coming, in fact it is here, when, in the words of Lord Robert Cecil, we must get away from the war mind. No doubt until this time a great many members of this house would have opposed this bill in its entirety, and the fact that the leader of the opposition and many others on this side of the house have gone as far as they have is, I think, evidence on the part of the people of this country that, more or less, bygones should be bygones and that as far as possible peace and harmony should be restored.
At the same time I must agree with the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Glen) and the leader of the opposition. The leader of the opposition has gone a great way in compromising to the extent he has; because, try as we may, we cannot dissociate this question from the cause of the Winnipeg strike. It is all very well for any hon. member to say he will not discuss the merits of the strike, that he does not wish to discuss it, that he does not wish either to justify or to condemn it. So say we all; we do not even like to raise the question. But when you are wiping out the penalty entirely as we are here doing, and putting these men back in the status they would have had if they had never gone on strike, we are by that very act justifying their course in striking; we are saying that what they did in 1919 was right and that the conditions laid down by parliament and in the order in council which has been read here were wrong. We are saying that parliament
Western Postal Employees


Mr. HOWDEN:: There has been a rumour recently that some of the men in Winnipeg have a different attitude towards the situation of the postal employees of that city from that which they entertained a little while ago. I merely wish to say that when this matter was before the house last year I was entirely in support of it and I have not had occasion to change my attitude in the least. I am heartily in favour of this bill. I do not believe my support of this measure will1 bring any particular advantage to myself; I know it is criticized quite severely in Manitoba, nevertheless I think it eminently fair that these men should be paid for the work they did, and I am entirely in favour of seeing them so paid. I believe these men of whom we are speaking now are the only men connected with that strike or with any other strikes which have taken place since who have 
not been fully reinstated. I do not see why we should discriminate against these post office employees in Winnipeg and for that reason, without delaying the house further, I repeat that I am heartily in support of the bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not desire to delay this measure, but on the other hand we are entitled to definite, positive information as to what is involved in dollars and cents. I want to know how many employees were affected and when they came back into the service. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre seems to know more about this question than the Postmaster General, and he says there are 79 men in Winnipeg. How many are there at other points?


Peter John Veniot: There are 96 all told.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Where are they?


Peter John Veniot: Calgary, and I think Saskatoon.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was a case in Calgary to which I should like to direct the attention of the committee. There was a man who served in the South African war and who later became an employee in the Calgary post office; he was a letter sorter, I believe, and supported his wife and small family. He went out on the sympathetic strike and then had to leave the country, because there were no vacancies and he could not get a job. He went to California, but before leaving he saw me and explained the situation. He had purchased some property; they placed a mortgage on that property and as far as I know they have not returned to Canada, unless they have done so within the last few months. That man lost his job because he went out on the sympathetic strike, and there were no vacancies which he could fill. The result is that so far as the public service is concerned he is done for; he is getting old and his eyesight is failing.
On the other hand the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre referred' to a man in Winnipeg who was re-emplbyed by the Post Office department more than a year after the strike, I believe sometime in the fall of 1920. A vacancy occurred; he pased the examination, was selected for the position and entered the service at a certain rate of pay. There is a fact which it seems to me must not be overlooked; that man need not have re-entered the service at that rate of pay had he not desired to do so. Being twenty-one years of age and a man of experience, without the least coercion being applied he agreed

Western Postal Employees
to accept that position. We are told by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre that before the strike this man was receiving $1,830 with the bonus, and I should like to know what salary he received at the time he left the service, exclusive of the bonus.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I think the bonus amounted to $430.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then he would be receiving $1,400, and he re-entered the service at $1,020.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I believe the wages of a postal helper were about $85 per month.


Peter John Veniot: I think the rate was $720, without the bonus.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then when he went back in 1920, what did he get? I understand that there were 79 cases in Winnipeg, one or two cases in Calgary and some in Saskatoon, making a total of 90. Now I want to know when these men being over twenty-one years of age went to work under a definite contract with the state, a contract which they made freely and voluntarily, without threat, without duress, without misrepresentation and without coercion; a contract under which they agreed to work for so many dollars a month. I want to know the dates when they went back to work, how many increases they have received since that time, and how many of these men are now receiving the maximum salaries of their classes. That is, how many of these men have had their services recognized according to the provisions of the Civil Service Act so that they have reached the maximum of their class? That is important, because if they have been promoted that shows a recognition of their meritorious services, and there is nothing to indicate that those promotions were not based upon their efficiency in the light of their experience. In other words, we do not want to do this thing twice. These promotions have been obtained on the certificate of their superior officer, who certifies upon his honour, without regard to political or other considerations that such and such a man has rendered meritorious service and is entitled to his increase. I want to know how many of these men have reached their maximums and are receiving what they would have received had they never terminated their employment with the state. In my opinion it is important that we have this information.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask the hon. gentleman if the prospect of starvation for a man and his wife and family is not a species of duress?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The answer to that question is that in this country, where it is alleged that unemployment is unknown-


James Shaver Woodsworth: Does the hon. gentleman believe that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I do not, but I say that allegation is made. I see no reason for believing that any man, by reason of fear of starvation for himself and his family, would be driven to a particular kind of work unless he were willing to do that work; before going back to work he must have taken into consideration all these factors which have been mentioned. Then there is a further answer which suggests itself, and which is very simple: Why did he not think of that when he refused to go back to work? He had two chances to return but he refused them both; he had not one but two opportunities for repentance but he did not avail himself of either.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Possibly he thought he was standing out for a fundamental principle.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Even assuming that to be so, he must suffer the consequences of so standing out, and one consequence was that he went back to work under this new contract.
There is just one observation which I cannot permit to pass unchallenged. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre keeps dwelling upon the fact that a man should receive compensation in proportion to the service rendered, but let me put another proposition to this house. Take the case of a new man standing by, doing his job without complaint; he had broken no contract and had dislocated no service. Perhaps he was a returned soldier, since many of the employees taken on at that time were returned men. Then another man reenters the service; he had broken his contract with the state; he had dislocated the service, and now he stands side by side with that other man, as a beginner under a contract into which he entered freely and voluntarily. So we have two beginners, A and B; one had broken no contract, had participated in no sympathetic strike and had done nothing to disturb the service of the country. They worked together, and it is said that one could and did do more work than the other, but they were both paid at the same rate. I know of no place in the world, in any kind of employment, where that condition is not found. There is always one man who does a little more, and he is the man who usually emerges as superintendent, as foreman or perhaps as president of the organization. But now we are told that we are to make a new contract for
Western Postal Employees

one man but not for the other, regardless of the services which have been rendered by this other new man, who is ambitious, who has been toiling hard and who wants to get on in the world; we are to make a new contract with the other man while we do nothing for the man to whom I have referred.
In the absence of any evidence to show how many there are, I would like to have some particulars, perhaps in the form of a schedule -I do not care about the names, they can be numbered 1, 2, and so on-which would show what number are involved. One man went to work last year and one the year before, and I should like to know what is going to be done about them. Three men came in during last three years; is one man to get an increase of pay for nine years, another man for one year, another for two years and another for three years; is that the idea?


Peter John Veniot: He could not get any
increase in pay if he had not worked.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We are going to make a new contract to increase the pay of a man who went to work in 1920 regardless of the fact that during that nine years his meritorious service has been certified to by his superior officer according to the provisions of the Civil Service Act. The Postmaster General knows the provision of the certificate, which is, "I certify on my honour, regardless of political considerations, that this man"-giving the name-"has rendered meritorious service which entitles him to receive this added pay." Those certificates exist with relation .to a large number of the men, but I want to know how many. We cannot follow what is involved in this resolution unless we have some idea of what it means with respect to individuals and pay. The Postmaster General says that the sum involved is small and that the proper place to discuss this resolution is in committee, on the bill, but once we give a second reading to the bill we have committed ourselves to the principle of it, and that principle is the payment of a sum of money. I want to know how much money the treasury will have to pay to carry out a new contract which will be made by the Dominion of Canada with ninety-six of its employees.
Every service for the state is either by an implied or by an express contract. In an express contract the terms are mentioned; in an implied contract one is enabled to recover on a quantum meruit. We had an illustration of that in connection with a dredging contract with the Public Works department under which certain services were rendered. It was said that the classification was entirely different 
from that under which the tender had been made and therefore that the contractor was entitled to a further sum of money because of the services rendered. We are now making a new contract on a quantum where there is an express contract outstanding, and I should like to know under what principle we are justified in making that new contract. I should like to have these particulars from the Postmaster General before I give my further assent on division to this resolution going up.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was asking the minister for information. He has just shown me a portion of a schedule which I have not had time to analyse, and he has not a copy of it.


Peter John Veniot: This is the original. I can let the hon. gentleman have it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The point is this and
I cannot make it too clear: these men were employed at a given salary. The salary which they received prior to their dismissal by reason of their going on a sympathetic strike, was in some instances a smaller salary than that which they received when they went back. I noticed on the list which the minister showed me, the case of a man who had been receiving $704 and who was reappointed at a salary of $780.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I think that list, of which I had a copy, does not show the salary of the postal employee at the time of his re-entry into the service.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, it does.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: It shows his present salary.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, it shows his salary on reappointment and not his present salary. The information I seek is this: what is his present salary? By what amount has it been increased since he joined the service. In making that increase did his superior officer not have regard to his meritorious service during the period of his employment, and by reason of his wider experience did not receive a higher recommendation for meritorious service than he otherwise would, so that he is now receiving a salary based upon meritorious service regard being had for the years he served and no attention being paid to the fact that he was reengaged in what-

Western Postal Employees
ever year it was after he had gone out on strike and applied for reemployment? That is vital to the whole question. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre will realize that. If the situation is as I suggest it is in that particular case, the man is not entitled to anything. The minister has under his hand a schedule which shows that one man is entitled to $1,937. That man is to get SI ,937 and he has stood side by side with a man who came in with him who gets nothing at all except the statutory increase. That man gets $1,937 for going on strike. That is the principle to which this parliament is giving its approval.


Peter John Veniot: That man was a postal clerk, class 2A, $1,400. When he came back after the strike his salary was reduced to $840. He came in about the first of the year, 1921. From that date to the end of March he received $11,666. He was doing the same work as prior to the strike, and had there been no change, he would have received $13,806. That makes a difference, allowing for arrears of bonus for the months of April and May, of $1,937.22 that he would get under this measure. I have under my hand as complete a list as I have been able to get-and I think it is complete, especially in regard to the Winnipeg employees-of every individual that went out on strike and came back, the date he came back, the salary he was receiving when he went out, the salary he received when he came back, and the amount that he will now receive according to this bill. The amount ranges from a maximum of SI ,937.22 to a minimum of $250.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What would it be in the case of an employee who went back to work last year? The employee who went back last year is going to get $200 more than the man who came in last year.


Peter John Veniot: Yes, but do not lose sight
of this fact. That man is doing high grade work-


Richard Bedford Bennett: But he has not done it
for seven or eight years.


Peter John Veniot: But he passed the examination and qualified and is put at high class work, although he is only being paid for low grade work. He is qualified for the higher grade.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Could anything more
clearly illustrate the iniquity-if I might use the term?-of this thing. Here are two men who joined the postal service in Winnipeg last year. One of them eight years ago went on strike and he has not been working for
eight years in the postal service, but having passed an examination he goes back and is reengaged. So is the other man who had never been in the postal service at all. They go in together, and one gets $200 handed to him by this parliament; the other gets nothing, and the man who gets the $200 is the man who went on strike, the man who abandoned the postal service and left the people of Winnipeg without postal conveniences. He had a contract. Now the government is going to make a new one with him because nine years ago he worked for the government.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Will they both be doing the same work?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Mr. McINTOSH:: They would not have
the same experience.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, and that is the only argument that can be used. One is a new man, and the other has had some experience -some experience in striking, my hon. friend from Fort William says. That is the reason I want this information.


Mr. BANCROFT:: The other man may
have struck for another purpose.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He struck the trail if
that is what the hon. gentleman means.


Peter John Veniot: That first man is now drawing his maximum of $1,740.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Before we get away from that-I am coming back to the maximum-I trust that this house realizes how serious the situation is. Here are two men who go into the service last year, in 1927 or 1928-last year, the minister says-and now one is going to get handed to him $200, less legal expenses.


Charles Gavan Power: I would like to ask the hon. leader of the opposition a question for information, for I frankly admit that I have not understood this thing yet. Take the case cited by the hon. leader of the opposition, where two men come into the postal service say a year ago to-day. One had never been in the postal service in his life, and the other had been a striker. The striker gets the same salary as the other man, but if I understand the position taken by the Postmaster General, he is placed in a much higher position; he does work which under other circumstances would entitle him to receive, we will say, $1,800 instead of $720. If those are the facts I can form some judgment, but if I am wrong I do not understand any more about it than I did when we started.
Western Postal Employees


Peter John Veniot: May I be allowed to give
an example? A new man comes in as a porter. His job is to carry bags, empty them out, prepare the mail for those who do the more advanced work. He gets a salary of 8780. The striker who comes in at the same time, say a year or two ago, gets the same, 8780 or 8840, whatever the figure may be, but the striker does not empty the bags or carry them. He goes to a more advanced position, that of sorter, one of the most important positions, because when he was there before that is the work he did, and for that work he was getting a great deal more salary than the helper.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But is that this case?


Peter John Veniot: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I want the facts. The
man who joined last year-


Peter John Veniot: He went to a higher position-


Richard Bedford Bennett: What position did he go to?
M,r. VENIOT: He would likely go-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not likely, what did he do? We are talking about actualities, not theory. What did he do, that one man?


Peter John Veniot: If my hon. friend will
name one-


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend from
Winnipeg South Centre said that one joined last year, one the year before, and one in 1926. Is that correct?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Those names are there
on the record; I do not know them. One joined in 1926, one in 1927, one in 1928. Their pay was so-and-so. I want to know what work these men actually did and what they were classified as, not in theory, but in read practice-their names and what they did. Then I can form some judgment.


Charles Gavan Power: I think the house is entitled to that information.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And yet one of those
men is going to get $200 presented to him.
I want to know what it is for.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I think I can perhaps
give some information. I do not know these three particular individuals by name, but the three men in question would each go back and be graded as postal helpers. That was the only grade in which they could get back into the service.
(Mr. Power.]


Charles Gavan Power: Then he got the pay of his grade.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: No, that is the point.
He did not get the pay of his grade. The official grade that he occupied was that of postal helper, no matter what he was doing. I know of one case where a man who was an ex-striker had supervision over four or five other persons, all of whom were getting higher salaries than he was, but he was graded as a postal helper because that was the only grade into which he could be admitted.


Charles Gavan Power: That supervisory position
must have been classified somewhere under the act.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: No. He was doing the
work of a supervisee but his official grade under the civil service appointment was that of postal helper.


Charles Gavan Power: If he is classified, he should
get the salary of his classification.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: He was graded as a postal helper, but he might be doing all sorts of work demanding higher qualifications.


Peter John Veniot: Take a clerk who is classified as a mail clerk. He arrives at the point where he may be supervising five or six other clerks under him, and yet he does not get the salary of a supervising clerk. He is placing himself in a position where he may be promoted to the position of supervising clerk. While that is the name of the position he is occupying, he has not the salary of a supervising clerk.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend says that
he may be classified as a supervising clerk. He does not say he was.


Peter John Veniot: He has the opportunity
of promotion to that position.


Robert James Manion: What I am trying to get
at is this. The strike was in 1919. A man who has been out of the service for nine years goes back. In that time, might he not have so completely forgotten the work that he would have to start in the same position as a beginner?


Peter John Veniot: I have a case in point,
that of a man going into the service in 1926. There was a vacancy for the position of clerk. This man passed the examination and had the qualifications just the same as the position called for in 1919. He classified for the position by passing the examination. That was Samuel Woolson. He was receiving 81,630 before, and is now receiving $1,320.

Western Postal Employees


Robert James Manion: Receiving a salary of $1,-
320 with what classification? Is that the salary of the position for which 'he passed the examination?


Peter John Veniot: Yes, it is in this case.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is he going to get out of this fund?


Peter John Veniot: $1,336. But he has been in now going on four years. The minimum since he went out has been increased in that lower class.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In 1926 there was a vacancy in the Winnipeg post office. It was advertised. Among the applicants for that position was one who seven years before had been employed in the post office, namely, in 1919. He was awarded the .position, and now he is going to be given by this parliament $1,336. At the same time there was another vacancy, which was filled by another applicant who had not formerly been employed in the post office service. That applicant has received! his statutory increases, but will get nothing more.


Peter John Veniot: He is not in such a high grade.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is exactly what we ask the minister. He has given the name of the man. What work was he doing?


Peter John Veniot: Mail clerk.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What was the other man? There were other vacancies for mail clerks in 1926.


Peter John Veniot: I do not see any.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There were in other parts of the country-we will put it that way. Then we say, because a man seven years ago worked at a job in the post office, he is now 'to get $1,300 out of the people of Canada by reason of the fact that seven years ago when he was working he went on strike. That is what parliament is doing.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: If he is capable of doing the same work that he was doing in 1919, why should he not be so paid?


Richard Bedford Bennett: But he .passed the examination. The Civil Service have given him his rating, in accordance with the examination on the application for the job.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: As postal helper. That was the only thing he could get.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As mail clerk in the post office.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Pardon me. Will the
minister say what salary he got?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I have this man's name here.


An hon. MEMBER:: Sit down.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the house will quite agree that I must look to the minister for this information, much as I should like to get assistance from my hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre. Coming events may cast their shadows behind, not before.


Peter John Veniot: I might say to my hon. friend that while this is quite complicated,-


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not complicated.


Peter John Veniot: -I cannot see that he is making any point, comparing this man coming in with his previous experience of eight or nine years in the service with the new man coming in under examination, because no new man comes in under a grade of that kind. He must come in as a postal helper, and consequently can only be graded as such. He begins at the bottom of the ladder and works up, whereas the other man has to pass an examination as to whether he is fit for the class he was in before. But 'he does not get the salary of that class. He gets four hundred dollars less.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We are not going to take generalities, but actualities. We are going to take this ease of 1928. The man's name was?


Peter John Veniot: Samuel Woolson.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was a vacant position, I understand, and he applied for it. Did he write on the examination?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Thank you.


Peter John Veniot: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Having written on the examination, he was appointed to the position was he?


Charles Gavan Power: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Wait a minute.


The CHAIRMAN:: Order.


Peter John Veniot: He was appointed at the
minimum salary of $1,080.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But what examination
did he pass?


Peter John Veniot: He passed the examination for postal clerk, because they put him at that work.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not the point.
What examination did he pass?


Peter John Veniot: The civil service examination.
Western Postal Employees


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly. The same as any other applicant for a position in the service?


Peter John Veniot: The only difference was the age limit.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. What position was advertised ?


Peter John Veniot: Postal clerk-no, postal helper.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Were there several applicants?


Peter John Veniot: I do not know.


Richard Bedford Bennett: \\ e will have to know. We are going to get down to the reason. The Prime Minister was not in when I began to deal with this case.


Peter John Veniot: There would be several
applicants.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Seven years after the
strike there was a vacancy. It was advertised. One of the applicants was Samuel Woolson, one of the striking employees of 1919. To him the position was awarded. He received $1,080 as a starter. That was the salary stated in the advertisement for the class of position vacant when the civil service asked for applicants. According to the minister, that man in this year of grace, 1928, will receive some $1,300; whereas any other person that passed the same examination, and might have been appointed to the same position, would get nothing but the statutory increase. In other words, seven years ago, Woolson had experience, now he has none.


Peter John Veniot: Oh, yes, he has.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He had seven years of no experience.


Peter John Veniot: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He had seven years without experience.


Peter John Veniot: Without working. It does not follow that he would have forgotten all his past experience.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He had seven years in which he had not worked as a postal clerk.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: May I ask the hon. member a question? If he drops out of legal practice for seven years is he going to forget all his law?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know some gentlemen who are very emphatic in saying that in much less than seven years a man forgets a great deal of his legal education. I think most 	f
lawyers will say that if thej' retired from the practice of law for seven years they would not care to resume it without a good deal of study.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Would not such a man be better than a law student?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, but not as good as a new student at law.


Leland Payson Bancroft: Would he charge less for his services?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He might and he might not. It has been published in the newspapers in Winnipeg that 20 per cent of this sum is going to the lawyers.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That is the trade union rate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Among lawyers?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am bound to say that has not been my experience. I would be much better off if it had been. Let me proceed. I trust the minister realizes where this leads to. A given number of men all pass the same examination. One, because seven years ago he was at that job, is a little more proficient in it than somebody else.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Therefore worth more.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And, my hon. frend saj's, therefore worth more. The notice was posted up showing what the salary would be. His contract with the civil service was, just as the minister mentioned, $1,0S0. Now this parliament is going to make a new contract and give that man $1,300; but, the man who went into similar service in some other part of Canada, a man who was not a striker, a man of as good education as Woolson, is not going to get anything extra.


Peter John Veniot: My hon. friend is losing
sight of the fact that, although Woolson passed the examination and went in at the minimum salary of $1,080, he was not put to do the work of that class, but the work of a postal clerk. His experience before the strike qualified him for that higher grade and although, as the agreement said, he had to go in as a beginner, he took the examination and went in at $1,080 a year. But knowing that he was classified for this higher grade they put him to do that work although he did not receive the salary of the higher grade. And he has continued to do such work during the last four and a half years. That is how the difference is made up as between the work he did and the salary he got.

Western Postal Employees


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; but when the minister says he did the work he must go further than that. Now, Sam Wool son reported for duty. What did he do?


Peter John Veniot: They put him in as a clerk and-


Richard Bedford Bennett: What did he start at?


Peter John Veniot: He started as a postal helper; he graded as a postal helper.


Richard Bedford Bennett: WThen he reported for
duty what did he do?


Peter John Veniot: He started on sortation
work and that is one of the important duties But he did not get paid at all for sortation work.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the minister say
that of his own knowledge-that that man started sorting the day he went to work?


Peter John Veniot: I do not say it of my own knowledge but from information given me by the officials.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the record show
that?


Peter John Veniot: I do not know whether it
does or not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then the minister must not say that, because he is assuming a case which the record does not show. That is why I have asked the minister with reference to this particular case, which is in point. Sam Woolson answered the advertisement. The salary was $1,080. Sam went to work at that salary of $1,080 and then he received the statutory increases. The minister says the postmaster put him at other work than that which ordinarily a clerk would do. Well, I want to know what he reported for; what he did; when he was changed; in other words, I want the history of that man's job up to this year; because it is proposed to give him $1,300, more than that given the man who stood at the desk beside him and who came in the same day.


Peter John Veniot: That man did not stand
at the desk beside him but in a lower class or grade.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What evidence have you of that?


Peter John Veniot: He was not entitled to
stand at that desk.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Once more the minister
is building a case on what he says should be. I want to know what is.


Peter John Veniot: I will tell you what is:
A man going in entirely new could not stand beside this man who, although going in anew, carried with him his past experience. They were in different classes, working in different sections of the building.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the minister has no
evidence; he is speaking of what is going to be.


Peter John Veniot: That is what took place,
and I know it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We can easily send a
telegram and satisfy the minister. The minister's story is that Sam Woolson, in response to an advertisement by the Civil Service Commission, passed an examination successfully and was awarded a position in the Winnipeg post office. Is that right?


Peter John Veniot: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What was the position,
may I ask, to which Sam Woolson was appointed?


Peter John Veniot: To be positively sure we
should have to look at the record.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course, and that is
what I want to know; because it makes all the difference in the world. What did Sam do when he went to work?


Peter John Veniot: From what I see in the
record he would start on sortation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is really so important that the facts should be before us. Before the house resumed the minister showed me the documents containing the list of these employees and I had just time enough to look down the page. However, I have taken one case, in 1926, and I am now asking to what work this man was put after he was appointed to the position. The minister says he reported for duty bult he cannot be certain what the man went to work to do. I want to know:	What did he do when he reported?
How long did he remain in that position? What did 'he next do? When was he appointed to a different position? When did he attain to the position which the minister says, had he never left the service, would have enabled him to receive $1,300-more thian someone else is getting. These are the questions I should like to have answered! and I do not think they will be considered unfair.


Charles Gavan Power: I have no knowledge of
what happened in Winnipeg, but to my misfortune I do know something of the rules and regulations of the Civil Service Commission, and I know that no man may enter the employ of the Post Office Department how except
Western Postal Employees

as a postal helper. In the old days there were examinations for mail clerks and clerks grade 1, grade 2, grade 3 and so forth-examinations open to the public. At the present time these examinations are open only to those who wish to apply for the position of postal helper. Consequently every one of these men, as he returned to the employ of the Post Office Department, became a postal helper; he answered the advertisement for the position of postal helper, carrying a salary of $1,080. As these men entered the post office it was found by the postmaster or by their superior officers that they might, with advtantage and with a view to efficient service, be placed in one of the higher grades, say that of mail clerk, sortation clerk, clerk of grade 1, 2 or 3, and so forth, to none of which positions they could apply through the Civil Service Commission by examination; they had to go in by the lowest grade, so to speak. So that when their superior officers found that they could actually do that work- if the information I have gathered from this discussion is correct-they were placed' in these positions-let us say in the position of sortation clerk which would carry with it a salary of say $1,500 or $1,600. So that for the past three or four years, as the case may be, these men although they entered the service at $1,080, with whatever statutory increases they received, presumably $60, have been doing work which under other circumstances would be carried on by men earning $1,600. And the purpose of this bill, if my information is correct, is to give to every such man the salary which he actually earned. My hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Thorson) made that argument this afternoon, the argument based on the quantum meruit, and if I may say so quite frankly to him and to the Postmaster General, that is the only argument that is worth anything in this case; any appeals to sympathy for these men is to my mind hardly worth considering. But I wish to direct the attention of the Committee to this point: that the resolution does not seem to say just what the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and the Postmaster General have in mind. The resolution states:
That it is expedient to provide for the readjustment of the salaries of certain postal employees in western Canada who were dismissed in 1919 and subsequently re-employed, to give them the benefit of salary they would have received had they re-entered the service in the class equivalent to the one they were in when dismissed.
I do not favour that proposition at all. As I understand it, the proposition made by the Postmaster General and laid down by the

hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre was to pay the men for the work they have actually done during that time and not to pay them on the basis of the salary they might have received had they gone back and done that work. For instance, the case was put to us to-day of one man who had been earning $1,800 before the strike. He went on strike and came back, starting at say $1,080. If that man was doing $1,800 worth of work I am prepared to pay him accordingly, but I am not prepared to say that we should give him the equivalent of his salary when he went on strike. I am not prepared to give him that money unless it can be shown to the satisfaction of the Postmaster General and of the officers of the department that he actually was doing work which under other circumstances would have given him this money. I should not be prepared to go even so far.


Peter McGibbon: Does not the hon. gentleman think that a big favour is done these men to take them back at all?


Charles Gavan Power: That is the point I was
coming to. In the first place, I am not sure that I should ever have taken them back. But now that we have taken them back we cannot forever keep hanging over their heads as a punishment this prospect: "You may work as hard as you please, and give the best service you can to the country, but because you made that one fatal mistake we shall never reward you for your efforts."


Robert James Manion: That is exactly the
attitude we take.


Charles Gavan Power: I want to get this clear.
If I understand my hon. friend's attitude now it is that for the rest of their lives these men must be punished for the action they took in 1919.


Robert James Manion: No, our attitude is exactly the same as that taken by my hon. friend, that from this day on we will make the past something to be forgotten and pay them for the work they are doing.


Charles Gavan Power: Then we are not so far
apart after all in principle; there is very little difference between us. Hon. gentlemen opposite say that from to-day everything is to be forgotten and that these men will be paid the salary actually earned at the work they are actually doing now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, that is it.


Charles Gavan Power: My hon. friends agree that from to-day we should pay these men the salaries which are carried by the positions

Western Postal Employees
they are actually occupying; that is to say, though they may have gone in as postal helpers last year and immediately become sortation clerks because they were able to do that work, from to-day we should start to pay those men $200 or $300 more.


Robert James Manion: That is my understanding.


Charles Gavan Power: Then the only difference
between us is that hon. gentlemen opposite are starting a year later than we on this side. The same principle applies and it is only a question of quantum.


Robert James Manion: There is this difference
in principle: We take the attitude that the man who started last year was, as my hon. friend admitted, lucky to be taken back at all in view of the fact that he went out on a sympathetic strike. From the time he began again until the present he has received perhaps a lower salary than he was really earning according to the work he was doing, but that was his punishment for going out on that strike. From to-day on we say "Let bygones be bygones, and we will pay you for the work you are doing, as certified by the postmaster.'


Charles Gavan Power: So the principle is this, that in 1920 the government of the day, out of the goodness of its heart and not because there was an election coming on, which would not have been fair; out of the kindness of its heart in 1920, a year before the election of 1921, the government said to these men, "Come back; all is forgiven."


Robert James Manion: The strike occurred only
two years before that; we could not do it very much sooner.


Mr.   POWTER@: Probably that is quite right, but nine years later the members of that same party say, "If you come back you must put in one whole year without getting the salary wnicn you earn." Supposing a man comes back to-morrow, after we pass this bill, where are we going to put him? Are we to put him to work as a sortation clerk and give him $200 a year extra because he happens to come back the day after this bill is passed?


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend has not
stated the position quite correctly. The government of that day said, "We will take you back on certain conditions" and those conditions have been lived up to by the government. We think those conditions should continue to apply.


Charles Gavan Power: I am not familiar with the
conditions except from what I heard this afternoon. I understand that these men were to be taken back subject to certain conditions, 78594-144
which simply amounted to the men saying they were very sorry and would not do it again. Another condition, which was in their favour, was to the effect that these men, going up for their examinations, need not be within the age limit. Those were the only two conditions I heard mentioned.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And they retained their
pension and superannuation rights.


Charles Gavan Power: That is correct, but there
was no condition as to what their salaries should be and I submit that for us to come before this country to-day and say "We forgave you nine years ago but to-day we are not going to pay you the salary you earn" is a ridiculous position to take.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sorry my hon.
friend from Quebec South has not followed the debate as carefully as he usually does. The four conditions mentioned by the Postmaster General this afternoon, which were referred to in the order in council which permitted the old employees to be re-employed -not reinstated-were first the approval of the governor in council; secondly, the passing of that examination, waiving the age limit, and thirdly, the fact that these men came to the department as new employees and, coming as such they received the pay payable to new employees. That was the contract, and now we are substituting a parliamentary contract for the one which was made between the state and the individual.


Charles Gavan Power: They were to receive the
pay of new employees while they were doing the work of new employees.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am coming to that.
My hon. friend at once took the point which, as a lawyer. I expected he would take; he submitted that to put forth the principle mentioned in that resolution would be destructive of the civil service of Canada. There is no question about that; the hon. gentleman saw that point at once, but he said he was in favour of every man being paid what he was worth. Once more we are left in the cloudland of conjecture and doubt as to who is to determine what a man's worth may be.


Charles Gavan Power: That should be determined
by the work he does.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly, and it was because of that point that I endeavoured to extract from the Postmaster General the information I am now trying to secure. I took the Woolson case because I thought it might be typical. Let it be observed first that these

Western Postal Employees

men come in as though they were unknown to the state; they make application in response to an advertisement issued by the Civil Service Commission. We will say three men apply, and we might designate them as A, B and C, B having been employed in the Winnipeg post office seven years previously. They write their examinations and B gets the position; he is appointed to the position called for by the advertisement, as the hon. member for Quebec South admitted.


Charles Gavan Power: There is only one position,
that of postal helper.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly. B gets that
position, and having been appointed to that position he cannot be promoted at once; that is a matter for the Civil Service Commission and the Post Office Department, through its officials. As I pointed1 out this afternoon, when a competent superior officer reports that this employee has performed meritorious service entitling him to a raise in pay, he receives the statutory increase and therefore obtains added compensation.
Now, every man in a post office who is a helper is looking forward to doing something better, and the postmaster tries him at another job just a little better than the one he previously held. According to the argument now being advanced and the principle favoured, we are to say hereafter that if during the year the postmaster of a post office puts a man at a little different job from that for which' he was hired under the Civil Service Commission, that man is going to ask for more pay.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the position carries it.	[DOT]


Richard Bedford Bennett: Every job which is a
little better than the job formerly held by a man carries with it a little higher pay; that is why men strive to obtain better jobs. That is the reason the ambitious man is always willing to try his hand at a little more difficult task, in order ultimately to obtain a little more pay.
i_r. POWER: But there is a vast difference between a man who has obtained a position as postal helper and a man who is a sortation clerk, we will say. There is a difference in salary of perhaps $600, and if it is true that some of these men were brought in as postal helpers and immediately made to do sortation work I think they should be paid accordingly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the information I have been trying to secure from the Postmaster General. I am advised that not a man was told to do anything which he formerly did after he went back to work as a postal helper; later, having worked as a postal helper, he got another job because he was better fitted for it or because he was more ambitious. I will say this; a young, ambitious man of twenty-five, making up his mind to get on-and remember, they waived the age limit-is going to get on to the next job as quickly as the man who has been out of the service for seven years, if not more quickly. 1 know the observation of my hon. friend will be that that is the reason there is an age limit.


Charles Gavan Power: What may have happened
and what is likely to have happened is that the postmaster or the superior officer at Winnipeg took the older man who had been out seven years and gave him the higher position, or rather gave him the more important work to do.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Let us ask ourselves this question:	What benefits have been conferred
upon the striking employee, apart from the financial benefits sought to be given to him? First, the age limit was withdrawn, and that was a tremendous concession. What is the second concession? He still has bis rights under the superannuation and pensions acts. He is deprived of his claim to seniority because you cannot overcome time and say that a man who went to work in 1625 is going to rank senior to a man who went to work in 1918; that is one of the things he is deprived of. What else is he deprived of? Nothing. He comes in as a new employee and he carries with his position the salary of a new employee, but if he does-and this is where it is so essential to get an answer from the Postmaster General-work of a higher class, which carried with it in the days gone by a higher pa}', * he shall be treated as though there had been continuity in his service, notwithstanding that he is seven years older and has been out during that time.


Charles Gavan Power: That is the resolution.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the resolution,
yes. That is the resolution which I understand the hon. gentleman says he cannot give his support to. There is no play of words about this. May I say to the right hon. the Prime Minister that in one instance he is being

Western Postal Employees
compensated as though there were continuity of service and in the other instance there is the statement made, as the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) has said, "I want this man paid for the class of work he does."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is all
the government want; that is our understanding of the resolution.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Assuming that that is
what the government want to do then I submit that that is not what the resolution says. Leaving that for the moment, the difference between us seems to be very simple. We are willing to have the Post Office Department consider it in .the light of service rendered but not make it retroactive; the government desire to make it retroactive.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If he has been employed right along.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As the hon. member for
Quebec South has pointed out, the question is:	How are we going to determine with
exactness that the man did the work of a higher class? I saw the Postmaster General's schedule and all he does to arrive at the sum is this:
Appointment: at such and such a time.
Salary: such and such an amount.
Salary when he left the service seven years ago: so much.
Amount received during the years he has been employed: so much.
Amount he would have received had he continued on at the pay he was getting when he left: so much.
Difference he is entitled to: so much, less adj ustments.
As I understand the right hon. the Prime Minister and .the member for Quebec South, that is exactly what we do not want to do.


Charles Gavan Power: Wre do not want that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In fairness to the other
employees there is only one way in which it can be dealt with, and that is not to make it retroactive.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There has been a discussion as to the principles which should govern in this matter. The first principle mentioned was that underlying reinstatement, and the second was the principle underlying remuneration. We on this side of the house say that the application of the principle of reinstatement was settled by hon. gentlemen opposite when they were in office; -that the principle of reinstatement as being applicable was settled at the time of the strike. The question of whether or not the men should 78594-144J
be taken back after the strike was decided by the government of the day. The government of the day did not decide that question of reinstatement in the manner in which we are attempting to decide the present one of remuneration, namely by an act of parliament, but decided it by an order in council under the War Measures Act. I have nothing to say about t'heir method of procedure beyond observing that I do not think it was right; the government apparently took advantage of the act to say that these men were to be reinstated. When the government took that position they made it perfectly plain that they were prepared to reinstate the men notwithstanding the part they had taken in the strike.
In order to obtain any position the men had to pass a civil service examination which admitted them only to the lowest position in the service. They were admitted to the service in that manner, but, having been admitted, they were, in view of acquired skill and previous training, given work which required a degree of experience and skill very much greater than that to which the examination related and which would have been required of men going into the service for the first time. We say that these men where they have been put into positions requiring a greater degree of skill and experience should be paid for the service which they are or have been rendering, notwithstanding the fact that they agreed to come back as though they were entering the service for the first time. In other words, the principle governing remuneration is that of paying what the service rendered is worth. I am prepared to leave to the government of the day the question as to whether the men should have been reinstated or not. That question was settled in 1920, but once men enter the government service then I say that there is only one principle which should govern in. the matter of remuneration, and that is the value of the service which is being rendered. If these men are performing services which are worth more than they are being paid and which they would be receiving but for having participated in the strike, if they are filling positions which carry higher salaries than those which they are receiving, then I think they should be given the difference between what they are being paid and what they would have been paid for the particular class of work they are or have been performing. As I understand it, that is the purpose of the bill based on .the present resolution. If the measure goes farther than that, if it attempts to pay to any man an additional sum of money, notwithstanding-the fact that the work which he
Western Postal Employees

has been performing does not carry that salary, then I am with my hon. friends opposite in agreeing that such an amount should not be paid.
If hon. members will pardon me, as evidencing that what I am now saying is not a newly formed conviction, I should like to refer to a statement of principle in matters of remuneration, as I had stated it before this strike ever took place, and which appears in a volume entitled Industry and Humanity, published in 1918, which volume is a study in the principles underlying industrial reconstruction. It appears in a chapter entitled Principles Underlying Work, at page 272 of the volume, and is as follows:
What labour is really concerned about as regards remuneration, is adequate reward of the effort put forth. What capital and management are really concerned about is adequate reward for their investments and services. What the community is really concerned about is adequate value in services and commodities for purchasing power. The method of remuneration qf labour which helps most to secure adequacy of returns all round is the method which is likely to prove the most productive of efficiency, and, in the long run, the most advantageous to labour.
What is earned, rather than what is received, or paid, is the fundamental consideration. Men should get what they earn, and should earn what they get.
As I understand it, that is the whoLe principle underlying the present resolution. What is earned, rather than what is received or paid, is the fundamental consideration on the part of labour, and that principle should govern, particularly in the matter of government employment. Once these men came back into the employ of the state they should have been paid what their services were worth, in other words, the amounts corresponding to the classification in which their services fall. If they are performing the services of sorters they should be paid the wages which are due to sorters, not the wages which would be paid to men in the lower grades. That is the whole purpose of this measure.
I think the purpose of both sides of the house is much the same. Our purpose certainly is the same as that which actuated hon. gentlemen opposite when they passed the order in council to permit these men to return to the service. It is that of bringing about industrial peace, and industrial peace cannot be brought about effectively so long as you leave a sense of injustice rankling in the mind of any man as to the terms of his employment and the service he is rendering to the community and his employer. Hon. gentlemen opposite thought that they were helping the cause of industrial peace, when, under the War Measures Act, they passed an order

in council permitting men, who had participated in a very serious strike, to return to the service of the state on certain terms and conditions. We feel -that in so doing they went a considerable length towards restoring and maintaining industral peace, not only as concerns the few individuals most affected, but as affecting labour generally throughout the country. But since that time, ten years have gone by; certain men in the post office at Winnipeg have been rendering specific services to the state, and during all that time those of their number who went out on strike in 1910 have been receiving less pay than they would otherwise have received for the services which they have been rendering. We say that so long as that is continued, a sense of injustice will remain. Hon. gentlemen opposite meet us in this way; they say: we will agree with you and we will discontinue that discrimination to-night 'because we believe that it is an injustice. If that is true tonight, it was equally true a year ago, two years ago. It was equally true as each man began to perform a service that is worth more than he was being paid for. We ask that that sense of injustice shall be removed so that not only this particular group of men but labour generally, may feel that the government of the country as an employer, is not seeking to profit by the necessity of any man, whether the necessity arises out of a particular part taken in an industrial dispute or otherwise.
Once the question of a dispute is settled and reinstatement is permitted, the. state as a model employer, should be prepared to pay and allow payment of the remuneration whibh properly attaches to particular positions. That is as far as the government is prepared to go in sanctioning the resolution before the house. It is our understanding of the bill to be based on tihe resolution, and if in any particular the resolution goes further than that, it might as well be made apparent at the moment that the government will not sanction the introduction of any bill which goes beyond that point. That far we feel we should go. We believe hon. gentlemen in what they have said to-day are somewhat of that opinion in view of the change of feeling that has come with the passing of time. We, at all events, have come to the conclusion that if men have suffered a severe measure of punishment through eight or ten years of suspense as to what would be their future lot, in losing throughout that time the opportunity to invest the little moneys they might otherwise have received, and in the permanent loss of their seniority rights, we, as a government seeking to bring about, so far as

Western Postal Employees
possible, good will in all relations, international and industrial, can well afford to go the length this resolution goes to-night.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman has used a word- and I cannot but think he h'as done it unintentionally-which is exactly a negation of the fact. He used the word, "reinstated." The older in council does not reinstate anyone. That is the whole trouble. The order in council permits reemployment, but it reinstates no one and yet during his speech my right hon. friend used the word, "reinstatement" continuously. Reinstatement means just what its derivation is -put him back in the state in which he was. This order in council permitted' no such thing. It said distinctly, first, your employment has been terminated1; second, you went out on a sympathetic strike and that terminated your employment, and, third, you now admit that you are conscious of the gravity of the offence that ylou committed against the State. You are now allowed to be re-employed in the public service although the1 original order in council debarred you from re-employment in any capacity. There never was a question of reinstatement. It has never even been suggested that there should be reinstatement. The word is forgotten. The proper word is "re-employment", and re-employment was predicated upon conforming to certain conditions. Those conditions were enumerated this afternoon and I will not repeat them. But when the applicant for a position complied with those conditions he had a position. That position was under a contract between him and the state. It was no longer a matter of implication; it was a matter of exact and express contract. There is no clearer rule than this: that toe terms of an express contract between parties govern and no extraneous matters can be introduced to vary, alter or change the terms of that contract unless under certain circumstances which do not exist in this case. Therefore we have an express contract of employment at a given salary. The resolution before the house supports a principle that the Prime Minister says he is not in favour of, but which in terms states that if the re-employed, discharged employees were employed in a given capacity before the strike they shall, when re-employed, receive the salary of that, position regardless of the fact that they did the work of their former jobs continuously or only part time. In other words, the money that is to be paid is predicated upon what they received and what they would have received.


Peter John Veniot: What they earned.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend says,
"what they earned." But his sheet of paper shows what they would have received.


Peter John Veniot: In the class equivalent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In the class equivalent
when (they left the service.


Peter John Veniot: Provided1 they were engaged in that class.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But for how long?


Peter John Veniot: They would be paid only
for the number of days, weeks, months or years that they worked.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what the
resolution says and not what those figures show. The hon. gentleman showed me a sheet of paper and it gives the date of appointment with the salary at that date. Then it gives the man's former salary, whalt he received during the time he was employed and what he would have received if there had been no break in his service. One is deducted from ;the other and that is what he is entitled, subject to some adjustments, to receive. That is not what the Prime Minister said.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I must thank my hon. friend for suggesting that perhaps I had not made myself clear, or rather had expressed what was not in my mind when I drew a distinction between reinstatement and re-employment. When I referred to reinstatement I was referring to a man going back to work in the place in which he had been previously engaged. I meant that he was going back to his former work-'the word is derived from the Latin "status" meaning place -that is, he was going back into his place when he was going back into the position of a postal employee. That was settled by hon. gentlemen opposite when they passed their order in council. But I will drop the word "reinstatement" altogether. I will speak only of re-employment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is toe word.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend says, "that is the word." We will stick to that. Hon. gentlemen opposite and not this government decided that certain men were to be re-employed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, might be.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, might be, and the largest number of them were re-employed by hon. gentlemen opposite by an order in council which they put through. At any rate they settled the principle that men who had been out on strike could be re-employed in the postal service of Can-
Western Postal Employees

ada. We are in agreement in regard to the fact that hon. gentlemen opposite settled the principle of re-employment. Now comes the question as to the basis of re-employment, the principle that shall govern in matters of re-employment. This is where the difference comes in. We on this side of the house say that if these men are to be employed, the principle which shall govern in the matter of remuneration is that of services rendered, and that that principle alone should govern. We say that no government has any right to mate contracts with men to perform services and to pay a less amount than is normally paid for those services in accordance with the general regulations of the department by which they are employed. Hon. gentlemen opposite want these men who are re-employed to be paid at a lower rate than their particular employment is recognized as commanding. We say that is contrary to the whole practice of maintaining a standard of wages as followed by employers throughout the country generally. We say that a certain quantity of labour and a certain quality of labour should carry a certain remuneration, and what we propose by this measure is to say that men who were reemployed under an order in council which hon. gentlemen opposite passed shall be paid now as though they had been re-employed on terms which would admit them to receive as remuneration the amounts of money which attach to the particular classes of work they were doing; not to go any further than that. May I make it clear to my hon. friends that if the resolution of the Postmaster General means anything more than that, the government will not sanction his bringing in, and will not ask this house to pass, any bill which goes further than that. If the bill which my hon. friend the Postmaster General introduces is not specific enough in its terms, we can amend it. The intention of the government is simply to fix the method of remuneration and the amount of remuneration in accordance with that attaching to the classes of work actually performed, letting bygones be bygones in the case of remuneration just as hon. gentlemen opposite did in the matter of reemployment.


Mr. YENIOT:: That is my understanding of the effect of the resolution. If it meant anything else I never would have introduced it. Let me say here that the difference between these salaries is based on the nature of the work performed, and that would be determined by the reports throughout the number of years made by the office at Winnipeg. No fairer way could be adopted than taking the 
weekly and monthly and quarterly reports, the yearly reports, if you like, together with the case examinations of all these officials in the different classes or grades they occupy, and basing the remuneration upon those reports according to the class of work performed.


Robert James Manion: The Prime Minister has
mentioned a number of times the order in council and the principle we established in passing it; I mean the government of 1920, of which I was not a member. I hold the order in council in my hand. It was loaned to me by the Postmaster General. I am going to read two or three clauses that are pertinent, and if hon. gentlemen desire it, I will read it all, although it is somewhat lengthy. I do not agree with the Prime Minister that we established the principle of taking these men back and giving them remuneration equal to that which they were previously receiving, for that is what the Prime Minister implied.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, I say you did not do that, but that you should have done so. That is where you made your mistake. You either should have said: these men will not be re-employed; we cannot sanction the principle of re-employing men who go out on strike in a great public service like the postal service; or you should have said: there are circumstances which permit their re-employment. Then if you re-employed them you should have said: we will re-employ them on the basis of paying them for the actual services performed.


Robert James Manion: We did not need to take a hard and fast position. We can occasionally take the middle road, just as my right hon. friend the Prime Minister does frequently, and I am not criticising him for that. In 1920 the government of that day took what I consider was the middle of the road. Let me quote from the order in council, dated June 4 1920. It says in respect to taking on these men:
In accordance with the understanding arrived at by the government, as embodied in a memorandum forwarded to the Civil Service Commission by Senator Robertson on the 7th January, 1920, ex-postal employees are to be considered eligible for appointment to positions in the civil service, subject to certain conditions therein mentioned.
Then on the other side is the memorandum giving the canditions. Again I will quote the pertinent clauses:
The gravity of their offence against the state being now realized, the government has given consideration to the possibility of removing the bar to their application through the Civil Service Commission for re-employment in the public service, and His Excellency the Governor

Western Postal Employees
in Council is disposed to exercise clemency so far as reasonably consistent with necessary discipline.
Ex-postal employees may therefore be considered as eligible to be appointed to positions in the civil service for which they make application as vacancies occur, and to which, in the opinion of the commission, they are justly entitled under the regulations.
All right; they were appointed to the positions for which they made application. That is all the government of 1920 agreed to, to re-appoint them to the positions for which they made application. These men, I understand after listening to the debate, applied to be appointed as postal helpers.


Charles Avery Dunning: Under the regulation they could not apply for anything else.


Robert James Manion: The agreement distinctly
states that they would be appointed to the positions for which they made application.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend misses
the significance of the words he has just read -" under the regulations." The regulations would not permit them to apply for any other position.


Robert James Manion: I cannot help that. They applied for the position of postal helper. The order in council with the memorandum attached says that they may be appointed as vacancies occur to positions to which in the opinion of the Civil Service Commission they are justly entitled under the regulations. The Civil Service Commission considered that they were entitled to be appointed as postal helpers, and they were appointed as such, and they received the pay of postal helpers. It is true that some of them-I would not say all of them-did work of a higher grade, just as in ordinary business, as the leader of the opposition has pointed out, you will find one out of three or four men in the same concern who is much more able and does much more work and better work than the others, although all are getting exactly the same pay. Some of these men, having had previous experience, may have done a better class of work.
So far as we on this side of the house are concerned, we are ready to let bygones be bygones. We say that probably these men have received sufficient punishment, and that in the future we are willing that they should receive the wages attached to the positions for which they are certified.
The Prime Minister made another point. Reading from his own book he enunciated the axiom that men should get paid for the work they do. We all agree with that, but he was not dealing in his book just at that point with men who had' gone on strike from
a great public service. He was merely speaking in general.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was dealing with the principles underlying industrial peace.


Robert James Manion: He was not dealing with
men who had gone on strike from the public service. I do not know the context of the passage quoted, but at any rate it seems to me that the attitude taken by hon. gentlemen on this side of the house lives up entirely to the order in council of 1920, which was passed, as was expressly stated, as an act of clemency. We take the position now, that for the sake of national unity and harmony in this country in the future these men should receive the wages of the positions for which they are fitted.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say
just a word about the order in council which my hon. friend has just read? I asked the hon. leader of the opposition this afternoon just where the authority came from to pass that particular order in council. We have heard a good deal in parliament this session about the powers given by parliament to the Civil Service Commission. The law governing employment in the civil service states that civil servants of the class we are considering, must receive their employment through the Civil Service Commission under the terms which the commission lays down. These men were not re-employed under the terms of the Civil Service Act. That was the first breach. If hon. gentlemen had been concerned about the observance and enforcement of the Civil Service Act and what it demanded of an administration, not one of these men could have been taken back under the terms of the order in council.
May I say further that the Civil Service Commission to-day or any other day would not think of bargaining with men to go into the public service and to accept work there on lower terms than the standards which govern in the particular classes of employment for which they were to be engaged. We might well realize at this time that what parliament is now passing upon is the principle of what men shall be paid for services rendered. Parliament was not passing on that particular principle when this order in council was passed. The government of the day was then laying down certain conditions with regard to re-employing certain public servants. My own view is that these men should never have been re-employed except by act of parliament; that proceeding under the War Measures Act and in disregard of the Civil Service Act was not a correct method of
Western Postal Employees

procedure but, certain former employees having been re-employed, parliament is now asked to say on what basis of remuneration they shall be paid. Shall they be paid a rate of remuneration in accordance with the services they have actually rendered, or shall there be some compromise in tha-t particular? In the matter of remuneration I submit that parliament cannot take any other ground than that of paying men for the actual services they have rendered.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Once more the right hon. Prime Minister, I think, has either not wholly grasped the situation as it has been presented by the documents, or else he attributes a meaning to the order in council that I cannot read into it. The War Measures Act, I assumed-I said I was not certain-was the only authority for the order in council.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my hon. friend is right.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: Are the words "War Measures Act" contained in the order in council?


Richard Bedford Bennett: In answer to my hon.
friend from Rimouski, I have looked at the order in council for the first time-it is handed to me by the hon. Postmaster General-and it does not indicate on the face of it anything with regard to the War Measures Act.


Charles Avery Dunning: Does it indicate any parliamentary authority at all?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. It is merely a report. I think I had better read it. This is the order in council:
The committee of the Privy Council have had before them a report, dated 31st May 19^0 from the Secretary of State, submitting that tne Civil kerVice Commission has recently received applications for positions in the civil service from ex-postal employees who participated m the sympathetic strike in western Canada in the spring of 1919.
In accordance with the understanding arrived at by the government, as embodied in a memorandum forwarded to the Civil Service Commission by Senator Robertson on the 7th January, 1920,_ ex-postal employees are to be considered eligible for appointment to positions m the civil service, subject to certain conditions therein mentioned.
The ex-postal employees mentioned in the attached list have complied with the conditions or this memorandum.
The minister, therefore, recommends that authority be granted for the appointment of these candidates to positions for which they are eligible.
The committee advise that the requisite authority be granted accordingly.
(Signed) Rodolphe Boudreau,
Clerk of the Privy Council. IMr. Mackenzie King.]
The memorandum my hon. friend from Fort William has just read. The Postmaster General read it this afternoon. But may I point out, I cannot think the right hon. Prime Minister intends to go as far as his observation would lead one to conclude. The state has never been able, nor has any private employer, ever been able to calculate-shall I say?-the kilowatts of work that the human machine can render in any particular place. I recall the general manager of one of the great banks of this country endeavoured to determine the capacity of each of the employees by fixing a standard that would be the measure of his work. If he exceeded that standard, then he was ranked accordingly; and if he fell below that standard he usually sought other employment. Now, we cannot do that with respect to each individual in the post office. That is clear is it not?


Charles Gavan Power: No, we actually do it.


Ernest Lapointe: It is done by the classification in the civil service.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is in the mass. That is just the point I am making. Being unable to determine what each individual may render in the way of quantum of work, we have endeavoured to classify civil servants, and the classification is arbitrary. For instance, the great railway corporations have schedules classifying their employees according to the work they do. Those schedules cover section foremen, machinists, engineers, firemen, conductors, brakemen, wipers, hostlers, and so on. In this case we are endeavouring to correct what the Prime Minister thinks is unfairness to a group of people by arbitrarily saying: We will pay them what they would have got if they had never quit. That is wherein I say this measure-


Charles Gavan Power: That is what the resolution says.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No doubt.


Charles Gavan Power: But that is not what the
Prime Minister has said, or what the member from Quebec has said. That is another point.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not what the Prime Minister says at all. This resolution is the exact negation of what he says. This resolution arbitrarily says that John Smith, who in 1919 was classified as A 1 and getting SI.500 a year, and in 1925 was appointed to a position which carried with it only SI,000, can now draw at the rate of $1,500 a year from the date of appointment to his present position because when he was formerly in the service of the crown he got $1,500 a year.

Western Postal Employees
That is the resolution if English means anything. I do submit that under these circumstances perhaps the end that we all have in our minds will 'be served if this committee rise and! report progress on the resolution. I suggest to the Prime Minister that the Postmaster General take this course, so that the law officers may have an opportunity to look at the resolution and the bill to be founded on it. And, further, that the Postmaster General furnish us with a list of the employees, and the way in which they are being dealt with under the measure, so that we may be able to establish that the principle on which the government is proceeding is the principle which I have just mentioned. The principle of the measure is not what the Postmaster General now says; his figures are quite the opposite. They take an arbitrary sum that somebody received when he was dismissed, and they apply that to somebody s salary from the time that he was re-employed. It is not intended to do this at all, unless, as the Prime Minister says, Smith, we will say did that work; and there is no evidence that he did the work. As my hon. friend from Lunenberg has remarked, there should be a fact-finding commission. And that is where the principle is all wrong, because if you are going to apply it to these men you should apply it to any man who in the course of his employment is desirous of doing more work than his position calls for. No man ever got anywhere by looking at the clock and seeing how little he could do and retain his position. Men now are going to be penalized who have not done that, but have endeavoured to do something more than their duty called' for. Under these circumstances I think the only way in which the committee can ever make real headway is to rise and report progress on the resolution and ask leave to sit again. This will afford the government an opportunity to look into the measure, especially having regard to the terms of the resolution and the bill to be founded on it, so we may at least know, without endeavouring to amend the bill, what we are voting about and what principle we are giving effect to by enacting the legislation.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Mr. Chairman, I do not
wish to take up too much of the time of the house, but there seems to be a possibility of agreement in principle between those who sit on the other side of the house and those who sit on this side. The leader of the opposition referred to a memorandum by Senator Robertson, accepted by the government of the day and made the basis of the order in council which provided for the re-employment of
these men. Now, that order in council set forth two conditions only, the first being that the approval of council must be given in the case of every man who was taken back into the service; the second being that satisfactory assurances must be given that there would be no repetition of the offence. Those are the only two conditions. Then there is a third proviso which waives the age limit. There were two other conditions that became attached to the re-employment of these men by reason of the state of the law as it existed then and as it exists now. These further conditions, which are not referred to anywhere in the memorandum or the order in council, are these; first, the ex-striker must pass the ordinary civil service examination; secondly, he can come in only at the foot of the service. These two latter conditions are attached to the re-employment by reason of the fact that the Civil Service Act in itself does not provide for a situation such as this.
The leader of the opposition stated, I think quite pertinently, that it was impassible to assess the value of the persons who are in the government service. Under the conditions that were laid down in 1920 it was not possible to give recognition to the principle which the Prime Minister has enunciated and which the leader of the opposition appears to accept, namely, that employees of the government should be paid according to the value of the services they have rendered.


Mr. ERNST:: Were not these conditions
punitive in their nature?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: No; the two latter conditions of which I speak followed as a natural consequence from the fact that there is no provision in the Civil Service Act for reinstatement even when an injustice has been done, or for the reemployment of a man who has left the service. I know of one case. It is known in the service here. A civil servant in Ottawa left a position in which he had attained a certain salary. He resigned in order to take a position with a firm in one of the larger cities. That firm failed. The man was desirous of returning to the position in the civil service from which he had resigned, and the authorities in the department under which he had served were desirous of obtaining his services again. Under the Civil Service Act however it was not possible for him to resume that position with the salary which he had formerly received. There were no other applicants for the position, yet he had to come in at the bottom of that particular classification. The Civil Service Act is defective in that it does not permit the application of the principle which the Prime Minister and the
Western Postal Employees

leader of the opposition are both agreed upon, and therefore it is necessary to have amended legislation to do full justice in this case.
I quite agree that it is impossible to assess in terms of money with any degree of nicety or accuracy the value of human qualities. But we have one criterion to which we might quite easily appeal in this case. Take for instance the men who were taken back in 1920 and 1921. It is not a very difficult matter to assess these men according to the value of their services to the public: in 1919 when they were in the service we recognized the value of their services by paying them a certain sum of money. That was the standard we applied to all the employees of the Dominion government. Is it not a reasonable standard to apply in this case? Is it not reasonable therefore to say that in the great majority of these cases justice will be done if we say to these men: "We will pay you as from the date of your reemployment in the service the salary which you would have received had you been taken back into the service at the same salary you were receiving when you were dismissed." That is the value which the government itself placed on services of these men prior to their dismissal, and that is the standard of value that can be applied to these men now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) has made a suggestion which, in the light of the discussion up to the present moment, is one which the committee might well consider. Before, however, the Postmaster General moves that the committee rise and report progress, I want to make tolerably sure that we are in agreement on an essential point.
I have said that so far as the government are concerned our view is that any payment to be made under the bill to be brought in must be payment for services actually rendered. That is the essence of the position we take, and it :s, I understand, on that point that my hon. friend opposite has taken exception to the resolution as drafted. When the committee resumes, the resolution will have to be amended in accordance with the line I have indicated, and I should like to ask my hon. friend whether some such amendment as the one I shall now suggest would meet the situation so far as his point is concerned. Of course,
I realize that hon. gentlemen opposite may be opposed to the resolution generally.


Richard Bedford Bennett: To the retroactive feature.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On the other
hand, there is less liability of a difference between us if we confine the resolution to payment for services actually rendered and in

accordance with what would be the recognized rate of payment for those services were there no other consideration, apart from the services themselves, to be taken into account. The resolution, then, will be somewhat to this effect:
That it is expedient to provide for the readjustment of the salaries of certain postal employees in western Canada who were dismissed in 1919 and subsequently reemployed, to give them-
And these or similar words will be inserted:
-in so far as the services performed by them will justify-
And then the words which follow in the resolution:
-the benefit of salary they would have received had they reentered the service in the class equivalent to the one they were in when dismissed, and of subsequent salary revisions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Without discussing the question of difference between us with respect to retroactive legislation of this kind, I maj observe that if the right hon. gentleman proposes to give effect to the contentions as he has submitted them to the committee, I think that language somewhat similar to that which he has read will entirely serve the purpose. But there is one difficulty which must be present in the right hon. gentleman's mind: How is that to be ascertained?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We shall have to satisfy the committee on that point.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman sees the difficulty.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Surely.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I dio not want to be
tedious, but I should like to point this out. When the applicant for the position went to work he obviously must have worked in that position which was awarded to him. It becomes then a question of determining how long at what pay, and so forth. When you begin to discuss that phase of the question you are met with this further difficulty: that at the end of each year recommendations were made as to the meritorious services of each employee, and when that recommendation was made the officer making it obviously considered the character of the work done and took into consideration the fact that the employee had done work which was beyond the narrow confines of the precise position to which he had been appointed. Therefore to *the extent to which his meritorious services Warranted an Increase he has already had it by recommendations made from year to year. That is a factor that must be kept in mind in dealing with this matter, and it is because of

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-N.S.
its complexity in that regard that I have asked the minister to furnish us with particulars. Perhaps the minister in the interim will give us the schedule, adding thereto something which does not now appear in it, namely, the salaries individuals are now receiving.


Peter John Veniot: It is nolt on this list but
we have the information.


Peter McGibbon: I presume it is a fact
that these men after they re-entered the service got promotion.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: Some did; we have a record of all.


Peter McGibbon: How many steps of promotion would there be?


Clarence Joseph Veniot: Offhand I could not say,
but the records of examinations, promotions and so forth are available. They are at Winnipeg and a good many of them are here in our office and we can get the information.


Peter McGibbon: It seems to me that an interminable task lies ahead of the minister. A man is re-employed and works probably at the lowest grade; then he is promoted after a certain length of service, probably receiving a second or a third promotion. When you compare that with what he would have done if he had not left the service, how are you to determine the steps of promotion he might have climebd had there not been a strike? It seems to me absolutely impossible.


Peter John Veniot: It can be worked out. I
move that the committee rise and report progress.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: How many returned
soldiers were reinstated?


Peter John Veniot: Twenty-one.
Progress reported.


DEPARTMENT OP PUBLIC WORKS
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
John Frederick Johnston: Item 131, page 36.
When we were last considering this resolution we had passed an amount of $6,000 for South Bay, Ingonish.
Public Works-harbours and rivers, Nova Scotia-Sydney-wharf, $16,500.


Finlay MacDonald: Is this the final payment to complete this wharf?


Hon. J. G. ELLIOTT (Minister of Public Works):: It is proposed1 to sheet pipe the south wall for a distance of ninety feet, place about
4,000	tons of filling and construct a warehouse 40 feet wide and 150 feet long. The work is to be done by day labour.


Finlay MacDonald: Is the other contract completed?


John Campbell Elliott: * It is now being completed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
West Green Harbour-wharf, $1,100.
Mr. CANTLEY:: What provision is being
made for repairs to the wharf at Trenton?


John Campbell Elliott: There is nothing in these
estimates providing for Trenton.


Thomas Cantley: I think the minister will
remember that matter being brought to his attention both last year and the year before. The situation at this point is serious; no repairs at all have been made to the wharf for a number of years, and I submit that it is most unfair that no work has been done as far as the East river is concerned either at New Glasgow, Abercrombie or Trenton. The situation there is intolerable; public property is being destroyed simply because the government will not make the absolutely necessary repairs.


John Campbell Elliott: What my hon. friend has
said1 with regard to this matter having been brought to the attention of the department is quite correct, and it is also correct that nothing appears in the estimates for this work, but the matter is receiving consideration. At the moment neither myself nor my deputy can recall the amount of money necessary to repair this wharf. If the amount required is not over $1,000, of course the work can be done under the general vote if it is one of the very urgent cases, but I am rather under the impression that more than that amount will be required.


Thomas Cantley: I am quite aware that
there is nothing in the estimates for this work, and I am bringing up the matter now in order that the minister may make provision for these repairs in the supplementary estimates. I can tell him that $1,000 will not provide for this work, but I think $5,000 would cover it, and I do submit that at least that amount should be provided in the supplementary estimates and expended in order to save this property from ruin and in order
2288	COMMONS
Sup-ply-Harbours and Rivers-N.S.
to make it available to the large number of people living in that locality. There are from 4,000 to 5,000 people in that vicinity, all of whom find use for that wharf at different seasons of the year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Yarmouth Harbour-dredging, $25,100.
Mr. SHORT:: As this is the last item in
this list I have a few words to say in connection with the unfair distribution of the
8750,000	which is to be spent on harbours and rivers in Nova Scotia. I find of that amount about $150,000 is to be expended in the constituency of my hon. friend the Minister of National Defence, which adjoins my own constituency. I have no fault to find with that; I am glad he has obtained that amount of money, but I want to call the attention of the minister to the fact that he has shown great partiality. My constituency contains more breakwaters than does the constituency of the minister, but the appropriation for the constituency of Digby-Annapolis is only $47,500 as compared with the $150,000 for the constituency of Yarmouth-Shelburne. I want to ask the minister if he thinks that is a fair distribution of the public moneys of this country. Are not the people in my constituency just as much entitled to receive appropriations in order to put their breakwaters and harbours into a condition which will permit them to earn their living as the people in the constituency of my hon. friend? He cannot go on doing business in this way and expect the people to be satisfied and not criticize the estimates.
I want to point out further that of this amount of $47,500, $33,000 is devoted to the Digby pier. This is not an appropriation for the benefit of the people in the community; it is for the benefit of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and they are paying the government 7 per cent.
Last year I brought to the attention of the minister a very much needed extension which was required to the breakwater at Westport, Nova Scotia, one of the largest fishing centres we have in the bay of Fundy. This place has more fishermen and produces more fish than does the village of Port Maitland, for which $50,000 was appropriated and another $50,000 is being asked for this year. I want to ask the minister if he thinks that is either fair or just to the fishermen of Nova Scotia, especially in view of what the government say they are trying to do for the fishing industry of tlie maritime provinces. They are spending a large portion of the public moneys

in the constituencies represented by the hon. Minister of National Defence and the member for Antigonish-Guysborough. As I said before, the constituency of Digby-Annapolis is just as important a fishing constituency as is Shelbume-Yarmouth or Antigonish-Guysborough, but the government are neglecting the public works there to the great disadvantage of the district. I wanted to call this matter to the attention of the minister before the item passed, and I hope he will see his way clear to put a sufficient amount in the supplementary estimates to cover the extension of the breakwater at Westport and the necessary dredging and repairs required for the other breakwaters in my constituency.


John Campbell Elliott: I will say to my hon.
friend that I recall the plea he made a year ago on behalf of these various places, but I must say that I thought I was doing very well to obtain from the men from whom I have to get this money the amount of $47,000 for the hon. member's riding.


Harry Bernard Short: You are getting a return
on 833,000 of that.


John Campbell Elliott: I hope these are all good
investments.


Harry Bernard Short: The government is getting
that directly.


John Campbell Elliott: That is the intention with which it is made. I am not quarrelling with my hon. friend when he says that there are a number of places in his riding which require further improvement, but if he makes as much progress within the next year as he has in the last I do not think he will have any complaints to offer next session.


Harry Bernard Short: I will not be satisfied at
all unless I can make a good deal more progress than I have made in the last year or two. There are only a very few of the numerous breakwaters in my constituency which you have looked after, and many of these are in urgent need of repair at the present moment. It would be a good investment on the part of the Minister of Public \\ orks and would' conduce to the welfare of the people of this country to keep these breakwaters in 'better repair, because if you do not do it this year it will have to be done at perhaps double the cost next year.


Finlay MacDonald: I would like to ask the hon. minister why he

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-N.S.
earmarks an item of 83,000 for breakwater repairs at Yarmouth bar and an item of 825,100 for dredging at Yarmouth harbour and does not include them in the vote which covers general dredging.


John Campbell Elliott: The hon. member will
notice that they are quite considerable sums and I think we would have met with objections from my hon. friends if we took to ourselves the right to apportion such large amounts without having given the house an opportunity of considering them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is one observation I would like to make without further trespassing upon the time of the committee. During quite a storm last summer I drove up along the coast in the county which the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis represents. I saw a large number of these breakwaters to which he has referred, and the small fishing vessels were seeking shelter behind them. The very word ''breakwater" implies the reason for their being constructed, and some of them were certainly in ill repair. It occurs to me that if we are going to protect the lives of the fishermen and expand the export business in fish-we are endeavouring to do that because if I recall correctly the exports last year were something like $34,000,000-we can only do it by keeping these breakwaters in repair. It would not take a very large sum of money to keep them in reasonable repair, and that should be done for the two reasons. The first reason is the preservation of the lives of the men who go down to the sea for the purpose of engaging in the fishing business, and the second is that they may be able to carry on their vocation under as favourable conditions as possible and thereby expand our business and carry the fish of Canada into the markets of the world. If the engineers of the department will look into this matter I am quite satisfied that they will report that many of these breakwaters should be repaired. This is a matter which should be beyond the reach of patronage; it is not a matter which the minister can deal with himself because he has to listen to what is presented to him by the ministers from the provinces and dispose of the money he is granted to the best advantage, but for the reasons I have given, I suggest that this should be beyond patronage. It is a question of life, and as far as possible the matter of safety and endeavour should be looked after by the government regardless of any other consideration. I thought I would mention this matter in view of what I saw with my own eyes last summer as I drove up along the Digby shore.


James Layton Ralston: Following the argument
of the hon. leader of the opposition, I know the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis will agree with me that the very purpose of the Port Maitland work was the purpose referred to by the hon. leader of the opposition. The hon. member knows that the Port Maitland breakwater constitutes practically the only safe shelter from Yarmouth up to St. Mary's bay on a very open coast where there is a great deal of fishing. When the men return to shore they meet with a difficult situation unless they have some sort of shelter, and that is why that work is being conducted.
I know it has been a long time in process, as the first length of it was done two years ago and the contract for another length was let only last fall. It is just for the reason the leader of the opposition has mentioned that that has been done. I suppose everybody appreciates receiving credit for what he gets in his constituency; but if my hon. friend will look up the amount which goes to Shelburne-Yarmouth, he will find that there is a revote from last year of $67,000, money that was not spent, and the other votes are small. I only wish they were bigger. My hon. friend knows that the county of Shelburne-Yarmouth is a shore county going right around the whole nose of Nova Scotia from Port Maitland to Sable River. There are breakwaters and wharves and there is need for many more. These things can be done only gradually, and my hon. friend knows the pressure that is brought to bear in connection with them. I am endeavouring to serve my county as best I can, and I am only sorry I cannot get more.


Harry Bernard Short: I have no fault to find with the hon. gentleman for getting this amount for his constituency; indeed I congratulate him on getting it. I have no fault to find with the government in that regard. I believe the breakwater at Port Maitland will be of gieat benefit to the whole St. Mary's bay. What I am pointing out is that the minister has given my constituency very little, although the need is very great.


James Layton Ralston: I suppose some of it was taken to give to the constituency of my hon. friend from Queens-Lunenburg, who has an appropriation of $30,000 for dredging in Liverpool, and to the constituency of my hon. friend from Richmond-West Cape Breton, who has an appropriation of $75,000 at Fourchu.


Harry Bernard Short: The Minister of National Defence ssys that $67,000 of his appropriation
2290	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-N.S.
of $150,000 is a revote. I may say that $33,000 of my appropriation of $47,000 is a revote, so that I can go him one better and a good deal more.
Mr. MaeDONALD (South Cape Breton): I wish to urge upon the minister the necessity of keeping these breakwaters in repair. There is in my constituency a breakwater at Port Morien that has been allowed to fall into disrepair. About two hundred feet on the inside of the breakwater has been allowed to collapse. I have called the attention of the minister to that, but nothing has been done. Will he make a note of it and have the engineers look it up for next year?


John Campbell Elliott: I have made a note of it and it will be looked up for next year, but I hope my hon. friends will bear in mind that the disrepair about which they comipiain-I think the leader of the opposition referred to the matter as allowing these wharves to get out of repair-is tihe result of several years. We are gradually getting back into repair those that got out of repair during the years of the war. We are, I think, making fair progress along that line with the amount of money that is being spent. I am sure nobody is complaining that any money is being spent that should not be spent. The only complaint is that there are many other places-and I quite agree with that-where there is need of further repairs. We are doing these repairs gradually and I hope my hon. friends will feel that a fair attempt is being made to meet the most urgent cases.


Thomas Cantley: What has 'been done in connection with .the wharf at Pictou Landing? There is nothing for it in the estimates this year. I think there was something in the supplementary estimates of last year, and I believe some work was done. But I should like to know what it was and who did it.


John Campbell Elliott: There is nothing in these estimates specially for Pictou Landing. My hon. friend knows that we are repairing the railway wharf at Pictou. The matter to which he refers is one for future consideration.


Thomas Cantley: I am not referring to the railway wharf at Pictou; I am talking about the wharf at Pictou Landing, for which a small amount was, I think, included in the supplementary estimates of last year, and some work was done. I should like to know how much work was done, by whom it was done and on whose recommendation.


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be glad ,to look into the matter.


Thomas Cantley: When.
[Mr. Short.)


John Campbell Elliott: Right away.


Thomas Cantley: Does the minister mean to-night?


John Campbell Elliott: I do not think my hon. friend will expect me to do that to-night.


Thomas Cantley: I will now refer the minister to another question which I asked the other evening in reference to Mr. McColl. I I think the minister will recall that he promised to give me some information on that subject. Mr. McColl appears to direct the work of the minister's department in Pictou county. He recommended a man who proved unsatisfactory and whom the resident engineer dismissed. He was then allowed to recommend a successor. Apparently the work carried on in the county of Pictou to-day by the Public Works department is done on the suggestion of Mr. McColl. Now Mr. McColl is not the defeated candidate; he never was a candidate for the federal house, and I should like to know what his influence with the minister is based on, and why orders from him are taken by the minister or his officials in the department or his officials in the county. Perhaps the minister will be good enough to give me that information now.


John Campbell Elliott: I think I said to my hon. friend the other night when this matter was under discussion that I did not particularly remember Mr. McColl, whether I had ever seen him or not. The name is familiar. I was under the impression, I think I told my hon. friend, that Mr. MoColl had been the defeated Liberal candidate. That is all I can say about him. The engineer apparently makes the recommendations as to the work he thinks should be done in the various sections that come under his jurisdiction. Mr. McColl has been consulted, I have no doubt, but I have no personal knowledge of him.


Thomas Cantley: When this matter was up before, I asked the information of the minister, and I understood him to say-and I do not think on reflection he will deny it- that he promised to look the matter up and give me the information. Apparently he has not done so, and is not in a position to give me the information now. It is of some importance to me and more so to the people of the county of Pictou. I have not said much by way of criticism of Mr. McColl personally, and I am not going to do so now. The defeated candidate has not interfered, but Mr. McColl has interfered and not to the advantage of the Public Works depart-

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-N.S.
ment or of the work being carried on by the department in the county of Pictou. I should like to know why it is that he directs and has directed the work there. There must be some reason and I submit the minister should be able to give it to me.


John Campbell Elliott: I am sorry that I cannot say anything more in regard to the reason why Mr. McColl was consulted. He is evidently a man whose judgment is regarded highly by the officials of the department and by the local engineer. I cannot say anything personally further than that. I hope my hon. friend does not think I am holding back any information which I promised to give. I had at least half a dozen requests for information with regard to Port Maitland and other places, and I thought I had given, just as promptly as it could be obtained, all the information that I promised the other night to give. I looked into the question of the contract referred to by my hon. friend where apparently the foreman had not turned out satisfactorily, and the very fact that he was discharged as soon as he was found not to be doing his job well is the best evidence that he did not have any particular pull with the department. Another man was put on the job, and I do not think my hon. friend will complain that the work was not well done eventually and that the new foreman did not efficiently perform his duties.


Thomas Cantley: Let us try to clear this
matter up. The fact is that Mr. MicOoll recommended a Mr. McLean for the jotb at Bailey's Brook, and upon his recommendation Mr. McLean was appointed' by the resident engineer at Halifax, Mr. Locke. The engineer who visited the work while it was in progress reported that it was the worst, piece of work he had ever seen done. Mr. Locke also called attention to an inaccuracy in his accounts, that he had put in time for work that was not done, and the outcome was that he was dismissed. Now this man was appointed on .the recommendation of Mr. McColl, and his successor was also appointed upon the recommendation of the same Mr. McColl, notwithstanding that the first man he had recommended 'had been dismissed for cause. I find that in regard to the work on the Pictou wharves, he recommended that it should be done by day labour and not by contract, and that was done, now I admitted the other day when this matter was up that I thought the minister was perhaps justified :n that case. So far as the work at Pictou landing is concerned, Mr. McColl interfered there as well. I asked the minister some time ago to give me the information, but I have not
got it yet. I absolve the minister for not supplying me with the information in regard to Mr. McColl, because I do not think that he failed intentionally; I think he simply forgot in the press of other matters. The matter, however, was discussed fairly fully the other evening, and I hope I am impressing on the minister sufficiently now the fact that I do Want the information in regard to Mr. McColl, and I trust that he will not forget it, and that before the week is out he will be good enough to give me the information for which I am asking.


John Campbell Elliott: I have no knowledge of
any information in the department regarding Mr. McColl further than I have given, but I shall make inquiries, and if there is anything available which will be of interest to my hon. friend I shall foe glad to give it to him, but of Course I cannot give him something that I have not got.


Thomas Cantley: The minister said the
other evening that he had not the information, and I accepted his word, but I think he undertook to get me the information.


John Campbell Elliott: I think Hansard will bear me out when I say that I furnished all the information I undertook to furnish.


Thomas Cantley: We will waive that. I
submit that the matter is of importance to the minister, or ought to be, because this man's recommendation had led the department into error, and has resulted in a disgraceful job and in the expenditure of money in a Way in which it should not have been expended. These are or should foe matters of concern to the minister, and I think it would foe well worth his while making the fullest inquiry in regard to the matter to which I am now referring. I will expect him after inquiry to give me the information and let me know why this man has had, and has to-day, control of the expenditure of public works money in the county of Pictou.


Harry Bernard Short: I would ask if the minister has yet made up his mind with reference to giving instructions for much needed dredging in Digby harbour. When I asked the minister the other evening whether he had received an application for dredging in Digfoy harbour, he was not sure whether he had or not. Since then I have been given to understand' that application has been made by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, which operates a line of steamers from St. John to Digfoy, and which is now building a very much larger steamer for that route. I understand from the files that the Canadian Pacific have already
2292	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-N.S.
drawn the department's attention to the necessity of doing some dredging for the accommodation of the boat that is used on that route at present. I would impress on the minister that in order to prepare for the increased traffic that is coming across the bay of Fundy 'between St. John and Digby, especially with the building of this very much larger steamer, it is absolutely necessary that a large amount of dredging be done in Digby harbour. Will an amount be placed1 in the supplementary estimates for that purpose, or will the work be done out of the $600,000 vote in the main estimates for dredging generally? I would also ask if the work will be done this summer.


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be glad to give my bon. friend all the information I have. There has been some correspondence with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, but my recollection is that there has been nothing definite since they have decided upon their new boat. So fair os my information goes, they have not taken up with the department the amount of dredging that will be necessary to accommodate the new boat. I do not think they have themselves veiy definitely settled just what that boat is to be.


Harry Bernard Short: They have definitely settled that it will be 340 feet long. The boat at present in the service is about 200 feet long, so the minister can readily understand that the channel at low water must be considerably enlarged to accommodate a boat that is 140 feet longer.


Mr ELLIOTT:: That may be. I think, however, it is only fair to say to my hon. friend there is nothing in the general vote for harbours and rivers noted for that particular work. The request for the work not having reached the department, my hon. friend will quite understand that the examination necessary has not been made, and I can say nothing now as to what may be in the supplementary estimates. The matter, however, will receive every consideration.


Harry Bernard Short: A request has been made by the Canadian Pacific for dredging to accommodate the boat that is now running on that service. Will that work be done this summer?


John Campbell Elliott: I understand that the requirements of the present boat of which we have been notified, can be taken care of out of the general vote, but the dredging that will be necessary for a boat 340 feet long would require a further vote. That is my information.


Harry Bernard Short: Will the minister provide that in the supplementary estimates?
Mr. ELLIOTT. In the first place, I cannot say how much the amount would be, and in the second place, I cannot say whether on our information I shall be able to recommend the expenditure. Even then it is impossible for me to say whether I could get what I recommend through the treasury board and council, but I will give the matter the best consideration I can.


Harry Bernard Short: A large amount is being provided in the estimates for other places in Nova Scotia. I see there is $25,000 for Yarmouth, $30,000 for Liverpool, and the county of Anitigonish-Guysbarough gets quite a number of appropriations. We have at Digby, one of the .most valuable harbours and piers in Nova Scotia, but no dredging has been done therefor the last eight or ten years. It is absolutely necessary that the harbour should be looked after. I have no doubt that $25,000 is urgently needed at Yarmouth, but we also urgently need dredging at Digby, and I think it is the minister's duty to see that these public works which are owned' by the government and which bring in a good revenue to the country are looked after, so that the steamers on the service can dock at these wharves. If the minister will give me his assurance that the necessary dredging will be done there I dhali be glad.


John Campbell Elliott: I know that my hon. friend will not press me further for an assurance, because that is something that I cannot give him. But I do know that Digby is one of the places that is entitled to great consideration, and the best endeavours possible will be made to do whatever is necssary. That is as far as I can go.


Harry Bernard Short: I am very glad to get that
statement from the minister, and I have no doubt if he will use the same words in council he will have no trouble in getting a sufficient amount placed in the supplementary estimates.


John Campbell Elliott: I am afraid my hon. friend has never had to appear before council for the purpose or he would appreciate the difficulty.


Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: In looking over
the public works estimates for various constituencies in Nova Scotia I find that the constituency of Halifax, which has about 140 miles of Atlantic coast, with a large number of harbours, necessitating a great many breakwaters as a protection for fishermen's boats, has allotted to it the large sum of $13,600. Of that amount something over $5,000 is voted

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-N.B.
for private property, that is at Lawlor's Island [DOT]-a quarantine station and a wharf. Those works are absolutely not in the public interest, but are part and parcel of the equipment of that institution. Deducting the $5,000 from the $13,600, we have a balance of less than $9,000 to take care of the breakwaters on 140 miles of Atlantic coast. I was pleased indeed to hear the minister say that he is rapidly overtaking the repairs necessary to the breakwaters along the Nova Scotia coast. I would suggest to him, and I hope the suggestion may be adopted, that in the supplementary estimates he endeavour to provide a few thousand dollars for the necessary repairs to the breakwaters in the constituency of Halifax; and if he cannot do so, that in the coming year he will allot a substantial amount for the purpose. The repairs are sadly needed and should be attended to. This I think is only fair when one considers that even my friend from Digby-Aimapolis has $50,000 for his constituency as against less than $9,000 for the county of Halifax, to say nothing of the very large amounts that have been provided for the constituencies of my friend from Anti-gonish-Guysborough and the Minister of National Defence. It is not fair to set aside only $9,000 for public works in the county of Halifax.


Thomas Cantley: Could the minister let me know how much money was expended on Pictou Landing wharf last year?


John Campbell Elliott: I have not the information here. Unless there is an amount in the estimates we do not have any information ready to hand. It seems to be about all we can do to have a reasonable amount of information available on each of the many hundred items contained in the estimates. I shall be glad to look into the matter and let my hon. friend have the information.


Thomas Cantley: I assumed the minister
had the information because I think some money was spent there. When may I expect to get that information?


John Campbell Elliott: I think I can give it to my hon. friend to-morrow.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Port Maitland-breakwater extension, $50,-
000.
John Frederick Johnston: This amount was
allowed to stand.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, I was to furnish some particulars to my hon. friend, which I did the day after the item was under consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
78594-145	[DOT]
New Brunswick-harbours and rivers-Anderson's Hollow (Waterside)-breakwater repairs, $5,000.
Mr. BELL (St. John) :: Will the minister let us have particulars of this amount?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is asked to be provided to repair the outer end of the breakwater and partly to reconstruct the approach to same. The ultimate scheme, which would consist of completely rebuilding and repairing the destroyed sections of the breakwater, is estimated to cost $15,000. The district engineer reports that with an expenditure of $5,000 the immediately necessary work can be performed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Beaver Harbour-wharf reconstruction, $15,000.
Mr. GRIMMER:: Would the minister kindly give information in regard to this?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount of $15,000 is asked to be provided towards the reconstruction of the wharf, which is reported to be in an unsafe condition, owing to the action of the limnoria and general decayed condition of the structure. The proposed work is asked for by the district engineer who reports that during 1928 the business transacted over the wharf amounted to $130,000. The fishing trade was valued at $78,000, and imports received for the four stores amounted to $50,000.


Robert Watson Grimmer: In looking over the estimates for the province of New Brunswick I am pleased to note that the county I have the honour to represent is not wholly overlooked. During the past seven sessions I have brought to the attention of the minister the necessity for making the extension to the breakwater at Seal Cove and Woodward's Cove, Grand Manan, and also an extension to the wharf at Beaver Harbour. I am very glad that the minister at last has recognized the great need for these works, and has placed an amount in the estmiates to carry to completion the extension to the breakwater that was started many years ago in the interests of the fishing industry. I am also very glad that there is an amount for the dredging and the breakwater at White Head. I wish to assure the minister that it will be appreciated by the people of that little island out in the bay of Fundy. But I desire to call the attention of the minister to one portion of the island of Grand Manan that has been overlooked and neglected for many years, more particularly since 1921. This is the most exposed place of the island of Grand Manan, which without doubt is in the most exposed position along the whole of the

2294	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-N.B.
bay of Fundy. I refer to the village of Cas-taiia. During the election campaign of 1921, and again in 1925 and 1926, it was definitely promised by the Liberal candidates and by those who were working in the interests of the Liberal party, that if this government were returned to power a breakwater would be constructed of the village of Castalia. It is needless for me to tell the minister that the people loyally carried out their program and have been waiting patiently for the government to implement that promise. I wish to say to the minister that no portion of Grand Manan should receive greater consideration at the hands of this administration than the village to which I have referred, in view of the support the people have given them. The village of Castalia was at one time a prosperous fishing community, but like many other places along the coast it has suffered from the tides and winds of the bay of Fundy and from the waves beating on the shore, so that the waterfront and buildings have been destroyed. There is no protection whatever. And in the event of storms the fishermen have to moor their boats two miles from home which entails another hardship. Under such conditions it is impossible to get young men to remain in the place and carry on their vocation. The older men are compelled to stay, but many of the young men have left and gone to the United States where they are following their occupation under more favourable conditions. It is generally believed by the people of Castalia that if some consideration were given them by the government many of these young men who have left would return and take up their occupation, while those who are there at the present time would have some inducement to remain. By the expenditure of a small amount of money we may retain the young men in the fishing industry in Castalia and bring back many of those that have left, and this is surely a proposition which the government ought to take seriously into consideration. In my opinion it is a good immigration policy which should be adopted by the government. A few moments ago the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) said that we were anxious to claim credit for anything that was obtained for the county. Let me assure the hon. gentleman that if the government will build this breakwater which was promised the people of Castalia I am prepared to give them all the credit, because it is a necessity and is in the interests of the fishing business.
I regret to see that there is nothing in the supplementary estimates for the island of Campobello or Deer island in Passamaquoddy

bay. The population of each of these islands depends upon the fishing industry and I submit that they should receive as much consideration as other fishing centres. The government have at the present time a report from the engineers in their department who have recommended that a wharf be built below Welchpool on the island of Campobello. One of the government supporters from that district was here a short time ago and interviewed the minister and went home with a favourable impression, and I do hope that when the supplementary estimates come down he will not be disappointed. The wharf at Stewarttown is one that should be provided in the interests of the fishing industry of that place. In these two places, Welchpool and Stewarttown, the people are carrying on the fishing industry just as they did fifty years ago. There are no facilities for them to unload or load their boats and they are bound to follow the old fashioned method of anchoring their boats to keep them afloat and then wading ashore. Now you cannot expect young men to remain in the place if they are obliged to work under such conditions, and I strongly urge the minister, therefore, to bring down in his supplementary estimates provision for the breakwater at Castalia, for the wharf below Welchpool and for the wharf at Stewarttown, all of which are small undertakings. If he does so he will find a more contented people in that fishing centre. The fishermen as a class should receive every consideration at the hands of the government and we should do everything in our power to help the industry. I notice in the reports of the fisheries department that in our county alone last year there was a decrease in the fishing business of $430,000; and taking the whole province of New Brunswick the record is a million dollars less than it was in 1926. It is incumbent upon the government to give this matter the most serious consideration, because fishing is one of the largest industries in the county.
I cannot over-emphasize the fact that if you want to keep young men at work in that industry, if you want to prevent the place from deteriorating at the rate it has done in the last year or two, it is absolutely necessary to carry out these undertakings. I have urged upon the minister building wharves and breakwaters and making extensions wherever necessary. If this is done we shall serve the interests not only of the people of the county but of the province of New Brunswick.
There is one other matter to which I wish to refer, and that is the wharf at Digdeguash basin. That wharf will be greatly appreciated

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-N.B.
by the people of that district who have many dealings with the residents of the islands. I wish to impress upon the minister, before I conclude, the importance of keeping in mind the wharves I have mentioned. I trust that when he brings down his supplementary estimates they will contain an amount to cover these various items. He must not lose sight of the importance of the breakwater at Castalia, where nature has formed a splendid foundation of solid rock in the most suitable place along the shore. All that is necessary now is for the government to carry the work to completion. If they will do so they will implement the promises they made in 1921 and 1926 and it will mean a great deal to the fishing industry of that locality.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Blue Cove-breakwater, $1,100.
Robert Watson Grimmer: Where is Blue Cove?


John Campbell Elliott: Blue Cove is in the county of Gloucester. This amount is required to complete payments for work performed under contract with Mr. Charles L. Comeau of Caraquet, New Brunswick.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Black's harbour-wharf extension, $5,000.
Robert Watson Grimmer: That wharf is owned
by the government?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes; I do not think there is any doubt about that. The original wharf, consisting of a pile work structure 106 feet long by 20 feet wide, was built by the provincial government and transferred to the federal government by order in council dated May 25, 1917.


Murray MacLaren: It is a public wharf.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Brantville-wharf, $11,000.
Murray MacLaren: Where is that?


John Campbell Elliott: It is situated on the gulf
of St. Lawrence near the northeast extremity of Miramichi bay and about six miles northeast of Tabusintac. It is in the constituency of Northumberland. I am not as familiar with the geography of that province as I hope to be.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
78594-145}
Burnt Church-wharf repairs, $5,000.
Robert Watson Grimmer: In what part of the
province is that?


John Campbell Elliott: In Northumberland.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Cape Bald-breakwater repairs, $5,000.
Murray MacLaren: Where is Cape Bald?


John Campbell Elliott: It is in the county of
Westmorland.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Cape Bald-breakwater extension and dredging, $10,000.
Robert Watson Grimmer: One item provides for
breakwater repairs and the other for a breakwater extension. Is that the same breakwater?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dipper Harbour-breakwater repairs, $5,000.
Murray MacLaren: Might we have the
details of the repairs at Dipper Harbour?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is required
to provide for general repairs to the breakwater in order to maintain it in serviceable condition. The proposed work is asked for by the district engineer, who reports that the annual business transacted over the breakwater is estimated at $75,000, and the fishing trade is valued at $50,000 yearly. There are 26 motor boats and a number of smaller boats operating there.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Eel River Bridge

wharf, to complete, $1,500.
Robert Watson Grimmer: In what county is that?


John Campbell Elliott: That is -in Northumberland county.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Eseuminac-breakwater extension, $40,000.
Murray MacLaren: Will this amount complete the work at Eseuminac?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Murray MacLaren: I notice, Mr. Chairman, that the votes in those portions of the province lying along the north shore, so-called, are in those constituencies represented in this house by hon. gentlemen opposite. Perhaps the minister would tell me whether that is an accident or a coincidence. At all events it is a fact that the votes for the northern sec-

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
tion of this province are pretty well concentrated in those constituencies represented by members who support the government. If the minister looks over the list he will find that undoubtedly that is the case.


John Campbell Elliott: I will just call my hon.
friend's attention to two or three others which occur to me.
Mr. MaoLAREN:	Of course there are
always exceptions.


John Campbell Elliott: In his own riding there
is Anderson's Hollow, Dipper Harbour-


Mr. MacLARBN:: That is all, I think.


John Campbell Elliott: St. John river was marked here as being in that riding also.


Murray MacLaren: It is not in my riding.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grande Anse-extension to breakwater and pier, $12,000.
Robert Watson Grimmer: In what county is that?


Peter John Veniot: It is in Gloucester county.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers generally-repairs and improvements, $60,000.
Leslie Gordon Bell: I would like the
minister to give us the details in connection with this item?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is required
to make provision for repairs and improvements to harbour and river works under the control of the department in New Brunswick which are reported by the district engineer to involve an estimated expenditure of less than $1,000, and for similar works which must be attended to immediately as necessity arises therefore. This also takes care of the expenses of the district engineer's office, and so on, for the ensuing fiscal year.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I would like to ask whether included in the estimates of the resident engineer there is any provision for repairs to the wharf at Chance Harbour. I had the opportunity of inspecting that wharf and I found it very badly in need of covering, and some of the side timbers also need replacement. That work would seem absolutely necessary in order to preserve the wharf in good condition, and I think it could be made good for a considerable time by a very small expenditure. Otherwise the heavy seas which come in there at various seasons of the year are likely to wreck great havoc with IMr. MacLaren.]
the structure as it now exists. I was wondering if this item of $60,000 included any provision for repairs to that wharf.


John Campbell Elliott: All I can say to my hon. friend is that this item is to cover urgent requirements which, as a general rule, do not cost more than $1,000. It is possible that the work to which he refers may be included in this amount.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Lameque-wharf extension, $59,000.
Murray MacLaren: This is a large item, and perhaps we might have some explanation. In what county is it?


Peter John Veniot: It is in Gloucester county, and corresponds roughly to the vote of $60,000 in my hon. friend's constituency. He did not raise any fuss about that.


John Campbell Elliott: This is to provide for work now under contract. There is a revote of $20,000.


Murray MacLaren: We are back to the
north shore again. Perhaps I might take this opportunity to direct the attention of the minister once more to Lomeville, which does not figure in the estimates this year. Lomeville is a very prosperous village of fishermen. It is an important fishing centre; it has valuable salmon and lobster fisheries. Last year the minister almost accomplished something, a thing which his predecessors had failed to do, although urged repeatedly to meet the necessities of the case. He put in sufficient vote to do the work, but it has been imperfectly and unsatisfactorily carried out. I believe there was something like $15,000 voted for dredging and' if that amount had been expended I think it would have been sufficient to accomplish the desired results. But, as I have told the minister, and as my colleague has told him, the result has been that there are two faults: the boats cannot lie near enough to the pier because the dredging does not extend that far,' and secondly, there are large hillocks and if the vessels should rest upon these when anchored at low tide it may be dangerous for them. Has the minister the engineer's report on these conditions?


John Campbell Elliott: I have not that report
with me. I believe between $7,000 and $8,000 was spent last year, but I do not recall the engineer's report on this particular work.


Murray MacLaren: Gould we have it tomorrow?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Murray MacLaren: If the minister would
read the report of the engineer to-morrow I think it would bear out what I am stating. My argument is based on the statements of the fishermen who live there, whose lives are spent largely on the water. They are a fine lot of people and I accept what they say as being correcit. It is a great pity to spoil this work when the expenditure of a few more dollars would complete it. The dredging could be evened on the bottom and also extended so as to permit the vessels to lie in close to the breakwater or the pier.


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be very glad to
look into the engineer's report.


Murray MacLaren: And we may have it
to-morrow? If the minister would do this he would make the people very happy. They were quite excited when they heard that the minister was going to do this work but when they saw the result there was a great reaction. I would like to have that feeling removed, and it would be removed df the work were completed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. John river-improvements, $2,000.
Murray MacLaren: That seems to be a very small amount for improvements on the St. John river.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the Hudson of
Canada.


Murray MacLaren: There are many wharves upon this river and many boats passing up and down all the time; what is intended to be done with the $2,000?


John Campbell Elliott: To provide for the removal of boulders and ledges in the St. John river, chiefly in the eight mile section between Perth and Baker's Ferry, Victoria county.


Murray MacLaren: That is a long way
up.
Mr. ELLIOTT':	It is Where the repail's
are needed.


Murray MacLaren: I cannot claim that to
be near my constituency.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. Stephen-wharf repairs, $4,500.
Robert Watson Grimmer: Is this to be done by
day labour or by contract?


John Campbell Elliott: It is intended to be done
by day labour.


Robert Watson Grimmer: I think it would be wise for the department to look into the matter of day labour in repairing the wharf; I think money could be saved.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Seal Cove-breakwater extension, $18,000.
Robert Watson Grimmer: Will that be by contract or by day labour?


John Campbell Elliott: That will be by contract.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Stonehaven-breakwater repairs, $5,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that not a closed port now? Have they not stopped doing business at Stonehaven?


John Campbell Elliott: This is for general repairs to the main breakwater which has been damaged by storms and ice. The proposed work is asked for by the district engineer who reports that the breakwater at Stonehaven provides the only protected harbour for schooners and fishing vessels between Caraquet and Bathurst, a distance of forty miles.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Tabucintac-wharf extension-$3,000.
Murray MacLaren: I think it might be well to leave a few items so that we can take up the matter of Lorneville to-morrow.


John Campbell Elliott: I would call the hon. member's attention to the fact that Lorneville is not on the list.


Murray MacLaren: I want to get it on the list.


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be very glad to
supply my hon. friend with the information regarding that place.


Murray MacLaren: There is the general
dredging vote for about $600,000, and if the minister would agree that, say, $5,000 or $6,000 would be set aside for Lorneville, that would be quite satisfactory.


John Campbell Elliott: I will look into the matter and do the best I can.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
War Memorials Building
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 7, 1929