[Stage Direction]
Ninth report of select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.-Mr. Cahill.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. Charles Marcil, the first report of the joint committee on the printing of parliament was concurred in.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: My hon. friend from St.
John-Albert (Mr. MacLaren) a few days ago asked for a return with respect to the return to the prairie provinces of the natural resources in so far as concerned correspondence with the province of New Brunswick in relation thereto. There were one or two letters that were written just about the time the return was brought down, and I understand that my hon. friend would like to have the return supplemented with these letters. I now table them.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 149 for the relief of Dorothy Madeline Hanson Campbell.-Mr. Clark.
Bill No. 150 for the relief of Frank Arthur LeNoury.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 151 for the relief of William Thomas Taylor.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).

Supply-Post Office
Bill No. 152 for the relief of Thomas Booker.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 153 for the relief of Marion Isabel Kemp.-Mr. Arthurs.
Bill No. 154 for the relief of Agnes Victoria Leader.-Mr. Edwards (Ottawa).
Bill No. 155 for the relief of Louisa Martha Weston.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 156 for the relief of Susannah Musson Savery.-Mr. Bell (Hamilton West).
Bill No. 157 for the relief of Elizabeth Crawford Copping.-Mr. Arthurs.
Bill No. 158 for the relief of Arthur Alderton. -Mr. Arthurs.
Bill No. 159 for the relief of Elias Abraham, otherwise known as Elie Abraham Allen.- Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 160 for the relief of Irene Mabel Usher.-Mr. Lennox.
Bill No. 161 for the relief of Anna Estella DeNike.-Mr. Lennox.
Bill No. 162 for the relief of Elizabeth Spain.-Mr. Lennox.
Bill No. 163 for the relief of Bella Solnik. -Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 164 for the relief of Louisa Hitch-man.-Mr. Lennox.
Bill No. 165 for the relief of Florence Jane Sheppard.-Mr. Sanderson.
Motions for first readings agreed to on division.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Outside service *- Salaries and allowances, 117,295,464.40.
Mr. VENIOT:: I was asked yesterday for
certain explanations and certain reports. I was asked by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy)-


Mr. SPENCER:: If the hon. minister will
allow me. the hon. member for Peace River asked me to let him know if the minister was going to bring down this information. He is engaged elsewhere at the moment, and perhaps the minister would give this information later.


Peter John Veniot: Very well. There was also a letter written by the hon. member for Antigonish-Gusyborough (Mr. Duff) in connection with the Sarty's post office, and which was on my own personal file. I considered it personal and did not put it on the file that was brought down, but as it seems to be
the desire of the committee that the letter should be on the file, I am now tabling it.


Mr. BENNETT:: We required only that
part of the letter which dealt with the post office.


Peter John Veniot: Yes, and I now table it.
In connection with North Brookfield, it was claimed that a return tabled in 1928 was not complete, the only reference to the dismissal being a letter of instruction from the Postmaster General to the deputy. In this case also I am laying the complete file, including my own file, on the table.
In connection with the case brought up by the hon. member for New Westminster, I wish to read to the house my report on that ciase, and then to table the file. My report is as follows:
When Miss K. T. Mawson, the postmistress, requested that a male stenographer be appointed in her place, in response to her request for a statement of the duties of the position it was stated that stenographic work took up about one-half of the daily period, the other half being occupied in assisting the regular employees in the different departments where required. The Civil Service Commission reviewed the duties of the position and decided that it should be changed from postal clerk to stenographer grade 2, on account of the fact that his general duties were stenographic. The postmaster, however, represented that there were certain duties which he would not care to require a female to perform. Subsequent to Miss K. T. Mawson's resignation in July, 1928, Mr. Harold Wade was taken on and was appointed to the permanent staff as stenographer grade 2, as from January 29, 1926. In April, 1928, Mr. Wade was promoted to postal clerk, and the commissioners were requested to furnish the name of a male stenographer to replace him. They were unable to do so, and gave authority for a local selection. In consequence Mr. S. W. Thomas was employed temporarily from September 1, 1928. Subsequently the commission held a competition for stenographers at New Westminster, and on September 28, 1928, they submitted the name of Miss Margaret Isabella Moore, one of the successful candidates, in connection with the filling of the position permanently. In view of the postmaster's representations, however, the services of Mr. Thomas were retained and Miss Moore was not offered employment. It is understood that the Civil Service Commission advised Miss Moore, in reply to her inquiry, that the reason she had not been accepted by the department was that a male stenographer was necessary.
That is the explanation given to me by the officials of my department. It was purely a departmental matter and did not come before
Supply-Post Office

the minister at all. I am now laying the file on the table so the hon. gentleman can examine it.
Yesterday the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) asked for some information regarding Waterhole post office and Fairview post office. Here is the history of the case:
Waterhole is an old established office. It was opened on August 15, 1912. On January 29, 1928, Mr. David P. Smith, returned soldier, was appointed postmaster. Mr. Smith is still postmaster at Waterhole. Prior to Mr. Smith being appointed Mr. H. Sigler was acting postmaster. Mr. Sigler was applicant for the postmastership at Waterhole, and asked that if he were not successful in the appointment there he be considered as an applicant for the position of postmaster at Fairview.
Fairview post office. In 1920 authority was given for the opening of a new post office at Fairview, 44 miles from Waterhole. In submitting the application for the new office the district superintendent stated that there were two applicants, namely, Mr. Sigler and Mr. Levesque. In the first instance authority was given for the opening of the office at Fairview under the postmastership of Mr. Lesveque. In September the Postmaster General suspended action as he understood that Levesque was a non-resident. In November, 1928, the office was opened in charge of Mr. Sigler, who had been the former acting postmaster at Water-hole. Mr. Smith, the postmaster at Waterhole, inquired in regard to the possibility of his getting the appointment at Fairview, presumably on account of the increase in business at Waterhole, many of the residents having left for Fairview. Both offices are in operation at the present time. Mr. Smith is postmaster at Waterhole, and Mr. Sigler is the postmaster at Fairview. Up to the present time the postmaster at Fairview, Mr. Sigler, has been paid a salary of $100 a year. The postmaster at Waterhole, Mr. Smith, is still paid at the rate of approximately $1,000 a year.
The revenue of the Fairview post office from November 1, 1928, to the end of March, 1929, is $986. The revenue of the Waterhole office for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1929, is $1,423. The salaries will be adjusted on the above revenue bases at April 1, 1929.
Now, if the hon. gentleman wishes a copy-


Mr. KENNEDY:: I have a copy here. But my contention, Mr. Chairman, is that Smith was appointed to the Waterhole office by the Civil Service Commission. He is a returned soldier. All that exists at Waterhole to-day is the post office, a part of one of the three or four stores that were originally there, and a bunch of yawning cellars, the buildings having been moved to Fairview. The bank has also been transferred to Fairview. In a word, there is practically nothing left at Waterhole. The reason that Waterhole in the past was a rev-

enue office was due to the fact of its being the centre of the district so far as general business was concerned; but for the future the Waterhole post office cannot be anything else than merely a small country office for delivering mail. There is no question about that, because all business must go to Fairview, with its two banks, the only place where it can be transacted. In the very nature of things the Waterhole office must be attached to a store or given to someone who does not have to devote his full time to it. The civil service appointee is left there where he cannot make a living as postmaster under the natural order of things, as is well known to the post office superintendent of the district and to anyone else familiar with the circumstances. .
My contention is that when the town and the business was moved to Fairview, the appointed postmaster should have been moved there as well, with his office. It is purely a case of appointing a man through the minister -a political appointment, if you like-and leaving the other man, appointed by the Civil Service Commission, at Waterhole, in a job that is bound to run out as far as he is concerned.


An hon. MEMBER:: He is left in the hole.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Yes, he will be in the hole all right. This office at Fairview has a peculiar record. I find on the file a letter from Mr. Levesque to the Postmaster General which reads as follows:
June 19, 1928.
In view of the fact that the Alberta government is extending the Central Canada railway fifteen miles west of the present terminus at Whitelaw to a townsite, which at present appears will be called Fairview, I wish to submit my name as desirous of obtaining the post office at the new town, whatever name is selected.
As the contract for the completion of the extension calls for early fall, I trust you can see your way clear to accept this as my application for the post office.
In support of this application I am taking the liberty of referring you to the Hon. Mr. Charles Stewart, Minister of the Interior.
Yours very truly,
J. D. Levesque.
On August 13 the district superintendent at Edmonton made two recommendations with regard to the appointment of a postmaster at Fairview. The first in order of merit was Henry Sigler, Fairview, the second J. D. Levesque, Peace River. He states in this report that the revenues of the office

at Waterhole will be affected adversely by the establishment of the new office. On August 25, 1928, we have this memorandum for the Deputy Postmaster General:
Re Fairview. Establish office and appoint Levesque.
In spite of the fact that he was second on the list. Now there is nothing to indicate what has happened, but I understand Mr. Levesque was a non-resident so far as Fair-view was concerned. There was a general and vigorous protest against this appointment by, I believe, the Canadian Legion, and as the minister has said, we have instructions issued by himself to suspend action. Very little was done for some months with regard
to the opening of the office, and while the town of Waterhole was being moved to the new site of Fairview a number of people who had become residents of Fairview and who
had previously been resident in Waterhole, wrote to the Postmaster General asking for the establishment of a post office. I wired the Postmaster General, and I think I made it perfectly clear that it was necessary to establish a new office; and it was also made clear that some change would be required with regard to the revenues of the post office at Waterhole. The following telegram was despatched, dated November 14, Fairview, Alberta, addressed to P. J. Veniot, Postmaster General, Ottawa, Ontario:
Waterhole village moved during last month five miles northeast to Fairview Alberta. New town end of steel, E.D. & B.C. railway. Fairview has six elevators, two banks six stores, no post office as yet. Post office should be established immediately.
(Sgd.) D. M. Kennedy.
Prior to this Mr. Smith, who was Postmaster at Waterhole, realizing what would happen when the town was being moved, wrote as follows:
Waterhole, Alberta,
September 24, 1928.
Postmastar General,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir:
I wish to know if I could be transferred from Waterhole post office to the new post office at Fairview. If not, I wish to apply for the Fairview appointment. What salary would the postmaster at Fairview receive the first year? My reasons for the transfer are: There will be a school in Fairview, the nearest school to Waterhole is 1J miles distance, also the salary for the Waterhole appointment in the near future, I have heard, will be decreased.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) D. P. Smith,
Postmaster, Waterhole.
Supply-Post Office
On November 17 we have the following memorandum from the Postmaster General to the Deputy Postmaster General:
Re new post office at Fairview, Alberta Referring to memorandum September 8, you are hereby instructed to proceed immediately with the establishment of an office at Fairview. Mr. Henry Sigler, who is given first place m the district superintendent's report, of the 13th August, is to be placed in charge as postmaster.
This is rather a peculiar statement. Mr. Henry Sigler, it is said, is to be appointed postmaster because he is given first place by the district superintendent, but he was given first place before when Mr. Levesque was appointed. The report giving Mr. Sigler first place over Mr. Levesque was in the hands of the Postmaster General before he appointed Mr. Levesque. Then we have a wire to Mr. Leger, district superintendent of postal service, Edmonton, Alberta, under date of Ottawa, November 17, as follows:
Re Fairview. Take immediate steps to open office with Henry Sigler as postmaster.
(Sgd.) E. J. Underwood.
On November 21, 1928, Mr. Smith wrote to the Postmaster General as follows:
W'aterhole Post Office, Alberta.
November 21, 1928.
The Postmaster General.
Dear Sir:
In connection with the appointment for Fairview post office, I wish to know if Mr. Sigler has been appointed temporary postmaster, and if there is a chance of myself getting the appointment. If not, I would like to know how this office stands, will it be closed in the near future and salary decreased meantime.	[DOT]
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) D. P. Smith, P.M.,
Waterhole, Alberta.
On November 29, 1928, we have the following letter from E. J. Underwood to D. P. Smith, in reply to the letter I have just read: D. P. Smith, Esq.,
Postmaster,
Waterhole, Alberta.
Dear Sir:
In reply to your communication of the 27th November, regarding the opening of the post office at Fairview, permit me to inform you that there is no vacancy at that point as Mr. Henry Sigler was placed in charge as regular postmaster.
As regards the status of Waterhole, I may state that it will depend on the amount of patronage given it in the future. It is observed that it is over four miles from the townsite of Fairview and the question as to whether it will be maintained or not will depend on
Supply-Post Office

its revenue. The same applies to the salary attached to this office, which will be revised at the end of the present fiscal year and after the Fairview post office has been in operation for some months.
Yours sincerely,
(Sgd.) E. J. Underwood,
Chief Superintendent of
Post Office Service.
And the-n we have some correspondence 'between the Postmaster General and Mr. Reilly, who is good enough to ask Mr. Smith whether he would resign his job at Waterhole in order that he might be transferred to Fairview-just about five hours before Reilly went to Fairview and appoint Mr. Sigler as postmaster there.
Now my point is that this returned soldier, who was appointed by the Civil Service Commission to the office in that district, should have been given the new office, which is and must be an important office, the others being merely subsidiaries. There was no misunderstanding so far as the department was concerned; it was understood in Ottawa as well as in Edmonton what was happening. In the first place Mr. Levesque was appointed on the recommendation of somebody whose letter is in the Postmaster General's file but is not produced in this file. Mr. Sigler had been recommended by the district superintendent at Edmonton first in order of merit and Mr. Levesque second, and after Mr. Levesque's appointment had to be cancelled Mr. Sigler months later was appointed on the direct recommendation' of the Postmaster General.
How can we expect a department the size of the Post office department to be efficiently administered and to be kept up to date if we are going to have the man at the head of the department taking charge of the details of appointments, political and otherwise, in the various small post offices throughout the Dominion? You might as well have Sir Henry Thornton going out west appointing section foremen. The Postmaster General has simply been playing politics in this instance, and anyone who is going to take up his time playing politics in this way cannot in my judgment pay proper attention to the big affairs in connection with his department. In addition to that we have a direct case of discrimination in actual fact against a returned soldier in favour of political appointees, and that is the reason why I speak on this occasion.


Peter John Veniot: I cannot see how it is
possible that the hon. member (Mr. Kennedy) can say that there is any discrimination. In the first place, it was at an early date that the present postmaster at the first-named office, Waterhole, was appointed and accepted the position under the Civil Service Commission. For the same reason that I cancelled the appointment of Mr. Levesque at Fairview, because of his not being a resident, the Civil Service Commission would cancel the appointment of Mr. Smith to Fairview; because under the act no returned soldier nor anyone else can be considered who is not a resident of the place. That being the case-


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Mr. Chairman


Peter John Veniot: I did not interrupt the
hon. gentleman when he was speaking and surely he will accord me the courtesy of listening to what I have to say. There has been a little too much of this jumping up and interrupting the minister when he is endeavouring to make explanations. Surely the hon. gentleman who stands so firmly by the Civil Service Commission would not want me to undertake to violate the law; although no doubt he feels I should have done so in this case, surely he would not encourage me to do so. I had no option in the matter; there was only one thing to do and that was to appoint a postmaster to the position at Fairview, which was done. That is the only explanation I can give; there was no question of discrimination in my mind. The hon. gentleman has quite often referred to my discriminating against returned soldiers, and I feel the time has come when perhaps he might be told that my record with regard to returned soldiers from the beginning of the war to the present day is at least equal to if not better than his own.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I would like to correct
the Postmaster General; I did not make a general statement with regard to returned soldiers but I did make a statement with regard to this returned soldier.


Peter John Veniot: We know what your intentions were, anyway.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: I would like to
draw the attention of the minister-


Peter John Veniot: Would my hon. friend
allow me to complete the returns I am to table? I was asked for a return having to do with the Waterford, Nova Scotia, post office, which I now submit to the house. I was also asked to complete the file in connection with the Conquerall Banks post office by

Supply-Post Office
adding certain letters which were on my own file. I am submitting herewith the additional letters; I think they are all from Mr. Duff and since he asked yesterday that they be submitted I have no hesitation in doing so.


Mr. GOTT:: Are all the files in the department dissected?
Mr. VENIOT; I do not think I need answer that remark. Now I wish to submit another return in connection with the Uffing-ton post office, and in doing so I wish to apologize to the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. McGibbon) because of certain figures I stated to the committee yesterday. This correction does not take away from the seriousness of the occurrences at that post office, but in revising the file which came from the finance branch of the department I find that instead of a shortage of $142 in 1926 the actual shortage was $24.43. However, that irregularity was continued later on and in 1928 a further irregularity was shown by an inspection on June 7, so with that explanation I am submitting the remainder of the file. Hon. members must remember that there are three different files in the department covering each of these matters, which may account for some of the files which have been submitted to the house not being complete. Then the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) requested information with regard to the postmastership at St. Davids, Ontario. When I left the department to come here that report was not ready, but they were working on it and if it comes in during the afternoon I will table it.


Mr. CLARK:: The minister promised
to bring a file for me, or to complete the file with reference to Sutton, Quebec.


Mr. YENIOT:: When I left the office
they were bringing the correspondence up to date; I may have it this afternoon.


John Arthur Clark: Would the minister state
whether or not a postmaster has been appointed at Sutton?


Peter John Veniot: I could not say from
memory. I have something here with regard to St. Davids, which just came in, and which I will table. Mr. E. D. Lowry was suspended and resigned on November 18, 1927; a Civil Service Commission certificate was issued in favour of A. E. Woodruff; the certificate was accepted and he was placed in charge on March 1, 1928. As soon as the file with regard to Sutton comes in I will give it to the hon. gentleman.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Could the minister tell
me how many postal workers there are in Canada? I see the term used freely and I understand that it includes letter carriers in the cities. How many letter carriers are there and how many postal workers?


Peter John Veniot: I will secure the information for my hon. friend.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I would like to
draw the attention of the Postmaster General to page 791 of Hansard for 1928, where the following question appears:
Dismissal of Postmasters
Mr. Brady:
1.	How many postmasters were dismissed throughout Canada from October 1, 1926, to February 1, 1928?
2.	During above period, how many of those postmasters were dismissed in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and
Prince Edward Island?
Mr. Veniot:
1.	421.
2.	British Columbia	 7
Alberta	 9
Saskatchewan	 34
Manitoba	 11
Ontario	 32
Quebec	 122
Nova Scotia	 106
New Brunswick	 99
Prince Edward Island	 1
Mr. Chairman, that is a period of exactly sixteen months, and not two years as the Postmaster General has stated. Upon figuring that out I find there is an average of twenty-six dismissals for each month; in other words, one postmaster was dismissed for every working day during a period of sixteen months. Apparently the Postmaster General thinks that the day is lost when he does not dismiss a postmaster. I would like the Postmaster General to furnish information as to how many of these dismissed postmasters were appointed by the Civil Service Commission.
I would like to refer to a question which I asked on March 18, 1929, as follows:
Post Office Department-Civil Service Recommendati ons
Mr. Stewart (Leeds):	_	_
What is the total number of cases in which the present Postmaster General, his deputy or his department, or either of them, have rejected or refused to accept the recommendations of the Civil Service Commission as to appointments?
Mr. Veniot:	32.
I would ask the Postmaster General to bring down the file referring to each of those
Supply-Post Office

thirty-two cases. We have only had two or three so far, and as this is a very important matter we would like to have, and I think we are entitled to have, all these files.
The Postmaster General has suggested that I am ignorant. I have endeavoured to obtain some information from the document from which he read and which he said was in the file, and upon which his remark was based. I asked the minister to table the document from which he was reading, and he did so. I now show7 that document to the house. The house can see that it is one sheet of foolscap paper filled in with long-hand writing, apparently copied 'by the Postmaster General or someone in his office. It simply contains a copy of Section 13 of the Civil Service Act, 191S, and what is said to be the ruling of the Department of Justice made on December 9th, 1919. I asked the minister yesterday if he would give the house the correspondence which resulted in the ruling referred to here. It is perfectly clear that it did not come from the Department of Justice in that form, and we would like to know from which department the request for this ruling came. If this information were furnished I could be enlightened on this ruling, and then he would not be able to reproach me in the future with being ignorant.


Peter John Veniot: I told the hon. gentleman last evening that I would have the correspondence looked up, and I am endeavouring to find it.


Eccles James Gott: It may come in two parts like the return I got.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I want the correspondence from the Department of Justice; the letter accompanying this ruling.


Peter John Veniot: The Department of Justice will have to provide their own correspondence; I will provide anything that is in my department.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The minister gave the house to believe that he had the correspondence from the Department of Justice.


Peter John Veniot: I did not do anything of the kind. I read the ruling of the Department of Justice as I found it, and which ruling I know js correct. I read it to the house and I was asked to put it on the table, which I did. I did not say that it was from the Department of Justice, I simply said that it was the ruling made by that department in 1919. I read the ruling and then a point of

order was raised that, having read from the paper, I should put it on the table. I placed the very paper I had in my hand upon the table of the house.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The Postmaster General left the impression that he was reading from the actual ruling of the Department of Justice.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Peter John Veniot: That is not fair.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The hon. minister says that is not fair, but will he dispute that that is not the ruling?


Mr. STEVENS:: There is nothing to show that it is the ruling.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. members know it is.
Mr. STEW7ART (Leeds): I do not know it, and I would like the information.


Mr. BOYS:: Will the Postmaster General
inform the committee at whose instance the ruling was made, and to whom the ruling was sent? If it was sent to his department one would imagine that it would be on one of the files. There is a little controversy over this matter and we should have it cleared up.


Peter John Veniot: I said I would do that,
and I cannot do any more.


William Alves Boys: Does the Postmaster General know whether or not the ruling was asked for by his department? If he does not know that, then let the information be obtained.


Peter John Veniot: I know the Civil Service Commission published their certificate stating the ruling of the Department of Justice.


William Alves Boys: I am not disputing that at all; that is not the issue before the committee.


Peter John Veniot: I have promised to get the correspondence and will endeavour to find out how the ruling was asked for.


William Alves Boys: Can the minister say at the moment whether or not-


Peter John Veniot: No, I cannot.


William Alves Boys: If the minister would permit me to finish he would have a better opportunity to answer it intelligently. Does the minister know whether his department asked for the ruling, and whether the ruling was addressed to his department?


Peter John Veniot: It was made ia 1919.

Supply-Post Office


William Alves Boys: That is not an answer to my question. I do not oare whether it was made in 1919 or 1921; was it made at the request of the minister's department, and was the ruling given to his department?


Peter John Veniot: I think it was, but I will find out and let the hon. gentleman know.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What we want is the. ruling itself.


Peter John Veniot: It was made in 1919.


Mr. DUNNING:: As it applies to all departments, what difference does it make?


Peter John Veniot: I really believe the Civil Service Commission asked for it.


Mr. GEARY:: Is the hon. Postmaster General speaking to the house or is he just gossiping?


Peter John Veniot: A little louder, please, so
I may be able to enjoy the laugh too.


George Reginald Geary: I can tell whether the hon. minister is addressing the house by his standing up or sitting down.


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. member is a
good sportsman and I think he will agree that the Postmaster General has been more than generous in answering all sorts of interjections from hon. members opposite. They did not show him the courtesy of always rising in their places, and as a matter of good sportsmanship I feel the hon. member does not desire to convey the impression that the minister is mumbling his answers.


George Reginald Geary: If my remark has annoyed the Postmaster General or the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning), I shall have great pleasure in setting their minds at rest. I do not intend to hurt them any more than I can help.
During the debate yesterday the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Stinson), reviewed the series of remarkable events which had occurred in connection with the Picton post office. The Postmaster General attempted to reply to the remarks of the hon. member, and I would like to quote part of that reply which appears on page 1705 of Hansard. The minister said:
I am charged with refusing to appoint Mr. Way because, first, he was a soldier; it is said I should not have refused him.
The minister continued:
The second charge is that I should not have refused the certificate in his favour because of his experience as assistant postmaster. Let me point out that, according to the hon. gentleman's own statement. Mr. Way was assistant postmaster for twenty-three long years.
This is the argument that the Postmaster General advances against what was set up by the hon. member for Victoria:
Will the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Stinson) explain to the committee how it is that in 1912, when Mr. Petit was put out for
political interference, Mr. Way was not then promoted by the Conservative party. Why was he not recognized?
Mr. Stinson:	He was a much younger man.
Mr. Veniot: He had then been in the service seven years.
Of course the Postmaster General had not the facts in his mind when he referred to the matter, because Mr. Way at that time had been in the office for six years. He was a young fellow of twenty-two years of age, and he was not recommended, nor does the record show that he even applied for the position. As a matter of fact, he was advanced, as far as one could expect him to be advanced at that time, to the position of assistant postmaster at Picton.
But even supposing that was not the case,
I wish to draw the attention of the committee to one feature of the answer of the Postmaster General to charges of great importance that have been levelled against him in the house. His answer was to refer back ten, twelve, fifteen years to what some other party did when it was in power. Even, for the sake of argument, accepting his contention to its fullest extent, I ask hon. members: Does it put this government right that a preceding government did wrong? The Postmaster General's contention is that he is right in this case because a preceding government did the same thing. If a preceding government did something that was wrong, as I suppose most hon. members on the apposite side are prepared to accede to, then my hon. friend's contention gets him nowhere. His argument means only that the Postmaster General adopts revenge as his guiding motive in making appointments to postmasterships. As the cases that have been brought up have shown, the Postmaster General has been guided by one principle, and one only, not that of getting the best man for the position, not that of serving the public in the most efficient manner possible, but-and he glories in it

that to the victor belong the spoils and that the post office is fair game for patronage. That will have its reflection at some future date in the minds of the people of Canada. The Postmaster General smiles at that remark. The 'hon. member for Antigonish-Guvsborough very frankly admits that that

Supply-Post Office

is his proposal. Let me say that from this side of the house we have watched hon. members opposite during the discussion, and while the faces of many of them, as the details were brought out, showed the shame they felt at the position in which the Postmaster General had put them, still they apparently decided to applaud his action, and hon. members opposite must assume the full burden of acquiescing in and supporting these actions of the Postmaster General and the government.
The Postmaster General may smile, but I feel that this matter is one of very serious import. I shall be very much surprised1 if we do not find that the fire that has been lighted here to-day will blaze throughout the whole of Canada, not only in Conservative quarters but even in those normally supporting the government. My hon. friends may well take it to heart whether they should not join in some condemnation of the way in which this department has been managed, because they will hear about it when they go back to their constituencies. The people of Canada will not stand for manipulation, for political purposes, of the offices of this country in a service on which they depend day by day. I have some sympathy with the position of the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough; he is frank; he says plainly: What are these offices for? Surely they are to be awarded to the people who support us. He can conceive of nothing else. That is his idea of politics, and he is frank enough to admit it. When I listen to the hon. member, the words of Byron come into my mind:
He was the mildest manner'd man
That ever scuttled ship or cut a throat.
For him I have a certain amount of grudging admiration because of his frankness, but not for members of the government who sit quietly in their places, because, unless they object actively and conscientiously, they must take some of the burden that the Postmaster General is loading on to the shoulders of the government and of his party at the present moment.
This file which I have in my hand narrates the story of the Picton post office. I shall go through it, not too tediously, I hope, but with sufficient thoroughness to impress certain points upon the minds of hon. members. Let me say in advance-and I think I can support my statement by what I shall show later- that the whole matter will develop simply and solely into a shameful plot to seek an opening with which to reward a partisan helper of the Liberal party. From beginning to end,

involved as it may be, it is simple to find the thread.	It had its inception in the
desire to reward a party worker, and it was carried through ruthlessly and without regard to any of the amenities of life in this country. It was carried through without sportsmanship, and I thank the Minister of Railways for that word. It was carried through in a way that reflects discredit on this government and on the country. I will ask the minister if he will give me a little help in regard to the file. I do so because the information in files we have received has not been complete and I think this one is in no less a state of incompleteness than some of the others. The file begins with four affidavits upon which presumably was founded the procedure, first, to oust the postmaster, and, second, to place a friend in the position thus made vacant. The affidavits are by Edward Sprague, Robert Purtelle, Hiram Ellis and Durward Cole. The first letter that we have is from the Postmaster General to his deputy, Mr. Gaboury, under date of April 1, enclosing four affidavits. Two or three of these deal with the political activities of the postmaster himself. It reads:
I desire to have an investigation held, first, into the political activities of this official.
That is the postmaster.
You can leave the charge of allowing gambling in the office for a later date.
I suppose if they could not get rid of him on the ground of partisanship, they would have a second string to their bow, and bring the man once more before a committee.
You will have the investigator call upon Mr. Robert Purtelle, John Edward Sprague and Durwiard Cole as witnesses and they will also provide further witnesses for the investigation.
It is quite plain, from reading that, that there was other correspondence. These four affidavits did not find their way into the possession of the Postmaster General without some correspondence, because in the affidavits there is no mention of the fact that these men headed by Mr. Purtelle would present further evidence. Therefore, on its face, the file, if it was a complete file originally, bears evidence of mutilation, and if it was not a complete file originally, it bears evidence of some negligence, almost criminal, in its preparation. I should be glad if the Postmaster General would take note of that, because I should like to see the letter Mr. Purtelle wrote. I judge it was he who came and saw the Postmaster General and put up the scheme to him, or who wrote a letter which the Postmaster General, according to his custom and practice, has put away in some personal

Supply-Post Office
file. I should like to know what Purtelle said, because he is the man who ultimately got the postmastership. He is the man who put up the whole plant-I call it that deliberately-and he was the active organizer for the Liberal candidate in the last election.
I call attention to this man Purtelle, now in the dignified position of postmaster of the thriving town of Picton. Mr. Purtelle sent an affidavit to the Postmaster General, which the Postmaster General evidently thought enough of to forward to his official as part of the basis of an investigation to be held. This affidavit was read yesterday, but it is too good to leave unread again. Purtelle solemnly declared:
I heard Mr. Alexander McKee tell Mr. J. H. Roberts, Inspector of Postal Service, on December the 27th, 1926, that he (Mr. McKee) was in Picton post office on an election day and he (Mr. McKee) saw Samuel Smith, the postmaster instructing an elector' how and where to mark his ballot and directing him to the polling booth to register his vote.
Everyone in this house knows this much about the rules of evidence, that hearsay, to begin with is not supposed to be good evidence because you do not get direct to the man himself who is concerned, but hearsay of hearsay is pushing to an absurdity the taking of evidence and cannot be relied upon in any degree whatsoever. I want to compare what Purtelle swears to in that direct declaration with what was sworn to by McKee when face to face with the investigator. All he swore to in that investigation is that he resides at Picton and saw Mr. Smith during the campaign tell a man where to vote.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Why shouldn't he?


George Reginald Geary: Certainly, it would be the duty of any decent man to help another man out. But Purtelle stretched that simple act to look like an incrimination of the postmaster telling an elector to vote Grit or Tory, or some other ticket, for I do not know what Mr. Raney was running for then.
There are two branches to the case, as I said. First of all, they had to get rid of Smith, who had been there for years. He had given offence to nobody, and was well thought of. There was no possible way of getting him unless "a plant" were framed. Purtelle wanted the job. He had worked for the Liberal party, and this was the reward he wanted to get. He found the Postmaster General perfectly agreeable to entering into the scheme with him, and this scheme was concoted by which affidavits would be forwarded and so sent on for an investigator to look at, and something might come of it. I am not going to go through the evidence. Plouffe, a gen-78591-1101
tleman in Sudbury, a political friend of the government, was told to go down to Picton and make an investigation. But he did not do so for months. He knew well what was expected of him. Finding it difficult through Mr. Purtelle's agency to get a place to hold the investigation, finally he suggested that he go down to Picton and go around to witness after witness and get evidence from them and call that an investigation; but Purtelle was wiser. He knew there Would be an awful row, and that the postmaster would say that he should have an opportunity of listening to the evidence and putting questions to the witnesses if he so desired. So Plouffe came down and made the investigation. The evidence is available for any member to read. It is of the flimsiest possible character, but if the evidence was flimsy, the finding was still more flimsy. I would not have thought that any man who has anything of the judicial in his make-up at all, who has anything in his make-up that inclines him to see fairness to the under-dog, would have bothered with the evidence for five minutes. He would have cast it aside and said, "I cannot get him on that; there is nothing in that finding; I will try and get him in some other way." But not so with the Postmaster General. I do not know whether the Postmaster General read the evidence and the finding or not. Mr. Plouffe had a great deal of trouble finding what was wanted, and that was some act of partisanship on the part of the postmaster. Everybody knew that that was what was wanted. The Postmaster General knew that that was what was wanted. Plouffe knew it, and Purtelle was urging him on.
The finding is simply this. Hiram Elis, one of the witnesses, said that he saw a man gambling for money with dice in the post office, but that was not the ground on which action was taken later, so I do not need to take up the time of the committee with that. Cole said that a certain room in the post office to which the mail couriers had access resembled a Tory committee room. He was a pretty solid Grit, and how he knew what a Tory committee room looked like I do not know, but he probably had some conversation with somebody in the mail sorting room in which the question of politics came u,p. It was an isolated case, as appears from the evidence. The postmaster said that he knew nothing o'f this. He had heard that there was some throwing of dice in the room, which he stopped, and he had heard nothing further about it, and believed that that was the end of it. Plouffe says that if the postmaster did not know all these things, he had at least con-
Supply-Post Office

structive knowledge, as it was his duty as postmaster to exercise careful supervision. I would like hon. members to bear in mind that this finding is directed purely and solely against the postmaster. There was no indication that anyone else in the post office was concerned in the slightest way as having any responsibility for these things. Later on the importance of that will be apparent, but there is nothing in that biassed finding that indicates that any other official of the post office had any knowledge of the practices that were alleged to be going on.
A very amusing part, if you can find amusement in a tragedy, is the finding of this man Plouffe. But before I touch that, let me say that certain circulars came into the post office every day during the campaign, tied together in a bundle, with a label on, for rural free delivery. On that label were stamps affixed, and what the postmaster in that office did, and it was a very good practice, I suppose, was simply to hand the bundle to the courier on the route, and the courier delivered them to the boxes along the route or took them to another post office from where they would be delivered. All that was done in the Picton post office was to take these bundles of circulars, tied together and labelled and hand them to the courier. There was no, dispute about that at all. There was evidence that sometimes these circulars did not arrive when they should have arrived if posted at the hour certain men alleged they were posted. But how uncertain that is is shown by the affidavit of a man who said that he had posted them in the forenoon, and by the evidence of another man, who was a leader in that part of the conspiracy, who said he had posted them in the afternoon, and because these circulars did not get to the rural boxes next day before 3.30 the Picton postmaster is alleged to have held them up in the post office. Hon. members from the rural districts know well that these circulars may have passed through three or four different offices. In this particular case they passed through the Wellington post office, the Milford post office, the Picton post office, and then to the courier, and the Postmaster General must have known, if he had any desire to be fair, that if there was any delay-delay was not proven anyway-that delay might have occurred at the Wellington post office or at Milford or along the route. The evidence of the postmaster was that these circulars left his post office promptly on time. Plouffe says in his report:
The mail always came regularly to the box-holders, except during the electoral campaigns 
aforesaid. The majority of the witnesses making complaints were known to be active partisans for the Liberal side.
If the postmaster at Picton wanted to be dishonest, why would he hold up circulars going to Liberals who had always voted Liberal and would vote Liberal anyway? What harm or what good would it do for him to hold them up? Surely he would not be ass enough to do a thing like that. Now I read the reason for the finding of partisanship:
I infer from the evidence that the delay or non-receipt of the mail was caused by either one of the postmasters at Picton, Wellington or Milford, and I suspect that a great number of these irregularities originated at Picton.
Now, that is his finding. Mr. Chairman, you would not hang a dog on evidence like that. No man with the slightest sporting instinct or the least sense of fair play would deprive a man of his livelihood on evidence even ten times as strong as this flimsy finding. It is the flimsiest, slightest excuse for the exercise of political patronage that has ever come to my notice, and the Postmaster General should be thoroughly ashamed of himself and the government associated with him should repudiate the whole thing and reprimand the Postmaster General for his inexcusable action in the matter. It is incredible that this state of affairs should be allowed to continue in this country. Party politics? Of course. Political patronage? Of course. People believe in it to some extent. I saw my hon. friend from Yorkton (Mr. McP'hee) and my hon. friend from Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) and, I am sorry to say, my hon. friend from West Lambton (Mr. Gray) applauding a statement made on this side that the Postmaster General thought it a day wasted when he did not fire a postmaster. That is their idea of "one good deed a day." They are the sort of boy scouts who are supporting the government.
I do not want to delay the committee longer than to say that to clear the way for appointing a friend this shameful deed was done and Smith, a postmaster of seventeen or eighteen years' standing, who had given entire satisfaction, was ruthlessly thrust out of the way. For what purpose? Pur-telle is still unprovided for. He started this business and has done his best, a mighty small best, but still they have him there and must get him into the office. So they advertise. In the ordinary course of events the department sent out its investigator to examine the applicants. He rated them numerically, first, second and third. Number 1 was a man named Way, who had been in that post office for twenty-three years; number 2 was Purtelle, who, it was arranged, was to get the post

Supply-Post Office
office; and number 3 was somebody who apparently was not considered seriously for the job. Way was appointed by the commission. The matter had to be attended to, and the Postmaster General actually wrote a letter at once to his deputy to reject Way. He could not say that Way was not fitted for the office, because his own department had said that he was eminently qualified and the best man for the job. The Postmaster General did not dare disparage Way on those grounds, but simply wrote his deputy, Mr. Gaboury, to reject the appointment. The letter is almost unbelievable. I do not know what Mr. Gaboury thought of it. It was one of those times when he had to shield his superior. This is not the first occasion on which the Postmaster General has found it necessary to shelter himself behind his deputy. I think it was the day on which this made-believe report came in that the Postmaster General wrote to his deputy:
With further reference to the post office vacancy at Picton, Ontario, which I authorized on February 14, to hold in abeyance, I now wish to instruct you to refuse the certificate of the commission issued in favour of Air. Gerald H. Way.
Mr. Gaboury, acting under orders, had no choice but to write to the Civil Service Commission. I am confident Mr. Gaboury knew that what I might call colloquially this "rough stuff" could not be put through without giving some plausible reason, and no doubt feeling conscientiously obliged to follow the provisions of the statute, he wrote to the Civil Service Commission on February 24 as follows:
Referring to your certificate of February 13, covering appointment of Air. Gerald H. Way-
AVay had been appointed, remember.
-to the above postmastership, permit me to inform you that this matter has received the attention of the Postmaster General, and to state that Air. Way is hereby rejected as unsuitable under section 13 of the Civil Service Act.
That was an attempt by Mr. Gaboury, without any knowledge of the circumstances -not a word had been communicated to him to put him au fait with what had been going on-to follow the instructions of his minister. He knew that under the act he had to assign a reason, so he put it in blanket form, " unsuitable." This does not meet the requirements of the statute at all, which provides :
The deputy head may, at any time before the expiration of six months, reject any person assigned or appointed to any position nnder his control or direction, or he may extend the period of probation within which such person may be rejected for another six months: and
the cause or rejection, or the reason for extending the period of probation, shall be reported by the deputy head to the commission.
The ostensible cause of rejection is the unsuitability of Way for the postmastership, but there is not even a suggestion anywhere throughout the file that Way was unsuitable. As a matter of fact the post office inspector found that he was the most suitable of the applicants, and the commission were of the same view. Here is the sort of man he was.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: A man of special qualifications.


George Reginald Geary: Yes.
Gerald H. Way-
This is from the inspector of the minister's own department.
-is a man of fine appearance, forty-three years of age. He was born and brought up in Picton-
The other fellow had not been.

and has lived there practically all his life. He is well known, and bears a splendid reputation, and seems to be very popular. Air. Way enlisted in 1918, but did not accompany a regiment overseas. He was in training at Petewawa camp, and was honourably discharged in January, 1919. He entered the post office in 1905 as a clerk where he has been employed. He became assistant postmaster in 1911, and has a thorough knowledge of post office work. He is a person of good habits, and commands the respect of all who come in contact with him.
And that is the man they fired as being "unsuitable," that is the man whom Mr. Gaboury represented to the commission to be "unsuitable." I am sure he did that against his own wish.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Under instructions.


George Reginald Geary: Yes, under instructions in
order to get rid of Way. Had Purtelle been third or fourth, the other men ahead of him would have been treated exactly in the same way until Purtelle was reached, because the whole plan from beginning to end was to get Way out of the joib and put Purtelle in. The government cannot evade responsibility, but they have sat as dumb as oysters. When they passed the order in council they had this wretched finding of so-called proof before them, and it was on that finding that they solemnly acted. Probably they said to their colleague:	Mr. Postmaster General, this is
getting a little bit thick. To which we may imagine he replied:	I told them down in
Simcoe that you would either have to stand for me or lose me. And so he gets through this order in council. He knew it would be put through, for fourteen days before the meeting of council he actually wrote to the
Supply-Post Office

appropriate official to prepare this order because it was going to be passed at a meeting of council a fortnight later. I repeat, the government must take responsibility for this ruthless action. They cannot sit quiet under this Veniotism that is pervading all the actions of this department. It is staining any record the government ever had and holds up the government before the country as traffickers in political patronage. If I know the people of my country at all, it will be a long time before they will forget what the Postmaster General and his colleagues and the men behind them have done in connection with just such jobs as this. I do not know how they can countenance his action. But perhaps, Mr. Chairman, it is one of the "coolheaded" things that the government has set its hands to. If it were not that my bon. friends opposite have taken such a dislike to sanguinary adjectives, I would call their conduct cold-blooded. To be capable of bringing about the dismissals complained of, the minister responsible must be as ruthless as Nero and utterly callous in his disregard of the family, the reputation and the home surroundings of the men so harshly dealt with. But to the Postmaster General these men are simply pawns in the political game. That is his conception of politics, just as it is the conception of the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough. Every consideration of decency and fair play is swept aside by the Postmaster General if he thinks the good of the party in any particular section is going to be served by the dismissal of a trusted public servant. As 1 say, he acts as ruthlessly as Nero himself.
There is very little further that I have to say, Mr. Chairman.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


George Reginald Geary: There are some points that
I hope other members will emphasize to show the unfairness of the whole transaction from beginning to end. Now I come back to the alleged defence yesterday of the Postmaster General. He said:
That investigation was held according to law, and on the report of the investigating commissioner I recommended to the executive council that Mr. Smith be dismissed, which was my right under the order in council first passed by hon. gentlemen opposite, later accepted by the present government and unanimously confirmed by the House of Commons.
Suppose I do not object to its being his right, is it his duty? Does his right mean that he is always to exercise it like Shylock wanting his pound of flesh at the expense of all considerations of mercy, decency and fair play? He goes on:

This position was advertised; Mr. Way was an applicant, together with Mr. Purtelle and I think one or two others. The result was that the Civil Service Commission did issue a certificate in favour of Mr. Way, but since the investigating commissioner felt satisfied, according to his report-
This was what the minister said no later than yesterday.
-that responsibility should rest somewhere in the office for the non-distribution or mishandling of these circulars during the election,-
You heard what was said about that.

which circulars should have reached their destination at a certain time but did not, and in view of the fact that Mr. Way, the assistant postmaster, must have been a party to the nondistribution according to the evidence,

When there was not a word of evidence aibout Mr. Way.
-I did not think I was justified in accepting the certificate of the commission, which I refused. That is the whole story.
If that is the whole story, why did not the minister do the obvious thing, and in assigning a reason for his rejection, say to the Civil Service Commission what that reason was? The fact is that it never occurred to him until yesterday; it was not in his mind. The finding of the investigation was that between Picton and Milford and Wellington, amongst the carriers on the routes, some circulars were delayed. The evidence is not at all clear that they were delayed, but admitting that they were, the postmaster at Picto-n swore definitely-and his statement made was accepted by Purtelle as true-that they were delivered by him in good time and that the delay must have occurred in the country, which was a natural thing.
They wanted to get Mr. Way and could not get him; they wanted to get Mr. Smith and could not get him except by a made-up report and finding. Why did they not call Way? He was there. Why did they not call the postmaster at Milford? He was there. WThy did they not call the postmaster at Wellington? Why did they not call any of these carriers who deliver mail? They would have told the story. They did not wish to do so; these men might have told the truth and excused the thing or put it in such a light that Mr. Smith could not be got rid of and therefore there would be no place for Purtelle.
This is just a resume of what appears in the report, and it will stand still further investigation. And the further you look into it, Mr. Chairman, the more you will see that the people of this country have before them now such a scandalous state of affairs in

Supply-Post Office
the administration of the Post Office Department that it should be cleaned up and cleaned up properly. We should know all the details and workings of the department, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) himself or some member of his cabinet must take responsibility; or if he feels strong enough let him get up and give an expression of opinion regarding what the Postmaster General has done to the disgrace of officialdom in this country.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) adced me for certain information. I have the figures. The number of postal workers in the city post office and railway mail service

this would include all that the hon. gentleman asked for -is 10,005.


Hugh Guthrie: How many are letter
carriers?


Peter John Veniot: They are subdivided as follows: letter carriers, 2,710; postal clerks, 3,009; railway mail clerks, 1,364; postal helpers, postal porters, postal chauffeurs, 2,922, making that total of 10,005. I was asked yesterday by some hon. member-I have forgoten who- whether I could give a report regarding the gross earnings and expenditures for the year ended March 31, 1929, or up to the 1st of January. I have this report which I will lay on the table and the hon. member can get it.


Mr. BRADY:: While this estimate is before the committee I want to say a few words, first, on the need of a revision in respect to the lower classes of civil servants. But preliminary to what I am going to say I wish to make this observation. I feel that the time has come when we should recognize the fact-I think it is recognized by parliament and by the public-that the administration of the department under the Postmaster General is in a very serious condition and reflects gravely upon the high dignity of the people themselves as well as upon the government which is in power. I do not think, Mr. Chairman, that any impartial critic could listen unmoved in this house for the past few days to charges so serious and reflecting so severely upon the high dignity of this parliament and of one of the most important departments in the. country. What do we find? We find charges that strike at the very root of all that is worthy and in keeping with the high morality of the people. We find that breaches have been openly committed and have been passed over as if they were of a trivial nature. What, I ask, can be so serious, what can be so deserving of public criticism as the act of
a minister who sets at naught the Civil Sfer-vice Commission and treats the Civil Service Act as though it were a mere piece of parchment, using his high office for the purpose of furthering political ends? Sir, I say that the government cannot now stop at this particular point; they must bring the matter to a conclusion and there must be a thorough investigation into this department. I refrain this afternoon from adding further to the list already presented to the house. To do so would not accentuate the gravity of the situation; it would be merely adding one or two or three more cases of a similar character to what we have already heard. Let me say, however, that the position of the Postmaster General to-day is such that he is bound, morally as well as in the interests of himself and of the government of which he is a member, to demand-he should demand it himself-that all these charges be entered into, and if he is not guilty then parliament will be big enough and able enough to accord to him the justice to which he is entitled. But I do not think that is possible, so I will proceed to discuss the subject which I wish to bring up.	.
When the estimates covering these salaries and allowances were before the committee last year the question of the salaries paid the lower grades of civil servants was discussed, particularly with reference to postal clerks, railway mail clerks, mail carriers and customs clerks, and during that discussion we found that many married men with families to support are included in the classes to which I have referred. In many cases these men are supposed to have an education more or less equivalent to high school entrance; we found that their examinations were such as to demand ability, a good intellect and physical health. The examination was both oral and written, in fact, these examinations included what are known as intelligence tests, and the work which these men are called upon to do requires hard labour, long hours and fidelity to the last degree. Anyone who has ever visited a post office employing nine or ten clerks will realize the amount of work entailed and the loyal service which is given. I wish to say, Mr. Chairman, that I do not know of a body of men more loyal and devoted to their work than the civil servants included in those classes which I have mentioned. When the heavy seasons come on twice a year, these men are continually on the job, and the extension of the commercial side of the Post Office Department has placed additional burdens upon them.
In spite of the fact that from all sides we are told that we have great prosperity
Supply-Post Office

in Canada we find these men in rather a pitiable condition; we find that the salaries of civil servants extend from S750 a year on up through the scale to the highest paid employees of the government, who receive from $10,000 to $12,000. There is a mighty gulf between the higher paid civil servants and the great majority of the lower classes. Recently it has been proposed that the salaries of nineteen deputy ministers should be increased, nine by $2,000 a year, nine by $1,000 a year and one by $500 a year, which would give them an average salary of $10,000 annually, and in addition to this a commission has been appointed to inquire into the question of salary revision with regard to the technical and professional men of the service. That commission consists of Mr. E. W. Beatty, president of the Canadian Pacific Railway, Doctor Murray, president of the university of Saskatchewan and Sir George Gar-neau, of Quebec city.
I wish to say that there is no more important body of men in Canada to-day than the technical and professional men who are looking after the research work of this Dominion. I believe the whole country will agree, and in fact it is an axiom, that the foundation of Canada's future must depend upon the work of these highly trained men, without whose assistance the government cannot hope to succeed and without whom industry must fail, because day after day industrial activities are changing and new developments are coming forward all the time. If we do not maintain in Canada a highly trained body of technical men engaged in research work we will be left far behind in the race for commercial supremacy. Therefore I trust that the commission will see to it that these technical men receive an adequate salary for the important work they perform.
In the past it was often thought that a university man was merely a theorist who loved to get away from the common walks of life, but I wish to say that the story of national research throughout the world redounds to the honour and the glory of university men of all countries. To-day we find men who have spent four years in college and perhaps another four years in post graduate work receiving salaries of about $3,300 annually. Is it the opinion of this committee that men possessing these high qualifications, men who are working hard and who, engrossed in their work, think nothing of time, are well paid by a salary of that kind? I say that is not so.
Now let me come to the lower classes of civil servants. Last year the Postmaster Gen-

eral stated that he recommended to the Civil Service Commission that increases be granted to postal clerks, mail carriers, railway mail clerks and others, and he stated that the commission had refused to accept the recommendation. I am satisfied, Mr. Chairman, that there is hardly a member of this committee who has not propounded to himself the question which I now ask: What is the relationship between the Postmaster General and the Civil Service Commission? Is it any wonder that for three years past no progress has been made with regard to the reclassification and adjustment of the salaries of these men when on the one hand the Postmaster General recommends and on the other hand the Civil Service Commission objects? We have been told, and it has been proved by his actions and statements, that the Postmaster General has a great power with regard to the appointment of postmasters. He must have some power. Hence it is there is what may be called a deadlock, and no progress has been made. It is quite evident that no progress can be made so long as these conditions exist. The letter giving the reasons why the Postmaster Generali's recommendations could not be accepted is worth reading, and here are the words:
The commission believes that the salaries paid this class of employee are equitable and comparable with other salaries paid for somewhat similar kinds of work in other government departments, and feels that if any increase is recommended for the postal classes that a corresponding increase must be recommended for customs classes and certain classes in the Department of Immigration and Colonization. as well as for a considerable number of other classes in other departments of the government service who are engaged in work of a nature not much different and carrying as great responsibility as that of employees in the Post Office Department.
Mr. Chairman, is that the reason why the commission refused the request made to parliament last year? Is that argument convincing enough when evidence has been produced here that a great number of these men, manji of them married, are receiving such low salaries? The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) asked a question the other day, as follows:
How many employees of the Customs department, Post Office department, Interior department or Public Works department in the cities of Ottawa, Montreal. Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver receive $65 per month? How many receive between $65 and $75? And how many between $75 and $85?
The answer given shows that there are 266 employees in this salary class. What do we find? We find in that class many men who are supporting families of two, three, and

Supply-Post Office
four children and they are receiving what is less than a living wage, according to the labour bureau. They are receiving just enough to pay for board, fuel and light, but what about the expenses for clothing, boots and shoes, the dentist, the doctor, and a number of other necessary expenses?
This session of parliament should not prorogue until we have a definite statement from the government regarding this class of civil service employees. I looked up the statistics regarding the wages paid in the case of industrial occupations, as compared to the salaries paid in the civil service. I obtained the former figures from the Bureau of Statistics, and the later figures from the Department of Labour. The base of 100 is assigned to the year 1913, and here is what we find:	In 1913 the industrial occupations
were paid 100, the base, while the civil service salaries were the same figure of 100. In 1928 the industrial wages had increased to 187.6, while the civil service salaries had increased only to 163.8. The important branches of industry showed an increase between 1913 and 1928 amounting to 87.6 per cent, while the civil service salaries lagged behind and only showed an improvement of 63.8 per cent. The figures of the Department of Labour show that the cost of living increased 58 per cent in the same period, so it can be seen that the industrial workers' wages have more than kept pace with the high cost of living while the civil servants have not had the opportunity to improve their standard of living. That situation should be convincing enough to the public, to this parliament and to this committee. The government should recognize that the time has come when steps should be taken to reclassify and adjust these salaries in order to bring these well deserving classes of civil servants into line with the industrial workers.
I would like to mention the fixing of a minimum at $100 per month. Can $1,200 per year be considered as anything else but a minimum wage for mail carriers, postal clerks, and three or four other grades? A great number included in these classes are receiving only $75 to $90 per month. A great number never reach the maximum of $1,500 per year. It takes seven or eight years to reach that maximum, and many of them find that they have to go out and obtain seasonal employment which will bring them a larger return. Is that being fair to this very deserving body of civil servants?
Another thing which interested me during the course of the debate of the last few days was the sad story which brought to our attention of what was called malversation. I think
it speaks well of the probity of this great class of workers that so little pilfering or stealing has taken place. I do not know of any body which is entitled to as much respect for their honour and integrity as are these men who are engaged in such important work, and on such meagre pay. I think no apology should be offered, nor is any apology needed, for any member of parliament to advocate that these civil servants should receive due consideration and that the matter of adjustment of their salaries should be taken up immediately'. The public at large are watching very interestedly the proceedings of the Civil Service Commission. The salaries of the deputy ministers are to be increased and I wish to show the house that their salaries have risen very high in the last ten years. In fact, I find that in the last-ten years the salaries of deputy ministers have increased by 100 per cent. There may have been a very good reason why the deputies should have their increases first and I trust this is the right one. The government may feel that, by increasing the salaries of the deputy ministers first, it may be better able to increase the salaries of the technical and professional men and then bring up the question of the salaries of the lower classes, so that the gulf may not be too wide which separates them from the top. The people of Canada appreciate the fact that the civil service of all grades are entitled to a living wage. In the last session of parliament the arguments advanced why reclassification and adjustment could not take place were, to my mind, nothing more than " passing the buck," if I may use that term. No sound arguments were given why this problem should not be taken in hand. If the Postmaster General and the Civil Service Commission were in earnest, progress could certainly be made. Are we to have another year pass by without a readjustment being made in regard to the lower grades? I hope not.
Coming back to the position in which we are to-day, I believe that the honour of parliament is at stake. At this very moment throughout the length and breadth of Canada we are being told that the high offices which should be sacred under all conditions, have been used for lower motives than that of the public interest. It is a pitiable travesty upon the intelligence of the people of Canada to have it said in- this house that because in the past things were done that were derogatory to good government, they should likewise be done to-day. That is not my view. I think the public of Canada will not take that view, but they will demand purity and integrity in every department that appertains to the
Supply-Post Office

well-being and interest of the people. Why should the Civil Service Act be set aside? When people sit for an examination and pay to get it; when they receive their marks for it, they believe that merit alone will decide. That apparently is not the case. Why should men have to travel hundreds of miles, as I have known them .to do, to sit for some examination and then find that, though they passed first, either they did not get the position or it was months and months afterwards before they were able to get the jobs for which they passed? Is that the case in other countries ? I do not think so. We stand for legislative purity. If there is a Civil Service commission whose duty it is to hold examinations in various parts of Canada, and if they are carrying that out rightly, there should be no danger that the right man does not secure the position. Whatever may happen in this house; whatever explanations the government may later offer; whether or not they may accuse this side of the house of using a dramatic episode to further their own interest, that will not avail, 'because the gravity of the situation is such that the people of Canada, realizing the importance of justice being done, will speedily come to the conclusion that the time has arrived when a full investigation should be made into the relationship that exists between the department of the Postmaster General and the Civil Service Commission. The question is this: Who is responsible? Is there a liaison between one and the other? Are they acting independently, or is one subordinate to the other? This is a very important matter which parliament should understand, and I trust, before this item passes, the government will decide upon a definite policy and let parliament and the people of Canada know what it is.


Mr. BALDWIN:: Many years ago, I, like
many others in the Dominion of Canada, was appointed ipostmaster at the splendid sum of $10 per annum. That was under the government of Sir John A. Macdonald. I cannot understand what the hon. member who has just closed his remarks means about university men. after four years .preparation and an additional post graduate course of four years, being able to get a salary of only 83,000 a year. I have known many young men in the past fifty years, especially in the last ten or fifteen years, who have taken technical courses of two years-naturally they were adapted to the course or they would not have taken it-and who are being paid salaries of many times S3,000. I cannot understand why we need university men who have also under-
taken post graduate work, spending eight or ten years in getting an education, for the position of rural mail driver or country .postmaster. It seems strange to me. I would think that their fathers and mothers would become martyrs in furnishing the money that would be required for so much worthless education for a position of that sort.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why worthless?


Willis Keith Baldwin: I have had ten years of Sundays in my life, and we have all spent a few years in infancy and childhood, and then we sleep one-third of our time, and if out of the time that is left we are going to spend eight or ten years in getting an education at a university simply to become a rural mail driver or a country postmaster at the end of it all, I cannot see that it is worth it. I think people have got to come down nearer to earth. The earth gives us all we need if we use it well. We have to scratch mother earth to earn our daily bread.
Let me give my own experience as a postmaster. After being postmaster for thirty-six years I voted for reciprocity, and I was driven out of office. In my opinion too many post offices have been closed up in this country and too many rural mail routes established. My particular office was at the outlet of a lake, in quite a business centre, with two churches, a school, and a Catholic mission. I have one of the biggest stores in the country and sell all sorts of merchandise. I would not say for one .minute that a young man should spend eight years at a university and do post graduate work before I could recommend him to the Postmaster General, and have the post office at Baldwin's Mills reopened. I should want a young man who was honest and intelligent. I was willing to accept the office in the old days at ten dollars a year.
I was a grist miller by trade, and I was intending to build a store, and I built it and filled it. I think that a post office in a country store attracts customers. I do not see why a person of ordinary intelligence could not entertain the customers without having to spend four years at a university and four years in post graduate work, nor do I think that eight yearss' university training is necessary to become a rural mail driver. It is true that a postmastership is a sacred trust.


Eccles James Gott: Will the hon. member permit
a question?


Willis Keith Baldwin: You make too many
speeches and talk altogether too much. I waste very little of the time of the house

Supply-Post Office
myself. I remember the first time I ran for parliament. I ran against a very brilliant man, and I promised my constituents that I would not waste the time of this house by speaking whenever the opportunity occurred, but only when duty demanded. But I am on my feet now, and I propose to explain a few matters.
I was saying that the office of postmaster is a most sacred trust. When I was put in charge of a post office, the arrangement was to furnish the postmaster with a certain quantity of stamps, and when he ran short, he would order more. I think it was a splendid arrangement. Thirty years ago the postmasters were allowed to keep on hand stamps up to fifty, seventy-five, a hundred or a thousand dollars' worth, depending upon the size of the post office, and the postmaster was charged with those stamps. I think every hon. member knows that when a postmaster runs short of stamps he must send the necessary money to Montreal or Ottawa or to the chief post office in his district to get a further supply, and send cash with order. How this man could be short, I do not understand. I always mix my business right together. I have no time to take inventories, keep cash accounts; I work fifteen hours a day. Anybody in my employ does not have to steal from me, and if the inspector had called at my office he would 'have found fifty dollars' worth of stamps somewhere around my establishment. I would not be short, but some of these kitchen post offices may have been short, I suppose. It is a very sacred trust, but I think any honest and intelligent person is qualified to fill the office.
The hon. member who preceded me delivered an oration, rather than saying something that applied to the practical things of life. I know, of course, that an education is good for a young man, if he has lived long enough to know what he is adapted to; he can then qualify for the vocation or profession he intends to follow, but why the hon. member delivered an oration on university and post graduate education in connection with rural mail couriers and country postmasters, I cannot understand. To get such an education you may use all your money and get into debt, and then it might be natural for you to steal if you got the chance. I do not want to mention it, but it is an absolute fact that it has been rather too common in this great Dominion for men in the larger post offices to steal. If a postmaster was allowed two or three thousand dollars' worth of stamps, he would sometimes live beyond his means, and by-and-by report a burglary. The inspector
goes there and finds that not a nail has been pulled, not a screw removed, not a panel broken. In fact, some of these postmasters were so derelict in their duty that they did not lock the vault. Some of them would accuse the night watchman and say that he had robbed the mail. I have known men to 'try to get the night watchman imprisoned, but when I had something to say about it,
I would get Mr. Coolican at Ottawa to send out a real detective, without fear or favour for anyone, one that did not care for Liberals or Tories, and get him to make a thorough investigation. Perhaps the postmaster was a man of considerable influence, and could fool the auditors that were brought in, for figures can be fooled, but figures will not lie. I would tell the detective to work on the theory that the man was guilty, and to get. the money back, and the accused has sometimes broken down and said to the detective. "You have come here to arrest me?" "Yes." "Would it be an extenuating circumstance if I reimbursed the government?" "It certainly would," says the detective. "Then I will try." The detective goes back. He says, "Now, Mr. Gentleman, I want you to tell me when you commenced this theft. Write it all out." When the confession has been made the detective says:	"Now, you
resign from this office." The man says, "All right, but I don't want to resign." The detective retorts, "It is not for you to say. Hand your keys right over and get out." The fellow says, "But I want my hat and coat." "Get out!" says the detective, "I will throw them out to you."
But coming back to my oratorical friend who preceded me, I cannot see the necessity for a man of university training to act as a country postmaster or a mail carrier either in our urban centres or rural districts. It is so amusing to me that it prompted me to get on my feet, and, Mr. Chairman, having expressed my views thereon I will not encroach further on the time of the committee.


James Charles Brady: Did not my hon. friend
misunderstand the question about technically trained men? Is it his interpretation of "technically trained men" that they are to be found in post offices or on rural mail routes?


Willis Keith Baldwin: Louder, please. My
hearing may be very poor, but my hon. friend's question is wholly incoherent to me.


Eccles James Gott: Mr. Chairman, I do not rise to offer my personal congratulations on the decorum you are preserving in the house. When a member rises in a regular manner to ask a question he is generally met with an
Supply-Post Office

onslaught from the opposite side of " Sit down." The members who say "sit down" in such a trenchant manner are usually sitting behind some other members. The hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Baldwin) referred to the fact that he had been appointed postmaster under Sir John A. Macdonald. May I ask him with what political party he was then affiliated.


Willis Keith Baldwin: I will tell my hon. friend now:	with whichever party I considered
honourable and capable.


Eccles James Gott: My hon. friend's answer puts me in mind of the coloured boy who was charged with stealing chickens. The judge said to him, " Rastus, are you the defendant?" Rastus replied, "No sir, I'se the man who stole the chickens."


Willis Keith Baldwin: I did not run the government, so had no opportunity to steal.


Eccles James Gott: Mr. Chairman, for a very few minutes I want to discuss the dismissal of the postmaster in the town of Leamington, Ontario, Mr. W. G. Gidley. I have under my hand a return that was brought down during the session of 1927, showing that a number of citizens of the town of Leamington and the township of Mersea, a political organization, petitioned the government as follows: We the undersigned citizens of Leamington and Mersea township herewith petition for an investigation of the conduct of Postmaster W.
G.	Gidley of Leamington post office in refusing to distribute certain mail matter, which was properly stamped and posted during t'he recent provincial election campaign, and other conduct unbecoming, which will be brought forward at such investigation.
I want to put on record the names of the men who signed that petition for the edification of the people in the riding that I have the honour to represent. They are:
Robert Fairful; Thos. R. Smith; F. S. Moss; J. H. Conover; A. J. Askew; D. A. Jeffery; Newton Askew; Robt. Maxwell; A. J. Quick; John R. Hope; J. Latam; A. W. Bennie; Joseph Ainslie; George Wiper; Maxwell Latam; Gordon Laurie; R. R. Brett; R. D. Moorhouse; Edmond J. White; Frank T. Sheik; Geo. Gibson; J. D. McIntosh; Jas. E. Burgess: James Richelle; R. H. Latam; J. M. Latam; S. Settirington; Chas. Hyatt; Bert E. Wigle; Malcolm Wigle; Emerson Wigle; Carl
B.	Roach; A. E. Roach; J. E. Gillanders; T. J. Will an; L. J. Tofflemine; Geo. R. Fox.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: All Liberals?


Eccles James Gott: Certainly. In all thirty-seven I think.


Mr. SMITH (Stormont):: Is that a list of postmasters dismissed in your constituency? fMr. Gntt.,7


Eccles James Gott: Oh, no, this would not even start the list of dismissals under the present Postmaster General.
Under date of December 13, 1926, the Postmaster General's department received the following letter:
Dear Sir:
A petition as has been forwarded to you under registered mail signed by numerous citizens of the town of Leamington and the township of Mersea. We the Liberal Association of Leamington and Mersea do hereby endorse the complaint lodged in the accompanying? petition. Mr. Thomas Rowley, the Liberal candidate in the last federal election, will be in Ottawa in the course of a few days and proposes to discuss this matter with you.
The matter was duly discussed, and needless to say, although the charges did not warrant dismissal, the postmaster was dismissed. Now I want to read another petition that came to the Postmaster General, signed by eighty-two residents, all business men and reputable citizens of the town of Leamington:
To the Honourable Postmaster General, Ottawa.
The petition of the undersigned residents of Leamington and vicinity humbly sheweth:-
Whereas W. G. Gidley has been postmaster for the town of Leamington for the past seven years and during all that period he has efficiently and obligingly filled that office, and in the opinion of the undersigned has improved and systematized the working of said office.
And whereas it has come to the knowledge of the undersigned that your department is contemplating the dismissal of the said W. G. Gidley and we believe without sufficient cause for such removal and, as we have been informed, without a proper investigation and without an opportunity being given to the said postmaster to rebut and refute any of the accusations made against him, which is not consistent with the principles of British fair play.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


Eccles James Gott: I might say to the hon. gentleman who " oh, oh-ed " that this man whom I am speaking of is a returned soldier with an excellent record.


Mr. DENIS:: I do not dispute that.


Eccles James Gott: I do not like to see a returned soldier "oh oh-ed."


Joseph-Arthur Denis: I did not do so.


Eccles James Gott: You -were either "oh ohine"
the returned soldier or me.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: No objection.


Eccles James Gott: The petition proceeds:
Therefore your petitioners pray that you may be pleased to withhold anv contemplated action toward the dismissal of W. G. Gidley as postmaster for the town of Leamington until at least a nronpv investigation be made of the

Supply-Post Office
charges preferred against him and a fair opportunity be given to the said W. G. Gidley to face liis accusers and an opportunity to present his evidence as against the said charges.
There is a petition that the Postmaster General should have acted on forthwith. It is signed by eighty-4wo reputable citizens of the town of Leamington. In the file as brought down during April, 1927, there was nothing to show that the postmaster at Leamington should have been dismissed, but after the house rose another section was brought down. Last session I desired to discuss this subject when the Postmaster General's estimates were before the house, but I would not have been able to do it in an intelligent manner because the return oame down in two sections, one section which was misleading, and the other section in such form that the Postmaster General could have refuted any arguments that I might have put forward on behalf of the dismissed postmaster. Now I do not propose to go into the details in connection with the appointment of his predecessor, in which the decision of the Civil Service Commission was overridden for some time. Indeed, not only in the Postmaster General's department but in almost every department of state to-day the decision of the Civil Service Commission is overridden when it is to the advantage of the party to put in their own people.


Mr. FORKE:: No.


Eccles James Gott: I can take almost any department of state to-day and show you where, in the town in which I live, the Civil Service Commission has been overridden not once but time and time again.


Robert Forke: I dispute that statement.


Eccles James Gott: You refute it?


Robert Forke: I dispute it.


Eccles James Gott: Then I want to say to the Minister of Immigration that in the town of Amherstburg there were three appointments in the last two years in which the Civil Service was overridden.


Robert Forke: The Department of Immigration?


Eccles James Gott: No, not in the town of Amherstburg. One was under the Postmaster General, I think, although I am not sure; but one was under the Minister of Public Works. Now, as I say, I have not the time to go into the full details and read them all into the record, but I should like to have this put on record for the edification of the people I represent.


Mr. McGIBBON:: I want to refer again
to the case I mentioned yesterday. The Postmaster General was good enough in his opening remarks this afternoon to make an apology to me. None was either requested or desired or needed. I do think though that in justice to the postmaster of Ulfington, who has been dismissed, the Postmaster General should tender an apology to that gentleman. Whether he intends to or not-and I am rather inclined to be generous enough to think that he does-that man's reputation has been tarnished. He is seventy-one years of age and unable to walk, being a cripple. It was bad enough for him to have to give uip his job without a cent to live on and to-day he is dependent upon the kindness of others; but it is much worse that the reputation of himself and of his family should be tarnished.
I have here the further returns which the minister was good enough to bring down today, and I find that on one occasion last summer when the inspector walked into the postmaster's office he found this man short eleven dollars and some cents; that amount should have been in the till and was not there. I am taking the inspector's figures, although the Postmaster General says it was only seven dollars and some cents. But the money was almost immediately put up and, according to the information I have, his accounts were certified to by the inspector as being correct. I appeal to any member of this house: How many men who are handling public funds can have an inspector walk in on them any hour of the day, not knowing that he is coming, and always have every last cent in the till? I ask any reasonable man this question: If there are a few dollars missing at the moment, not in the proper place, when an inspection is made, is that any indication of dishonesty? According to the inspector's report there was, as I say, some eleven dollars odd not in the till, but the postmaster put up the amount and his accounts were certified to as correct. I am not going to repeat what I said yesterday in regard to the dismissal, but I should1 like the Postmaster General to clear the matter up so far as the honour and reputation of this man are concerned. He is an old man, is unable to walk, and has not a cent in the world.


An hon. MEMBER:: Old age pension?


Peter McGibbon: That has not yet been
adopted in Ontario, and it would be his only salvation. I am going to ask the Postmaster
Supply-Post Office

General to make a statement to the effect that there has been no dishonesty on the part of this man, because I do not believe that the Postmaster General is of that opinion.


Peter John Veniot: Referring once more to the matter, I think that if the hon. member will read what I said yesterday he will find that it does not convey the impression that I thought this gentleman really dishonest, because I said there were irregularities that could not be classed as dishonesty.


Peter McGibbon: Just one.


Peter John Veniot: But in cases where attention is frequently called to these irregularities and no heed is paid by the parties to whom such attention is directed, it becomes a matter for action. In this case, when the first irregularity took place-and I regret, as I have said before, that last night in the heat of debate I could not put my hand on the precise figures when I mentioned the sum of $142, because I have no intention to represent it as greater than it was-this postmaster was severely reprimanded and was told that if such a thing occurred again severe action would be taken. But notwithstanding that, m June, 1928-I believe it was around that date, because it was some time around October or December, 1926, that he was reprimanded, although I am not sure of the dates -the report of the inspector shows that there was a similar occurrence. Now I do not wish to hurt anyone's character; far be it from me; and if my remarks left the impression that it was because of dishonesty I wish to say that it was because of these irregularities in his accounts. I do not believe that the gentleman is fitted for the office, because of his age, and in addition there were these irregularities. That is what I believed at the time and what I believe now.


Peter McGibbon: I am glad to have that much from the minister. I am within the judgment of the house when I say that he was not quite so moderate yesterday, and even to-day he has overstated the case. I have in my hand the latest file which the minister was good enough to give us, and there arc really only two cases, one several years ago involving $24 and one in 1928 in which the amount, as the Postmaster General says, was $7 or, according to the inspector, $11 odd. I submit in all seriousness that when a man is handling public funds as a postmaster in a store, or in any other place you like, if an 
inspector walks in upon him at any moment and happens to find a few dollars not in the till, that is not a very serious reflection on the man. I am not excusing him, but surely there are degrees in dishonesty; and, as I said, I rather think that the Postmaster General yesterday gave the impression to the house, which impression got out to the country, that that was the reason for this man's dismissal. I do not believe it was, and I do not believe the minister will say so to-day.


Peter John Veniot: I know the hon. member
wants to be fair. I said it was one of the reasons.


Peter McGibbon: Well, I will compromise so far as to say that the minister gave it as the major reason. But I want to correct the impression that has gone abroad through the press that there had been gross irregularities on the part of this postmaster. As a matter of fact, only on two occasions was his cash found to be a little short, and he made it up on each occasion. The minister gave the impression yesterday that he was a long time making it up, but on- the last occasion it was made up while the inspector was there. I leave it to the honesty and good judgment of any hon. member whether I am asking too much of the minister.


Peter John Veniot: I think I have said enough.


Mr. PLUNKETT:: Mr. Chairman, I am
very glad to have an opportunity to speak on these estimates in order to bring up some of the delinquencies of the Post Office department with regard to Victoria, British Columbia. It seems to me that the Postmaster General expects Victoria to finance some of the other post offices throughout Canada. I have been looking up the records and find that in the estimates this year he is giving us the very munificent increase of $340 over last year. Further, I find that the earnings of the Victoria post office for the year ending March 31, 1928, were $24,321.03 more than they were in the year ended March 31, 1927. Does the Postmaster General think it fair to give us an increase of only $340 when the earnings of that office were so greatly increased, or does he intend to make the officials work harder, as has been the case during the last year or two, and sake the profit out of them?
I have here a letter, a copy of which I have sent to the Postmaster General, which I desire to read. This letter was forwarded

Supply-Post Office
to me by a citizen of Victoria, and I was asked to present it to the Postmaster General. The letter is as follows:
Victoria, B.C.,
April 5, 1929.
To the Assistant Postmaster General,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir:
Upon behalf of the residents of this section of Victoria I would bring to your notice the lack of service at present given to the public in the matter of letter delivery.
At the present time our first delivery is more often than not after the noon hour and has been as late as 1.45 p.m. this in spite of the fact that we reside seven blocks from the general post office.
The matter has been taken up with Postmaster Gardiner who has done the best he can with the staff he has and it would appear that there is too much work for the men to get through with. I understand (and this information did not come from the post office) that the slowing up and clogging of the delivery system is mostly caused by the large amount of Vancouver newspapers now delivered here in a.m. delivery which at present post office rates is likely handled at a loss to the government.
Now sir we most respectfully suggest that these papers be not delivered until p.m. delivery or that Mr. Gardiner be supplied with the number of men needed to handle the business as we are sure that it cannot be known to you that such a service, as outlined, is in effect here.
Trusting that you will give this matter your kind attention.
Yours respectfully,
I have mailed a copy of that letter to the Postmaster General's department and I want to impress upon him the need for this service.


Peter John Veniot: We will go right into it the moment I receive that copy. I do not know of any official report as to this condition, but we will go into the matter as soon as I receive a copy of that letter.


D'Arcy Britton Plunkett: I want an investigation into the Victoria post office; for the last two or three years the business of the office has so increased that the men have been overworked. I want it distinctly understood that there is no question as to the fidelity and earnestness of the whole staff from the postmaster down, but we do claim that too much work has been put upon them, particularly since the government have not seen fit to arrange for any increase in salary. The technical men are being looked after, but the mail men who walk the streets of our cities cannot get an increase. In my own district of Victoria when the mail bag is full they must pick up two or three bundles of papers which they relay, leaving them on a veranda or in a hodse and going back for them after they have delivered some of their other mail. I am sure
two or three additional men would relieve that situation; some better system could be put into effect in Victoria without a great deal of trouble. Is it right that a city whose post office revenue increased more than $24,000 in one year should have an increase of only $340 in the estimates? I ask the Postmaster General to go into that question also. .
The technical men practically have had their increase granted; perhaps they are entitled to it. I like to see everyone well paid, but if the Postmaster General would see that the salaries of these men were increased he would be doing a great service. I would like him to correct me if this statement is wrong:	I
understand that the men who walk the street carrying mail from house to house have no chance to get into the inside service. Is that so?


Peter John Veniot: No, that is not so; they
can be promoted.


D'Arcy Britton Plunkett: I just asked that question for my own information, because I did not want to be misinformed. The outside men must endure the vicissitudes of the weather, and most of them are broken in health; that must be the case even more in the east than in the city from which I come, but at all events I think the department should take that into consideration and advance the salaries of these lower salaried men.
Then I want to ask if it is to be the policy of the government in the future to appoint a commission whenever a branch of the service requests an increase. That is the precedent which has been set by this government, and in future any branch of the service asking for an increase no doubt will ask the government to appoint a similar commission.
Now let us see if the government is playing fair. I notice in the estimates an item of $800,000 increase for air mail services. Is it not a fact that, at best, for some years to come the air mail service will be uncertain or just an experiment? Does it seem fair to the post office employees that this amount should be placed in the estimates for such a service when the regular service employees cannot secure a slight increase? I would not care so much about the increase if they were not worked to death. In conclusion I ask the Postmaster General to look into these matters and do justice to Victoria. I could bring him half a dozen letters similar to the one I read a few minutes ago. I promised my constituents that I would bring up this matter in the house and I believe we are entitled to more consideration.
Supply-Post Office


Mr. ANDERSON (High Park):: I wish to offer a few observations with regard to what I consider a glaring flouting of the Civil Service Act; I refer to the post office at Billings Bridge. That post office became vacant early in December, 1927, as a result of the improper conduct of the postmaster, a man named Dowler. There was a shortage of funds and after an investigation it was proved beyond doubt that Dowler was responsible and he was dismissed, which was the proper thing to do. The Deputy Postmaster General got in touch by letter with the hon. member for the county of Russell (Mr. Goulet) pointing out the reason for the change and asking the member to nominate some reliable person who could be temporarily placed in charge of that office. The shortage in the accounts was in connection with the issuing of money orders and the Deputy Postmaster General asked that the temporary appointee should be a person who could be trusted to issue money orders. He also stated that steps would be taken to fill the position permanently in. accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Act. The member for Russell replied on November 30, 1927, to a letter from the Deputy Postmaster General dated November 22, 1927. The hon. member nominated a prominent business man of the village named Campbell, and that gentleman was appointed. Ordinarily one would ask why the Civil Service Commission was not notified and asked to take immediate steps to fill the position permanently. Campbell continued in this temporary position and we find that the Assistant Deputy Postmaster General, whose apparent duty was to notify the Civil Service Commission as to this vacancy, did not notify the commission until March 19, 1928. The following letter was written on that date by Mr. Coolican, Assistant Deputy Postmaster General, to the secretary of the Civil Service Commission:
I beg to inform you that the postmastership at Billings Bridge, electoral district of Russell, Ontario, is vacant owing to the dismissal of Mr. George M. Dowler, O.A.S., in connection with shortage in his accounts.
You will find herewith copies of poster notices issued by the district superintendent of postal service at Ottawa.
Poster notices in French and English were enclosed with the letter. The notice reads:
Applications are invited from residents of Billings Bridge and locality possessing the necessary qualifications for the position of postmaster at Billings Bridge.
Salary and allowances $1,000, based upon the revenue of the post office; rent allowance $150;

forward allowance, $9; allowance of one cent on each postal note issued (in the event of money order business being reestablished, allowance of four cents on each money order issued and one cent on ea :h money order paid).
Qualifications required: ability and education to efficiently perform the duties of office.
The notice stated that the applications should be received by the district superintendent of postal service, Ottawa, not later than March 27, 1928. That notice was sent to the Civil Service Commission on March 19, 1928, and the applications were to be received not later than March 27, eight days later.
There may be some reason for this delay, but I do not think it is a clear one in this case. I looked for an explanation in the correspondence which took place between the Deputy Postmaster General and the member for the riding, and I found a letter from the Deputy Postmaster General to the hon. member, but it is in French and I cannot read it.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is too bad.


Alexander James Anderson: That is too bad, but I will give the house the substance of it. The Deputy Postmaster General, in the correspondence to which I have referred, informed the hon. member of the vacancy and the necessity of filling it, having regard to the public inconvenience occasioned thereby. He said it was necessary that a permanent appointment be made at once; that it would be necessary to make a new appointment and replace Mr. Dowler. The hon. member for Russell replied to that letter, and on December 16, the assistant deputy minister wrote him a letter apprising him of the temporary apointment of Campbell. The hon. member wrote to the Deputy Postmaster General on December 20, asking that the matter be allowed to stand until they could have a conversation with reference to it. The Deputy Postmaster General replied to that letter on December 22, stating that the matter would be held up until they could discuss it. In other words, the delay from December to March was due to the desire of the officials of the departments to confer with the local member regarding this matter, a matter which under the provisions of the Civil Service Act, should have been attended to immediately. The position should have been advertised and applications received by the district superintendent, which applications should have been reported upon to the Civil Service Commission so that the matter could have been dealt with. But that was not done.

Royal College of Physicians
The time expired on March 27, and within that period applications were received from J. L. Brule, a resident civilian; D. T. Campbell, a resident civilian-the temporary appointee; John Sinclair, a resident civilian; and C. W. Cummings, a non-resident civilian. It seems to me that the district superintendent could have proceeded and made his report, and we find that he did make a very extensive report which covers three pages of this return. This is return No. 185, dated March 9, 1929, made on the motion of the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence) acting for the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart). In this report Mr. Low, district superintendent, refers to the four applicants. He gives the detailed answers in respect to the oral examination and the written examination made by each of these men, Brule, Campbell, Sinclair and Cummings, and he also makes lengthy comments. But that report was not sent to the Civil Service Commission. I do not understand why it should not have been sent on, because the very object of getting a report is to advise the Civil Service Commission. It was, however, not sent to them.
On April 2, the district superintendent received an application from another man, Phillips. That was in his hands just about the time he made this report. That was not sent on, but the department took time to make an investigation of the application. I find from the file that the district superintendent makes tiwo lengthy reports in regard to Phillips, although the application was received on April 2, which was too late. Phillips was a returned soldier, a man who had not been wounded, and who had no disability. He had served overseas, and he had lived in the district for some time. April 16 is the date of the district superintendent's first report in which he reported favourably in regard to this man. On April 19 the chief superintendent of the postal service writes back to the district superintendent, asking him to state where Mr. Phillips' name should appear in the order of merit of the applicants. In other words, although the time had gone by within which applications might be received, the officers of the department were quite willing to consider this application and ask where it should be placed in the order of merit.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS



ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF CANADA

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 84, to incorporate the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada-Mr. Young (Saskatoon)-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Interpretation.
Mr. BOURASSA:: I would like to hear any amendments, Mr. Chairman, that have been made in committee.


The CHAIRMAN:: There were no amendments to this section.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Provisional council.
Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I would ask the promoter of this bill what communications have passed between this organization and the various medical organizations of the provinces.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: All the medical organizations in Canada have been notified of this legislation. It has been discussed for several years, and so far as I know there has been no objection from any medical organization in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
On section 5-Fellows.
John Frederick Johnston: This section has been amended by adding after the word "persons" in the thirteenth line of page 2, the words "domiciled in Canada."


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Whether they are Cana-diians or not? Can you admit members who are not Canadian citizens?


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-Admittance of physicians and surgeons as fellows.
Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I think this is the important section. I well remember in the old days in the House of Commons when Doctor Roddick, of Montreal, introduced a bill in some respects similar to this, and one of the matters under discussion then was with

Royal College of Physicians

regard to the clash there might be between this federally incorporated body .and the various provincial medical organizations, and as to whether a physician belonging to one of the provincial organizations could practise in another province under the privileges which he acquired from the central body. Is the object of this legislation the same?


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Perhaps I had better give a short explanation to the house. This bill is asked for by the Canadian Medical Association, which, as its name implies, includes in its membership medical men from every province in Canada. This has nothing whatever to do with education; it has nothing to do with the licensing of medical men. The Canada Medical Act has to do with the licensing of medical men in the provinces. The whole object of this bill is to encourage post graduate education. When a man has been graduated for three years and is licensed to practise medicine in one of the provinces of Canada, he is eligible to be admitted to fellowship in this organization. The idea is to encourage post graduate education, the fellowship being a recognition that the post graduate studies have been taken. This body has nothing to do with education.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Nor with practice?


Alexander MacGillivray Young: No.


Mr. MacLAREN:: There is a marked distinction between this bill and what is called the Roddick bill, under which the medical council has to arrange for examinations and award some recognition to anyone passing their examination. That was and still is subject to the approval of each province. At the present time any province can separate itself from the Dominion council1. As the hon. member for Saskatoon says, the purpose of this bill is to encourage a higher standard of education. Anyone who wishes to submit himself for examination may do so; it is entirely a voluntary matter. It is not in connection with qualifications for practice. It is somewhat similar to the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons in London, in Edinburgh and in Dublin. It is intended as an incentive to medical men, both physicians and surgeons, to aspire to higher qualifications and, therefore, higher standards.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 7 agreed to.

On section 8-Admittance to fellowship.
Alexander MacGillivray Young: Mr. Chairman,
there is a typographical error in the first line of subsection (c); the word "be" should be "by". The line should read:	"The council
may by by-law," and so on.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 9-Diplomas.-Register.
Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: What would be the effect upon the profession of these diplomas?


Alexander MacGillivray Young: This refers
sunply to the form of diploma on admittance; it has nothing to do with anybody else.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Quite so. But what
are the diplomas for?


Alexander MacGillivray Young: They are merely certificates granted to members when they pass the special examination.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 10 to 12 inclusive agreed to.
On section 13-No personal liability.
Henry Elvins Spencer: Who is to be responsible
for the liabilities of the institution?


Alexander MacGillivray Young: The institution itself.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Each member must be
liable to a certain extent.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: There is no
personal liability. That is all.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On the preamble.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Might I ask the hon.
member who, I think, is directing the bill, regarding the word "royal"? If I recall rightly, under the rules of parliament a company or an association is not permitted to use the word without permission of the sovereign. I wonder whether that formality has been observed in this case.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: It was inquired into, and we were advised that if the bill passed this house it would be sufficient warrant for the use of the word "royal".


Henry Herbert Stevens: I want it clearly understood that I am not in any way objecting to the bill. But I recall several instances within the last ten or fifteen years in connection with other associations and companies where an attempt to use the word "royal" was in no case permitted by the committees of the house that had the matter under consideration,

Royal College of Physicians
except, I think, in one or two instances where it was shown that permission of the sovereign had been secured. While it has been argued that we find the use of the word in such titles as The Royal Bank, The Royal Trust Company, and one or two others-


An hon. MEMBER:: Royal baking powder.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, and royal yeast; but that is a little levity on the side. As I say, we have the word in use in those cases, but the institutions received their charters very much in the same way as we are passing this bill, and the formality of securing the necessary permission of the sovereign was not given proper consideration; but, as I say, during the past ten or fifteen years it has been recognized as necessary that such permission should be secured.


Mr. GERSHAW:: May I suggest that in
this case the word "royal" is not used for advertising effect. Its purpose is to bring the college into harmony with similar colleges which exist in England, in Scotland and in Ireland, and to give the institution a standing.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: My hon. friend says that this has nothing to do with education, and of course I take his word for it. There is evidently nothing in the clauses as far as I have been able to read them through hurriedly-they were not read by the Chair- but at the same time the title conveys the idea of an educational institution. Why not call it an association?


Alexander MacGillivray Young: We are simply
adopting the same title as that of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons in London, in Edinburgh and in Dublin. It is really not intended to have any control of education, nor, as I said before, has it anything to do with the licensing of medical men. It is simply an organization of medical men formed to promote a higher standard of professional education in the Dominion. It will be observed that every medical man must be a graduate of three year's standing of a medical school or university and must also be licensed to practise medicine in one of the provinces of Canada before he is permitted to take the examination. Having passed the examination and become a member, he in effect tells the world that he has taken this post graduate course. The idea is to encourage a larger number of medical men to continue their studies in the interests of the general health of this country.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: But could not this be
broad enough to enable the college to estab-78594-mi
lish a post graduate course, and therefore become an educational institution? Did not the old historical institutions of Great Britain and Ireland at some time or other provide for the training of their members, and is it not therefrom that they derived their titles?


Alexander MacGillivray Young: That is not my opinion, Mr. Chairman, and certainly it is not the intention in this case. There is no possibility either now or in the future of setting up any curriculum or any teaching body or faculty, there being no provision in the bill for this purpose.


Mr. MANION:: May I say a word, Mr. Chairman, in support of my hon. friend's remarks? As has been pointed out, there is a Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons in England, in Scotland and in Ireland, and there are members of this house who have taken degrees at one or other of those institutions. But they are not colleges in the sense understood by my hon. friend from Labelle. They simply hold examinations. But more recently there was formed in the United States an American college of surgeons. I may be wrong, but while we say this proposed royal college is modelled on the British institutions to which I have referred, really its purpose is to put us on a par with the American college.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Yes; but not to put us on a par; it will be vastly superior.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend is ultra
patriotic in that regard. The American College of Surgeons was established some years ago and a number of prominent Canadian physicians and surgeons obtained their degree there. Now, with the establishment of this institution, Canadians will doubtless be quite satisfied to take their degrees in this country. I have said a word in support of the bill because I consider its object a worthy onq. I share the view of the hon. member who has introduced it.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: This college is really
what its Latin equivalent signifies-a " collegium "-and not a school.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Subsection (b) of section 8 provides that candidates wishing to be examined for fellowship in the college shall be graduates of not less than three years' standing of a medical school or university approved by the council, and shall hold license to practise medicine in at least one of the provinces of Canada. They are graduates from some recognized school. I do not think that "college" here means school.
Royal College of Physicians


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Would not this institution be enabled under the charter to establish a kind of post graduate course of its own?


Ernest Lapointe: Not that I can see in
the bill.


Mr. KAISER:: The great majority of
medical men, whether or not qualified by virtue of their status to become fellows of his college, are quite in favour of the bill, and we expect that the institution to be founded will perform a very useful service to the public as well as to the medical profession. I might refer however to section 12 which provides that the college may acquire property by gift and so forth:
Provided, however, that the annual value of the real estate held by the college shall not exceed the sum of $50,000.
I presume that " the annual value of the real estate " means the assessed value. This college will likely have its home in one of the great cities of Canada, probably Toronto, and it will be necessary to construct a substantial building to house the college. It seems to me that this sum should be at least doubled.


Peter McGibbon: I want to join with the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Young) and the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Man-ion) in advocating the passage of this bill. I think it is time that Canadians had an institution of this kind of their own. In the past we have been too prone to pride ourselves upon the degrees we have won in colleges either within the British Empire or in some of the American states, and I hope the time has come when Canadian academicians will stand on their own feet. Surveying the field of industrial and scientific research, I think we may safely say that no universities in the world to-day, of all those that loom up on the intellectual horizon, are greater tjian the universities of Canada. There is no country in the world where the medical profession has attained greater achievements than in Canada. This legislation therefore is only, so to speak, to put the final seal of accomplishment and of recognition upon the profession. It is no secret in the medical profession that every member of that profession prizes most the degree obtained from the Royal College of Surgeons of London. It is true we get degrees from Edinburgh and Ireland as well. But speaking as one whose pleasure and honour it has been to have graduated from the Royal College of Surgeons in England, I recognize this as one of the greatest achievements of my life; I believe it is recognized in academic and medical circles
rMr. Lapointe.]
as one of the most coverted honours to have graduated from that college. I am not prepared, however, to admit that we in this country should not establish an institution of our own, whose degrees it will be equally the ambition of every Canadian to secure. I have much pleasure in supporting the bill; it is, I think, a measure which is long overdue. We Canadians 'have too great a tendency to hide our light under a bushel. We are not good1 enough advertisers; we do not make the accomplishments of our people known to the world in the way we should. All we need do is to scan the achievements of our universities and to take the standing of our professors, and I say without fear of contradiction that the Canadian is the peer of any not only in the British Empire but in the world. I join with others who have spoken in urging the favourable consideration of this bill, for I know that this legislation will be of benefit to scientific education in Canada.


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: I do not desire
to delay the passage of the bill, but as a medical man and a graduate of a Canadian medical school I feel I ought at least to say a word in support of it. As my hon. friend across the way (Mr. McGibbon) has observed, Canadian medical institutions are outstanding not only on this continent but throughout the world, as institutions that give a broad medical education. This is proved by the fact that Canadian graduates 'have been able to go to various countries where medical science has attained a high standard and there compete with those who have had the best training in the world's universities. The bill does not affect in any way the institutions now engaged in the education of medical men in Canada, but it will give to Canadian graduates or graduates from other universities an opportunity to secure what I am sure will be a coveted degree in the profession of which I am glad to have been and to be now a member. 1 thoroughly endorse the bill and the proposal it contains. Our medical profession has so advanced in Canada, and has attained such a standing in the medical world, that I believe we can now very well proceed to found an institution to be known as the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada.


Mr. MARCIL:: I took part in the debate
in this house at the time the Canadian Medical Association was created, and the conclusion arrived at then was that that legislation could not become effective until the various provinces had endorsed it. In con-

Premier Guarantee Insurance Company
nection with that legislation, the question arose whether a university in Quebec or in Ontario could grant a diploma which would be recognized in any other province.
Mr. MoGIBBON: That was a licensing body.


Charles Marcil: I understand that this bill does not touch that question at all. I believe that the Canadian Medical Association has since granted diplomas enabling medical men to practise in any part of the Dominion. I understand that that is the system.


John Warwick King: Without examination.


Peter McGibbon: Only in adjoining provinces.


Charles Marcil: That does not affect in any way the powers held at present in the provinces. The only other point to which I wish to draw attention is the use of the word " royal." I think it would be wise to not pass the title until the Secretary of State can communicate with the imperial authorities with regard to the use of that word. This question has been discussed in this house several times, and each time this communication from the British government was requested.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: In that regard I took the trouble to communicate with the Solicitor General, and his opinion is as follows:
In reply to your letter of the 15th instant regarding the use of the word "royal", I may say that the usual practice is to obtain the consent of His Majesty to the use of the word. I observe, however, that in the ease you have in mind the intention is to have the name including the word "royal" conferred by act of the Dominion parliament, and, while you will appreciate that it is not my function to a druse you, I think the passage of such a bill, to which His Majesty is a party, would render it unnecesary to apply to His Majesty for consent.


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

[Stage Direction]
The house in committe on Bill No. 74, respecting the Premier Guarantee and Accident Insurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Lawson.-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Extension of time.
Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Why is this extension of time requested?


Henry Herbert Stevens: This bill passed the banking and commerce committee without amendment and unfortunately the hon. gentleman who is sponsoring it is absent to-night. I do not know of any objection to the bill, but of course if the hon. gentleman desires special information the hon. gentleman who has the bill in charge must give it. The chairman of the banking and commerce committee is not here either.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: It sometimes happens that companies-in the old days this was done by railway companies-ask for a charter under which something is to be done within a certain length of time; then they come back to parliament from time to time to extend their powers before making use of the powers already granted. I have heard this practice spoken of frequently as an abuse of the powers granted by parliament. Why fill up the statute books of the country with bills granting powers which are not exercised?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I speak subject to correction, but I think the facts are these: I understand there are certain obligations resting upon a company under the general act and it is not unusual for something to come up which prevents the company from complying with some technical portion of that act. However, I can assure my hon. friend that none of these bills ever passed the banking and commerce .committee without the consent and approval of the Superintendent of Insurance, who does very good work in watching matters of this kind. I cannot assure my hon. friend that that was done in this ease, but that has been my experience.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I was in the banking and commerce committee when this bill was presented and the Superintendent of Insurance was asked if he thought the bill should pass. He said he thought the bill was perfectly in order and that the committee should pass it.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: According to section 1 the effect of this bill is simply to extend until April 15, 1930, the time for applying for the license and the going into operation of the company. Section 1 shows that the company had to make application for the license
Wapiti Insurance Company

before April 14, which was last Sunday; they were not in a position to do so and this bill simply provides that the time be extended until April 15, 1930.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Preamble and title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. T. THORSON (Winnipeg South Centre) moved the second reading of and concurrence in an amendment made by the senate to Bill No. 32, to incorporate the Wapiti Insurance Company.
Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: What is the effect of the amendment?


Mr. THORSON:: The amendment may be found on page 255 of No. 42 of the votes and proceedings, and is to this effect:
This act shall come into force on a date to be specified by the superintendent of insurance in a notice in the Canada Gazette, and such notice shall not be given until this act has been approved by a resolution adopted by at least two-thirds of the votes of the members of the company present or represented by proxy at a meeting duly called for that purpose, nor until the superintendent of insurance has been satisfied by such evidence as he may require that such approval has been given and that the provincial company has ceased to do business, or will cease to do business forthwith upon a license being issued to the company.
I understand that this amendment was inserted by the senate committee at the request of the Superintendent of Insurance.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Is this the case of a company with a provincial charter now securing a federal charter in order to do business in other parts of the Dominion?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I did not know there was a provincial company in existence, but it would so appear from the amendment.
Motion agreed to; amendment read the second time and concurred in.



PROCEDURE RESPECTING APPLICATIONS FOR DIVORCE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. N. M. YOUNG (Toronto Northeast) moved the seconding reading of Bill No. 88, for the relief of Minerva Elliott.
Henry Elvins Spencer: Will the hon. member
kindly explain ?


Mr. YOUNG (Toronto):: I have the bill
before me as well as the printed copy of the evidence upon which the bill is based. I do not think the hon. member desires me to read the evidence, as he probably has received a copy of it, but if he has not this evidence before him I will send my copy down. The ground upon which the divorce was granted is with one exception the only ground for divorce in Canada. The case was properly proved before the senate committee, and comes to this house for approval.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: We
appear to be in the same position this evening as has been the case on previous occasions. Three bills have been called and allowed to stand. I have not the evidence relating to this particular case and I do not know if it has yet been proven; we are being asked to ratify the action which has been taken. I have not read this evidence because, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) said the other day, if one attempted to read all this evidence his brain would be turned into a garbage can, and I do not propose to submit myself to that danger.


John Arthur Clark: Would the hon. member vote for the bill if the case had been proven?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I do not think the
question is quite fair. I told the house that I would vote on principle against every one of these bills. [DOT]


John Arthur Clark: Why worry the house?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I will say quite seriously that it is a question of principle with me. I think we have the right to declare ourselves against any such bill. If the house overcomes that objection, every member has the right to know whether in passing judgment he is ratifying something which is right or something which is wrong. Apart from -the question of principle which applies to all divorces, there is the question of equity which applies to each individual case. If this house is ratifying something which it does not know anything about, how can it pretend that it is acting either as a parliament or as a judicial body?
An objection was made the other day by the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary) which was quite fair. Hiis objection was that it might not be proper on second readings to examine the evidence in each case; that this might well be done when the house was in committee of the whole and considering the report made by the private bills

Procedure Respecting Divorce
committee. I think it would be our duty to examine each case at that time because, after all, this house has to .pass judgment upon the findings of its own committees. The house has to ratify, amend, or differ from the findings of its committees. If this were not the case the house would cease to exist the moment it referred any matter to any committee; it would mean that the gentlemen composing each committee would be substituted for the house, either as a legislating body or as a judicial body. As has been stated very properly by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) and the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), this parliament is acting in a judicial capacity. As far as that is concerned, I am prepared to admit that we ought not perhaps to review the evidence of each case on the second reading, but we should know enough about the case to know whether we were warranted in sending it to the private bills committee.
I had to go to Montreal and arrived in the house only at half-past seven, and I could not take up all these records and pick out the one connected -with the bill which is now called.


Peter McGibbon: Does the hon. member
read all the evidence which comes from the agriculture committee, the railway committee, the private bills committee, and all the other committees?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: If the hon. member will allow me I would point out that there is a difference.


Peter McGibbon: There is no difference.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: The evidence heard before the various committees is taken either to enlighten the house upon some general measures of legislation-


Peter McGibbon: It never gets to the
house.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Or it is giving to the
house new legislation or new matters affecting administration or government. Until last year there were very few people in Canada who realized that parliament was not acting only as a parliament, but was acting also as a court of justice. I am quite sure that many members of the house had never realized that this was not ordinary private legislation which was going through; that we were acting as a court of justice, and, therefore, that we should take all precautions in law and equity which any court of justice has to take. With the volume of this work growing from year to
year it is intellectually and physically impossible for the committee charged with the examination of these cases to carry on with their work, and I do not say that in any spirit of disparagement of the committee of the senate or the private bills committee. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre pointed out last week, it has been necessary at times to look through the halls and corridors in order to find a quorum for the private bills committee to vote upon a batch of twenty or thirty of these bills. No tribunal would ever attempt to deal in such a manner with twenty or thirty cases of law; the most trivial cases are always considered on their merits. Is the annulment of a marriage a less important thing than the most trivial cases that come before police courts or criminal courts or civil tribunals every day? We have let the system grow without realizing the seriousness of our responsibilities. I say in all earnestness it is not a matter of pleasure for me, any more than it has been for any other member who has taken the same position, to delay the business of the house. I would not feel insulted' at all if anybody accused me of blocking this legislation in order to give the house time to reflect over it. I am doing this in a sincere desire to do something good for my country. I think the government should examine the situation and come to some decision with regard to all these bills and the principle and basis of them. It is for the purpose of emphasizing upon the minds of the members of the government, the members of the house and the people generally, the seriousness of the situation that has grown upon us, that I for my part have taken this view, and I think it was also the view taken by other hon. members who have approached the question from another angle.


William Alves Boys: Supposing the charges dealing
with practically the only ground upon which divorce is granted were proved to the hilt in the senate committee, would my hon. friend still oppose the bill?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Yes.


William Alves Boys: I have not read the evidence in this case, but I have in a number of them and in every single one in which I have read the .evidence, the charges have been proved to the hilt. If my hon. friend says that it is not on the question of proof he is opposed to the bill, he would simply vote against it no matter what the evidence was, and he would still let people come to parliament, this being the only course they can take in Ontario, and spend $500 to $1,000 and yet, although
Procedure Respecting Divorce

they conform with the law, produce the evidence which is reported and presented to the house-and my hon. friend has a copy of it in his room; as far as I know every hon. member gets it-he will deny to those people a right which is held out to them as citizens of Canada. Surely that is unfair.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: What I have been trying to emphasize in these various debates, not only this year but last year, is the necessity of amending the constitution and, short of that, of amending the procedure. In years past the question has been discussed only academically; nothing has been done. The same procedure has been going on from year to year and the senate is complaining about it.


William Alves Boys: So far as I know, the only
complaint the senate make is that they want a different forum; they want a judge, who is trained to this sort of thing, to do it, and not have the time of the senate and of this house wasted as it is from year to year.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Quite so, but at the
same time that raises the bigger issue which I am not going to discuss to-night, because some other occasion will be found to discuss it-that is, the question of provincial as well as federal jurisdiction.


Peter McGibbon: Which does the hon.
member stand for?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Unhesitatingly for the
exclusive and absolute jurisdiction of the provinces in all these matters.


Peter McGibbon: Then why is the hon.
member opposing the wishes of the province of Ontario?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I beg the hon. member's pardon; I myself suggested an addition to the proposal made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on the second reading of a public bill-that it should be left to the province of Ontario, and objections came from Ontario representatives.


Peter McGibbon: And voted differently.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I do not know, but many of them voted against it also. I voted against it precisely because the house refused to define and limit the scope of the bill by leaving it in the hands of the Ontario legislature to have it put into force or not. On the one hand I consider that parliament morally and constitutionally cannot force a court upon either Ontario or Quebec; and on

the other hand I do not think parliament should assume the responsibility of establishing a court of that nature without the province interested exercising its power of expression of opinion.


William Alves Boys: Has my hon. friend not on
many occasions by his silence supported the first, second and third readings of many divorce bills in the House of Commons?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: As I explained to the
house the other day, I have let those bills pass on division. It was the custom to call each one and say "carried on division", and I explained to the house, and I repeat to my hon. friend, who is very fairminded and who seems to be exercised over my conscience in this matter, that I have come to the conclusion it is not the proper way to act. Because I think I have done something wrong in the past, I am endeavouring to do right in the future.


Peter McGibbon: When did the hon. member become a Saul of Tarsus?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I am not speaking for
any other member; I am speaking simply for myself, and I think this method of saying "carried on division" is not sufficient; it does not carry the meaning which the hon. member for North Simcoe wants to attach to it- that we agreed to these bills. But I consider it does not sufficiently emphasize the objection we have on principle to divorce.
The only reason I have taken this attitude is to try to have the government think over the situation and come to a decision. The other day the leader of the opposition said something which is absolutely true. Even in private matters the government has the responsibility of the business of the house. The government has the responsibility of the general direction given to legislation, whether it be private or public. The proof of that is that if any piece of legislation appears to the government to be contrary to the interest of the country, or even, from a narrow point of view, to the interest of the government, it has the right and duty to appeal to the house to oppose it. That is one reason why I am trying-call it obstruction if you like; it does not matter to me-to emphasize the importance of this question. I do not want to do it any further on the second reading with regard to the evidence, but there is one more point made by the hon. member for-


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hour for private bills having expired, the house will resume in committee of supply.

Supply-Post Office



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Outside Service - Salaries and allowances, $17,295,464.40.
Alexander James Anderson: When the house rose at six o'clock I was discussing the application of Mr. Phillips for the position of postmaster at Billings Bridge. On page 85 of the return to which I referred this afternoon, I find a report from the district superintendent to the postal service branch at Ottawa in regard to Mr. Phillips. It is too long to put the whole report on record, but I will read part of it. It says:
In conversation with Mr. Phillips it was ascertained that he is a garage owner at Billings Bridge and conducts a taxi service. If he were giv'en the postmastership his wife would look after the office. He stated that she had the better education, as she had been a school teacher for nine years.
Mr. Phillips was one year in England and three years in France, as a chauffeur and mechanic, but suffered no disability.
The chief superintendent then asked for information as to the order of merit of Mr. Phillips, and a further report was sent by the district superintendent to the postal service branch dated April 20, 1928. It reads:
With reference to departmental memorandum of yesterday's date, concerning an application from Mr. W. T. Phillips, for the postmastership of Billings Bridge, which was received after a report was forwarded regarding the various applicants for the postmastership, and in connection with which the district superintendent was requested to state where Mr. Phillips' name should appear in the order of merit of the applicants, it is desired to say that Mr. Phillips should precede Mr. D. T. Campbell.
In conversation with Mr. Phillips and his wife, it was ascertained that Phillips, in the event of being appointed postmaster, would continue the operation of his taxi service. It appears he has two cars on the road; the one manned by a driver during the day time, and the bulk of Phillips' work is performed after 6 o'clock. He states he would be in attendance at the office at mail hours and during the greater portion of the day, but that if post office business were slack he might absent himself. It is clearly to be seen that Mrs. Phillips would be the one who would be in constant attendance at the post office and the district superintendent was very favourably impressed with the woman's appearance and intelligence. She has been in this country fifteen years and previous to moving here was nine years a school teacher in England. Unquestionably she has the requisite qualifications to discharge the duties of the office when money order business will have been restored there.	_
As stated in the previous memorandum, it is the intention of Mr. Phillips, if he is appointed postmaster, to remove the office to the former
site, but instead of a grocery and meat business being run in conjunction with it, he would subdivide the front portion of the building where passengers for the Hunt Club could be sheltered.
That report goes to show that Phillips and his wife between them are quite capable of taking charge of the office. That report was sent to the postal service branch, Ottawa, but no action was taken to send it on to the Civil Service Commission.
Then on the 17th day of April an application was received from one Henry Lemoine. which was forwarded by the district superintendent to the postal service branch on the 25th of April. Attached to the application were recommendations from P. C. Lemoine, of Sorel, Quebec, and one by the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries. No report was asked in regard to Mr. Lemoine, and no report was sent on to the Civil Service Commission.
On June 20 the chief superintendent of the post office service requested his district superintendent to ascertain what arrangements the present acting postmaster at Billings Bridge would make for the proper discharge of the money order business. You will remember, Mr. Chairman, that it was in connection with the money order business that the defaulting took place. A report was made by the district superintendent on June '23rd in regard to arrangements for the money order business, and while I shall not quote the report in full, it shows that the work was very unsatisfactory, that the office was left in charge of a boy of eighteen with a limited high school education, that Mr. Campbell, the temporary appointee, was working for the International Paper Company up the Gatineau and was home only every two weeks, that while the superintendent was there he found that the mail courier desired to obtain stamps from the office and could not get them, that a patron of the office wanted a money order for nineteen dollars and the boy could not give it because they were all locked up by Campbell when he went to the market. That was the condition of the post office, and yet Campbell was retained as temporary postmaster until March 14, I think, of this year. The position had not been advertised. They did not send a report to the Civil Service Commission in order that something might be done to relieve the situation, and that is the kind of service that the people of this community were getting. Dowler was put out of office in December, 1927, on account of a shortage in his accounts and here was the work of the office being attended to in a very unsatisfactory manner.
Supply-Post Office

On the 25th of June the deputy postmaster general found it necessary to communicate with the hon. member for Russell, acquainting him with the conditions and stating that it was necessary that something should be done. On July 3 the district superintendent made another full report to the postal service branch in regard to the conditions at Billings Bridge post office, reiterating what had previously been said as to the unsatisfactory conditions at that office, and yet nothing was done. But they were still open to receive applications, because I find in the file another application dated August 29 from a man named Edward Sutherland, a returned soldier. This application was received by the district superintendent and sent on to the postal service branch on September 4, but still no action was taken. I also find in the file a memorandum dated October 18 signed by Mr. Coolican, and why this was not sent to the Civil Service Commission I do not know. I will put it on record:
Memorandum for the Deputy Postmaster General
Re Billings Bridge Electoral district, Russell.
Revenue, $2,600.
The deputy postmaster general is informed that the Billings Bridge post office is vacant since December, 1927. The office is in the temporary charge of Mr. David Campbell.
The vacancy was advertised from the 18th to the 27th March last and applications were received from the following (order of merit): Joseph L. Brule, resident civilian.
D. T. Campbell, resident civilian.
John Sinclair, resident civilian.
C.	W. Cummings, non-resident civilian.
Applications were later received from the following:
Applicant-Date of Application
W. T. Phillips, O.A.S., 2nd April, 1928.
J. H. Lemoine, resident civilian, 18th April, 1928.
Ed. Sutherland, resident returned soldier, 29th August, 1928.
I would ask hon. gentlemen to note the next clause:
It will be noted from the above that Mr. Hector Doresa mentioned is not an applicant to that office, at least in so far as the department or the district superintendent's office are aware.
The application of Hector Doresa, the man who got the appointment, had been before Mr. Coolican, the assistant deputy postmaster general, and yet he states innocently or otherwise that his application was not before him. The memorandum proceeds.
As regards the applicants who submitted their applications before the closing date of the competition-27th March-it may be stated that-

(1)	Mr. Brule is still an American citizen.
(2)	Mr. D. T. Campbell, the acting postmaster. has not proved very satisfactory sine* he took charge of the office.
(3)	Mr. John Sinclair is stated by the district superintendent not to have the necessary qualifications, whereas-
(4)	Mr. Cummings is a non-resident.
In his report covering Mr. Phillip's application the district superintendent stated that he should be placed second in the list.


Peter John Veniot: What is the date of that?


Alexander James Anderson: October 18, 1928. It is rather interesting to note that in this same file I find an application signed by H. Doresa, dated August 3, 1929-it must mean 1928-on a form supplied by the Civil Service Commission, which is properly filled up. Hon. gentlemen will notice that Mr. Coolican's letter is dated October 18, and he says in that letter that no application was received from Mr. Doresa. It would be interesting to know where that application had been all that time.


Peter John Veniot: May I call the attention of the hon. gentleman, in order to have the record correct, that the applications at that date went to the Civil Service Commission, they never came to my department at all.


Alexander James Anderson: How did this application go direct to them?


Peter John Veniot: That was very often the case. Why attempt to make an argument out of it?


Alexander James Anderson: Let us follow this a little further. That application was accompanied by a petition and a report by D. F. Rowe, superintendent of employment. According to the poster notice applications were to be sent to the district superintendent. There is nothing here to show it came from the commission. I do not wish to say that the minister's statement is not correct, but there is nothing in the file to show that.


Peter John Veniot: There is no need to explain it.


Alexander James Anderson: Then in October why did not the department, following the report to the Civil Service Commission, have the position further advertised? This was not done until some time in December. It will be remembered that they advertised first in March, 1928, and then again in December. But in the meantime the man who apparently they wanted to appoint, Mr. Doresa, had filed another application, that is, he had filed it while the advertising was going on. Then the matter was taken into

Supply-Post Office
consideration by the department and the report was made on February 12, 1929, and all the applications were sent forward, Hector Doresa, class A, standing at the top of the list. It is only fair to say of Mr. Doresa that he is a returned soldier, that he had been disabled and was in receipt of a 100 per cent pension, and that in every respect, apparently, he was well recommended. But I would point out that it was only after Doresa's application was received, all those months of delay having intervened, that the advertising was attended to. The Civil Service Commission acted on the recommendation and appointed Mr. Doresa.
It may be interesting also to note that from December, 1927, until March, 1929, the Civil Service Commission had written eleven times asking for a report in regard to this man. The letters are dated April 27, May 22, June 21, July 10, August 1-this was the first occasion on which the Assistant Deputy Postmaster General replied and said they were not yet ready to send on the report. Then there were other requests by the commission on October 4, October 30-and again the Assistant Deputy Postmaster General, by letter dated November 22, 1928, stated that they were not yet in a position to send on the report. Yet he had the report in his possession covering the four men who had applied before March 27, 1928. He had a report in regard to Mr. Phillips and in regard to Campbell. I may say that Campbell's application was accompanied by a petition signed by 218 persons served by the post office. I do not contend that Campbell as a matter of fact was entitled to the position in view of the investigation, but I say the delay was inexcusable, and it seems to me its purpose was to prevent the Civil Service Commission from functioning. Then we find the Civil Service Commission writing again on December 18, 1928, and on January 19, 1929. All applications were in at that time, yet the commission's letters were not answered. Finally on February 20, 1929, the commission sent a further request for the report and the Deputy Postmaster General sent it forward. That is the report to which I have referred.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the whole matter from beginning to end indicates that the applications that had been received were for some reason or other not suitable, but this is not disclosed in this file. The department were continually in communication with the member for the riding. He was informed of the course of events, and his advice or information was requested, and he invariably gave it. The delay in the first instance was wholly
due to a request by the member that the vacancy should not be advertised. When the department found that Campbell, who was a temporary employe, was not carrying on the office satisfactorily, and had in their hands at that time seven applications for the position, there was no excuse under the sun for withholding the report from the Civil Service Commission, and so enabling the commission to act. I submit that the action of the department savours very much of a desire on their part to act independently of the commission, and that the exercise of patronage was uppermost in the mind of the minister, who apparently was determined to act on the maxim " To the victor belong the spoils."


John Frederick Johnston: Shall the item carry?


Clarence Joseph Veniot: No, Mr. Chairman. I certainly would not consent to having it carried without replying to the hon. gentleman. If one were to believe the hon. member who has just taken his seat, one would conclude that in connection with the Billings Bridge vacancy nothing but politics was played. Now, as I have said before, there are two sides to every story. There are two sides to this case, but the hon. gentleman, although he has the full record before him, has presented only one side. The first advertisement for this vacancy was, as he stated, issued on March 27, 1927. In due time four applications were received. The inspector reported on those applications. If the hon. gentleman had read that report he would have seen why the applications were not forwarded to the Civil Service Commission. The applicants were (1) Joseph L. Brule, resident civilian, an American citizen- no need of sending bis application to the Civil Service Commission; he could not be considered under the act; (2) D. T. Campbell, resident civilian, acting postmaster, according to the qualifying officer proved unsatisfactory;
(3)	John Sinclair, resident civilian, eliminated under qualifications by investigating officer, as he was not capable of filling the position;
(4)	C. W. Cummings, non-resident civilian, and his application could not be considered under the act because he .must be a resident of the district. Everyone of the four is eliminated except D. T. Campbell, who had some post office experience, and was then acting postmaster. Under those conditions it was seen immediately that it was no use sending this report to the Civil Service Commission, and that it would be better to readvertise the vacancy. And one reason why that position was taken was that from the second day of April on-and especially on
Supply-Post Office

the 2nd day of April-the department received applications. The department received an application from W. T. Phillips. This application could not be considered because it had been received after the date fixed for the receipt of applications under the first advertisement. But having gone over the reports, and seeing that it might be necessarj' to advertise again, we held W. T. Phillips's application on file; and immediately, within a very short time after that-and Phillips is a returned soldier-there eame in another application from Edward Sutherland, a returned soldier, on August 29. That was followed by applications from other returned soldiers. The Doresa application was not received through the department, and according to the wording of the report which the hon. member read to the house on the blank form on which it was set out, it must have gone to the Civil Service Commission, who would send the application to the postal district superintendent, who in turn when the proper time came, when the second advertisement would be published, would send it in to the department, so that the inspecting officer qualified under the act might examine this applicant. That was the procedure, and all along, while it appears that there has been a good deal of delay between the first advertisement and the second, it was not due to anything political because, if it was, Campbell, so far as I know, was the man who could play the political game or call upon the Liberal party to assist him in getting this position. But Campbell was not considered at all. After that report he was eliminated; and when finally we decided, I think in December, to advertise a second time, we received a number of applications, Hector Doresa's application being in in the meantime. He was a returned soldier, a disability case.
Let me pause here to direct the attention of the committee to a very vicious personal attack made upon the Postmaster General in the London Free Press because the Postmaster General was not giving any opportunity to Doresa to be an applicant. I am blamed by the Tory press for not giving him an opportunity, and I am blamed by Tory members for having given him one, because it was politics to do so. That is the position, and I know the house will excuse the expression if I say, "You are damned if you do and you are damned if you don't." That is what happened in this case. Doresa finally got it, and the Tory press was asking for him to get it. But he did not get it from me but through the commission. This went along, and the second advertising took 
place. Doresa, a returned soldier and a disability case, was an applicant. William T. Phillips, a resident returned soldier, was an applicant. And other applicants were:
Mrs. K. Campbell, resident civilian.
Edward Sutherland, resident returned soldier.
Mrs. V. E. Dowler, resident civilian.
Jos. Henri Lemoine, resident civilian.
Jas. Henry McCullough, resident returned soldier.
John Sinclair, resident civilian.
Andrew Amos Brule, resident returned soldier.
There was the situation when the second advertisement was issued, and there are the applications we received. Upon the receipt of these applications there was no delay. There were five returned soldiers, and just as soon as it was possible to do so the report of the qualifying officer was forwarded to the Civil Service Commission. On March 16, last the commission issued a certificate in favour of Doresa and that certificate was approved of by the department over which I have the honour to preside.
Now there are the facts. The hon. member states that Doresa got the job because I wanted to play politics. I may say for the benefit of all that I got about the heaviest going over that a man ever got for the appointment of Doresa-although I was not responsible for it-from political friends who desired someone else to get the position and whose wishes were not complied with. I got a trouncing for it, and I get the same lashing to-night because this disabled returned soldier got the position.
That is the case as it stands, and I hope the house will understand that in this matter at least there was not the shadow of playing politics. No matter what I may have done in other cases, this is a case in which I can in all conscience say that there was absolutely no shadow of politics in it. I did not know a single applicant; I did not know their politics until, the appointment having been made, political friends came to me and opposed the action which, as they thought, I had taken in appointing Doresa.


Robert James Manion: How did my hon. friend
happen to make a mistake in this case?


Clarence Joseph Veniot: Just like all good fellows,
one is apt to make a mistake occasionally.
I know some you made when you were Postmaster General.


Robert James Manion: And the hon. gentleman
is inventing mistakes I did not make.


Peter John Veniot: If I make a mistake I
am honest enough to admit it, but I am afraid my hon. friend will not consent to the admission on his part.

Supply-Post Office


Robert James Manion: I certainly will not admit any mistakes that the minister says I made.


Peter John Veniot: I never knew a Tory yet
who would admit that he had made a mistake. Now, that is my explanation in connection with this matter. Before going further, Mr. Chairman, I may say that some files were said to be missing in connection with the Sutton post office. I wish now to complete that file and lay the information on the table.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It would seem as though hon. gentlemen opposite had decided not to allow the Postmaster General to make much progress with his estimates, at least this week. I see in the votes and proceedings among the notices -of motion, a motion in the name of the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart):
That the debate on the amendment of Mr. Stewart (Leeds), to the motion that Mr. Speaker leave the chair for the house to go again into committee of supply, be revived.
As hon. members well know, the rales of the house provide that a motion which is taken up on Wednesday on going into supply drops if that motion is not disposed of at the end of that day. When the house made that rule I think it was intended that in the event of a motion being so dropped it should not be revived. However, I have no doubt that in the present instance hon. members opposite would assume that the government had some special reason for not wishing to revive this particular motion on Monday next if it were strictly to follow the rules. And if the Postmaster General desires, as I believe he does, to have the motion revived so that it may be disposed of by vote of the house, the government will support him in that regard. I think it should be understood hereafter, however, that when an amendment is made on going into supply on Wednesday and is not disposed of, but is dropped according to the rules, the government should not be expected to permit that motion to be revived at a subsequent time.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Prime Minister will
pardon me for interrupting him, but I think on a previous occasion last year or the year before we had a similar experience and the motion was allowed to be revived, not by the government but by the interpretation of the rules by the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think it was
done by consent.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We could not consent to the government interpreting the rules for us.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps my
hon. friend will admit that the rules speak for themselves, and a rule which provides that a motion' shall be dropped if not disposed of by a certain time is intended to prevent that particular motion being revived on a subsequent occasion. At any rate, such is the view of the government with regard to this particular matter. I am mentioning this only that hon. gentlemen opposite may know hereafter that if they decide to introduce an amendment on a Wednesday to a motion for the house to go into supply, either that amendment must be disposed of on that day or it will be considered as dropped.
Mr. MoGIBBON:	Surely the Prime Minister is not going to override parliament.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not at all; I am just stating a rule of the house, and that the government intends to stand by the rules.


Peter McGibbon: As interpreted by the
Prime Minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am giving
the view taken by the government on this particular rule of the house and the interpretation which will be given the house in debating the rules. I have been given to understand, possibly without foundation, that until this particular motion of the hon. member for Leeds is disposed of, hon. gentlemen opposite do not intend, if they are able so to do, to permit the passage of any of the estimates of the Postmaster General, and in the circumstances I think we are simply consuming the time of parliament to little or no advantage in continuing further at this time with these estimates. Therefore I would suggest to the Postmaster General that at this stage he move that the committee rise and report progress, that we may proceed with some of the non-contentious legislation on the order paper and make a little progress. We would then propose that some of the railway measures be taken up and advanced a stage before the week is ended.


Hugh Guthrie: I have no objection to
the committee taking up something else if it meets the convenience of my right hon. friend, but I must not be understood as assenting to his proposition that under the rules the present motion will lapse. It would be very nice for him if it did lapse, but that was not the case last session under similar cir-
Supply-Post Office

cumstances. This is my point: The motion can be moved again as a new motion if it is not disposed of. I agree that anything which has been disposed of by the house cannot be renewed during the same session, but in a conversation which I had with Mr. Speaker last session, I am not sure whether it was in the house or privately, he told me the motion could be moved again on the appropriate day.
There is no necessity for moving the motion a second time or for moving a similar motion on another question such as the Picton post office, for example, which is a very similar case. I think the motion had better be proceeded with on Tuesday. I do not agree with the interpretation given the rule by the Prime Minister, but at the 'same time, if all parties are willing, there is no use discussing it further at present. Let the matter proceed on Tuesday, and in the meantime let us go into the railway bills.


Peter John Veniot: No matter what the interpretation of the rule may be I am anxious to have the Simcoe matter fully debated. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report progress.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Before the motion is put I would like to ask the minister to look up the file he was kind enough to produce today in connection with the St. David's post office. Several letters are missing from that file; certain letters are referred to in communications which are on the file, and those letters so referred to are not included. They cannot be private in any sense, because they are from officials of the department.


Peter John Veniot: Certainly they will be produced.


James Dew Chaplin: I want to have them in
order to see what part the department took in this business.
Mr. MeQUARRIE:	Before the motion is
put I want to take exception to the statement of the Prime Minister that if we continue this evening we will be wasting time. The Postmaster General made a statement to-day with regard to the appointment of a stenographer-


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think the
motion is debatable, Mr. Chairman.


John Frederick Johnston: The motion is not
debatable.
Mr. MeQUARRIE: -at the New Westminster post office. I want an opportunity to reply to that statement.
Progress reported.
[Mr Guthrie.]



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS BRANCH LINES

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals):	The last time we
were in committee on these bills it was agreed that we might go into committee on all the bills, which are identical except for the schedules.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Are these all going to
the committee?


Charles Avery Dunning: They are all back from the committee.



MURRAY HARBOUR-GEORGETOWN

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from April 12, consideration in committee of Bill No. 43, respecting the construction of a Canadian National line from a point on the Murray Harbour branch to a point on the Georgetown subdivision of the Canadian government railways in the province of Prince Edward Island. -Hon. Mr. Dunning-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Charles Avery Dunning: This bill was discussed
the other night and I do not think I have anything to add to what I then said.


Mr. MACDONALD (Kings):: I do not
want to appear unduly critical in this matter, but in all sincerity I want to offer some suggestions which I believe are better than those presented by the minister. 1 am inclined to agree with the remark he made the other evening that it would have been better to discuss this question in the railway committee, but the minister will remember that this was the first- bill to come up when the committee first met and while I was there I had not had an opportunity to consider it at the time.
The minister made another remark cn Friday evening with which I wish to disagree; he stated that he did not care to take the opinions either of myself or of the hon. members for Queens.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is hardly fair; I said I would not care to take those opinions with respect to technical matters of railway construction and so on.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: The minister remarked that he would prefer to take the technical advice of his , own officials.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, the advice of the
railway officials.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: That is quite right, and I agree with that statement to a certain point, but familiarity with these eon-

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
ditions should lead to the application of common sense, and I think those who live along the proposed extension are well able to give good advice to the minister or the head of the railways and of course the technical officers of the railway should be responsible for carrying out the work.
The Murray Harbour railway is about forty-eight miles in length; there is a point about twenty-three miles out on the road, or practically in the centre, from which a six-mile section could be built. I refer to the proposal to make a connection from a point at or near Uigg station to Montague. To my mind, this would give the best connection possible and would mean the building of about four miles less railway. As far as the freight haul is concerned there would be a considerable saving in operation because Georgetown is equipped with terminal facilities which were put in by the government a oouple of years ago and which are specially equipped to handle the principal commodity from that point-potatoes. From Murray Harbour, the distance via Uigg and Montague is about forty-two miles, while the distance via Peake Station would be about fifty-five miles, and when you consider the route proposed in this bill you will find the mileage of the connection is increased' to sixty-five miles. There would be a little advantage gained on the Charlottetown end oif the line via the proposed route which would apply to shipments via the car ferry, but there would be a shorter operating mileage on the Georgetown end. The proposed route would mean a mileage of twelve miles on the old line and ten miles on the new in order to connect with the main line, or twenty-two miles in all, while the Hermitage and Peake Station route would mean fifteen miles by the old line and only six by the new, or only twenty-one miles in all on shipments from the Charlottetown end.
There is another matter about which I presume the minister knows something, namely, the agitation which has been carried on for the past twenty years by certain residents of the island in the vicinity of Fort Augustus and Johnston's River, who are asking for a railway connection which I think would be better than the proposed line. There would be this added advantage which should appeal to the Canadian National officials; it would go through the territory of Johnston's River and Fort Augustus and the railway would pick up from 250 to 300 additional carloads of freight in the course of a year. The people are situated too far from the railway and they are using the river for transportation purposes. A little steamer calls once a week, but that service is very inconvenient, and they are forced to use motor boats, schooners, and every form of water transportation. Building an addition five miles to connect Mount Herbert or Mount Albion Station with Pisquid would give a better connection with the main line and pick up this additional business.
Then there is another very important question to be considered, which would eliminate all other proposals, namely, the immediate rebuilding of the bridge. There is no doubt that the bridge will have to be rebuilt sometime, and the government is proposing to spend $370,000 on this branch line and will probably spend $400,000 by the time they complete the "Y" at Southport. The cost of the bridge is estimated at $760,000, and I think it would be good policy on the part of the government to consider immediately this bridge proposition and make a complete job of the whole matter.
That is all I have to say with regard to the matter. I am making this appeal in all sincerity and I feel that any one of the suggestions I have offered would be better than the one which is being adopted by the railway.


Charles Avery Dunning: Did the hon. member make to the railway authorities the suggestions he is now making? As he knows, they have been investigating this matter for some time past and I a:m surprised that the hon. member, with the knowledge of the locality he has displayed, did not in the railway committee ask these questions regarding the economics of that particular proposal, when the men responsible for making the decision were present. I may say that no one else has anything to do with it; the railway officials undoubtedly heard the views of the people in the locality, and I know enough of the people of Prince Edward Island to appreciate the keen interest they take in all matters affecting their welfare, particularly with regard to the island railways. Personally, I am in no position to tel! the hon. member that a line a .mile this way or a mile that way would or would not be the best line. Under the system we have of operating the Canadian National Railway system, all matters of that kind are determined by those responsible for managing the property. They come to me to try to convince me that, economically the proposal is a sound one, but the people in the district make rheir representations to the railway officials who are immediately concerned with planning the road. I do not pretend to be able to debate with the hon. member the question whether one or
C.N.R.-Branch Lines

another line would be right or wrong, but I submit that the hon. member had1 his opportunity when the railway officials were before the committee. He was present at the meetings of the committee and it seems strange that he did not take that opportunity of crossexamining those who were immediately and in the first instance responsible.
Does the hon. member suggest that this bill should stand until we have the opportunity of obtaining the views of the rai'lwa5r officials upon the suggestions he makes? I 'aim not disposed to press the matter against his serious objection, but the -railway officials have advised me that the proposals they are making for the solution of this problem met with the general approval of the people affected. It is quite true that people desire a railroad to be as close as .possible to their own -particular piece of property, that those who are a little distance away would -like to have the road a little doser. As they have said in the west. "I do not want it on my farm, but I would like it to be on the farm next to me." These problems always arise in connection with the location of railway lines. I always take the attitude that the railway officials who are responsible for looking into the economics of these matters have listened to all local representations. '
If the hon. member cares to suggest that this bill be held up, I am not disposed to press it unduly.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: I would net like to take the responsibility of holding up the bill. As I explained before, the very first intimation we had in regard to this matter was when the bill was placed in our hands in the railway committee room. The minister knows it was the first bill presented the firs! morning the committee met.


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. member is
wrong, because each of these bills was preceded iby a financial resolution and was on the order paper for some days before it was moved.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: That may
be so, but I was not here the first ten days of the session, and I may have missed it on that account. T-hat was the first knowledge I had of any kind with regard to it. I think the minister will admit it would be practically impossible for me to discuss it intelligently at first glance. I am sorry I was not in a better position to take it up at the time. I do not feel like going so far as to ask the minister to hold up the bill- unless he thinks my representations give him sufficient reason for doing so.

While we are on the question, there is only one other matter I should like to ask the minister about. It -has been suggested that, regardless -of tihe additional haul, there will be no increase in freight rates. Is that official?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Mr. JENKINS:: In regard to this bill I
may say that -a number bf sections of the country in this particular locality are desirous of having the route changed. My colleague (Mr. Sinclair) and I have had representations from different parts of the country along the line of t-hose suggested by the hon. member for Kings; that is to say, not only from the district wbich has evidently been selected by the authorities, namely, Lake Verde to Pisquid, but also from Kinross to Montague, from Hermitage to Peake's; and from Mount Albion, Hazelbrook and Mount Herbert to one point on the eastern line. We have made all these representations to the department and I presume they were thoroughly gone into by the officials. We presented all these different matters as they came in. All the representations made to us were fully discussed with the department, and this is the result as brought in by the railway authorities. As the minister has clearly pointed out, we do not select the portions of the country through which the railways are to run. That is done by Sir Henry Thornton and his board of directors, on the advice, I presume, of their engineers. I am sorry we cannot oblige all the people who are asking for these different routes, but the case is out of our hands, and entirely in the hands of the railway authorities. I -just want to make it clear that representations have already been made to the proper authorities in every one of these particular cases.


John Frederick Johnston: All sections of this bill were carried the last time it was before t-he committee.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



STJNNYBRAE-GXIYSBOROTJGH

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from April 12, consideration in committee of Bill No. 44, respecting the construction of a Canadian National railway line from Sunnybrae to Guysborough in the province of Nova Scotia. -Mr. Dunning-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Bill reported, read the third time and
passed.

C.N.R.-Branch Lines

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from April 12, consideration in committee of Bill No. 45, respecting the construction of a Canadian National railway line from a point on the Dundas subdivision near Brantford to a point on the Dunnville subdivision near Cainsville in the province of Ontario.-Mr. Dunning- Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Mr. RYERSON:: When this bill first came before the house there was very little information available in reference to the plans of the Canadian National Railways, who are asking for this line. This is for a cut-iff around the northern part of the city of Brantford, just a little outside the city limits. The municipalities interested, namely, the county of Brant, the city of Brantford and the township of Brantford, had no information whatever in reference to this road. When the matter was brought to the attention of the railway company, they arranged that their engineers should go to Brantford and take the matter up with the municipalities. This was done and at that conference satisfactory arrangements were made or the plans were disclosed in such a manner as to satisfy those resident in the county. They were deeply concerned at first because the original plans showed the crossing of a number of highways in and out of the city of Brantford, and they were interested in knowing whether they were grade or separated-grad'e crossings. Assurances were given to the county residents in reference to this. The city of Brantford was concerned with an old agreement made with the Grand Trunk Railway Company whereby all passenger trains on this division would go through and stop at Brantford. The matter was brought to the attention of the railway officials, and a conference was arranged in the city of Ottawa between representatives of the city of Brantford, the city council headed by Mayor Beckett, and officials of the Canadian National Railways. At that meeting satisfactory assurances were given that the intention of the railway company was to facilitate the handling of through freight, and that no passenger service would be interfered with. In view of these conferences there is now no opposition to the bill from my constituency, that of Brantford city.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is none from anybody.


Robert Edwy Ryerson: I am therefore supporting the bill.


Charles Avery Dunning: This is one of the
unanimous proposals.
Bill reported, read the third time and
passed.
CARSON-FALCONBRIDGE MINE	[DOT]
The house resumed, from April 12, consideration in committee of Bill No. 46, respecting the construction of a Canadian National railway line from a point on the Garson branch to the Falcon'bridge mine in the province of Ontario-<Mr. Dunning-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



SUDBURY-FAIRBAN K

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from April 12, consideration in committee of Bill No. 47, respecting the construction of a Canadian National railway line from a point on the Sudbury branch to a point in the township of Fairbank in the province of Ontario-Mr. Dunning- Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from April 12, consideration in committee of Bill No. 48, respecting the construction of a Canadian National railway line from a point near Melfort to a point near Aberdeen in the province of Saskatchewan-Mr. Dunning-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from April 12, consideration in committee of Bill No. 49, respecting the construction of a Canadian National railway line from a point near Central Butte or Mawer to a point in township 18 or 19, range 10 or 11, west of the third meridian in the province of Saskatchewan-Mr. Dunning- Mr. Johnston in the chair.
John Frederick Johnston: The title of this bill
was changed in the railway committee to read "An Act respecting the construction of a Canadian National railway line from a point near Central Butte or Mawer to a point in township 18 or 19, range 10, 11 or 12, west of the third meridian in the province of Saskatchewan".


Mr. BOTHWELL:: The schedule is also
amended, is it not?

i766
C.N.R.-Branch Lines


John Frederick Johnston: It is amended to
correspond with the title, by inserting " eleven or twelve " after ten " in the second line thereof.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



NEIDPATH-SWIFT CURRENT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from April 12, consideration in committee of Bill No. 50, respecting the construction of a Canadian National railway line from Neidpath to a point on the Canadian Pacific railway near Swift Current, in the province of	Saskatchewan-Mr. Dunning-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from April 12, consideration in committee of Bill No. 51, respecting the construction of a Canadian National railway line from Ridgedale, in the province of Saskatchewan, thirty miles toward The Pas, in the province of Manitoba-Mr. Dunning-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from April 12, consideration in committee of Bill No. 52, respecting the construction of a Canadian National railway line from a point near Unity to a point near the provincial boundary in township 36 or 37, in the province of Saskatchewan-Mr. Dunning-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from April 12, consideration in committee of Bill No. 53, respecting the construction of a Canadian National railway line from a point near Hamlin to a point near Gtenbush, Medstead or Rdbin Hood, in the province of Saskatchewan -Mr. Dunning-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from April 12, consideration in committee of Bill No. 56, respecting the construction of a Canadian

National railway line from a point at or near Bulwark to a point in township 38 or 39, range 8, west of the fourth meridian, in the province of Alberta-Mr.	Dunning-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Bill reported, read the third time and
passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from April 12, consideration in committee of Bill No. 57, respecting the construction of a Canadian National railway line from Hemaruka to Scapa, in the province of	Alberta.-Mr.	Dunning-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Bill reported, read the third) time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from April 12, consideration in committee of Bill No. 58, respecting the construction of a Canadian National railway line from a point near Swift Creek to a point near Tete Jaume, in the province of British Columbia.-Mr. Dunning-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The .house resumed, from April 12, consideration in committee of Bill No. 59, respecting the construction of a Canadian National railway line from New Westminster to a point on Lulu Island; in the province of British Columbia, with branches therefrom.-Mr. Dunning-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from April 12, consideration in committee of Bill No. 54, respecting the construction of a Canadian National railway line from St. Walburg, in the province of Saskatchewan, to Bonnyviiie, in the province of Alberta.-Mr. Dunning- Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Sections 1 to 9 inclusive agreed to.
John Frederick Johnston: A new section 10 has
been added, reading as follows:
10. The provisions of section 14 of chapter 11 of the statutes of 1928, relating to the making, with the approval of the governor in council, of agreements between the companies therein mentioned (oomjprised in the Canadian

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
National railways and others) for amalgamation, purchase, sale or leasing of the undertakings of the companies so mentioned, or parts thereof, shall also apply-
(a)	to the making of half-interest agreements, or agreements giving joint and equal rights to other companies;
(b)	to the making of running rights agreements of any description, whether for a fixed period or in perpetuity;
(c)	to the making of any such agreements (except for amalgamation) between any of the companies mentioned and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On the schedule.
Hugh Guthrie: What is the note to this schedule? Are we legislating in respect to the schedule, or is this note merely for guidance? It is something entirely new. Is this a proper way to pass an act of parliament, with a note on the bottom of it saying that an agreement has been entered into with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company? Should not that be struck out?


Charles Avery Dunning: The note is there only to express the conditions under which there would be a reduction in the amount of money to be voted and mentioned in the schedule.


Hugh Guthrie: That should not be a
part of an act of parliament.


Charles Avery Dunning: The note was intended as a qualification to the schedule, restricting the amount which would be received by the company under the authority of this act provided the agreement referred to in the note to the schedule was carried into effect.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That should be covered in a section of the act.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, I think so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Better let that stand.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am in the hands of my draftsman, of course, but I am inclined to agree that it had better be redrafted. The law officers have advised me that those words are a part of the schedule, that they qualify the rest of the schedule. Perhaps my hon. friend would give a little attention to that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is doubtful whether a note made by a draftsman to the schedule of a bill could be considered operative as part of the statute law. I think it would be much better to cover it in a section that would express, in terms somewhat similar to those of this note, the meaning which the minister has in mind, or say, as my hon. friend from South Wellington suggests, subject to an agreement that may be entered into.


Charles Avery Dunning: If it is part of the schedule it is bona fide a part of the act, because the schedule is by the terms of the bill itself made a part of the act. However, I will let bills containing that particular feature in the schedule stand because I am anxious to have the matter absolutely right from a legal point of view.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The schedule could not be considered to comprise what is actually only an explanatory note thereto. The word " schedule " is not properly used with respect to that. If you said, " subject to an agreement," it would be different, but this is simply an explanatory note made by a draftsman. I would say that a new section should be drafted to carry out the purpose which the minister has in mind.


Charles Avery Dunning: The intent of the qualification is not to make the schedule subject to the agreement, but to provide that if the agreement is carried out, the amount of money to be voted will be that much less.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is subject to a condition that if the agreement is entered into, the vote will be that much less.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. I will let this bill stand and every other bill containing this particular feature in the schedule. I think there is only one other bill with that feature, and that is Bill No. 55, respecting the Youngstown or Dobson branch line.
Schedule stands.
Progress reported.



ALLIANCE-YOUNGSTOWN-DOBSON

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from April 12, consideration in committee of Bill No. 55, respecting the construction of a Canadian National railway line from Alliance to a point near Youngstown or Dobson in the province of Alberta-Mr. Dunning-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Charles Avery Dunning: I would ask that this bill be allowed to stand for the reason which I have just mentioned.
Progress reported.



RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 60, to amend the Railway Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Railway Act Amendment
Richard Bedford Bennett: Has this 'bill been to the railway committee?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, where it was the subject of thorough discussion during two sittings of the committee.
On section 1-Jurisdiction of board over tolls on international bridges, etc.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the minister think this parliament has power to deal with the tolls of international bridges except by convention?


Charles Avery Dunning: Of course, up to date every international bridge has been brought about by the incorporation of two companies, one American the other Canadian. The intention is to control the tolls, in so far as the jurisdiction of Canada extends, which in these cases is to the middle of the river. I presume that American legislation or some convention would have to be arranged with respect to the matter. It has not been difficult in actual operation, but my hon. friend will remember tihe discussion of a year ago as to the desirability of having one authority instead of the various authorities which now exist, and we thought it well to make that authority the Board of Railway Commissioners rather than the governor in council, as is the case in some of the acts dealing with international bridges. In this way we make the ordinary toll authority look after these tolls.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think we suggested that last session, and the minister was agreeable at the time and promised to look into it.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A case went to the privy council with respect to the tolls charged by the old Grand Trunk express company, and one of the matters that gave me some thought after we dealt with the subject last year was the extent to which we could legislate. All we could do, I suppose, would be to see that no person should pass off the bridge without paying a toll, regardless of whether he paid when he got on. Presumably the American authorities would deal with the other side of it.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Issue, sale or other dispositions of capital stock.
Charles Avery Dunning: Struck out.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is it intended that this measure should apply retroactively, so to speak? Because there are outstanding securities in connection with some of the tunnels based upon the tolls which are to be paid under agreement. Perhaps the minister will realize that the St. Clair tunnel was a separate company promoted by the old Grand Trunk, in which interest on the securities was provided for by a charge against the tolls payable by the Grand Trunk under contract with the tunnel company. Would it be intended that this legislation should in any sense affect that agreement? It might be important to consider it from that standpoint. I am speaking from memory, not having looked into the mutter for several years.


Charles Avery Dunning: Of course, while the
first section does give the board its general powers notwithstanding anything contained in any special act heretofore passed, with respect to any agreements which may exist by prior legislation the board would have authority naturally under its general powers to take into account any considerations of that kind in determining what were fair tolls. I admit the particular application in that special case.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I just happened to think of it.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. I am not sure of
the status of it at the moment, but it was considered when the officers were going into the matter, and we are assured that while the board has power, it is not necessary for it completely to ignore a situation such as the one outlined1 by my hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was thinking also of
the Michigan Central tunnel.
Mr.	DUNNING:	Yes.
Sections 3 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
On section 6-Leases and contracts.
Mr.	BENNETT:	Was	that amended in
committee?
Mr.	DUNNING:	No,	that	passed	the
committee.
Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The sections have been renumbered?


Charles Avery Dunning: They will be.
Bill	reported, read the	third	time	and
passed.

C.N.R.-Branch Lines



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in measures to provide:-
1.	That the time for completion of the Canadian National railway line between Grand Mere and East Burrills, in the province of Quebec (1927, c. 13), be extended from 31st August. 1930, to 31st August, 1931, with the same location and mileage, an increased estimate of average expenditure per mile from $213,038 to $294,430, and an increase in the estimated cost of from $1,683,000 to $2,326,000.
2.	That t'he time for the construction or completion of the Canadian National railway line between Pilkington and Niagara Junction, in the province of Ontario (1927, c. 14), be extended from the 31st August, 1930, to the 31st August, 1932, with a change of location to a point near Montrose Junction, at a decreased mileage of from 16-7 to 7-0, an increased average expenditure per mile of from $69,700 to $107,143, and at a decreased estimated cost of from $1,164,000 to $750,000.
3.	That the estimated mileage for the construction of a Canadian National railway line, being a joint section from Rosedale southeasterly in the province of Alberta (1924, c. 30), be decreased from 39 to 26 -19; the average expenditure per mile (one-half) be increased from $23,642 to $34,936; the estimated cost (one-half of total by company) to remain at $915,000, and the location changed to run from Rosedale to a point in section 4, township 26, range 16.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Charles Avery Dunning: This resolution has for
its object making necessary adjustments in connection with the last three year program of branch line construction for the Canadian National Railways. When the resolution is adopted three separate bills will be required to give effect to the terms of it. The first line affected is the line from Grand Mere and East Burrills which was provided for in the legislation of two years ago. It will be remembered that on one occasion there was some discussion as to the very heavy expense per mile involved in this proposal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was.


Charles Avery Dunning: And in the committee considerable inquiry was made of the officers responsible as to the reason for such heavy expense. In actual practice the work has cost even more than that provided for in the original act, I am advised that as the work was opened up, in the majority of the larger
cuttings a soft material was encountered at varying depths, from eight to eighteen feet, to ths bottom of the cuts, which in places were up to sixty feet in depth; and as the work progressed slides and slippings began to occur and continued to grow worse, in both the sloughing in of the cutting and slipping or sliding out of the embankments as the heavier parts of both the cuts and the embankments were reached. This condition has necessitated already the handling of much more material than originally figured upon, and before the work is complete it now appears that the quantities also required to be moved may be double the original figure in the estimate. The right of way had been estimated to cost $110,000 whereas $218,000 has been paid, and there remains considerable right of way yet to be settled for.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is only about six miles.


Charles Avery Dunning: A very short cut-off.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a terrific cost for right of way.


Charles Avery Dunning: I may tell my hon. friend that I intend to ask that this bill be referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines in order that all technical and detail questions may be answered by the officers themselves, which is of course a much more convenient place to go into details in a matter of this sort than in committee of the whole house. The extra amount involved in this ease is $643,000 over the amount provided for in the existing legislation.


George Reginald Geary: Seven miles.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. The second item in the resolution relates to the Pilkington-Nia-gara Junction proposal of two years ago. Before this act was asked for, one of the proposals, to answer the same purpose, was to build a line from Pilkington to Montrose Junction, there join the Michigan Central railroad and obtain running rights over their line to Niagara Junction near Bridgeburg. This is the same as the present proposal by the requested amendment. At that time negotiations with the Michigan Central made it appear there was no hope of their assenting to such an arrangement.
The Pilkington-Niagara Junction line would make two crossings of the Michigan Central, the original proposals for which were protected diamonds; this, however, was objected to by the Michigan Central. An estimate was then made for grade separations of these tracks, which indicated an increased cost over the total amount voted of about one million
C .N .R .-Branch Lines

dollars. This led to further studies and interviews. The present position is that arrangements have been made with the Michigan Central that will give the Canadian National Railways joint and equal running rights over their line Montrose Junction to Niagara Junction, the terms for which are to be worked out. In order to make use of these running rights, the Canadian National would build from near Pilkington to Montrose Junction, and to effect this the present amendment of the act is being asked for, which changes the terminating point to Montrose Junction, decreases the length of the line to build about ten miles, reduces the amount voted by $414,000, and extends the time to complete by two years. This new proposal gives a route a fraction of a mile shorter and accomplishes all the purposes of the other. It requires less capital outlay, would give an opportunity to put the outskirts of Niagara Falls on this route for passenger business, and would share in the handling of the products of industries established, and that would be established, on the line Montrose to Bridge-burg. In this case there is a reduction of $414,000 in the amount asked for.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And an increase in the
mileage cost.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. Thit is another
point which should be gone into in detail before the railway committee when the law officers are there. It is a slightly different road and slightly heavier work.


George Reginald Geary: An increase in mileage.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is a fraction of a mile shorter. The third proposal has reference to Rosedale southeasterly, a line in the province of Alberta. It will be remembered that the authority given in this case was for a joint undertaking of the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railways in order to obviate duplication of track down the Red Deer valley from Rosedale.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is practically completed now.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. The original intention for the joint section was for 39 miles, Rosedale to Bullpound creek. At that time the Canadian Pacific Railway intended to build easterly from near Builpound Creek as also was the intention of the Canadian National Railways, the former taking a more southerly route than the Canadian National going easterly. Since the act was passed, the Canadian Pacific Railway decided to build southerly and join their Empress-Bassano line 
at Rosemary. This necessitated their staying in the bottom of the Red Deer river valley for the last twelve miles of the original proposed joint section in order to be able to cross the river to the south, and not start to climb out of it on an easy gradient which was the first proposal and what will be the proposal of the Canadian National Railways line. This change now means that only 28.19 miles instead of 39 miles will constitute the joint section. The Canadian Pacific undertook the construction of this line, the Canadian National undertaking to pay half the cost.
The amount provided in the act was half of the Canadian National's estimate of the cost of the 39 miles. Under the conditions of the act the shortening of the line reduces the amount to be expended, and that now proves less than sufficient to pay half the cost expended, by the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Less than half the amount expended by the Canadian Pacific Railway, you mean.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, that is right. The amendment asks to shorten the mileage to 28.19 miles, to provide the same amount of money but to increase the estimated expenditure per mile from $23,462 to $34,936. As I said at the outset, after these bills are introduced and read the first and second times I intend to ask that they be referred to the railway committee where aid questions of detail regarding them may be dealt with.
In regard to the general program authorized two years ago, I might say that while these three lines show an aggregate deficiency of $229,000 as compared with the original estimate, it is only fair to the management to point out that the twenty lines authorized under the 1924-27 program were completed for $2,340,000 less than the maximum amount authorized and within $44,000 of the minimum allowed under the various acts. Including the two lines in question it is anticipated that the 1927-30 program, covering fifteen lines, will be completed well within the amount allowed. In other words, of the thirty-five lines undertaken in the two programs to which I am referring only two have proved to overrun the estimated expenditure, and taking the thirty-five lines together it is estimated that they will be construced at a cost considerably iess than the aggregate amount originally authorized. These two lines which involve increases, therefore, are the only two out of the thirty-five lines in connection with which it is necessary for me to come back to parliament and ask

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
for more than, the original amount voted, with the qualification that taking all the thirty-five lines together they will be built for less than the aggregate amount voted by parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: While it is true that these resolutions, when reported, will result in the introduction of bills which may be considered by the standing committee on railways and canals, it does appear to me with respect to the Grand Mere line, about which we had considerable discussion two years ago, that it leaves open the question as to whether or not any such line in this country can secure traffic which will result in paying at least $115,000 per annum for interest on the money involved in the construction. It amounts to about $2,400,000 in round figures, and the net earnings of railways in Canada in the most successful sections heretofore have not been sufficient to assure a return upon that amount of money at 5 per cent. If my memory serves me aright the -mileage is between seven and nine.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am informed that it is 7.97 miles.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I wanted to be sure,
because there is nothing here to indicate the exact mileage and my memory was about eight miles. My hon. friend will see that this means practically $300,000 per mile. There is not a mile of track in Canada which cost $300,000 to build which ever has been able to produce traffic sufficient to pay interest on that amount.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is no question of the production of traffic involved.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then why is the line being built?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is entirely a matter of the controlling grade.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But there must be some
traffic in sight which will warrant this expenditure for a reduction of grade to that extent. The minister will recall that when the grade viaduct was built at Lethbridge it was a long time before the railway company which owned that property concluded that they could produce enough traffic to warrant the substitution of the viaduct for the long haul with heavy grades 'which was to be abandoned. In connection with this Grand Mere undertaking I have been always worried about spending $300,000 a mile; that is a tremedous sum of money and it means that someone must earn $15,000 a -mile, somewhere, in order to pay the fixed charges on that construction regardless of upkeep, wear and tear and everything else connected with the administration
of railways. It is a very heavy charge upon a railway, and as yet I have not been satisfied that the resultant advantages are quite apparent.	.
Then there is another question I desire to ask the minister:	Was this work done by
contract or was it done by the company?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am advised partly one
and partly the other.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then my hon. friend will perhaps recall the discussion we had with respect to right of way. If my memory serves me aright, this road is being cut out of the side of a hill, is it not?


Charles Avery Dunning: In part it is being cut
through a hill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And the result has been
that the lateral pressure has been so great that slides have occurred.


Charles Avery Dunning: It has pushed in at the
bottom.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The cost of the right of way seems to be enormous; it is hard to believe that a right of way in any part o-f Canada except in a town or city should cost nearly $300,000.


Charles Avery Dunning: Not that much.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister gave the
figure of $290,000, as I -caught it.


Charles Avery Dunning: We have paid $218,000
already, and some remains to be paid.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I believe it involves
about $294,000, an-d the line is less than eight miles in length. That means the payment of $35,000 a mile for the right of way, and assuming it is of standard width the minister will realize what that means.


Charles Avery Dunning: Of course it could not
possibly be standard width. For the sixty foot cut there would have to be a sufficient
right of way-


Richard Bedford Bennett: If there is a sixty foot
cut of course it would not be the standard width, but think what land could be acquired for $35,000 a mile in almost any part of Canada with the exception of cities and towns. These are questions which merely suggested themselves to me during the observations of the minister, because I know nothing of the matter beyond the explanation given a couple of years ago, and my memory is not very clear about that. However, it does occur to me that this matter raises questions of sufficient importance to warrant its being carefully looked into, because it means just that much

Branch Lines

less money available for construction in sections of Canada where profitable traffic may be expected. I think the minister will agree that $2,500,000 goes a very considerable distance in some parts of Canada in providing railways, and it is not difficult to provide traffic which will produce at least some return upon that amount of money. I find it very difficult to see just how that is to be done in this instance.


Charles Avery Dunning: From the point of view of the management this never was a traffic-producing proposal ; it was advanced entirely for the purpose of reducing operating costs in connection with the present volume of traffic between Garneau Junction and Montreal, and was designed to overcome the controlling grade on that section. As my hon. friend will appreciate, I did look with some concern on the proposal when it was first put before me two years ago; it semed a large amount of money for such a small mileage of railway, but I do not remember a proposal coming to me from the management of the Canadian National Railways at any time on which the operating department, from the point of view of operating economies, were more insistent than with regard to this proposal. I am sure they will be pleased to come before the railway committee and give the reasons for the faith which is in them with respect to this particular matter. I am glad my hon. friend mentioned the viaduct, because in every case where operating economics are given as the reason for an expensive proposal of this kind I ask the management to supply me with a complete analysis of the situation; I endeavour to have them show me, so far as my understanding will permit me to go in the matter, the reasons for the faith which is in them that as a result of spending this amount, money will be saved in spite of the large capital expenditure involved. When the original proposals passed the government and were subsequently passed by the house, I have no hesitation in saying that at that time I was convinced that the cost would 'be justified by the operating economics produced in such a congested traffic district and over such a high operating grade.
My hon. friend referred to the cost of the right of way, and I think that should be inquired into when the matter comes before the railway committee. A very large area of land will have to be acquired in order to accommodate sixty-foot cuts in the class of material to which I referred a few moments ago as existing at this point. The slope will have to extend a long distance back and it will 
involve the acquisition of a considerable amount of property. It will be quite within the competence of the committee to inquire, and in fact I will see to it that the officers of the railway come to that committee prepared to give full information, as to the point of view advanced by my hon. friend. In fairness to him I must say that it is a constructive point of view, and I believe we should look at these Canadian National proposals from that angle. I agree with him that this is hardly the place to get to the bottom of it, but it is the proper place to initiate inquiries of that character. I apprehend that- his inquiry is in no sense intended as a reflection upon those who are responsible, but is rather an inquiry as to a matter which involves the voting by this parliament of a large sum of money.


Eccles James Gott: What is the main and alluring feature in this matter?


Charles Avery Dunning: The main and alluring feature is the fact that we are hauling our trains from Garneau Junction to Montreal over a very high hill; our heaviest motive power can only haul less than half what the same motive power can haul upon a reasonable grade and by making this improvement we can double the amount of freight which can be hauled by one engine over the section. I cannot give my hon. friend the actual figures as to the saving, but that is a rough idea of the improvement which will be brought about. Of course, I might have answered that we are now into this thing so far that we shall have to finish it, but I do not urge that because it is a proper matter to be considered before the committee. I like the officers of the Canadian National Railways who are responsible for the spending of money-I am not speaking so much of the president as of the officers responsible for the operation and construction of the road

to feel that when they are spending money they are spending the money of the people of Canada and they must be prepared to come before a committee of the house and there state the reasons for the faith that is in them with respect to any such technical proposal. I think that is a sound principle and I am sure the officers and management of the Canadian National Railways welcome that attitude.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has nothing to do with politics.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not know in what county this is, but it sounds like a good Liberal county.

C.N.R.-Branch Lines


Richard Bedford Bennett: What about the purchase of the right of way?


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is touching a very sore spot so far as hon. members behind me are concerned, because I know that many of their constituents have complained of being robbed with respect to the purchase of the right of way.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is all the more
reason for suggesting that the observation of the minister is correct. As I apprehend the position of the house in connection with a matter of this kind, it is exactly the same as a board of directors to whom the general manager of a road makes a report that there should be a reduction in grade to enable the road effectively and efficiently to discharge its function, as a common carrier. In the first instance the representations are made to the management by the district and general engineers; thence they go to the minister, and the minister has to be satisfied. That is the reason I asked the minister why the past expectations had not been realized, and he has given an explanation as to the increased cost. Then the minister refers it to the House of Commons by way of a resolution in order that we, for the shareholders, may be satisfied that the judgment exercised is such as to warrant so large an, expenditure. As the minister has been good enough to say, the criticisms which we have offered are not criticisms of this particular proposal at this particular point, but they are based upon a desire to ascertain whether or not the expenditure is warranted at this time, having regard to the traffic which may originate at one end and be carried to the main line. The minister now says that the officials [DOT] of the company will be able to satisfy us upon that point.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is their responsibility
to satisfy us.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They have satisfied the
hon. minister.


Charles Avery Dunning: I did not have to be
satisfied with respect to this particular $643,000, because I saw no point in worrying very much about it. I have had a long experience with engineers; some of them say I am rather hard on them because I sometimes use the phrase, "What is your estimate? Let us double it and add twenty per cent," and then I start to provide for the expenditure. That is an exaggeration, of course, but it reflects credit on the Canadian National engineering organization when we consider that they have
succeeded in building thirty-five lines for less than the amount authorized. That is rather a new thing for engineers to do.


George Reginald Geary: The work is done largely by tender?


Charles Avery Dunning: By tender so far as the
grading i3 concerned; by the company's forces with respect to track laying, ballasting, and so on.


George Reginald Geary: By how much do you soften the grade by means of this particular construction?


Charles Avery Dunning: It cuts the existing gradient in half. I cannot give my hon. friend the exact proportion but that information will be before the railway committee.


George Reginald Geary: What is the governing grade on the existing line?


Charles Avery Dunning: One and one-quarter per
cent.


George Reginald Geary: Anything over one per cent
is considered a heavy grade, is it not?


Charles Avery Dunning: With respect to branch
line construction we endeavour to obtain a standard grade of five-tenths of one per cent.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Dunning thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 166, to amend an act respecting the construction of a Canadian National railway line between Grand-Mere and East Burrills, in the province of Quebec.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Hewitt Bostock: When shall this bill be
read a second time?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Stand.


Charles Avery Dunning: Might I suggest the
second reading?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The only point was that it is not printed. I was not interposing an objection.


Charles Avery Dunning: We might read these bills a second time by unanimous consent in order to send them, when printed, to the committee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Very well.


Hewitt Bostock: By leave of the house,
Mr. Dunning moves, seconded by Mr. Marcil, that this bill be now read a second time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.
C.N.R.-Branch Lines

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 167, to amend an act respecting the construction of a Canadian National railway line between Pilkington and Niagara junction in the province of Ontario.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times and referred to the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 168, to amend an act for the construction of a Canadian National railway line, being a joint section from Rosedale southeasterly in the province of Alberta.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times and referred to the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Monday, April 22, 1929