Mr. W. F. GARLAND (Carleton) moved:: That Bill No. 91 (letter K of the senate)
for the relief of Frances Gwendolyn Snow Lott be restored to the ordeT paper for second reading at the next sitting of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

William Foster Garland: . 1. Is it the intention of the government to increase the salaries of the lower grades of the civil service who did not receive the $120 flat increase in 1926?
2. If so, will provision for such increase be made during the present session?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Mr. Speaker,
I might mention to my hon. friend (Mr. Garland) that it is customary for the government to make known in the estimates, its intention with respect to civil sendee salaries
[Mr. Speaker.1
and that with reference to the question he has asked this is the course which will be followed.


VANCOUVER HARBOUR-NEW PIER
Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	What is the cost of dredging for the new pier in Vancouver harbour west of the Ballantyne ipeier, and what amount of material is to be moved?
2.	What amount of material wall be required to make the gravel fill for the said pier, and what is the cost: (a) total, and (b) per yard ?
3.	What company has the contract for said work, and when wras the contract let?
4.	Were tenders called for the said contract? If so, when were the said tenders received, what notice was given and how many firms tendered?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	The cost of dredging is included in the price per yard for placing gravel fill. 85,000 yards. See answer to No. 4.
2.	700.000 cu. yds,, of material will be required to make the gravel fill for the pier; (a) Total cost $168,000; (b) Cost per cu. yd., 24 cents in place.
3.	The contract was let to North Western Dredging Company, Limited, 28th December, 1928.
4.	Tenders were not called but the commissioners were offered an opportunity to obtain the necessary 700,000 cu. yds. of gravel fill required1 at a rate below competitive prices, the price for the fill to include the cost of dredging 85,000 cu. yds. of mud from the pier site before the gravel fill was placed. The commissioners represent that the cost of gravel fill for this new pier is 21 cents less per cu. yd. of fill in place than the cost of similar fill required in the construction of the Ballantyne pier.


CANADIAN NATIONAL STEAMSHIPS-PACIFIC SERVICE
Mr. PLUNKETT:: 1.	How many of the Canadian National Steamship Company's ships or vessels have been operating in the mercantile or passenger service on the Pacific ocean, out of British Columbia ports, during the years 1928 and 1929?
2.	What are the names of such steamships and their tonnage?
3.	What was the original cost of each vessel?
4.	Have any of these ships been sold during the years 1928 and 1929?
5.	If so, what was the name of and value
received for each vessel sold?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	Canadian National Steamship Company, 4 each year; Canadian Government Merchant Marine, Limited, 8 each year.

Questions
2.	Canadian National Steamships:
1928	1929
Prince Rupert, deadweight
tonnage	 1100	No	change
Prince George, deadweight
tonnage	 1100	No	change
Prince John, deadweight
tonnage	 882	No change
Prince Charles, deadweight
tonnage	 473	No	change
Canadian Government Merchant Marine, Limited:
1928 1929
Canadian Coaster, deadweight tonnage	 3750 3750
Canadian Farmer, deadweight tonnage	 3750	3750
Canadian Observer, deadweight
tonnage	
3750	3750Canadian Rover, deadweight tonnage	
3750	3750
Canadian Importer, deadweight
tonnage	 8100	8100
Canadian Miller, deadweight
tonnage	 8100	8100
Canadian Ranger, deadweight
tonnage	 8100
Canadian Winner, deadweight tonnage	 8100 


AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT-PART H-8
Mr. FRASER:: What are the details of the payment on Part H-8 Auditor General's report, 1927-8, bond insurance, $157.30; live storage minister's automobile, 12JI, $144?


Mr. FORKE:: (a) Bond insurance:	The sum of $157.30
was paid the Fidelity Insurance Company of Canada for bonds on the following officers of the department for the amount mentioned in each case, the rate for the insurance being 25 cents per $100 per annum.
Position-Location	Amount
Agent, Halifax	$ 2,000
Accountant, Halifax	 1,000
Assistant Agent, Halifax	 1,000
Clerk, Halifax	 1,000
Agent, St. John	 2,000
Accountant, St. John	 2,000
Clerk, St. John	  1,000
Agent, Quebec	 3,000
Clerk, Quebec	 2,000
Agent, Montreal	 3,000
Clerk, Montreal	 2,000
Accountant, Montreal	 2,000
Clerk,	Montreal	
2,000Agent,	Toronto	
2,000Asst. Agent, Toronto	
1,000Div. Commr. of Imm., Winnipeg	..	..	2,000Asst. Div. Commr., Winnipeg	
2,000Aet'g Accountant, Winnipeg	
2,000Clerk,	Winnipeg	
1,000Clerk,	Winnipeg	
2,000
Director of European Emigration,
London, Eng	 5,000
Asst. Supt., London, Eng	 5,000
Clerk,	London, Eng	
5,000Clerk,	London, Eng	
5,000Cashier, Ottawa	
1,000Clerk, Ottawa	
1,000Messenger, Ottawa	
1,000Div. Commr. of Imm., Vancouver..	..	1,000Accountant, Vancouver	
1,000Clerk (from Aug. 11, 1927), Vancouver.	3,000Total amount of bonds	$64,000
(b) Storage of minister's automobile, Ottawa Car Manufacturing Co. Limited.
Live storage
Date	Month	Amount
March 16, 1928-April	$12
April 17, 1928-May	 12
May 21, 1928-June	 12
July 26, 1928-July	 12
July 26, 1928-Aug	 12
Aug. 21,1928-Sept	 12
Aug. 21,1928-Oct	 12
Oct. 31, 1928-Nov	 12
Dec. 15, 1928-Dec	 12
Jan. 15, 1929-Jan	 12
Feb. 15, 1929-Feb	 12
March 15, 1929-March	 12
Total	1144


MUTTON AND LAMB MONTHLY EXPORTS, 1928-29
Mr. KENNEDY:: 1.	What are the monthly export figures from Canada in each of the months of the years 1928 and 1929 of (a) mutton; (b) lamb?
2.	To what countries were the exports made?
3.	What was the price per pound in each case of all such exports?
Kennedy.]


Mr. MALCOLM:: lb.

lb.

lb.

lb.

st. George's chapel wharf, p.e.i.


Mr. MACDONALD (Kings):: 1. What amount was expended on repairs to Chapel wharf at St. Georges, Prince Edward Island, during the year 1928?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1. 82,916.76.
2 and 3. Wages 81,241.25, as follows:-
W. A. McKinnon, foreman, at $3.50 per day.. John F. Morrison, carpenter at $3 per day.. James Farrell, asst, carpenter at $3 per day.. James A. E. McPhee, labourer, at $2.50 per
day	
Joseph McPhee, labourer, at S2.50 per day.. Marcel Campbell, labourer, at $2.50 per day.. Neil McCormac, labourer, at $8 per day.. .. Neil McCormac, team, at $4 per day	
John D. Johnston, labourer, at $3 per day .. William Farrell, labourer, at $2.50 per day .. William Farrell, team, at $3.50 per day .. ..
Harold Robertson, team, at $3.50 per day .. Harold Robertson, labourer, at $2.50 per day..
Daniel McDonald, labourer, at $2.50 per day. Dolphus Johnston, labourer, at $2.50 per day. Dolphus Johnston, team, at $3.50 per day ..
Joseph Christian, team re pile driver at $4
per day	
Alex Morrison, labourer, at $2.50 per day .. John Farrell, team re pile driver at $4 per
day	
John Farrell, labourer, at $2.50 per day .. ..
Donald McLean, team, at $4 per day	
Donald McLean, team, at $3.50 per day ..
Joseph Johnston, team, at $3.50 per day .. .. Solphus McPhee, labourer, at $2.50 per day..
Accounts: $1,675.51, as follows:-
Fennell & Chandler:
3,000 lbs. drift bolts, at $3.89	
4	kegs 7" wire nails, at $3.39	
Joseph A. Morrison:
2,500 ft. B. M. curbing, at $40 per M.. .,
McDonald-Rowe Woodworking Co. Ltd:
14,532 ft. B. M. 12" by 12", at $44 per M..
Joseph Christian:
Truckage, 2 loads, at $2.50	
5	cu. yds. stone, at $1	
2.	To whom was such amount paid and for what service?
3.	What are the names of all parties who supplied material or performed labour in connection with this work, the rate per day for labour, and the rate per unit for material, and what amounts were paid to each respectively?

$16	50
*	5	00

$14	50
8 00 17 50

$32	50

$40	00
24 50 15 00

APRIL 22, 1929	1779 Questions
James H. McDonald:		
5 pieces spruce lumber, at $3.. ..	.... $15 00	
Truckage, 2 loads, at $2.50		5 00	
5 cu. yds. stone, at $1		... 5 00	$25 00
Alex McDonald:		
5 pieces spruce lumber, at $3.. .	.... $15 00	
Truckage, 1 load, at $2.50		2 50	$17 50
		
Peter Morrison:		
48 pieces spruce timber, at $3.. .	. .. $144 00	
Truckage, 2 loads, at $2.50		.. 5 00	$149 00
Roderick Morrison:		
10 pieces spruce lumber at 93.. .	.... $30 00	
20 pieces spruce lumber, at 81.50.	.. 30 00	
30 pieces spruce lumber at $1.25.		 37 50	$97 50
J. L. McPherson:		
10 pieces spruce timber, at $3..		$30 00
Felix McDonald:		
7 pieces spruce timber, at $3.. .		$21 00
W. J. McKinnon:		
5 pieces spruce timber, at $3.. .	.... $15 00	
12 cu. yds. stone, at $1			 12 00	$27 00
Joseph Morrison:		
Truckage, 1 load, at $2.50			$2 50
Joseph McPhee:		
Truckage, 1 load, at $2.50			$2 50
Andrew McLean:		
Truckage, 2 loads, at $2.50.. ..		$5 00
Peter McPhee:		
Truckage, 1 load, at $2.50			$2 50
Donald McLean:		
Truckage, 1 load, at $2.50		$2 50	
10 pieces of lumber, at $3.. ..	30 00	$32 50
John Farrell:		
95 cu. vds. stone, at $1		$95 00	
Truckage, 2 loads, at $2.50.. ..	5 00	$100 00
Allie Campbell:		
Truckage, 2 loads, at $2.50.. ..	$5 00	
6 cu. yds. stone, at SI		6 00	$11 00
John McDonald:		
Truckage, 1 load, at $2.50.. ..		$2 50
Adolphus Johnston:		
Truckage, 2 loads, at $2.50.. ..		 $5 00	
9 cu. yds. stone, at $1			 9 00	$14 00
Joseph MeCormac:		
10 pieces spruce timber, at $3..		 $30 00	
Truckage, 5 loads, at $2.50.. ..		 12 50	$42 50
Harold Robertson:		
25 cu. yds. stone, at $1			$25 00
Questions

J. Fitzpatrick:
3,000 ft. plank, at S35 per M	 S105 00
Sawing	 2 00
Bruce Stewart & Co.:
Tools	
John F. Morrison:
6	pieces lumber, at $4 Alex Morrison:
9 pieces lumber, at $1.25	 $11 25
900 ft. B. M. curbing, at $4	 36 00


$107 00 S10 60 $24 00 $47 25 SCHOONER l'M ALONE
Mr. SENN:: Who are the registered owners of the schooner I'm Alone?


Mr. CARDIN:: Eugene Creaser Shipping Co., Limited, Lunenburg, N.S.


RAW MATERIAL IMPORTS FROM UNITED STATES
Mr. PREVOST:: 1.	What were the principal raw materials imported to Canada from the United States, in 1928?
2.	What was the total value of each of the said raw materials imported in 1928?


James Malcolm: 1 and 2. See attached table.
Canada's Imports of Principal Raw Materials from the United States (Calendar Year, 1928)
Commodity
Coal	
Raw cotton	
Fresh fruits	
Crude petroleum	
Raw rubber	
Raw furs	
Grains (chiefly corn).. .
Raw hides	
Fresh vegetables	
Raw tobacco	
Manila and sisal grass..
Raw silk	
Alumina and cryolite.. .
Iron ore	
Sulphur	
Animals, living	
Raw wool	
Seeds	
Asphalt, solid	
Ores of metal, n.O.p.. ..
Fresh fish	
Logs	
Plants, trees and shrubs.
Nuts, not shelled	
Hemp	
Fresh meats	
Broom com	
Raw cocoa	
Eggs in the shell	
Bristles	

Unit of Quantity Ton Pound
Gallon
Pound
Pound
Pound
Pound
Pound
Pound
Ton
Pound
Pound
Pound
Pound
M ft.
Pound
Pound
Pound
Dozen
Pound
Calendar Year. 1928
Quantity
16,515,149
145,279,833
585,356,951
64,047,190
44,521,300
16,513,117
58,961,900
836,427
220,519,300
1,563,984
365,521,600
4,333,578
95,965,500
73,902,900
31,883
3,267,172
4,705,500
2,999,300
902,452
220,112
Value

Questions
	Unit of	Calendar Year, 1928	
Commodity	Quantity	Quantity	ValueSand and gravel, no.p	585,885	269,838Sand, silica	121,578	268,458Fire clay	119,671,900	258,797Eggs, n.op	.. .. Pound	548,700	138,735China clay	18,991,900	123,755Antimony or regulus of	1,331,250	122,713Hay	6,905	106,482Manganese, oxide of	.. .. Pound	2,451,700	61,009


FRUIT IMPORTS FROM UNITED STATES, 1928
Mr. PREVGST:: What was the total value of fruit, not grown in Canada, imported from the United States in 1928?


James Malcolm: Canada's Imports of Fruit, Not Grown in Canada, from the Lnited States (Calendar Year, 1928)
Commodity
Fresh
Bananas	
Grape fruit or shaddocks	
Guavas, mangoes, plantains and pomegranates	
Lemons	
Limes	
Oranges	
Pineapples	
Dried-
Bananas	
Currants	
Dates	
Figs	
Raisins	
Other dried fruit	
Canned-
Pineapples	
Fruit Juices-
Lime Juice, crude	
Lime Juice containing-
Not more than 25% of proof spirits.. More than 25% of proof spirits.. .. Lime Juice, fruit syrups and fruit juices, n.o.p	
Total above commodities


TRADE WITH UNITED STATES, 1925-1928
Jules-Édouard Prévost: What was the total tonnage of goods imported from and exported to the United States, during the years 1925, 1926, 1927 and 1928?


James Malcolm: No data available as to total tonnage of goods imported from or exported to the United States.
Unit of	Calendar Year, 1928	
Quantity	Quantity	ValueBunch	3,531,580	$ 5.212395Pound	18,158,745	941,071 14,707Box	256.513	1,255,566Box	294	1,208Box	2,073,083	10,308,274 466.613Pound	18,069	2301Pound	3843,525	362291Pound	1,647,807	141,940Pound	40,739,174	2.058,606Pound	541,103	71,991Pound	5,581.042	482,755Gallon	105	31Gallon	2.146	17311Gallon	232	4,948Gallon	67,169	126,474$21,468,482


INVERNF.SS COUNTY-POSTMASTERS DISMISSED
Mr. MACDOUGALL:: 1.	How many postmasters have been dismissed in the county of Inverness since the present Postmaster General assumed office?
2.	What are their names?
3.	Why were they dismissed?
4.	Upon whose recommendation were said dismissals made?


Mr. VENIOT:: 1. 33.
!IE?ISED EDITION
Questions

2, 3 and 4. See attached statement.
Post Office	Postmaster
Alba		
Askilton		
Belle Cote		K. F. Phillips..
Big Brook		
Big Intervale		
Brook Village ....	
Chimney Corner		
Emerald		
Frizzelton		
Gillis Cove		
Glencoe		
Glendale		
Hay's River		
Kingross		
Lake Ainslie (West Side)	Angus Mclnnis	
Lime Hill		
Little Judique Ponds		
Mabou Mines		
Mackdale		
Marshes (West Bay)....	John Ross	
Melford		
Melrose Hill		
North East Mabou		Alex. D. Campbell	
North East Margaree...	Miss I. Ross Smith	
Orangedale East		
Queensville		
South West Port Hood..	Alex. McDonnell	
Strathlorne...	
Valley Mills		
West Bay Road		
West Mabou Harbour...	Alex. McEachern	
Whyeocomagh Portage..	\. Matheson	
Wilburn		A.lex. MacDonald	
Why Dismissed
Change of site and in public interest.
Change of site to give more central location.
Interest of service	
Unsatisfactory management
Public interest	
Change in site	
Inconvenient site and unsatisfactory conduct.
Public interest	
Recommended by
Donald MacLennan, K.C., Inverness.
Donald MacLennan, K.C., Inverness.
Donald MacLennan, K.C., Inverness.
Donald MacLennan, K.C., Inverness.
Donald MacLennan, K.C., Inverness.
Donald MacLennan, K.C., Inverness.
Action based on report of District Superintendent.
Donald MacLennan, K.C., Inverness.
. Non-performance of duties by postmaster.
. Public interest	
More convenient location and in public interest .
. Absence of postmaster and in public interest.
More convenient location....
Public interest	
Unsatisfactory management and shortage in credit supplies.
Change in site in public interest.
More convenient site and advanced age of postmaster.
Unsatisfactory service	
Public interest	
More convenient location in public interest.
Carelessness and failure to carry out regulations.
Public interest	
More central location	
Political partisanship and interest of service.
Public interest	
More convenient location in public interest .
Public interest	
Neglect of duty and failure to make remittances.
Public interest	
Political partisanship	
Shortages-failure to remit C.O.D. collections.
Public interest	
Public interest	
Action based on report of District Superintendent.
Donald MacLennan, K.C., Inverness.
Donald MacLennan, K.C., Inverness.
Donald MacLennan, K.C., Inverness.
Donald MacLennan, K.C., Inverness.
Donald MacLennan, K.C., Inverness.
Action based on report of District Superintendent.
Donald MacLennan, K.C., Inverness.
Donald MacLennan, K.C., Inverness.
Donald MacLennan, K.C., Inverness.
Donald MacLennan, K.C., Inverness.
Donald MacLennan, K.C., Inverness.
Action based on report of district superintendent.
Donald MacLennan, K.C., Inverness.
Donald MacLennan, K.C., Inverness.
Donald MacLennan, K.C., Inverness.
Donald MacLennan, K.C., Inverness.
Donald MacLennan, K.C., Inverness.
Donald MacLennan, K.C., Inverness.
Action based on report of district superintendent .
Donald MacLennan, K.C., Inverness.
Donald MacLennan, K.C., Inverness.
Action based on report of district superintendent.
Donald MacLennan, K.C., Inverness.
Donald MacLennan, K.C., Inverness.
IMr. Veniot.]

Procedure Respecting Divorce


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. STEVENS:: For a return showing the name and location of each licensed distillery in Canada, and showing the amount of duty, excise, sales tax and other charges (each separately) paid during the last fiscal year.


BRANTFORD DOG INQUIRY
Mr. RYERSON:: For a copy of all correspondence, evidence taken, police reports, accounts, and all other information, in connection with the dog inquiry at Brantford.


PORT ARTHUR ARMOURY
Mr. COWAN:: For a copy of all letters, correspondence, tenders, contracts, vouchers and payments made by the government or any member thereof, and any person, firm or corporation, in connection with repairs or improvements to the armoury in Port Arthur since January 1, 1928.


PEAT FUELS LIMITED
Mr. CANTLEY (Pietou) moved:: For a copy of all agreements, contracts or releases thereof, entered into between the Minister iif Mines or any department or officer of the government and Peat Fuels Limited; also a copy of all correspondence between the right honourable the Prime Minister, the honourable the Minister of Mines or any department of the government and Peat Fuels Limited, or any officer or employee of that corporation.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of Mines):: Mr. Speaker, I have intimated to
the hon. gentleman that we are quite willing to bring down the correspondence between the Prime Minister or the Minister of the Interior with Peat Fuels Limited, but it includes a great deal that is not relevant to the question. Subject to that understanding, I will bring down the correspondence.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion:
For a return showing the names, positions occupied and salaries received of all persons employed in the several departments of the public service without certificates from the Civil Service Commission during each of the past five years.
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish this motion to be dropped from the order paper. I propose to amend it.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Dropped.
78594-U3J


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, may I at this time lay on the table some papers asked for on Friday?


John Frederick Johnston: Yes.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. member for
Leeds (Mr. Stewart) asked for correspondence in connection with the ruling of the Department of Justice. I may say that no communication was had between the Department of Justice and my own department. I am now submitting the ruling which was given in 1919 at the request of the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, and in 1922 at the instance of the Civil Service Commission. I am laying the paper on the table as I got it from them.
Then the hon. gentleman referred to the number of postmasters dismissed from October 1, 1926 to February 1. 1928, and asked how many of these were appointees of the Civil Service Commission. I lay this information on the table for the hon. member's use. The hon. member for Toronto South (Mr. Geary) has stated in regard to the return on the Picton case that ihe file is not complete and referred to four affidavits by Edward Sprague, Robert Purtelle, Hiram Ellis and Durward Cole, and intimated that there was correspondence transmitting these affidavits which had been omitted from the return. In this connection I wish to inform the hon. gentleman that there was no correspondence accompanying those affidavits. They were personally handed to my secretary by Mr. Charles Hanna of Belleville.


PRIVATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Clark, Bill No. 93. for the relief of Elsie Alice Hervey, was referred to the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. F. G. SANDERSON (South Perth) moved the second reading of Bill No. 96, for the relief of Calvert Mitchell Carruthers.
John Frederick Johnston: Mr. Sanderson
moves, seconded by Mr. McMillan, that Bill No. 96 be read the second time. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: May we have an explanation
from the mover and seconder of this motion?


Mr. SANDERSON:: This bill appears in
my name and the case is a very simple one.

Procedure Respecting Divorce
The evidence can be read in about five
minutes by any hon. member. One of my hon. friends opposite asks me to explain the bill. He has before him the evidence taken before the senate committee and I think he will agree with me that this is a bill which should get its second reading and be referred to the committee on miscellaneous private bills.
Briefly, I may say for the information of my hon. friend, the petitioner is a well known physician and surgeon in a city in the province of Ontario. The respondent did not appear before the senate committee. The petitioner and the respondent were married in the city of Kingston on January 1, 1923 and the respondent was married in Lima, Ohio on October 8, 1928. As I say, the respondent did not appear before the senate committee, but the man whom she married in Lima, Ohio, was present and gave evidence. The case is not complicated; it is very simple. I am not a lawyer, but I see no room for argument over this bill. Let me say that the fact that I sponsor this bill is no indication of my attitude towards the principle of divorce. I do not consider that the principle of divorce is in question at all at the moment. As for that principle I yield to no hon. member in this house my sincere conviction, although I will not now state what it is-but will do so if the opportunity ever warrants it; I voted against the bill from the senate for a divorce court in Ontario because I thought that public sentiment in the province of Ontario did not demand the establishment of such a court. The only method which we have of granting divorces is therefore the procedure which we are following this afternoon. Whether divorce is right or wrong is apart from the question. I deplore the fact that there are SO1 many applications in Ontario, but at the same time we are bound to deal with them and this is the only machinery we have for the purpose. I would therefore ask the house to give the bill its second reading.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I note that the
senate committee on divorce, in making their report, say that the requirements of the rules of the senate have been complied with in all material respects. Will the mover of the resolution give the house some idea of the requirements of the rules of the senate?


Frederick George Sanderson: No hon. gentleman
knows the requirements better than does my hon. friend, and I do not propose to enter into any argument with him.
Mr. A. E. RO'SS (Kingston City): This is the bill m regard to which it was my purpose

to say something but I understand that the evidence given will not be considered until the bill is in committee. My point is this. I believe that the house should now consider whether the requirements at present demanded for the obtaining of divorce are satisfactory. I have nothing to say on the question of divorce, but this country recognizes divorce as does the country across the line. We pay mutual respect to marriages in the two countries, and when a couple have been legitimately divorced and legitimately and legally married, then I think the question should be raised now as to whether that condition should or should not be called adultery. At present we hurl from each side of the line the epithet, at people legitimately married, that they are living in a state of adultery. This question I intend to bring up in connection with this bill in committee of the whole.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I must thank the
promoter of the bill for having given an outline of the case. It is a distinct improvement on the procedure we have had in the past. However, I would say that the question I asked has a direct bearing on the case. As yet it has not been explained to me just what are the requirements of the senate; I do not think we know exactly on what we are voting. I have been in the house some eight sessions. When a member first comes here I imagine he takes these bills as matters of routine, but as the years go on some of us begin to inquire with regard to the principles involved and I confess frankly that I do not know exactly under what rules the senate works in these matters. If I am not mistaken-and I speak subject to correction by the lawyers present- we have no statutory arrangements with regard to divorce, hence we hardly know just where we are.
I have heard it stated in this house that there is only one ground for divorce, but that is not correct; to my knowledge divorce has been granted in this house on other grounds than that of adultery, and as far as the powers of this house are concerned, I see no reason why wider grounds should not be recognized. Personally I am inclined to think that there is a danger in over-emphasizing the mere physical act of adultery in making it the only ground for divorce. The other day I came across an interesting statement in the Life and Letters of the Earl of Birkenhead;
It must be admitted 'by all the right-minded people that the duties of chastity and continence shall be insisted upon. But so to limit the causes of divorce is to ignore the fact that the spiritual and moral aspects of marriage are incomparably more important than the physical side.

Procedure Respecting Divorce
And again:
It is not to the public welfare that utter unsuitability for the marriage state whether the cause be moral, mental or physical, should not involve the same consequences.
That is the considered opinion of one of the most eminent British jurists, so I do not think we can sweep away all arguments of that kind and maintain that divorce can be granted only on one ground.
Further than that, much of this evidence would not be received in a court of law. Since these discussions began I have read a number of the cases and I find very often that the fact that the parties registered at the same hotel is considered evidence of improper relationship. I can quite readily understand that anyone desirous of securing a divorce could easily arrange a frame-up under such circumstances, and collusion might be very common. We have no information before us with regard to a situation of this character. Registration at a hotel might be accepted as evidence in a court of law, but no evidence is adduced to show whether or not the person dressed as a woman really is a woman; a man could dress as a woman and register with the man seeking a divorce, and that would be sufficient to secure a divorce.


Mr. GEARY:: There is a provision for
physical examination.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The laws of evidence are there, but the practice in the senate committee does not take account of such considerations. Very often we are dependent upon the evidence of men who are professional detectives, partners at that. Such evidence may not be sufficient, and may not be fair to the respondent.
We have been assured that the people who come here seeking divorce do so as a matter of right, but I do not think that is the case either. All these bills are prefaced by a petition; these people come asking a special favour, and so in rejecting their applications it cannot be said we are doing any injustice. Each case must be judged on its merits. The promoter of this bill has joined with the Minister of Railways-


Frederick George Sanderson: I object to the word " promoter." I am not the promoter of the bill; I am sponsoring the bill which stands in my name.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should like very much to have the distinction drawn between "promoter" and "sponsor." It is hardly conceivable that the hon. gentleman should bring forward a bill and ask this house to pass it
when he is not in sympathy with it. He would throw upon us the responsibility of rejecting it, yet he says he is opposed to the principle of the bill. I submit that this is subversive of political morality.


Frederick George Sanderson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; I did not say I was opposed to the principle of the bill.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The hon. member is opposed to the principle of divorce.


Frederick George Sanderson: I said if the time
ever came for me to declare myself' in this house on the principle of divorce I should be very glad to do so.


An hon. MEMBER:: Do it now.


Frederick George Sanderson: This is not the proper time; the principle of divorce is not before us.


James Shaver Woodsworth: My hon. friend
takes the view that the principle of divorce is not now before the house. The other day I understood the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) to take the ground that the principle of divorce was before the house in each bill, and if the principle of this bill is not the principle of divorce I do not know what it is. So here we have one hon. gentleman saying this is not the time to discuss the principle of divorce, while the leader of the opposition is strongly of the opinion that this is the time when the principle of divorce should be discussed. What are some of us ordinary members to do in the face of opinions of this kind? In any case, the hon. gentleman who seconded this motion-


Mr. McMILLAN:: I did not second the motion.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, whether or not this motion is before the house.


John Frederick Johnston: In putting the motion to the house, in accordance with the custom, I called the name of the hon. gentleman sitting next to the mover, as seconder of the motion. If I was wrong in using that name the motion is not properly 'before the house.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then I should like to have the motion before the house in order that I may continue what I have to say.


Mr. HEPBURN:: I am prepared to second the motion of the hon. member

Procedure Respecting Divorce


John Frederick Johnston: Then it is
necessary to put the motion again. It is moved by Mr. Sanderson and seconded by Mr. Hepburn that Bill 96 be now read a second time.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Thank you. Since the motion is only now properly before the house I suppose my forty minutes will begin from this time.
There is another question which has come to my mind very definitely during the course of these discussions. The leader of the opposition has taken the ground that parliament is a high court. I do not know that from a 'legal standpoint I am competent to differ from him, but I cannot believe that in any real sense, in the sense which concerns us in dealing with these bills, this parliament is a court.


Mr. DUNNING:: Will the hon. member
permit me to interrupt for a moment? A moment ago I understood him to mention the name of the Minister of Railways. I am anxious to leave the chamber and I would appreciate it if my hon. friend would go ahead and connect me with this bill in the way he wishes in order that I may hear it before I leave. I did not gather what he was saying.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I will go back: I
was suggesting that the promoter of this bill, who objects to that word and who would like to be called the sponsor, agrees with the Minister of Railways that we, as members of parliament, are simply judges and that at this stage we have nothing to say with regard to the underlying principle involved. The Minister of Railways together with the promoter or sponsor of this bill voted against a divorce court for Ontario, but they come now and say, "Well, we are in a hopeless position; having voted against a divorce court for Ontario there is nothing else we can do but go ahead with bills of this character. We are simply judges having nothing whatever to say with regard to the principle involved." It is a curious situation when we consider that on one occasion we sit here as law makers and, with the help of the Minister of Railways and the promoter of this bill, reject a bill which sought to take these matters out of our hands; then a few minutes later we appear as jurors, supposed to carry on under regular a,nd judicial procedure; and we are told that we, as jurors, cannot discuss the underlying principle of divorce.


Charles Avery Dunning: In quoting my remarks
the hon. member goes a certain distance correctly, but I think he knows himself the point at which he departed from that path.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should be glad to have an explanation.


Charles Avery Dunning: So far as the principle is concerned, once the house has determined that a certain method shall not be followed then it is thrown back upon the method which the constitution of this country provides, and that method this bill seeks to follow. The hon. member talks about the principle, but I think he is a little bit confused as to what principle really is in relation to a bill of this character.
Mr. WOODSW7ORTH: I have thought all along that the underlying principle of these bills was the principle of the granting of divorce.


Charles Avery Dunning: This bill falls within the scope of the constitution in connection with divorce, that is all.


James Shaver Woodsworth: We have no constitution with respect to divorce; we have a constitution which says that it is within the competence of parliament to grant a divorce, but the constitution does not say anything with regard to the circumstances under which the divorce shall be granted. Under the constitution we are quite free to give these matters to another court. It is quite true that the house, with the help of the Minister of Railways and the sponsor of this bill, has rejected that particular method, but I take it that the Minister of Railways and the sponsor of the bill are beginning to get restless when they realize the result of their action.
The Minister of Railways joins with the leader of the opposition in saying that to a certain extent we are a court.


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. member is quite correct.


James Shaver Woodsworth: And that we have to act more or lees as impartial jurors. I submit that that is absolutely impossible. The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) and other members of the house have disqualified themselves from voting on a measure of this kind. The hon. member stood in his place and said, "Under no circumstances whatever can I vote in favour of these bills." I submit that he would be challenged in any court in Canada and would not be permitted to sit as a juror. That would be true also of the majority of those who voted against the Ontario divorce bill. Those who voted against that bill on principle-there may be some who voted against it as a matter of political expediency-and whose position is that under
17S7

Procedure Respecting Divorce
no circumstances are they justified in passing any act for the granting of divorces, are absolutely disqualified from acting as jurors in a court of this character. They are prejudiced jurors; they have declared themselves, and the people who, as we are told, have paid their money and gone to a great deal of expense in coming here with petitions for divorce are faced with the curious situation that approximately a third of their jury are prejudiced. I challenge their right to vote on a bill of this character. The same thing is true when these bills are before the private bills committee, because approximate^ one-third of the members of that committee have conscientious convictions with regard to the granting of divorce. They are opposed to it, so they are prejudiced jurors.
I take it that they would be challenged in any court of justice, and I challenge them here to-day. We want to do the fair thing to those who come before this house; if they hav-e a right to a divorce let us give them that divorce, but do not let us put ourselves in the position where a third of the members of the court are so prejudiced that the case cannot receive a fair hearing. Some of us are driven to the rather extreme position of voting against these bills, not because we are opposed to divorce but because we are opposed to the whole procedure, and at the present stage we see no other way of accomplishing our purpose of bringing about a change in procedure.
If I understand the rules aright, any five members of the house can demand a roll call vote. A few of us in this comer of the house, along with one or two on the other side, have called for these divisions. But what about the forty, fifty or sixty other members who on religious grounds are opposed to divorce? Why do they not call for a roll call division-if they are in earnest about preventing divorces? Why do they not do everything they can to protest against divorce? Why do they not realize what is going on in the house and come out openly and do all they can to prevent these bills passing? Because they know perfectly well that this is not a true court; they know perfectly well that in this atmosphere we cannot conform closely to judicial procedure; hence for years they have let these bills slip through and the speaker has simply declared them passed "on division." So far as I am concerned I do not intend to take the responsibility of continuing to ask for a roll call division. A single member has only a certain amount of power or influence in this house, but I do urge that w7e should ask that a vote be taken, if only
the yeas and nays. I would not like to be accused of holding up the house by insisting upon a roll call division each time, but I should like to have every bill passed separately and with some semblance of decorum.
Some of us have been accused of introducing this matter simply because we were piqued at the non-passage of the Ontario divorce bill. Personally, I have no interest in that bill. It is true I sponsored it-to use the term of the sponsor of this bill-in the house, but I did that because year after year it has come up and no one has taken care of it. When it was defeated I was in no different position from that occupied by other members, but there seemed to be no way of impressing this house and the country with the seriousness of the situation other than by bringing on a debate or a series of debates of this character.
I have no intention of resorting to mere obstructionist tactics. The course followed has been actuated by the desire that the house should be more clearly apprised of the seriousness of the situation. Later on, some of us may feel called upon to move certain amendments in committee, amendments which, I believe, ought to be placed in every divorce bill.
The leader of the opposition made rather a telling point when he said that we ought not to go into the details of evidence at this stage. I will not insist on those details being brought out in the house, but we ought to have, as in this bill we have already had, a certain outline of the case.
If ever I felt any qualms of conscience with regard to taking up the time of the house in connection with such matters as this, they have been all set at rest by some of the communications I have received in the last few days. Only last Friday night I had a letter from a poor woman whose husband is seeking a divorce. The case will come before us a little later on. For reasons that I think the house will appreciate, I do not want to give publicity to the name of the woman, but I wish to read the letter as an instance of what is going on and how unsatisfactory the present procedure is. The case is a Quebec one. I have not had time to go down to the city of Montreal to investigate the matter. Years ago I had something to do with trying to determine the authenticity of certain documents and I remember we used to distinguish between internal evidence and external evidence. I have no external evidence at all with regard to the genuineness of this case, with regard to the truthfulness of the woman's statements, but there is certain internal evidence which would indicate that her statements are true.

Procedure Respecting Divorce


Mr. BROWN:: Has the ease been passed on by the senate committee?


James Shaver Woodsworth: It has been before the senate committee and is shortly to come before us. I would rather the hon. member did not ask me the particular name.


John Livingstone Brown: There is no danger of my
doing that. The demand for details will all come from elsewhere.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Let me read a few extracts from this letter. She says:
I have never had the chance to defend myself, and for five years I had had to endure insults from my husband's people. I have never been really mistress of my home.
Again:
I have been a good wife and mother for five years with this one exception and all that I have done


Charles A. Stewart: I rise to a
point of order. My hon. friend is quoting from a letter and he must know perfectly well that if he reads a letter, he must lay it on the table. If he does not want to table the letter, he should not read it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: There is no rule in this house which makes me lay a private letter upon the table.


Charles A. Stewart: I object to the reading of private letters in the House of Commons. My hon. friend is insisting on all evidence coming out, but he is giving us only partial evidence. Surely we should have the whole of it, not scraps.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am reading a
letter that came to me. I have not tried to make this a point of evidence in the case.


Charles A. Stewart: What is it if it is not evidence in the case?


James Shaver Woodsworth: This does not
directly relate to the case that is before us. It is an illustration.


Charles A. Stewart: Then my
hon. friend is out of order. He is not discussing the case.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am discussing the principle underlying these bills, and I would ask the house to permit me to use this letter simply as an illustration to show how unsatisfactory the present procedure is. I am within my rights. Let me begin again.
I have never had the chance to defend myself, and for five years I have had to endure insults from my husband's people. I have never been really mistress of my home.
Again:
I have been a good wife and mother for five years with this one exception and all that
(Mr. Woodsworth.]
I , have done I have been driven to do >by the high-handed methods of my husband and his people. If I lose my baby I lose everything worth living for. ... I was married at twenty and my baby came before I was twenty-one. I have been married five years. My other baby has died and I had an operation to please my husband so I could not have children. The child

Naming it.
is all I can ever have, whereas my husband c-ould marry again and have other children. Is it right or fair to take my only child from me? He is only four and needs his mother. God knows my heart bleeds for him. . . .He (my husband) receives $300 per month salary .... I receive no money from him and am
not in a position to earn my own living	
If my husband were made to support me and our boy, I know he would come back to me. Our baby would draw us together. His people are trying, and succeeding in keeping us apart .... 1 know I have been very foolish and made myself open to suspicion, but that is no reason to crush me altogether. ... I love my baby. Please won't you ask them to give him back to me. If my husband does not love me and will be happier with someone else, I want him to do what he considers best. Only give
me back my baby	You are my last hope
and if this appeal fails, I am lost.
Some of us perhaps have regarded these bills with some levity. I do not think there is a single hon. gentleman in the house who will not be touched by an appeal of,that character, even as I was touched on Friday night when I received it. Here is a poor woman who has had practically no opportunity of defending herself. This is an uncontested case. I am not sure whether she had the opportunity or the finances to come to Ottawa to defend herself. She speaks about being a good wife and mother with this one exception. Possibly she committed an indiscretion, perhaps worse than an indiscretion. We know nothing, however, about the character of her husband. He, too, may have committed indiscretions, but I recall the saying attributed to one of the teachers in the old days. When a woman taken in adultery was brought to Him, he said: "Go and sin no more." That is not the attitude that is being taken by the house. This woman at the request of her husband, has voluntarily rendered herself sterile; then the child has been removed, not under the mandate of this parliament, and I doubt if under the mandate of a court. The child was simply carried off, and the mother is without her baby. The man is well able to support her; she is receiving no support whatever, and we have in this letter the alpealing cry of motherhood:
If my husband does not love me and will be happier with someone else, I want him to do what he considers best. Only give me back my baby.

Procedure Respecting Divorce
We read away back in the book of Genesis that Esau, deprived of his birthright by the trickery of his brother Jacob, " cried with an exceeding great and bitter cry." A woman who, at her husband's request, rendered herself incapable of bearing another child, has her only child torn from her, and she says:
" He is only four and needs his mother.
I love my baby." Then in her naive way she says: " Please won't you ask them to give him back to me."


Mr. BELL (St. Antoine):: Does the hon. member know whether or not the statements he has read from this letter are genuine?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I prefaced what I had to say with this statement, that I had been accustomed to distinguishing between external and internal evidence. I have nothing whatever to go on with regard to the external evidence; it is not out of keeping with the evidence as presented before the senate committee, but I would say and I have been accustomed to dealing with cases not dissimilar to this, having sat for many years on the board of a children's aid society, and I know something of what imposture is -that this letter appeals to me as being a genuine cry of a woman in trouble.


Mr. BOYS:: I think a wrong impression
is being left on the house and on the country. Let me say at once that I have no sympathy with a man who tries to do what is referred to in that letter, but that case is not before this house. My hon. friend, however, would almost suggest that this unfortunate woman, and many others like her, have no opportunity of presenting their defence. Does he not know that she has every opportunity of presenting her defence before the senate committee? Does he not know that, if she is without funds, she can make application and the husband will be compelled to provide her with sufficient funds to make her defence before the committee? Does the hon. member not know that he himself can go before the senate committee when the case is heard and there present a defence for this woman, or make a motion that she be called as a witness in her own behalf?


James Shaver Woodsworth: That case to
which I referred had already been passed by the senate committee, and it will presently come before this house.


William Alves Boys: We can deal with it then,
when it comes before the private bills committee.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, it will come
before this house, but if I rise in my place on
the second reading of the bill I shall immediately be told that I have no business whatever to discuss the details of the case in this house.


John Livingstone Brown: The hon. member says that this bill will come before this house.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes.


John Livingstone Brown: Would the divorce bills
which have already been voted on, and against which my hon. friend voted, have ever had a chance of coming before the private bills committee if the action which my hon. friend and those sitting around him are taking had prevailed?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No. The bills would have gone to a proper court where the cases could have been properly tried.


John Livingstone Brown: The bills would have been thrown aside altogether.


James Shaver Woodsworth: There would have
been a court created-


William Alves Boys: If my hon. friend wants to
help this woman, let the bill pass and then he can bring any evidence he desires before the private bills committee, and if he proves there the accusation which he has made against this man, I for one will vote against that particular bill in the committee.


John Livingstone Brown: I am quite sure I will.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am quite sure that the stand just taken by the hon. gentleman is a credit to him, and I think it is the feeling of all the members of this house, but I would point out that it was only incidentally that L knew anything of this case. This poor woman saw in the papers that I had been speaking on divorce, and that was the only reason she knew there was such an individual in existence, and hence she took the trouble to write to me. There may be scores of cases of this kind in these three hundred that are to come before this house.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But surely my hon. friend does not wish to leave the impression that this woman did not know that she was being divorced. She had to receive a notice, and she could have written a letter to the senate divorce committee, or she could have appeared before that committee herself, and could have appeared there as a witness with her expenses paid.


James Shaver Woodsworth: She could have
written a letter to the committee, but it could not have been put in as evidence.

Procedure Respecting Divorce


Henry Herbert Stevens: But she could have been called and had her expenses paid. That is the point my hon. friend is evading.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, no, my hon. friend is going too fast. He says that this woman could have written a letter to the senate divorce committee. I say that if she had written a letter, even if she had made an affidavit, it would not have been received before the senate committee. I am not sure whether the woman knew that she might appear before the senate committee. But further than that, it may be that she was guilty of adultery. I do not know. It is quite conceivable that she may have been guilty, but even putting the worst construction upon the situation, supposing she is guilty, should we necessarily because of that act of adultery turn her out on the street and leave her in such a position that she will be deprived of the comfort of her child? I imagine that if she appealed to the court after a divorce was granted by parliament, the court would not turn the child over to her custody. We are blocked wherever we go, and it is because we are so hopelessly blocked that I feel free to appeal to the members of this house to do something-I do not care what it is. I do not want to impede the procedure of this house, but I want parliament to take some action that will relieve us of complicity in maintaining this impossible situation. I do not know whether I can appeal successfully to the government, or to the Prime Minister.
I think the Prime Minister, who is more or less responsible for the business that comes before this house, ought surely to begin to realize that we cannot indefinitely prolong this kind of thing. He has been sitting in this house for a good many years, and he must have seen that there is no adequate provision for our considering these cases in any judicial manner. He must see further that if five or six members undertake to do it, we can block the proceedings in connection with every private bill that comes before the house from now on. I do not want to do this, but I suggest that that very fact demonstrates to us that in' our rules of order we have not contemplated dealing with hundreds of these cases as they now come before us.


Charles A. Stewart: May I, as
one member of the government who did vote for the bill to establish a divorce court, ask the hon. member if he does not seek to block the proceedings of this house, and is he not by his vote protesting against the opinions of his fellow-members who do not see eye to eye with him?
"Mr. Woodsworth.]


An hon. MEMBER:: He is a poor loser,
that is all.


Charles A. Stewart: As one
who voted for the bill to establish a divorce court, I do not understand the position my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre is taking, nor do I think he is going to further the chances of passing such a bill through this house by his action, if I may be permitted to say so. As one who voted for a divorce court, I do not appreciate the tactics of my hon. friend, opposing every divorce bill that comes up in order to force his fellow-members who do not see eye to eye with him to vote for a divorce procedure which they do not feel inclined to support.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not opposing every bill that comes up. I said that if I had adequate knowledge of the details of particular cases, I reserved to myself the right to vote on the merits of those cases.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend can have recourse to the committee where he can air every objection that he has to every one of these bills.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Quite so, but the
hon. gentleman must recognize that while what he says is formally correct, in practice very few members of this house are going to read through the evidence of three hundred cases, coming one by one before the private bills committee. I for one do not propose to do it. The other point that I did make this afternoon was this-


Mr. GERSHAW:: Before the hon. member goes on to another case-


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not going
further. I have just about done.
Mr. GERSHAW7:	I would point out that
the reading of that very sad letter conveys a rather wrong impression. The statement is made there that the woman went to have a certain operation performed at the request of her husband. I would point out that no reputable doctor and no hospital allows such a thing. It is entirely illegal for the purposes mentioned in that letter.
Mr. WrOODSWORTH: I am sure that my hon. friend, who is a medical man, must know, as a great many of us who are not medical men know, that operations of this kind are being performed constantly.


Frederick William Gershaw: Not for the reasons
mentioned there.

Procedure Respecting Divorce


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, even for those reasons, because this is not an isolated case.
I am not suggesting that my hon. friend himself would perform such an operation, but there are medical men who will do it.


Mr. HOWDEN:: I doubt very much if you could find a reputable hospital in Canada that would permit such an operation.


John Livingstone Brown: I would ask the hon. member, how can he maintain consistency by saying that he is going to vote on the merits of each bill-


James Shaver Woodsworth: I did not.


John Livingstone Brown: I understood my hon. friend to say that he was going to vote on the merits of the bill.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, no, the hon.
gentleman is mistaken. My own position is this: I said at the very beginning that I took the position personally-it is entirely a personal matter-


John Frederick Johnston: The hon. gentleman's time has elapsed.


Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: Before speaking on the principle of the bill, may I, in order to clear up any misunderstanding there may be as to the powers of this parliament in legislative and judicial matters, read paragraph 844 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms:
The proceedings of parliament in passing private bills partake of both a judicial and legislative character. The promoters of the bill appear as suitors while those who apprehend injury tare admitted as adverse parties to the suit. The former may prove that their own interests will be advanced by the success of the bill and no one may urge any objection; yet. if the house apprehends that the bill will be hurtful to the community, it may be rejected.
I would not undertake to define exactly what constitutes a bill of divorce, but in view of the fact that to-day we have on the order paper seventy-seven divorce bills, I think the matter is of sufficient importance to warrant our careful consideration. What would happen if we had seventy-seven railway bills, or seventy-seven patent bills, or the same number of any other kind of private bills? We would not pass them as a mere matter of form. Yet these divorce bills strike at the very root of the nation, at the family itself. A former minister of justice, the Hon. Mr. Doherty, who occupied that office in the late Conservative government, defines a bill of divorce in these words:
An act that grants a divorce is a private act, like any other private act. The house as well as the senate must enact it. The parties
come here asking for it, just as they come with other private bills when they want to get something that the general law of the country does not give them. And it is precisely because the general law of the country says: once you are married you can never marry again while your consort is alive, that when one wants to be relieved of the operation of that general law, he comes to the parliament of Canada and asks for a law for himself; and each one of these petitioners goes away, where he succeeds, carrying with him a law that is a law for him -a law that takes him out of the operation of the general law.
This view is also shared by the Hon. Mr. Nickle, a former distinguished member of this house, who on one occasion introduced a divorce bill, and after a long discussion it was passed, but it failed in the senate. At the time Mr. Nickle said:
It is well known to every member that any person who has the means and cares to present a petition to parliament if he is in a position to demonstrate that adultery has been committed has a moral right to divorce, but in Ontario and Quebec, because we have no divorce courts, there is no legal right to divorce.


William Alves Boys: Does not my hon. friend agree that there is no general divorce law either in Ontario or in Quebec? Therefore, so far as those provinces are concerned, there is no forum except parliament before which parties seeking a divorce may appear.


Charles Marcil: Divorce is not recognized either in Ontario or in Quebec.


William Alves Boys: There is no divorce court in either province; that is the point.


Charles Marcil: I do not want to quote again the views of Sir Hector Langevin which I gave to the house last week, but he was solicitor general when the British North America Act was passed, and he said then that they were not introducing the principle of divorce either in Ontario or in Quebec. However, they found divorce courts already established in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and therefore the matter had to be taken into consideration with regard to the other two provinces. The fathers of confederation were wise men. They decided not to establish divorce courts in Ontario and Quebec, but to place the power of granting divorce in the jurisdiction of the federal parliament, and in this way make it more difficult to secure a divorce; for they were of opinion that it would not be in the interest of the country to facilitate the granting of divorce. Their wisdom was proved by the fact that in the following ten years only seven applications for divorce were granted by parliament. Last year there were 785 divorces. I am glad that there are two provinces in

Procedure Respecting Divorce
this Dominion with an admirable record in matters of divorce-Prince Edward Island and Quebec. I respect the views of every member of this house. The people of the west may have different ideas on the subject. The Divorce Act, passed in 1857, has been applied to the western country. At the time that the member for West Calgary introduced the measure before the house with regard to Alberta and Saskatchewan, it was argued that the hearing of these cases by the courts would reduce the number of applications for divorce; but the very contrary has happened. And if we establish divorce courts in Ontario and Quebec the same thing would happen. The people of these two provinces have a right to divorce courts if they so decide, but up to the present they have decided that they do not want such courts. Neither province has yet asked for the establishment of divorce courts. I question very much, even if we had passed the bill recently introduced to establish a divorce court in Ontario, whether we would have been acting within our powers, for the British North America Act, as has been said repeatedly, is a contract between the various provinces, and the consent of the Ontario legislature would have to be secured before we could impose a divorce court on the province.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have agreed not to discuss the evidence in this or any other case at the present stage, for the very good reason that that evidence is not yet before us, not yet having been dealt with by the private bills committee of this house. In the old days nine senators were required to form the senate divorce committee, but to-day I notice that that committee is composed of only five members. I do not know whether they have to be unanimous or whether a bare majority could accept the evidence adduced before them as being sufficient to warrant a divorce; but in the latter event we would have three senators reporting in favour of a divorce bill their report of course being accepted by the senate, and then in turn this would be automatically accepted by the private bills committee of this house if we followed the usual practice. To this we object. The member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) objects on another ground: he desires to have these cases sent to a divorce court to be set up in Ontario. I object to divorce on the ground that marriage is sacred, that it is a contract for life and cannot be dissolved except by the death of one of the parties. That was the view in England for eighteen hundred years until the passing of the Divorce Act in 1857. But before that time the matrimonial courts annulled marriage for certain reasons. In Quebec we 
have what are known as judicial separations. Under this procedure husband and wife may separate, and ait the same time fair and reasonable provision may be made for alimony and for the custody of the children. We cannot do that; all we can do is to grant a divorce. By so doing we throw the children out on the street and put the guilty party on the same footing as the innocent. So we are establishing in effect the principle of polygamy, for a man may secure a divorce this year, marry again, and next year apply for another divorce, and, that having been granted, marry again, and continue this course indefinitely.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend will admit, however, that the injured party is denied in Ontario or Quebec the right of redress that is available in all ithe other provinces.


Charles Marcil: They get no redress here.


Charles A. Stewart: But the hon. member will not deny that in any of the provinces the courts are there for the purpose of giving redress.


Charles Marcil: That may be an argument in favour of sending it to the courts. But at the present time the principal reason why these divorces are becoming so numerous is that there are certain classes of people who get married to-day with the idea that if matters do not go as they expect they can always resort to a divorce court, and if that is not effective in the province in which they reside they can come to parliament, believing that in doing so they automatically obtain a divorce. When they come here they ask a favour; it is a law of exception in this case, because there is no divorce law in either Ontario or Quebec.
I do not wish to delay the house, Mr. Speaker, when the majority have declared in favour of divorce, but I think it my duty to show the grave responsibility which parliament assumes in allowing this state of things to continue. I should like to cite a few words to indicate what has taken place in the United States. Let me quote the Rev. Dr. Gwynne on Divorce in America undter State and Church. This reverend gentleman is secretary of an association in the United1 States whose object it is to preserve among all peoples, irrespective of creed and race, respect for the sanctity of marriage. This bodty is known as the Sanctity of Marriage Association. I quote:
Let us now look at some results of this anarchic condition of our legislation, as they are seen in the official reports of the Bureau

Procedure Respecting Divorce
of the Census. It is not until 1876 that we get any authoritative information in regard to divorce in the United States. The following table shows the increase for fifty years, in tenyear periods:
Ten	years	ending	Dec.	31,	'76. .	122,121Ten	years	ending	Dec.	31,	'86..	206,595Ten	years	ending	Dec.	31,	'96..	352,263Ten	years	ending	Dec.	31,	'06..	593,362Ten	years	ending	Dec.	31,	'16..	975,728Total	
2,250,069
Total of persons separated in
fifty years	 4,500,138
Total of minor children made
orphans in fifty years	 1,689,662
Total of persons bereft or
dishonoured in fifty years.. 6,189,800
That is what divorce is accomplishing. There was a time when divorce was practically non-existent in this country, but it exists to-day, and if it continues it will be ten times worse ten years from now. In my opinion therefore we should call a halt; divorce should not be granted by parliament at all. In the provinces where divorce is granted the matter is largely one of provincial rights, civil rights being within the province; the solemnization [DOT]of marriage comes within the purview of the province. For these reasons I can add only one more objection to the principle of divorce and declare that I will oppose it as strenuously as I can every time the opportunity presents itself.
One point is raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) as to increasing the grounds on which divorce may be granted, and not confining it simply to adultery. I do not know why in Canada the cause has been limited to adultery; I do not know on what ground we proceed, whether it is the practice in England. But I find in this book of the Rev. Dr. Gwynne, with an introduction by Doctor Manning, quotations from the Bible which I do not care to read now seeing that they are familiar to all hon. members of this house-quotations from St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, and verbatim utterances from our Lord and Saviour; and there is absolutely nothing in all these references which authorizes the remarriage of divorced persons. There is no authority in the Bible for it. So that on what ground divorce has been limited here to the single cause of adultery I fail to see. If we were to follow the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre we might adopt the practice of the United States. There is only one state in the American Union which has never established a divorce court, and that is South Carolina; but in the other states they have as many as fifty-two different causes for divorce.
A man is divorced in one state and is married in another, and so on, and altogether there is a most chaotic state of confusion. For many years in the United States a strong effort has been made for the limitation to the federal authorities of the granting of divorce, in order to stem the ravages of the evil. I will say no more, and I hope that more of us who are conscientiously opposed to divorce, and who realize its ravages, will take the opportunity when it arises to voice their opinion, because they know in their inmost hearts that divorce in Canada has reached the stage where it has become a real and a grave problem.


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Wetaskiwin):: I was in hopes that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) would give an answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth).
I believe that everyone in the house agrees that the question now before us is one of great importance; it is important not only to the individuals who may be concerned in the bills before parliament, but from the point of view of parliament itself; and it is also important to the general public. We were told by the sponsor of this bill that the people of Ontario were not ready for divorce courts.
I might reply with equal confidence and authority and tell the hon. gentleman that the people of Canada are not yet ready for the kind of thing we are doing; and if the people of Ontario are refusing to have divorce courts then I as a member of this house am prepared to refuse to follow the present course. Then where does my hon. friend get? I hope the seriousness of the question will induce the Prime Minister or some other member of the government to indicate to the house some reasonable way out. I would suggest that we either, first of all, drop all divorce cases; or secondly that we take them seriously, considering them as they ought to be considered, in a dignified manner, and enlarging the powers of parliament to deal with all phases of divorce, giving authority to the senate committee to look after the children of divoroed people, and also the power to deal separately with the eases which may come before the committee, from the point of view of remarriage and on the basis of the merits of each individual case; or, in the third place, if we do not do that, that we proceed as early as possible to refer the matter to the proper courts to deal with. Now, what course shall we pursue?

Procedure Respecting Divorce


Mr. ARTHURS:: I rise to a point of
order.


William Irvine: I am not suggesting that
the Prime Minister is more responsible for the situation than I am.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. A point of order has been raised.


James Arthurs: A good deal of this debate has evidently been out of order. There is a rule of the house which provides distinctly that questions arising in a previous debate in the same session may not be referred to. In this house a bill has been introduced and carried forward to second reading, and which was passed by another house of this parliament, providing for the establishment of a divorce court in Ontario. The whole subject matter of many of the speeches of hon. members who, shall I say, are delaying this house, has consisted in the fact that they are offended by the action of this parliament, to which they should be subject. We have passed upon this matter for this session at least, and any hon. member speaking to any divorce bill before this parliament, either now or during the rest of this session, should be confined strictly to the merits or demerits of the particular case which he is discussing.


William Irvine: I have no objection to the
remarks of my hon. friend; I am glad to note that they do not apply to me. I am just about to conclude my remarks by asking that the Prime Minister or some member of the government respond to the urgent appeal of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), not only in respect to the present bill before the house but in respect to other bills of the same character which will come before the house later. I have pointed out the courses open to this parliament, as I see them. I do not suppose any hon. member wishes to be associated with the present way of doing this kind of business. If the bill we are now considering goes to the private bills committee, where we may obtain information which will enable us to pass the bill in committee and send it back to the house-


Hewitt Bostock: The point of order raised by the hon. member is well taken in principle; when the house has passed judgment on a question that question cannot foe revived during the same session, but may be revived at another session. However, as I stated the other day, various divorce bills have been introduced, one of which is now before the house; some hon. members are in favour of these bills while others oppose them, as is their right, and it is rather difficult to deter-
mine the difference between the general principle of whether or not a divorce court should be established and the point at issue. It is all the same question and I cannot prevent the speakers who oppose these particular divorce bills from bringing up their objections against the principle of divorce itself. However, it is easy for so able a parliamentarian as the hon. member now speaking to confine his remarks as much as possible to the bill presently before the house.


William Irvine: I shall endeavour so to
do; my only reference to the matter to which Your Honour alludes was made in reply to the statement of the sponsor of the bill. I am sorry he was so sadly out of order and I am sorry I followed him in that regard.
I turn again to the Prime Minister in the hope that he will show us some way out of the dilemma, because it must be clear to every hon. member of the house that if we are seriously to consider the three hundred divorce bills which will come before us, we must either sit continuously or not do the work very well. I believe the Prime Minister must agree that this matter of divorce has become too great a task for this parliament to undertake. It is one /thing for parliament to have the constitutional right to grant a divorce or a separation when such a thing occurs once a year or something like that, but it is another thing for parliament to consider three hundred of these bills each year together with all the other things to which we must give our attention. That is the situation which has developed during recent years, and that is the situation to which I hope the Prime Minister will address himself now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That I may be in order I would make it clear that I am simply seeking to answer a question relating largely to procedure. I gather that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) is of the view that by this time the government should see that this method of dealing with divorce bills is anything but satisfactory, or in other words that under the present method it is within the power of a few members of this house to block the entire business of parliament, if they so desire, in order to demonstrate their dissatisfaction with the prevailing system of granting divorces through the agency of private bills.
I must confess that up to the present time I have not been able to see a way of dealing with these matters other than by a divorce court on the one hand or by private bills on the other. As my hon. friend is

Procedure Respecting Divorce
aware, during the present session this house decided against a divorce court for the prov-ince#of Ontario, and that method cannot he considered again at this time. Until some other method suggests itself I fail to see a better way of dealing with the situation than that which has prevailed heretofore. I think the discussion which has taken place so far and what has been demonstrated as to the amount of time which will be consumed if all individual bills for divorce are to be considered in this house, have made it evident that some method other than that at present in force should be followed, but I would remind hon. gentlemen that the matter is not one to be solved in a moment or by the stroke of a pen. I will say to hon. members of the house that the government will continue as we have been doing to give very serious thought to this question; I could not promise that we will find a solution during this session of parliament, but I would express the hope that by another session, by conference in the interval with members of the house and by other methods, we may find it possible to effect some arrangement which will enable those seeking divorce to secure such redress as should be given them by a means which will commend itself more completely to parliament and avoid a recurrence of a situation such as we have ait the moment.
I can only appeal to the common sense of the house in this matter; the government must follow the rules of parliament and the government wish to uphold the rules. It might be possible for the remainder of the present session to allow bills to pass second reading and to go to the committee as has been the case in the past, and for hon. members who wish to raise objections to particular bills, to raise those objections in the committee, it being understood that between now and next session the members of the government and other hon. members of the house will do what they can towards finding some means of freeing parliament from the necessity of continuing to deal with divorce bills along the lines which we have followed thus far.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Before the Prime
Minister takes his seat may I ask a question? It seems to me that the answer given is very satisfactory as far as it goes, but we must consider what we are to do for the remainder of this session. I have raised the objection that a number of hon, gentlemen are not competent to sit in judgment on these bills nor because of their religious convictions on this particular question are they competent to be members of the private bills committee. Would it be possible for us to follow the
precedent set by the senate, by which divorce bills are sent not to their private bills committee but to a special committee composed of those who have an open mind in regard to the question of divorce? I do not ask for an answer on this point to-day, but I would suggest to the Prime Minister that possibly this might be a way out even for this session. We might appoint a special committee composed of those who are not on principle committed one way or the other; that might relieve the pressure on the private bills committee and at the same time permit of greater impartiality in these matters than is possible under the present system.


Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka-Ontario):: I wish to say just a word in support of the attitude taken by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart). I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) has made himself absolutely ridiculous by his attitude on this question. The hon. member introduced a bill in this house, as was his right; that bill was defeated by the votes of hon. members who have an equal right to express their views. The hon. member was not a good enough sport to take his-


James Shaver Woodsworth: If the hon. member would speak a little louder I would be able to hear him.


Peter McGibbon: I hope the hon. member will be equally pleased when he does hear what I have to say. I say that the hon. member was not even a good sport; he introduced a bill into this house, which he had a perfect right to do-


Edward Joseph Garland: I rise to a point of order. It has not bean my conception of order in this house that personalities could be exchanged between one member and another in describing the action taken by a particular member.


Hewitt Bostock: I do not gather that the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Mc-Gi'bbon) has made any personal reference to an hon. member, but he falls .into another error; he is leferring to a past debate of this session.


Peter McGibbon: It was not my intention to discuss the personality of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), or that of any other member in this house; I am simply discussing the attitude he has taken when, having been defeated on a certain bill, he still persists in blocking the business of the house. As one coming from the province of Ontario, and as one who voted

Procedure Respecting Divorce
against that divorce bill, I say, with the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart), that this debate is not- facilitating the purpose he has in view. When the province of Ontario asks for a divorce court then it will be time enough for this house to consider it.


Edward Joseph Garland: I rise to a point of order. Is the hon. member in order in discussing a question which has been already disposed of by this house?


Henry Herbert Stevens: We have been discussing it for two weeks.	.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman should confine his remarks to the present bill.


Peter McGibbon: I do not know whether or not you are complimenting me, Mr. Speaker, when you restrict me within narrower limits than has been the case with other hon. members who have spoken on these bills. We in the province of Ontario are not going to be dictated to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, either on this question or on any other. If he thinks he is going to gain his object by blocking the business of parliament in order to force upon the province of Ontario something which it has not as yet asked for, he is taking the wrong way to accomplish his ends.


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (LabeMe):: Mr Speaker, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr Mackenzie King) has in a very few words this afternoon done much to eliminate the present source of trouble and pave the way to a serious and constructive settlement, not only of the bills which may come up this year, but of the whole question. I admit Mr. Speaker, that it has been psychologically impossible to discuss any one olf these bills without discussing what I call the basic principle of them all. The comment on rule 92 which was read a moment ago by the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. March), illustrates the whole system. The private legislation dealt with in paragraph 844 refers only to occasional private bills; but these hundreds of divorce bills arise from this fact, or principle of law, that matters have to be dealt with as private legislation, either by parliament or by the local legiMatures, according to the subject, when they cannot be dealt with properly by courts of judicature.
It has been made quite clear during the course of these debates that this method, call it obstruction if you like, is the most effective manner in which to bring to the consciousness of the house and of the country the importance of this question. This discussion has made at least one point clear in

the minds of many members of both houses- a point which had been quite obscure in the minds of the people of the country, and [DOT]certainly in the province of Quebec-that applications for divorce do not come to parliament merely and exclusively as petitions from certain individuals to obtain the redress of certain individual grievances. It has been amply demonstrated that petitions for divorce come before this parliament because, under our constitution*-as far as the provinces of Ontario and Quebec are concerned-this is the only legislative and judicial body which can deal with the question. I have endeavoured, without any spirit of antagonism or animosity toward anyone, to bring home to the minds of the hon. members of the house the fact that this question must be dealt with one of these days in a radical fashion.
Therefore, to that extent, I agree with the hon. member for Bonaventure; but in order to respond in a sympathetic spirit to the invitation of the right hon. the Prime Minister to all members of the house to present their views towards the satisfactory settlement of this important question, I must take exception to other comments which have been made by the hon. member for Bonaventure. The hon. member for Bonaventure has referred to the declarations made at the time of the Quebec resolution by Sir Hector Langevin when these very important questions of marriage and divorce were 'being discussed. I understood the hon. member for Bonaventure to take the same view as did Sir Hector Langevin, that jurisdiction respecting marriage and divorce had been confined to this parliament in order to prevent the extension of divorce to Ontario and Quebec which had not been afflicted with that plague. But Sir George Etienne Cartier and Sir Hector Langevin did not realize that in wishing to avoid one issue they simply raised a broader one. They did not consent to have divorce enacted for Ontario and Quebec, but they had divorce enacted for the whole of Canada including Ontario and Quebec. They forgot that basic principle of the constitution to which I referred the other day, and to which the hon. member for St. Lawrence-JSt. George (Mr. Gahasn) replied, " Well, it is elementary law": the moment you establish a principle of law you assume the moral obligation to supply the judicial mechanism to put it into practice. My point of view is that the parliament of Canada, having accepted the responsibility of legislating upon marriage and divorce for the whole of Canada including Ontario and Quebec, has left itself open to the receipt of petitions from any in-

Procedure Respecting Divorce
habitant of Ontario and Quebec. They can apply to this parliament for a divorce, parliament acting in its dual capacity of a legislative body and a court of justice.
That brings us back to the awkward position which was described by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth). If we are a court of law, then he is absolutely right when he says that my humble self, the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion), the hon. member for Bonaventure, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), and many others are prejudiced upon principle upon these questions. In fact, if we are imbued with the basic principles of our creed it is just as wrong for us to vote for any divorce law or any individual divorce bill, as it would be to vote for a bill of this- house similar to those introduced into the English parliament in the time of Elizabeth, or Edward VI, or Henry VIII, declaring that the practices of our religion were blasphemy. It would arouse the indignation, not only of every Catholic member, but of every fair-minded member of the house to put us back to the days of the sixteenth century and to ask parliament to place the stamp of blasphemy upon any article or creed of religion believed in by any hon. member. We have, thank Heaven! passed those days in every part of the British Empire.
I admit, I repeat, that we went for years without reflecting upon the basic issue contained in these bills, but now we are realizing it; and my purpose in raising these debates was simply to bring to the attention of hon. members that, believing as we do, we cannot go on doing what we have done for years .past, proclaiming to our people that we are opposed to the principle of divorce, and then letting pass every bill of divorce that comes before the house. It has been said that we ought not to vote for the principle of divorce, if contained in a bill transmitting from this parliament to another body, a court of justice, a jurisdiction granted to parliament by the constitution to be exercised in a judicial manner; in other words, that we cannot transfer to a court of justice those powers which we exercise, but that the principle of divorce is not contained in the three hundred bills before us. That opinion may be held by very respectable people in Quebec, including priests, but I do not think it is good teaching, good law or even good common sense.
Therefore in that spirit I suggest to the members of the government; in the same spirit I suggest to the leading men of the opposition, including and beginning with the 78S94-114
leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), who is undoubtedly one of the best legal minds of the country, that they approach this question with a spirit absolutely foreign to any thought of party gain or appeal to this province or that, to this creed or that. We will accomplish nothing if we approach the question from the point of view of party gain. There are in the house a large number of members representing millions of law-abiding citizens who are opposed to divorce on principle and who are horrified at the manner in which divorce has grown, just as there are other members who, in an equally respectable manner, one which would call for my respect if not for my adherence, would be horrified at the idea of the house adopting from year to year a series of measures that would, for example, prepare the way for the breaking of the British Empire. To me it would not appeal as much as it would to them, but I would respect their viewpoint. Therefore I think this question should be approached at the same .time from the viewpoint of those who are opposed to divorce and from that of those who, not being opposed to divorce, want divorce granted or refused according to some principle of law or practice and some respect for equity.
It has been suggested that if we amend the rules of parliament with respect to divorce bills, we could see, for example, that justice is done to the children; that something is done for the support of the innocent party and the children who may remain in the custody of the innocent party. But there [DOT]again you strike the rock of constitutional objection, because we cannot deal here with civil rights or property. We are entirely precluded from that. So that my humble contribution to the preparation of a remedy for the situation is to repeat what I said1 last week. Let us go to the root of the question and, finding that the whole problem of marriage and divorce is intimately connected with the matter of civil rights, with the matter of property; that already all the provinces of Canada have exclusive jurisdiction over the solemnization of marriage, let us come back to the spirit of the constitution and simplify the whole matter by handing the whole problem over to the provinces. This is the only way that we can get rid of the objections, and that we can at- the same time give satisfaction to Catholics and to Protestants, to believers in the principle and practice of divorce and to those who do not believe in it.



Procedure Respecting Divorce
Moreover, it is the only manner in which we can ascertain whether Ontario wants a divorce court or mot. Some say Ontario wants it; some say it does not. Without referring to any past debate I say to-day that I do not yet know. Personally I would be prepared to vote to-morrow for a court of divorce for the people of Ontario if they wanted it, but I have no evidence to that effect. But if we hand the matter over to the provinces, then the people of Ontario, through their legislature which deals with civil rights, with the solemnization of marriage, with property, will be able to take up the whole question of marriage and divorce and establish courts of adjudication to pass judgment upon those questions as upon other questions of civil rights and property. This is the best we can do, and it is the suggestion I offer. I am quite sure if the solution were taken up in a broad way by representatives of the various parties in the house, they would secure for it the agreement of an. overwhelming majority of the people of this country irrespective of creed, race and province, because it is the sensible solution, the solution in keeping with the constitution.
Moreover, a point which has not yet been understood, in the province of Quebec, at least, and which I want to emphasize now is this: that if courts of divorce, as Sir Hector Langevin pointed out and as the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) pointed out this afternoon, were established in the eastern provinces prior to confederation, the courts of divorce working at present in Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan were established by federal legislation. This was unknown to the people of Quebec until a few weeks ago. I have seen printed in works that are considered as classics in Quebec, the statement that the Dominion parliament should not start the precedent of establishing divorce courts because it had1 never done so before; that divorce courts existed in the seven provinces because those provinces established them. Therefore, a classical author whose work is used in several of the colleges in Quebec, ignored the fact that the divorce courts of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta existed only under the operation of two federal acts, one passed in 1886, if my memory serves me aright, establishing in Manitoba all English laws as had been in force on the 15th July, 1870, and the other passed, I think, two years afterwards, establishing also all English laws in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. The result was the introduction, under federal legis-
lation, of the divorce law of England of 1857 in those three provinces.
And what about the judicature? This is a most interesting point, which exemplifies the point I made last week, and which was immediately ratified, so to speak, by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-iSt. George (Mr. Cahan). When a divorce case was taken before the supreme court of Saskatchewan, the judge excused himself on the ground of having no jurisdiction. He said:	I see no statute
conferring jurisdiction upon me to adjudicate upon divorce. The question was taken to the privy council and the privy council, putting into force that long-standing principle of British jurisprudence, declared:	Where there
is a lawr there is a tribunal to adjudicate upon it; and since the federal parliament of Canada has thought proper to introduce all English laws, including the divorce law, in the province of Saskatchewan, there must be a court of law to adjudicate upon such issues, and the supreme court of Saskatchewan, which exercises the same jurisdiction as similar courts in other provinces or in England, is the tribunal to which every ratepayer of that province has the right to appeal. All those questions were absolutely unknown to the people of the province of Quebec, and I dare say to the people of the province of Ontario.
These debates, Mr. Speaker, have not been useless, let my hon. friends on all sides admit. They have been raised, not for the pleasure of obstructing legislation or playing upon the nerves of anybody, but so far at least as I am concerned, and I think in this matter I can speak for my hon. friends on the other side, with the sincere object of finding a solution for one of the most important problems of government, of legislation and of public order. These days have not been lost, these debates have not been in vain, and if the Prime Minister, with the help of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), after consultation with the members of this house and with enlightened men from the province of Quebec and the province of Ontario can find a solution for this great problem, they may be assured that after some years have passed, it will be looked upon as one of the most important achievements of this parliament. It will have been a greater service done to the country than the passing of many of the appropriations and administrative bills which this house spends many hours discussing eveiy session. I do not say this in any spirit of disparagement of hon. members who take more interest in other questions, but simply because in my opinion this is a more important problem.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, to put a practical conclusion to these remarks, I may say that

Private Bills
for this session I am prepared to let pass on division the second reading of these bills. I do not promise to let them pass through the committee and receive their third reading without pointing out some discrepancies in the evidence, but I admit at once-as this question was put to me the other day by the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Boys)-that the question of evidence, so far as I am concerned, is entirely subordinate to the question of principle. I consent to let this procedure go on for this year because, as the Prime Minister says, a question of this nature, with all its complexities, cannot be settled at once. Indeed, if the Prime Minister had suggested that he was prepared to settle it this week, I would have taken advantage of my years and have advised him to make haste slowly because this is an important matter. At the same time I request from him, as a Canadian citizen, more so than as a member of parliament, and I request also of his colleagues, and of the members of the . opposition, and of every member of this house, that they give sincere and serious consideration to this problem and be prepared to make to the house whatever constructive suggestions they may have, so that we may bring to this vexed question a solution that will be as much in harmony as possible with the requirements of the various provinces and of Canada at large.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, on division, and' bill read the second time.
Hewitt Bostock: Shall I call the other
divorce bills on the order paper separately, putting a motion for each bill?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Whilst we are
yielding, and quite rightly, I think, after hearing the Prime Minister, I think the least that we can do is to have the motion for each bill put separately, and the sponsor of the bill should be in his place as is the case with other bills.


Hewitt Bostock: I have no objection. That is the rule.


SECOND HEADINGS
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 97, for the relief of Hunter Wilbert Faulkner.-Mr. Clark.
' Bill No. 99, for the relief of William Henry Blackwell.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 105, for the relief of Clarence Percy Shields.-Mr. Hepbum.
Bill No. 107, for the relief of John William Telfer.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 109, for the relief of James Ross Curry.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 113, for the relief of Antoine Joseph Bourdon-Mr. Clark.
Bill No. 114, for the relief of Arnold Whitchurch Little-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 115, for the relief of Arthur James Taylor-Mr. Stewart (Leeds).
Bill No. 120, for the relief of Janet Gee- Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 123, for the relief of Florence Velma Strachon-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 126, for the relief of William Henry Laverty-Mr. Bothwell.
Bill No. 134, for the relief of Dora Taylor- Mr. Hepburn.
Bill No. 136, for the relief of Helen Awrey- Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 145, for the relief of James Clayton Powell-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 147, for the relief of Clare Doutre Walters Bertram-Air. McPhee.
Bill No. 148, for the relief of Margaret Duffield-Mr. MicPhee.
Bill No. 149, for the relief of Dorothy Madeline Hanson Campbell-Mr. Clark.
Bill No. 151, for the relief of William Thomas Taylor-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 165, for the relief of Florence Jane Sheppard-Mr. Sanderson.
Motions for second readings agreed to on division.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: May I ask the Prime Minister whether or not we shall have the publication at an early date of the notes passed between the United States and Canada with regard to the I'm Alone.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I anticipate that in the next day or two, possibly by Wednesday, we shall be able to lay the paper on the table.



SUPPLY-PROCEDURE RESUMING ON THURSDAY OR FRIDAY DEBATE ON AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the order for the house to go into committee of supply:
['Yes, the system, but no consolidation of it. The system existed in the statute, but the railways were not consolidated until the order in council was passed. The hon. gentleman may say that he is the stepfather of the enterprise, but the father was the statute passed in 1920.\nThere is one thing I have to say about the use of the exchequer court. It works a great injustice against people in a small way in life, who are really unable to grapple with the situation. This session I have received several letters amongst them one this morning which I received from British Columbia in connection with the expropriation by the government of property near North Vancouver for a rifle range. The exchequer court took proceedings and arrived at certain conclusions. These people were told that they could have $75 for a lot of land which cost them, with taxes since they bought it, several hundred dollars. They say:\tWe are wholly incapable financially of embarking in exchequer court litigation. The provisions of the old Railway Act enabled one right in the community, with the aid of a district court judge, to carry on these proceedings, and it could be done without the aid of a solicitor at all. Frequently the owner himself presented his case, brought in his witnesses, and had it disposed of. Certainly I have known very great injustice to be done where people are placed in a position such as contemplated by this bill. I agree entirely with what the minister has said with respect to large matters in a city like Montreal, for instance, but might it not be desirable to say, "Where the sum tendered by the government for the land taken does not exceed" so many dollars,, so as to make clear the question of juridiction. I am only throwing out this suggestion at the moment for the *consideration of the minister, because on the second reading of the bill I am not going to take up the time of the house needlessly, but when it comes back to the house I should like to discuss that phase, having regard to', 'Simcoe Post-mastership-Mr. Bennett\nthe cases that have been brought to my attention recently in connection with the Vancouver rifle range, where if the information that I have received is correct, considerable hardship has been done to the owners of property in that locality.']
Richard Bedford Bennett: When the house rose the other afternoon, by reason of six o'clock being reached, there was under discussion a motion moved by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) in amendment to the motion that
Supply-Procedure

the Speaker do now leave the chair. Last year we followed with respect to such motions a practice which I understand has met with some expressions of disapproval. It will be recalled that the then member for Victoria,
B.C., Mr. Tolmie, moved an amendment, when the house was moved into supply, expressing regret that no action had been taken to prevent the importation into Canada of certain fruits. The motion was discussed but had not been concluded when the house rose, and the next day the Speaker left the chair as a matter of course. Later a motion in similar terms was moved by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Anderson), and on that motion the vote was subsequently taken. The practice then followed would involve in this instance the moving of the amendment made the other day, but proposed by an hon. member other than the hon. gentleman who then proposed the amendment. In order that the matter might be considered by the house the hon. member for Leeds gave notice to revive his motion, so that we might settle the practice if possible and have no uncertainty about it in the future. Having regard to what took place last year it is desirable that we should decide the question in some manner. I have not indicated how, in my opinion, it should be settled, but I felt that it might be decided by Your Honour, in view of what might be said by hon. gentlemen sitting on the government side of the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On Friday evening I anticipated the possibility of this matter coming up to-day and I expressed then what I felt to be the view, with respect to the rule as it had been drawn up, of a committee of this house, which presented its report to the house, which report was subsequently adopted. If the committee had intended that motions introduced on Wednesdays as amendments to the motion for the house to go into supply should be similar to like amendments on Mondays or Tuesdays, I think they would, in the report they presented to the house, have pronounced themselves to that effect. The rule provides that an amendment which is moved on Wednesday drops unless it is then concluded. Last year, as my hon. friend says, there was a discussion with respect to reviving a motion which had been brought in on Wednesday, as an amendment to the motion to go into supply, and Your Honour, addressing the house, expressed the view that if the motion had been submitted in good faith by the hon. member who moved it on a Wednesday, the house, controlling its own procedure, would be at liberty to allow the motion to be re-
vived. Members on the government side accepted the view expressed by hon. members opposite that the motion had been introduced in good faith, on the assumption that it might be revived at a subsequent time, notwithstanding the rule which provided that it should be dropped.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the rule say that it should be dropped?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the
rule is that it is dropped.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not think that order No. 7 went as far as that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The point I
wished to make the other evening is this: While for the reasons stated, that course was taken last year, we feel, now that the matter is coming up anew, we should know definitely whether it was the intention of the house at the time the rule was adopted to have it apply to Wednesday amendments in a manner similar to amendments moved on going into supply on Mondays. If Mr. Speaker deems this to have been the intention of the committee which amended the rules the government will of course accept whatever His Honour may direct. But I do submit there was an intention in the minds of the committee that motions brought in on Wednesdays as amendments on going into supply should be treated differently from those brought in on Mondays or Tuesdays.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As this is a point of order and I have already made some observations, perhaps I may be permitted to add a few more words with respect to it. I think the point the Prime Minister has raised overlooks the fact that the real reason behind this is that the Speaker has left the chair. On Thursday he leaves the chair automatically; on Wednesday the amendment was that he do not now leave the chair. But having left the chair on Thursday automatically without motion it follows that it is very difficult to continue the discussion on the amendment that he shall not leave the chair when he has already dons so. That was the real difficulty we had to meet last year and which we did meet in the manner I have indicated. Perhaps Your Honour has before you the journal showing what we did in those circumstances when the member for Halton moved an identical motion to that moved by the hon. member for Victoria, B.C., because of the fact that the Speaker having left the chair you could not continue a debate on a motion that he do not now leave the chair, for in reality what we were endeavouring to prevent happening

Supply-Procedure
had already happened-he had automatically without motion put left the chair. That is the real difficulty that has to be met either by reviving the rule or the practice we made continuing last year.


Hewitt Bostock: Last year the mernbel
for Victoria, B.C., when a motion was made that I should leave the chair for the house t-o go into committee of supply, moved an amendment thereto on the dumping duties, if I remember well. The debate went on until the house ajourned. The next day was Thursday and automatically I did leave the chair when the motion was made to go into supply. Then later on the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Anderson) rose to address the house, two or three days afterwards, on the 10th of May, I think. Prior to that as (Objection was taken that the debate had lapsed, I quoted what May says, page 476:
If an adjourned debate on such an amendment is standing upon the order paper when supply, for consideration of which in committee it is not necessary to propose the question for the Speaker's leaving the chair, is to be taken, the order of the day for resuming the adjourned debate is removed, and procedure on the amendment lapses, in order that the Speaker, in obedience to standing order 28 may leave the chair without question put.
Last year my ruling was that if the procedure had lapsed the question itself did not lapse. A question which has been decided by the house is a judgment of the house and it cannot be revived during that session. But when as in that particular instance the procedure lapses it does not follow that the question itself lapses and it can be revived. Here is what May says at page 234, 12th edition:
When an order of the day has been read, the proceedings thereon may be cut short by the adjournment of the house whilst those proceedings are in course of transaction, or before their resumption, when they have been postponed at a quarter past eight o'clock. An order of the day, in such cases or if, when the order is read, no day is appointed for its future consideration, drops off the notice paper, as the house has made no order thereon.
That is the case in the present instance.
In committee the same result may be produced, either by a failure of a quorum of the house, or by a resolution directing the chairman to leave the chair. To replace a dropped order of the day upon the notice paper, a motion is made (before the commencement, or after the close, of public business, to appoint the order for a subsequent day. These motions, which are made without notice, are usually treated as purely formal motions.
In the British system of parliamentary government the greatest latitude is given in regard to freedom of speech and the discussion of public matters, and when a question accidentally lapses by some definite rule that question may be revived. It is a dropped order, as May says, and it can be revived. In the present instance the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart), having given due notice to revive his lapsed motion is perfectly in order in taking it up to-day. Last year- and I speak from memory-the motion was not made by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Anderson), but as far as I remember there was an agreement between both sides of the house that the question should come to an issue and the hon. member simply continued the debate.
I therefore rule that the present motion is in order; the superseded debate can be revived, subject of course to the decision of the house.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is another point, based upon your present ruling, Mr. Speaker, which will require decision ultimately; that is the question of whether, with respect to the revived debate, those who spoke upon it formerly have the right to speak again as though it were a new motion, or whether, being revived, it is a resumption of the debate rather than a new discussion.


Hewitt Bostock: It is a dropped order but the house revives it. What has been said before cannot be repeated. The debate simply continues. Those who have not spoken on the motion may speak, but those who have already spoken may not speak again.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would like to ask another question with regard to the revival of a-motion of this kind. Is any latitude to be given as to the time within which a motion is to be revived? Would it be the first day thereafter on which the Speaker is in the chair and a motion is made for the house to go into supply, or may it be revived at any time before the end of the session?


Hewitt Bostock: The notice is given; then the motion is called and it is for the house to decide if it will carry or not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This debate
was discontinued on Wednesday; it could not be continued on Thursday or Friday because on those days Your Honour left the chair automatically. Should the motion to revive the amendment necessarily come on the first day we seek to go into supply thereafter, or may it come at any time during the remainder of the session?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should think it would be the first day, as a matter of practice.
Supply-Procedure


Hewitt Bostock: May says:
To replace a dropped order of the day upon the notice paper, a motion is made before the commencement, or after the close, of public business, to appoint the order for a subsequent day.	[DOT]
I must give a broad application to this practice; the motion should be presented at the earliest moment, because it is liable to be dropped again. Of course, when the motion is made for the revival of this dropped order it is for the house to say whether or not it wishes the question to be revived. The house may vote either for or against the motion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would like
to point out that on Friday evening I made it quite clear that with regard to this motion the government had no intention of opposing its revival; I simply intended to bring to the attention of the house the anomaly which now has arisen with reference amongst other things, to the future date when the motion might be revived.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think it important that we should have this matter settled because, as Your Honour has already intimated, it is a question which undoubtedly may arise frequently during the remainder of this session. If a substantive motion to revive is necessary it seems only necessary for me to point out that, since the government has a majority, the motion never may be revived and therefore could not be dealt with, which is exactly the opposite to what His Honour the Speaker now intimates should be done. That was one of the reasons which influenced us last year in adopting the practice suggested by Your Honour, instead of reviving it by a substantive motion, as perhaps the Prime Minister will recall, in order that no question might arise with respect to the fact that the Speaker had automatically left the chair in the meantime and it would seem senseless to move an amendment which would prevent him from leaving the chair when he had already left it. The suggestion of Your Honour on that occasion was that someone on this side of the house, if he so desired, when the Speaker was about to leave the chair on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday could move an amendment in terms similar to those of the amendment previously moved. The reason that the amendment could be in the same terms was the reason just given by Your Honour, namely that the house had not decided the question. Once the house decides the question it may not again be heard during the current session, but the house not having decided it and there being no expression of 
the will of the house with respect to the matter, as the authorities put it, it was thought desirable that we should revive the motion by moving a new motion. The Prime Minister has pointed out, and I believe this was in the mind of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning), that if the motion is revived we are reviving something which has been disposed of by the house already through the Speaker leaving the chair automatically; therefore the motion that the Speaker do not leave the chair is no longer one which could be intelligently placed before the house with respect to that matter. The ruling of last year certainly offered a logical solution of the difficulty, namely that the opposition might, if it so desired, move a substantive motion in terms exactly similar to those of the motion which had lapsed by reason of the Speaker leaving the chair at six o'clock and supply being carried on next day by reason of the fact that the Speaker left the chair automatically. That is the real difficulty as I see it, and I think we should arrive at a solution which will avoid inconvenience, difficulty or acrimonious misunderstandings in the future.


Hewitt Bostock: These seems to be an
agreement with regard to the continuation of this debate, so I will ask hon. gentlemen to allow me to write my ruling in this case. At all events, my ruling to-day is substantially the same as that given last year.


Charles Avery Dunning: If the suggestion of the leader of the opposition were followed it would bring up the difficulty as to speakers once again. If the motion is a new motion, which I understand was the case under last year's procedure, I take it that a new debate opens immediately in which those who participated in the former debate could take part, and because of that fact we might have an endless succession of speakers. The method suggested to-day by Your Honour avoids that difficulty; the motion for revival brings about the continuation of a former debate, which preserves the order of speaking just as though the debate had not been interrupted.


Hewitt Bostock: Last year the hon. member for Halton,-I speak from memory,-when he rose to speak, said he intended to present a motion similar to the one which had been dropped, but I have no recollection that he did make the motion; there was an agreement-on both sides that there should be a revival of the debate. If I may be allowed to do so I will give my ruling in writing, so as to fix what seems to me sound jurisprudence.

C.N.R.-Quebec, Montreal and Southern


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Journals of the house of Monday, May 14, 1928, at page 403, show:
Mr. Anderson (Halton), seconded by Mr. Stirling, moved in amendment thereto:
That all the words after the word "that" be stricken out and the following substituted therefor:-
"in the opinion of this house the necessary action should be taken by the government forthwith to effectively control the importation into Canada either on sale, or on consignment, of natural products of a class or kind produced in Canada, under conditions which prejudicially or injuriously affect, or threaten to prejudicially or injuriously affect the interests of Canadian producers.
That was a motion which had1 been moved by the hon. member Victoria (Mr. Tolmie).


Mr. CAHAN:: I do not know whether it
would be possible for Your Honour to modify your decision of last session. At that time I thought that it was a slightly erroneous decision in view of the precedents which I had then gathered together. These precedents showed that the motion and the proposed amendment thereto on the next day on which a motion was necessary to go into supply were entered by the Clerk of the House upon the orders for that day. In the minds of previous speakers of this house it was considered as a motion which had been temporarily superseded and which revived of itself without any further substantive motion. I have not the precedents with me to-day, but at that time I thought there was just a shade of difference between them and what I understood to be Your Honour's decision on that occasion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As Your Honour has thought it well to give your decision in writing, I would suggest to my hon. friends opposite that we might continue with the debate of last week without at present committing the house either way as to what the future practice will be.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When we rose the last
day we discussed this matter I had the floor, and perhaps I can proceed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Unless it is desired to
call it six o'clock. I must say that I have not my papers with me.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think it would be only fair, Mr. Speaker, to take up some other matter between now and six o'clock, and resume this debate at eight o'clock this evening. I would suggest that we take up one or two of the resolutions relating to railway matters.



[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 72, respecting Canadian National Railways and to authorize the acquisition of the Quebec, Montreal and Southern Railway.-Mr. Dunning.-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Authority to purchase.
Charles Avery Dunning: This bill has been called because it is one of those which has .been before the railway committee and has been thoroughly examined there.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was not here when the
matter was last considered, but there appears to be some opinion that the road is not worth $6,000,000. There seems to be an impression that a report was made on a previous occasion fixing a much lower price.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am sorry that I have not my pa-pers with me at the present moment, but I have sent for them. The members of the railway committee, who are also members of this committee, will remember that the railway officers who undertook all negotiations with respect to the acquisition of this particular property gave the particulars as to the replacement value of the property and the value of the equipment. I may say that the value of the equipment is much above the normal equipment value which would be required for a road of this mileage, and it had a very important bearing upon the price factor. With a small extension which can be arranged for in the future, this line will provide the Canadian National Railways with a water grade line down the south shore of the St. Lawrence, and' will obviate the necessity of considerable double tracking on the existing main line through what is the third most congested section, from a traffic point of view, on the whole Canadian National Railways.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the mileage of this line?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The schedule of the act says that the whole comprises a railway mileage of 191 miles.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the figure I had in mind. The great economic advantage to the Canadian National is the fact that it will save double tracking over a severe grade on the main line. This line formerly belonged to the Delaware and Hudson and a water grade will be secured which can be connected with the existing main line at a point past the summit of the grade for which double tracking
C.N.R. Act Amendment

would be necessary if this line were not acquired. This line traverses a very important and quickly developing industrial area south of the St. Lawrence river from Montreal to Sorel, and when the bill was before the house previously I gave the names and the populations of the different towns through which it passes. The officers of the Canadian National consider this a good buy from the point of view of railway economics in connection with the national system.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the minister know what weight of steel is laid?
_ Mr- DUNNING': I am sorry I have not that information.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We are paying $31,000 per mile for the road.


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps we had better let this stand in the meantime. The information was given in committee that the amount of equipment is far in excess of the amount normally involved in such a line. The equipment purchases made by the Delaware and Hudson for this line had to db with that company's car relationship in Canada, and the equipment is an important factor in the matter. I shall be glad, if my ban. friend desires to press the matter to allow the bill to stand.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Charles Avery Dunning: The whole matter was
very thoroughly discussed in the railway committee :


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is about $31,000 a mile for the line?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: One would like to know what weight of steel is used, what type of locomotive, and whether or not the roadbed is in fair condition.


Charles Avery Dunning: The roadbed is in fair,
but not good, condition. The equipment is in excellent condition. I will get the information for my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved the second reading of Bill No. 130, to amend the Canadian National Railways Act.

He said: As I explained in response to a question when the bill was introduced, it seeks to make a number of minor amendments to the Canadian National Railways Act, amendments which are made necessary by references which were rather mixed up in the revision of the statutes but which will become clear to anyone reading the sections which are designed to correct the errors. There is, however, one important provision which is contained in section 2 of the bill. It can be dealt with probably more intelligently in committee of the whole than at this stage of the bill. Briefly, it seeks to make available to the Canadian National Railways the provisions of the Expropriation Act, and as it will be of some interest to my legal friends in the house, I can say that the object of it is to endeavour to secure a uniform procedure in connection with large matters of expropriation which, from the point of view of the Canadian National, can be more conveniently carried on through the exchequer court, than by the means available in various parts of the country. As is well known, the exchequer court can, in minor cases, delegate to a district court or other judge an investigation, but by this amendment it will be possible, in large cases, to make available the machinery of the exchequer court. In looking over the debates at the time when the Canadian National Railways Act was originally passed, I gather that there was then a very substantial desire to make available that machinery, but the matter was not pressed and the ordinary provisions of the Railway Act were made available. After looking into the matter with some degree of thoroughness, I am of opinion that, as regards large expropriations such as are sometimes involved in matters connected, for instance, with the Montreal terminals and so forth, the exchequer court is better machinery than would otherwise be available. For the information of the house I may say that such expropriations as have taken place in Montreal recently have been taken under the Government Railways Act by the minister in order to make available the provisions of the exchequer court procedure instead of the ordinary procedure which would be available in such cases. I would suggest that all these various features can be better dealt with in the committee stage of the bill.
Richard Bedford Bennett: It must be a matter of
gratification to the minister that he has in this bill settled one question, that is, who brought in the act for the consolidation of the Canadian National railways. There is no question about that because he will admit that

C.N.R. Act Amendment
the statute is the Canadian National Railways Act of 1920 and at least the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) was not in power at that time. So we know from the government itself who consolidated the national railways, who provided the machinery 'by which the consolidation was carried out, and this act is to -make certain that other roads will be brought within the scope of that act. There is just one difficulty about expropriations through the excehquer court-


Charles Avery Dunning: Before my hon. friend
leaves that point, he will admit there is a great deal of difference between the authorization in spirit and the authorization in practice.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thank the hon. gentleman, because otherwise my statement might have been incomplete. He will recall that the proceedings in the Privy Council were not terminated until after the right hon. gentleman had accepted office.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am glad my hon. friend brings up that point, because I have looked into it and I find that the decision of the Privy Council was given after we had consolidated the roads under the act, and not before.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All I can say is I do not think the right hon. gentleman can be exactly correct. I think the present government passed the order in council providing for it, but if the decision in the Privy Council had gone against the country, the consolidation would have been made impossible.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The question
before the Privy Council was simply a point of law. We had appointed Sir Henry Thornton and the consolidation had taken place under an order in council we passed before the Privy Council had decided the point of law.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I never like to contradict without having the record beside me, but I happen to recall the summer in which the decision was given, because I heard it given in the Privy Council, and I think Sir Henry Thornton was not appointed until after I returned from England.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will give my hon. friend the exact date.


Richard Bedford Bennett: At any rate, we have
settled one question: namely, that the act was passed in 1920, and the further fact that
this government passed the order in council under that statute, without the statute the order in council was impossible, so at least-


Charles Avery Dunning: The act was a dead letter until the order in council was passed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Without the act there
could be no order in council.


Charles Avery Dunning: And without the order in council there could be no Canadian National system.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, the system, but no consolidation of it. The system existed in the statute, but the railways were not consolidated until the order in council was passed. The hon. gentleman may say that he is the stepfather of the enterprise, but the father was the statute passed in 1920.
There is one thing I have to say about the use of the exchequer court. It works a great injustice against people in a small way in life, who are really unable to grapple with the situation. This session I have received several letters amongst them one this morning which I received from British Columbia in connection with the expropriation by the government of property near North Vancouver for a rifle range. The exchequer court took proceedings and arrived at certain conclusions. These people were told that they could have $75 for a lot of land which cost them, with taxes since they bought it, several hundred dollars. They say:	We are wholly incapable financially of embarking in exchequer court litigation. The provisions of the old Railway Act enabled one right in the community, with the aid of a district court judge, to carry on these proceedings, and it could be done without the aid of a solicitor at all. Frequently the owner himself presented his case, brought in his witnesses, and had it disposed of. Certainly I have known very great injustice to be done where people are placed in a position such as contemplated by this bill. I agree entirely with what the minister has said with respect to large matters in a city like Montreal, for instance, but might it not be desirable to say, "Where the sum tendered by the government for the land taken does not exceed" so many dollars,, so as to make clear the question of juridiction. I am only throwing out this suggestion at the moment for the *consideration of the minister, because on the second reading of the bill I am not going to take up the time of the house needlessly, but when it comes back to the house I should like to discuss that phase, having regard to

Simcoe Post-mastership-Mr. Bennett
the cases that have been brought to my attention recently in connection with the Vancouver rifle range, where if the information that I have received is correct, considerable hardship has been done to the owners of property in that locality.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the second time.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
By unanimous consent the house resumed from Wednesday, April 17, consideration of the proposed motion of Mr. Robb for supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Stewart (Leeds):
That all the words after the word "that" in the motion he struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"In the opinion of this house the Postmaster Ganeral has acted in a most arbitrary manner and in utter disregard of the letter and the spirit of the Civil Service Act in connection with the recent appointment of a postmaster at the town of Simcoe."
['Mr. Speaker, I have received from the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs a message issued by His Majesty the King from Craigwell House today. I think hon. members would be interested in hearing it, and if the house will give me permission I will, notwithstanding that we are past the hour of adjournment, read the message. It is as follows:\nIn looking back on my long illness and recovery my heart is full of thankfulness of far deeper origin than any mere sense of relief.\nI have been brought back from danger and weariness of the past months by the wonder-full skill and devotion of my doctors, surgeons and nurses. And help has come from another source of strength:\tas month after month\nwent by I learned of the widespread and loving solicitude with which The Queen and 1 were surrounded. I was able to picture to myself the crowds of friends waiting and watching at my gate and to think of still greater numbers of those who in every part of the empire were remembering me with prayers and good wishes. The realization of this has been among the most vivid experiences of my life.\nIt was an encouragement beyond description to feel that my constant and earnest desire had been granted-the desire to gain the confidence and affection of my people. My thoughts have carried me even further than this. I cannot dwell upon the generous sympathy shown to me by unknown friends in many other countries without a new and moving hope. I long to believe it possible that experiences such as mine may soon appear no longer exceptional: when the national anxiety of all the peoples of the world shall be felt as a common source of human sympathy and a common claim on human friendship.\nI am not yet able to bear the strain of a public ceremony but I look forward on some appointed day to joining with my people at home \nand overseas in thanking Almighty God not merely for my own recovery but for the new evidence of a growing kindly significance of the true nature of men and nations.\nIn the meantime I hope this message may reach all those even in the remotest corners of the world from whom I have received words of sympathy and goodwill.\n(Signed) George R. I.']
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock last Wednesday I was directing attention to the fact that under the provisions of the Civil Service Act any objection to a particular candidate named by the Civil Service Commission must come from the deputy minister, not from the minister himself. That fact was referred to by the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) in one of his public addresses. But, as he said the other day, he was prepared-as indeed he must be under our institutions-to accept responsibility for the actions of his deputy. I merely say that to close the matter with which I was then dealing.
But before I proceed more particularly with the resolution introduced by my hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Stewart) I desire to point out that in Le Droit, under date of April 20, 1929, an article appears in which it is alleged that the attack against the Postmaster General is being made virtually because he happens to be of French origin. Mr. Speaker, I desire to say how strongly we resent such a statement in the public press of this country A free translation of the article-which I will not read in full lest it should empty the house -would be this in part:

These attacks need hardly surprise us since Mr. Veniot himself has done all he could to provoke them. It is a crime for certain people to see that constitution is respected, to see that the two official languages are on a footing of equality, and that the field of action of the French language is extended a little. We do not fear to say that certain people object to the father of the bilingual postage stamp more than to the minister who is charged with favouritism.
Could anything be more injurious to the peace and happiness of the commonwealth, could anything be more subversive of the unity of this Dominion than the publication of an article of this character-it is signed by Charles Gautier-in which it is asserted that the minister because he is the father of the bilingual postage stamp is being attacked in this house, when as a matter of fact the true reason for our criticism is his inefficiency in the conduct of his department. This is another passage from the same article:
All this noise (about certain appointments or dismissals is like .a tempest in a teapot; it is the madness of fanaticism against a minister who is convinced that the sun shines for everybody, and acts accordingly. A minister who, bke Mr. Yeniot, tries to put in practice the letter as well as the spirit of the constitution deserves the support of all political and national elements.
Those of us who recall a report of a speech by the Postmaster General that appeared in the public press of Montreal-in regard to which the hon. minister stated that he had been inaccurately reported-find here a reflection of exactly what was said on that occasion. Here is an appeal being made once more to racial origin and to political predilections, the kind of appeals of which the Postmaster General is a past master, and we resent with all the Strength of which we are capable this editorial allegation that the effort on the part of the opposition to bring to the attention of the Canadian people the gross inefficiency that at the present time characterizes the conduct of the Post Office department is in any sense influenced by the fact that the minister happens to be of Freneh-Acadian origin. It would make no difference to us from what race he is sprung. We are not dealing with the man, we are not dealing with his racial origin, we are not dealing with his religion; we are dealing with the Postmaster General, with the man who has been entrusted by the Canadian people, through the Prime Minister, with the conduct of a greait department of the government, and if in the conduct of that department it becomes necessary for those who sit to the left of the Speaker to draw attention to the gross inefficiency of his administration,

Simcoe Postmastership-Mr. Bennett
we shall resent, such a construction being put upon our criticism, and we shall ask the Canadian people for their judgment as to whether this sort of thing which has been going on for the last ten years is to be continued, whether our efforts to bring about the correction of abuses and maladministration are to be frustrated at every turn by an appeal to the bilingual issue. It is time that such appeals be frowned upon, it is time that some more effective answer was made to the charges directed against the hon. gentleman's inefficient administration of his department.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there is an amendment to the motion to go into committee of supply which deals with the case of the appointment of a postmaster at Simcoe. With thait I propose briefly to deal, for it is now apparent not only from the number of cases which have been brought forward in this house, but from the letters which every member to your left is receiving as to what is happening in his district, now that attention has been focussed upon the Postmaster General's department, that a general motion only will satisfy the people in this regard. It is no longer the Simcoe post office; it is every post office w'here the minister has had an opportunity at the behest of Liberal members to exercise political patronage in this department of the public service.
Let me for a moment draw the attention of the house to the fact that in the effort to promote a decent public service and bring it under the control of the Civil Service Commission many, many difficulties were experienced. Those difficulties were raised not any more by the Liberal party than by the Conservative party. But it was fortunate that at the particular moment the Union government was in power and found it possible to place upon the statute books legislation that enabled us to have a civil sendee so far as possible free from politics. What was the purpose of the Civil Service Act? The purpose, first of all, was to promote efficiency in the public service and, secondly, to assure continuity in office so long as the civil servant did not interfere in the politics of the country, and thereby give a dignity to the service of the crown that had been denied in days gone by.
I repeat what I said the other day, that at the election of 1911 a very large number of the public servants believed that because the Liberal party had been in power so long they were perfectly within their rights in taking an active part in the elections of that year. They did take an active part, and they
paid the price by being removed from office.
I well recall the circumstances under which Mr.-now Sir Robert-Borden's government passed an order in council providing that if members of the House of Commons would certify over their signatures that given individuals in their communities had been offensive partisans at the election, they should be removed from office. I also recall that the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier approved of the general terms of that order. Action was taken accordingly, and when last session the hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) was able to stand up in this house and say of his own knowledge that he believed a given person to have been guilty of political partisanship, you will recollect, sir, that at once I said the incident was ended so far as we were concerned. He was absolutely within the order in council, and the postmaster who he said, of his own knowledge, had been guilty of offensive partisanship undoubtedly must have expected to be relieved from office. Why? Because it has always been contended, before the Civil Service Act was passed at all, that any servant of the crown who saw fit to take part in elections publicly must be prepared to yield up his position if the fortunes of war went against him. The Right Hon. Mr. Fielding, former Minister of Finance, laid down a principle

I do not know that I can repeat the exact words-that any person appointed to a public position, as a servant of the crown, must first of all discharge his duties as such. He was not thereby debarred from taking an interest in public affiairs, or to exercise his franchise if he so desired, but he must not interfere actively in the politics of the country, for, by so doing he ceased to be a servant of the public.
This Civil Service Act with all its defects, as we all must realize, was made possible in its present form when a union government was in power. It is the duty of all of us, whether we sit on the right or the left of the Speaker, or whether we constitute a group of lesser numbers than those who sit directly to the right or to the left, to assist, in my judgment, in promoting the efficiency of that act. It should be maintained in all its power and efficiency, and no government in power to-day -and they may not be to-morrow, meaning by to-morrow some future time-would dare say that the act should be repealed. This act should not be tampered with, and that is why we as a party are taking the strong stand that we are taking to-day. It was held by the privy council many years ago, in a case that came up from Australia-and the member from Marquette (Mr. Glen) will remember
1808	COMMONS
Simcoe Postmastership-Mr. Bennett
it-that no public servant could be dismissed from office without cause being assigned and a reason given, to enable him to defend himself and his reputation from all that is involved in being dismissed from office without an opportunity to be heard. Only the other day you will recall that General Booth was removed from office by the high council of the Salvation Army. An injunction was applied for and granted by Mr. Justice Eve. Why ? Because it is an elementary rule of our law that a man who occupies a position such as he did must not be removed from office unless he has had an opportunity to be heard, and has been given the reasons for which it is proposed to dismiss him. Mr. Justice Eve granted the injunction.
I recall, as I stand here, the case of an Indian agent dismissed by order in council, and he does not know to this day why he was removed. But I also recall, too, that Mr. -now Sir Robert-Borden laid down the rule that no man should be removed from office without having an opportunity to defend himself against the charges laid against him.
Many of the cases that were read the other day by the Postmaster General are cases in which men were active partisans. They had to be removed from office because of that. I recall two cases in the city in which I live, one of them, I believe, a collector of customs, the other occupying a position in the land office. Both tendered their resignations immediately after the election, because they had gone out and taken an active part in the election. The postmasters named by the Postmaster General the other day were dismissed because they had taken an active part in the election. Any man who went out and took an active part in the elections of 1925 and 1926, whether he be a Liberal or a Conservative, must have known at least the consequence of his own act. He must now expect the consequences and give up the office which he holds, because he has seen fit to participate actively in a political campaign rather than give his service to the state in the way in which I have indicated.
Now, look what has happened in this country. For sixteen months, from October to February, the Postmaster General on an average has dismissed one postmaster a day. That is the return to this parliament. That is his record, one a day. And what is more, Sir, let us turn to his record in connection with the Civil Service Act; take the Department of Justice, the Department of Trade and Commerce, the Department of Finance; take any of the other departments and compare the number of cases in which the Civil Service IMr. Bennett.]
Act has been overridden with the number of times it has been overridden by the Postmaster General. You had the figures given you the other day. Practically as many as all the other departments put together. The Postmaster General has seen fit to overrule the Civil Service Act of this country to that extent. Was that accident? Does anyone think that all those men were dismissed, as mere accidents?
And that brings me to this case from Simcoe. I dealt with the facts the other day, and now it would seem to me the situation is simply this: a vacancy; applications for the appointment; a decision by the Civil Service Commission; a rejection by the deputy minister. And then you ask: was that rejection warranted on any ground of high public policy, or by the statute itself? And, unless you can affirmatively answer that question then indeed you fail. If the Postmaster General, through his deputy, rejected, without warrant, then on the ground of high public policy-meaning by that the efficiency of the post office service -this motion is warranted and it should be adopted by this house.
What are the facts? Without going into them in further detail to-night, it is only necessary to point out that, first of all, you have an amputation case. You have a case in which the disabled soldier was a soldier who had suffered the loss of both his limbs below the knees, one below the ankle and the other between the ankle and the knee. The amputation cases are not easily taken care of in this country. It is not easy to re-establish the amputation case. It is not easy to provide positions in the public service for those who have suffered an amputation of both legs. There are a limited number of positions which they can fill. They are very limited in number. In some instances they are able to operate elevators with but one arm, or with one leg. You find them doing work of that kind. But there is a limitation upon the work that they can do, and that is the reason, I take it, that the statute provided for a preference being given to the disabled soldier over the ordinary case of the returned man. His disability gave h:m a preference over his fellow, the man who fought side by side with him, the man who came out of the war whole in body while he came out with his legs gone, or his arms gone, or suffered a disability recognized by pension. He then receives at the hands of the law, under the statutes of this country, a preference over the man who came out of the war whole. This man had a preference given to him by law, and the Civil Service Commission in reckoning that preference gave him the posi-

Simcoe Postmastership-Mr. Bennett
tion. And why? We have it that Doctor Roche and Mr. Tremblay both saw the applicant. They realized that he was fit to discharge the duties of postmaster at Simcoe. The Postmaster General says "I say he is not. This man could not handle mail bags, could not do the work that I think he should be able to do". And yet that excuse was not brought up until long after he had been awarded the office by the action of the Civil Service Commission itself. Was it warranted? Is there any question but that there was political interference which brought about this situation? Is there any doubt about it? In making his defence the other evening the Postmaster General referred to certain things which took place at the meeting in Simcoe.
I hold in my hand a copy of the Simcoe Reformer of October 18, 1928, a Liberal paper-
Some hon. MEMBERS : No.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is independent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I confess that I am not
in a position to state with any degree of authority; I assumed it to be a Liberal paper from its name, but names do not always correctly interpret political opinions. The other evening the Postmaster General said that Mr. Whittaker seemed rather convinced by the story told by the Postmaster General in his speech at Simcoe. According to this paper Mr. Whittaker is quoted as follows:
If Mr. Veniot is correctly reported, w'hat he says absolutely untrue. His motive for attributing these statements to me is very clear, in that such a declaration on my part would absolve Mr. Veniot and his followers from all suspicion of patronage in my case. I had not intended to say anything more for publication about my side of the question, but in view of this absolute fabrication I feel compelled to make public what actually happened in this regard from the beginning, and to expose certain untruths contained in Mr. Veniot's address at Simcoe.
Last summer, after word of the appointment of Mr. Bowyer to the postmasterShip had come through. I was approached by a member of the local Liberal executive, presumably delegated by W. H. Taylor, M.P., the Liberal member for Norfolk, and was offered a proposition somewhat as follows: The local Liberals, hacked by the member, were to agree to lend me their support in securing an appointment at Brantford, Ont. In return I wias to promise to maintain a discreet silence in regard to my treatment at the hands of the Postmaster General and not to he seen conversing in public with any person known to be of the Conservative stripe. In addition, I was to be bound by the conditions of a letter which they were to submit for my signature and which was to be made public prior to the public announcement of my appointment. The purport of this letter was to the effect: (1) That I had no grievance against .the local Liberal member or any of his
followers. (2) That I was now satisfied that I would not have been physically able to handle the position of Postmaster at Simcoe. (3) That I felt duly grateful to the postal department for their foresight in refusing to allow me, in spite of myself, to assume a position the duties of which they considered, in the kindness of their hearts, to be far to onerous for a man in my position.
After due consideration of the principles and ethics involved in this proposition, I, as an ex-soldier of His Majesty's forces, could not bring myself to be a party to a dishonourable scheme of this kind. Consequently my answer to their plan of barter could only he a fiat refusal.
Nothing further happened in regard to the purchase of my silence until the evening before Mr. Veniot's meeting in Simcoe. It was the night of October 3, when my friend Sam Morris of Port Dover, also an amputation case, was approached by A. A. Winter. K.C.S, of Simcoe. They were attending a meeting in Port Dover in connection with proposed improvements to the harbour, at which Hon. J. C. Elliott, Minister of Public Works, was present. In the course of their conversation, Mr. Winter stated that the local Liberal party were prepared to secure for me any job which I would be able to handle, and at this time suggested that Mr. Morris get in touch with me and arrange an interview with the government party the following night in Simcoe to discuss the possibility of finding me a position.
Accordingly the interview was arranged through Mr. Morris, but for some reason Mr. AVinter dropped out, and we went to Mr. A7cniot's meeting with no definite appointment in prospect. At the conclusion of the meeting, Mr. Morris accompanied me to the platform, where we secured the attention of Mr. Taylor. M.P.. who at once brought up my refusal of the Brantford proposition. I reiterated my stand in this regard. He then expressed his willingness to remove the conditons of acceptance referred to above, since he admitted being resposible for having them attached to the proposal.
It was at this time that Mr. Veniot approached us, and after shaking hands with us, as a matter of course, he stated that he would help me get the position. He remarked that I was not to consider the post office episode a personal matter and that he bore me no hard feelings. This was all that was said between us, and, after shaking hands again, Mr. Veniot bade me good-bye.
The statement which he attributes to me as having been uttered at this meeting constitutes an absolute falsehood and a deliberate attempt to lead the public astray, as well as a contemptible effort to justify bis position by shifting for onus for his high-handed conduct from his own shoulders.
Before departing, Mr. Taylor said that we would have a talk about the matter of the Brantford position. Ten days have elapsed and I have heard nothing more about it. In any event I couild not conscientiously .become a party to such an arrangement, .which savors of the same political patronage as has permeated the entire case. I wash my hands entirely of all dealings with the men who, in my heart, I believe have been guilty of the basest treachery to a man who fought for his country and sacrificed both limbs on the fields of France.
1810	COMMONS
Simcoe Postmastership-Mr. Bennett
I will not read the rest of the article, which is a discussion of what took place at Simcoe; I am not concerned with that at the moment. This is the statement made by Mr. Whittaker in reply to the remarks of the Postmaster General. We all remember the kind of letter the Postmaster General1 wrote in connection with another case, in which he left out the important facts. Asked wrhy he did not state those facts os they were; asked why he was willing to write something which he knew to be untrue he said he did not desire to hurt anyone's feelings. What confidence can we place in the word of a minister who writes such a letter as that? I put that question to this house, and- there are hundreds of people throughout Canada to-night asking the same thing, men and women who have read the debate, men and women who hold small offices as postmasters and postmistresses throughout our rural communities; they are asking themselves that question to-night just as I am putting it to you. Heretofore it always has been the rule that when we had such a letter as was produced the other evening over the signature of a minister of the crown, we could rely upon it as representing the facts, but we now have a minister of the crown saying it was not true, that he knew it was not true and that he wrote the letter in that way for some purpose other than the real reason appearing on its face. I say that conduct such as that does merit the disapproval of the Canadian people through their representatives in this parliament.
1 have not had an opportunity to look up the records, but some effort has been made in that direction in order to see if there ever was another case such as that, and so far as I have been able to find out there never was another. There it is. Some of my hon. friends who have followed the debates in other countries will remember that in one case in England a minister of the crown was peremptorily dismissed by his Prime Minister because there appeared to foe some suspicion of a lack of frankness on his part. Hon. .members may recall that within the last few years one minister of the crown resigned his office, great though it was, because of some suspicion attaching to the attitude he had taken with respect to a public matter, and those who have followed affairs in India will recall that a prime minister dismissed from office a minister of the crown who had given a letter to the public under circumstances which raised some suspicion as to the bona fides under which it bad been done. We in Canada sometimes follow a looser practice and allow ourselves to be deluded by outside considerations. With

the facts as stated I have no hesitation in asserting that Mr. Whittaker would have been postmaster of Simcoe to-night if some one had not interfered for political reasons.
Let us see what that interference was. There is the statute-not the regulation-which says that the applicant must be a bona fide resident of the locality; that was read to this house the other afternoon and I will not read it again. Mr. Bowyer did not reside nearer to Simcoe than two miles from Hamilton. He was assessed on a piece of property in Simcoe, but his letter clearly indicates that in his opinion he at least was not residing in Simcoe at that time. There is the statute; the inspector found him at Mount Albion; the other gentleman sent out to investigate found him there also. Therefore I say we have no satisfactory answer to the question which hon. gentlemen are asking themselves in this house: Was the rejection warranted? That is the question which must be answered; everything else sinks into insignificance. Stripping this case of everything else we have just one question to answer: "Was the rejection of Mr. Whittaker warranted?"' Everything was regular up to that point; the vacancy, the advertisement, the application, the investigation, the appointment to office as far as the Civil Service Commission could do it, the report that he was physically fit, the inspection, the visit to Ottawa !by the applicant and the rejection by the Deputy Postmaster General, who, you will recall, the other day in another case which was dealt with by the Postmaster General pointed out that he took a certain action because the minister told him to do so. That is part of the record. As I say, we have the rejection by the Deputy Postmaster General, and the only question this house can ask is very simple. It is this: Was that rejection warranted? When the members of this house vote upon this motion they vote yea or nay to that quetion, "Was the rejection warranted''? Was the Postmaster General warranted in rejecting this young man who had suffered: two amputations and who walked up and down the corridors of this building, parading himself before the Postmaster General in order to demonstrate his ability to walk without the aid of a cane. He sold his business to obtain the better job. He points out that he was receiving a pension for his disability; he was within that favoured, ultrapreferred class. I ask the members of the house, sitting as judges, whether that rejection was warranted? Is there one of us who is free from political bias who would say that upon those facts the rejection was warranted? That

Simcoe Postmastership-Mr. Bennett
is what we must vote upon; that is what the issue is; that is what this amendment to the resolution to go into supply means.
When we find the public journals endeavouring to inflame the public mind by making the appeal to forty per cent of the population of this country that the attack upon the Postmaster General is being made because he is of French origin, we say that that is an insult to the house, and we on this side of the house will continue to do our duty. We make that answer to this and all similar cases. My hon. friend the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) can make some other answer to his constituents in Regina and elsewhere, but we will stand for evenhanded justice for every man and woman in this country regardless of race or religion.


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. gentleman's followers in Saskatchewan are now going in the directly opposite direction.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am glad the hon. minister said that, because the only report I ever saw was the report of a public speech made by the Premier, Mr. Gardiner, himself in Saskatchewan and to which I directed the minister's attention last year.


Charles Avery Dunning: I shall be glad to send my hon. friend a copy.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I shall be glad to see it.
As the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) is now in his seat I would ask him to define to the house, in order that it may not be said in the remote sections of the constituencies of this country that appeals are being made to racial animosities and prejudices, what the constitutional rights of the French and English are under the constitution with respect to bilingualism. I ask him to define that so that there will be no misunderstanding. It is the duty of the Attorney General of Canada to do that.
The article in Le Droit says that the Postmaster General is being attacked because he is the father of the bilingual postage stamp. Before supply is granted I want the Minister of Justice to define the constitutional rights of minorities and majorities, and then it will be seen that there never has been a departure by the Conservative party from those rights as established by the constitution. It will be remembered by those who know the political history of this country that the Conservative party, because of a judgment of the privy council defining the rights of minorities, went down to defeat and almost suffered extinction at the hands of the electorate. Those are the facts, and it is time that this sort of thing was discontinued, that efforts to make political capital out of such statements in the by-ways and hedges of the remote sections of the country be stopped.
When the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada has defined what the position is in law; when he has defined the constitutional rights with respect to bilingual postage stamps and other matters of that kind, then he will find that no voice has been raised against the enjoyment to the full of the rights of all men and women under the constitution, be they majorities or minorities. The old red herring has been dragged across the trail-the old effort at which hon. gentlemen opposite are past masters; the effort which has served them so well in days gone by but which will not continue to serve them again. The record will be placed upon Hansard to show that there is no doubt that there has never been a time when this has been the case. It has been said within the shadow of parliament that an attack is being made on the Postmaster General for one purpose only, and in the discharge of our constitutional duty we must point out these facts.
This is a very serious matter to those of us who have been endeavouring as best we can during the last year to keep down such agitations to stop them whenever we have seen them, and to endeavour to promote unity, harmony, respect and regard for the constitutional rights of all peoples in this country. When a statement like this appears in the public press and is allowed to go uncontradicted it is taken as being admitted, and gathers force and strength as it travels along.
But that is not an answer to the question. Was the rejection warranted? I have heard no words from the Postmaster General which would establish before a responsible judge or jury the fact that it was warranted. It is upon that question that we will presently vote. This resolution is limited to the Simcoe post office, but there are many other eases which will be dealt with before supply is granted to the Post Office Department. We will vote upon this resolution and presently upon a general resolution, in the public interest, and which touches the administration of the post office, declaring that the utter disregard of the Civil Service Act, and gross partisanship in dismissals to the extent of one per day for sixteen months by the Postmaster General merits the condemnation of this housse.


Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I desire to
refer to some of the remarks made by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat

Simcoe Postmastership-Mr. Elliott
(Mr. Bennett). I hope he will pardon me if I think that .the greater portion of his remarks have perhaps no bearing whatever upon the resolution, which is now before the house.
He made a statement at the beginning of his remarks with regard to the censure which should be placed upon a certain newspaper for saying something which did not have a tendency to promote harmony and unity among the peoples of this country. I am going to leave it to the house and to the country as to whether the remarks with which the hon. gentleman prefaced his address would have the tendency of promoting harmony and unity among the peoples of this country.
Because my time is limited I desire to refer first to what the hon. gentleman said in his remarks the other evening. I read his statement with a good deal of care, and I must say in this connection that I am not interested in making a defence of the Postmaster General (Mr. Yeniot), because, in my humble opinion, Canada has never had, among the excellent postmasters general who have presided over the department, a gentleman who has conducted the affairs of that department with greater efficiency and with more regard for public service than my colleague the present Postmaster General has done and is doing to-day. I feel that I should make some reference to the remarks made the other evening by the hon. gentleman when he referred to my hon. friend the member for Norfolk-Elgin (Mr. Taylor), and said that he was going to show his connection with this particular matter. I will read what he said: It appears at page 1671 of Hansard:
But the Civil Service Commission had no knowledge of it.
That was the question of Mr. Bowyer's entitlement.
The minister said he had; and why did the minister intervene? Is not this the fact? The member for that riding, as I shall presently show-
And as he never did show.
-and the Liberal organization in that county, said, "We must interfere and get this job for Bowyer." That is the record, as I shall show in a moment.
I followed his remarks the other evening and I listened with great attention to his remarks to-night with some expectation that he would carry out the promise he then made to show that the hon. member for Norfolk-Elgin or somebody else had interfered in the matter so as to enable Mr. Bowyer to get this position. But though he made that promise, which apparently came so readily to him at the time he was making those remarks, neither in his subsequent remarks the other evening nor in
	1
his remarks to-night has he said one word that would by any possibility connect the hon. member for Norfolk-Elgin with endeavouring to obtain this appointment for Mr. Bowyer as is suggested in that paragraph.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I read what Mr. Whittaker said.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend knows perfectly well that he made a suggestion that he was going to prove what he said, and he carried on with that flourish of trumpets which is so peculiarly his own. But he took great care never to get back to it again during the whole course of his speech.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then the hon. member
could not have been listening.


John Campbell Elliott: Why did he not get back to it? Because evidently he has read the record and he knows that from one end of it to the other there is not the slightest vestige of evidence to bear out that statement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was on the minister's personal file, I suppose.


John Campbell Elliott: Whatever file it is on, my hon. friend promised to prove it and he did not do so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I read what Whittaker
said.


John Campbell Elliott: Let us just consider this. What are the facts?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Excuse me. I regret I interrupted the minister and I shall not do so again.


John Campbell Elliott: I will try to keep to the facts in connection with what the record shows. I have only forty minutes, but I do not object to interruptions as long as they do not take too much time.
Let us consider the facts. It is only fair to the returned soldier who has not obtained the position, that all the efforts and misrepresentations that may be made from any side of this house shall not prejudice him. Let us get clearly into our minds first of all that this is not a contest between a Liberal and a Conservative. Both applicants were Liberals.


Peter McGibbon: One was an official Liberal. The other was not.


John Campbell Elliott: I do not know exactly what my hon. friend means by an official Liberal or an official Conservative, but I know what an artificial Conservative is. In order that there may be no question in regard to the matter, may I call attention to the gentlemen

Simcoe Postmastership-Mr. Elliott
who recommended Mr. Whittaker. First of all the file shows that he was recommended by Doctor W. A. McIntosh. Anybody who knows anything about the county of Norfolk-Elgin and the town of Simcoe knows that Doctor McIntosh is one of the most influential Liberals in the town of Simcoe, a former president of the Liberal Association and a prospective candidate in that riding in the 1926 election in the Liberal interests.
The next recommendation comes from Mr. Groff, manager of the Bank of Montreal, not an active politician but a man who is known to be a prominent Liberal in the town of Simcoe. Next comes George Williamson, whose letter shows that he was in favour of Whittaker and at the time of writing the letter, dated the 22nd February, 1927, addressed to the chairman of the Civil Service Commission, Mr. George WTlliamson was president of the Liberal Association of the town of Simcoe. Also in the editorial of the Globe newspaper of the 6th October, 1928, it is shown that this young man voted for Sir Wilfrid Laurier in the general election of 1917, and it shows perfectly clearly that, although he was a disabled returned soldier at that time, he was a very enthusiastic Liberal. That is the question with regard to politics, and I cannot understand why, in view of those facts which my hon. friends must know, they would endeavour to argue that the matter is a political one.
What is the next point? I must get it clearly into the minds of every hon. member and everyone in the country that this is not a contest between a returned soldier and a civilian for this office. It is a contest between two returned soldiers, and, if I may say so, two of the most gallant young returned soldiers who were privileged to come back from France and Flanders, because they both served in the war with distinction and with great credit to their country. It is true that Bowyer had to give a wrong name in order to get his enlistment because he was very much under age, being only a little over sixteen. Mr. Whittaker was a little over seventeen. Both enlisted before they were of military age. Unfortunately Whittaker was in France for only eight months when he suffered a very severe injury resulting in the loss of both feet and making him what is known as a double amputation case. The other boy remained in France for, I think, two years, fighting for his country with great gallantry. He came back with honours and medals. Therefore, in that respect the men are equal.
Then comes the question referred to by my hon. friend as to the disability. One man, Whittaker, had a total disability-and this is something that I refer to with some hesitation, but I think the facts should be clearly before the house before we vote on this motion-and he was obtaining the pension that is given to a man who is 100 per cent disability.	.


Peter McGibbon: So much more to his
credit.


John Campbell Elliott: I was not asking my hon. friend for that suggestion, and I do not know that it is helpful in the discussion. If, however, he insists, I have no objection.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Except that it is taking up my hon. friend's time.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes. That is the situation. Very shortly afterwards, in 1918, Whittaker was taken on the staff of the Soldiers Settlement Board. For nearly six years he had a position with that board, receiving somewhere around $1,800 to $2,200 a year.


Mr. PRICE:: Which was coming to him,
which he received as remuneration for his services.


John Campbell Elliott: Surely nobody would suggest that any department of this government would pay anything that was not coming to anyone. He earned it. He was hired and he received that salary. He received it, of course, in addition to his pension, making between $3,400 and $3,500 that he was drawing altogether. He thought that he could better himself by taking a position which he was offered with a jam company in Simcoe, where he received a somewhat smaller salary, perhaps a little less than he was getting with the Soldiers Settlement Board; but he was at home and naturally, I suppose, the expenses were a little less.
I want to follow Mr. Whittaker's statement just a little further because my hon. friend was good enough to refer to the fact that something took place at some meeting at which I was present. The meeting to which he refers took place in the town of Port Dover. I will just read the clause which he read, and then leave it to the judgment of the house to say what was the impression they received from that statement. He said:
Nothing further happened in regard to the purchase of my silence until the evening before Mr. Veniot's meeting in Simcoe. It was the night of October 3, when my friend Sam MoTris of Port Dover, also an amputation case, was approached by A. A. Winter, K.C., of Simcoe. They were attending a meeting in Port Dover

1814	COMMONS
Simcoe Postmastership-Mr. Elliott
in connection with proposed improvements to the harbour, at which Hon. J. C. Elliott, Minister of Public Works, was present. In the course of their conversation Mr. Winter stated that the local Liberal party were prepared to secure for me any job which I would be able to handle, and at this time suggested that Mr. Winter get in touch with me and arrange an interview with the government party the following night in Simcoe to discuss the possibility of finding me a position.
I do not want to do this young man an injustice but I leave it to the judgment of the house to say if the reasonable inference from that statement was not that these discussions took place at the meeting which I attended, and I want to say positively that no such discussion took place in my presence. I see that my hon. friend disclaims any intention to convey that impression. If so, I accept his intimation. Nothing whatever was said at the meeting I attended with regard to Whittaker obtaining a position or anything of that kind, and I say that whoever drafted that statement did not at all events successfully make it very clear that that was what he intended to convey.
Certain things 'have been said by him and read by my hon. friend with regard to false statements being made by the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot). I want to refer to certain statements that were made by Mr. Whittaker, and I leave it to the house to judge. Mr. Whittaker made an affidavit, and in his statement he says-I do not know just what to think of this, but it appears in the Globe of the 15th of October:
As a matter of fact I had owned the business only four months and naturally had not a chance to discover if it were a profitable business. I would never have made any declaration about it if the Civil Service Commission had not advised me that if I wished to show that I was properly re-established

I think he means "not" properly reestablished.
-it would be necessary for me to take an affidavit to the effect that my business was not paying. Mr. Veniot has now used this affidavit as an instrument to prove that I lost nothing by selling my business. I can only say that if I had not received my notice of appointment as postmaster I still would be the owner of that business, and I am sure that I could have made a success of it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps my hon. friend
who is so ready with his "hears, hears", will listen to the kind of success this man said, in his affidavit, dated April, 24t'h, 1928. He states:
(1)	In February, 1928, I purchased a monumental stone business believing it to present an opportunity for successful re-establishment.

(2)	That I had only a layman's knowledge of said business.
(3)	That since entering this business I have steadily depleted my financial resources without any adequate return.
(4)	That my experience during the past three months indicates that competition in this business is so keen as to force me either to seek more capital in order to carry on or wind up affairs.
(5)	That I see no prospects of securing more capital and I shall be obliged on this account to relinquish said 'business at a considerable loss.
There you have his affidavit that he could not carry on the business unless he could get more capital, that he saw no prospects of getting more capital, and he must relinquish the business at a considerable loss. Then you have his statement later that he is sure that if he had retained the business he would have made a success of it. All I have to say is that those are his statements, and the house can take them for just what they are worth.
Something has been said with regard to the duties which the postmaster had to perform. Some suggestions have been made by hon. members that the duties of the office were changed after the applications were in, making the duties more onerous than they were formerly, and making the office a class 2B, which it was not before. Perhaps I should give to the house just what was said in that regard. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) says at page 1657 of Hansard:
And the classification was changed after the application was made.
Mr. Veniot:	No. The hon. gentleman is not
stating the exact truth. I do not mean that offensively at all.
I know he would not. Then the hon. member for Vancouver Centre goes on:
But the Postmaster General will admit that the change to class 2B took place after the application was made.
That shows that my hon. friend, who always wants to be fair, while desiring to be fair, at least has a most suspicious mind. I just took the trouble to look the point up. The dismissal of Lawson took place on the 15th of January, 1927. The chief superintendent of the post office service on that date issued this letter to the district superintendent at London:
The district superintendent is informed that the Postmaster General has authorized the removal from office of Mr. I. D. Lawson, postmaster at Simcoe, in view of incompetency. The office is to be placed for the present under the temporary charge of Mr. Charles E. Kaid, of Simcoe, the transfer to date from the 1st of February, and concurrent with the temporary transfer, the office is to be changed to the grade 2B basis.

Simcoe Postmastership-Mr. Elliott
That was on the 15th of January, the date of dismissal of the former postmaster, and one month and two days before the advertisements were issued asking for applicants to fill the position that had been vaeated. That decides to a certain extent, when it becomes a class 2B office, what the salary is to be. The minimum salary is $2,040 per annum with annual increases of $120, and the advertisement that went out was in accord with that understanding. It also stated that the applicants must be either natural born or naturalized British subjects and residents of Canada for three years, and must possess the ability to perform efficiently the duties of the office. After all,
I submit that that is the real test of the kind of postmaster they were trying to get-he must be a postmaster who could efficiently perform the duties of the office.
Next the suggestion was made by my hon. friend, but it was not pressed in his remarks, and so I shall pass over it very briefly, that Bowyer was not a resident of Simcoe. It is quite apparent that when the inspector first went out to make his inspection, Bowyer and his wife were on one of Bowyer's father's farms near Hamilton. Bowyer apparently had not been reestablished to anything like the same extent that Whittaker had been. He reported that Bowyer was not a resident of Simcoe. Now, I appeal to my hon. friend's fairness, if the member for the riding, the Postmaster General, the Deputy Postmaster General and the inspector were trying to make out a case to have Bowyer appointed, would it have been reasonable for the report to have been sent in as it was that Bowyer was resident outside the locality and in the vicinity of Hamilton.


James Arthurs: They cannot give the
inspector all the instructions.


John Campbell Elliott: And he cannot have all
the wisdom. The inspector gets pretty definite instructions. If my hon. friend will look at the book of instructions issued to each inspector he will find that he has to make these examinations, bearing in mind the class of duties that are to be performed, the amount of mail to be handled, the distance it has to be taken, the number of rural routes to be served, and the handling of the mail bags.
<Mr. ARTHUR'S: Will the hon. minister lay a copy of those instructions on the table?


John Campbell Elliott: I am sure the Postmaster
General will accommodate my hon. friend.


James Arthurs: Will it be done?


John Campbell Elliott: If my hon. friend wishes
it.


James Arthurs: Yes.


John Campbell Elliott: They are public property. My hon. friend will understand that these are all departmental regulations. I wondered whether my hon. friend's suspicions with regard to residence and to the grade of the post office being changed arose from a naturally suspicious mind, so I obtained the voters' list for the town of Simcoe. It is based on the assessment that was made before applications were called for. I find at page 74 Bowyer's name and his wife's appear as tenants. The fact of the matter is that his father had several farms in the vicinity, and this boy, wffio perhaps was not quite as efficient as he had been before he went overseas, worked for his father on several of the farms, and his explanation at the time the inspector made his inspection was that he and his wife were during the summer visiting at a farm in the vicinity of Hamilton. The finding is that he was all the time a resident of the town of Simcoe. So I think perhaps that disposes of the question of residence.
Next we come to the question of how these appointments are made, what is required. It will be found that as far back as 1918 an arrangement was made between the Civil Service Commission and the postal department as to appointments to the postal service. On account of the necessity of appointing officials who would be able to perform the duties, which duties were better known to the postal department than to the Civil Service Commission or anybody else, the postal inspectors were to pass upon these various applicants. That is the practice which has been followed since that time. In that connection may I call the attention of the house to the statement made by the chairman of the commission, Doctor Roche, to Mr. Williamson, in a letter of February 24, 1927:
No doubt you are acquainted with the procedure in filling such positions. The position is locally advertised by the department, applications to be sent in to the district superintendent of the postal service, London. This officer will despatch one of his inspectors-
That is, the district superintendent of postal service at London, will despatch one of his inspectors.
-to Simcoe on a certain date to interview the applicants, and it largely depends upon the report of the inspector and district superintendent as to who receives the appointment.
In a letter dated February 26,	1927,
addressed to Colonel Parkinson, who was then Deputy Minister of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment, Doctor Roche made a similar statement. He said:
The commission however largely depends upon the report of the post office inspector and
1816	COMMONS
Simcoe Postmastership-Mr. Elliott
district superintendent of postal service, who, after interviewing all the applicants, place them in order of merit from the post office standpoint.
And another similar letter appears at page 107 of the file, written to Mr. Beverly Anderson, who had interested himself on behalf of either Mr. Whittaker or Mr. Collver, in which it is stated:
It will largely depend upon the nature of that officer's report as to who will secure the position.
That was the practice, and it was followed in compliance with the regulations. I have the letters here, but as my time is short I will not trouble the house to read them. One is dated February 22, 1918-shortly after the act came into force-and is from Mr. Foran, secretary of the Civil Service Commission, to Doctor Coulter, the answer being dated February 26, 1918. These brought about the arrangement by which the local postal in-pectors were to make the examination of the applicants. A postal service inspector did make that examination and reported thereon. The same applies to Mr. Bowyer. In a letter of March 10, 1927, Mr. Foran, secretary of the commission, writing to the superintendent of the postal service at London, says:
Mr. Bowyer is being advised that his application has been transferred to you for the necessary report on his qualifications.
I think the house perhaps has not received from my hon. friend from Leeds or from my hon. friend the leader of the opposition as clear an impression as is desirable that these examinations are not made by the Civil Service Commission's inspectors, but by the inspectors of the postal department.
Now, what is the report? When the report comes in the man placed first on the list is John Alexander Wallace. He had no previous postal experience. He represented Norfolk county in the Dominion parliament from 1921 to 1925, and he served on the board of governors of Toronto university and of the Toronto General Hospital. I think he was the Progressive member for the riding at that time, and I do not believe you could find a man better qualified to make a good postmaster. However, he was a civilian and was passed over. From the standpoint of political advantage to the member, I have no doubt that that would have been the most advantageous appointment to make. He was evidently a man of prominence in the community, but his case never was pressed. The next man reported on was Charles Rex Bowyer. This is the report of the examiner:
[Mr. Elliott.)
Charles Rex Bowyer is a married man, 28 years of age. Has a good education. Resided at Simcoe until about a year ago, but is now living at Mount Albion. Has had no postal experience, but would devote his entire time to the work. Was a student previous to enlistment and since discharge has been farm manager for his father, W. A. Bowyer, and is engaged in looking after some seven or eight farms owned 'by his father. This applicant states that owing to his being a minor he enlisted under an assumed name, that of C. R. Musgrove, and served twentyjseven months in France with the R.C.H.A. Discharged by reason of demobilization. No physical disability. Is a fine type and impressed me favourably.
The next man is Donald Smith. Then there is the name of Grover C. Murdock. He was not a returned man. He is the next on the list, and Whittaker was only seventh on the list. So that if Bowyer had not been appointed, in all probability one of the other returned men would have come in next instead of Whittaker.
Well, the examination was made, and the report reached the Civil Service Commission in due time. But on account of the difficulty in identifying Bowyer with Musgrove-because that was the name under which he enlisted as he was under age-some considerable time was taken in making sure that he was the same man, and, on February 18, 1928, Mr. Foran, the secretary, addressed this letter to the Deputy Postmaster General. I will just read the last paragraph because it is No. 32 on the file, and the whole letter appears on the file:
I should be glad, therefore, if the department could furnish the commissioners with a definite report, at as early a date as possible, with reference to Mr. Whittaker's physical fitness for this poetmastership.
The report comes in a little later, and is dated 5th March, 1928, and is as follows:
When questioned, Mr. Whittaker stated that it would be impossible for him to do any heavy lifting.
If the Simcoe poet office were a revenue office, the postmaster could, if necessary, hire an additional clerk to perform the heavy work and in the case of a city office, there would be sufficient other work so that it would be necessary for the postmaster to perform duties of a heavy nature, but, in the case of a 2B office, it is my opinion that what is required is a working postmaster.
His appointment, therefore, would probably make it necessary to add an additional employee to the 2B Simcoe post office.
I find my time passing pretty rapidly, but I want to call attention to this: The notice was issued. Now, what I say is this, that the judgment that w'as being relied upon by the Civil Service Commission, in making this ap-

Simcoe Postmastership-Mr. Hepburn
pointment, was the judgment of the inspector from London who reported that Whittaker was unable to perform these duties, and you will note-if my hon. friends will be good enough to look at the appointment dated May 29, 1928-that it contains this clause which, I venture to say, will not be found in many notices if in any other; it certainly is not in the appointment when Mr. Bowyer was notified:
(Appointment subject to physical fitness.)
It also calls attention to the fact that:
The deputy head may at any time before the expiration of six months reject any person assigned or appointed to any position under his control or direction, or he may extend the period of probation within which such person may be rejected for another six months; and the cause of rejection, or the reason for extending the period of probation, shall be reported by the deputy head to the commission.
And the ruling of the Department of Justice dated the 9th December, 1919-and I think this is very important; it is on the bottom of the notice that was sent-


Charles Avery Dunning: Sent to whom?


John Campbell Elliott: To Whittaker. The ruling reads:
If the deputy be reasonably satisfied upon preliminary examination of the person nominated that the latter is unsuitable or not qualified for the duties of the office or employment to which he is assigned, I think he may, if he think it advisable, reject him without entrusting him with the discharge of any duties; otherwise in conceivable cases considerable prejudice to the public service might ensue.


Otto Baird Price: Will the minister permit a question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Otto Baird Price: Was Whittaker given an opportunity to show what physical fitness he had to carry on?


John Campbell Elliott: I was just hoping that
would be the question my hon. friend would ask: Was Whittaker given an opportunity to show what fitness he had to carry on? My contention, Mr. Speaker, is that in view of the report of the inspector who, by arrangement between the Civil Service Commission and the post office, is the inspector upon whose judgment the Civil Service Commission must depend, he never was appointed. What would be the sense, I would ask my hon. friends-


Otto Baird Price: He was recommended by the Civil Service Commission.


John Campbell Elliott: I would ask, what would be the sense in giving him a trial? What would
be the sense in giving a trial to a man who had been reported -by the competent official as being quite incapable of performing the duties of the office to which he was about to be appointed?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Answer the question.


John Campbell Elliott: Why would you take a
man who was reported by the inspector as being incapable of performing the duties and give him a six months' period of probation?
I am now going to come to what I think is a complete answer to this resolution. What does the act say? The act says, section 24:
The deputy head may, at any time before the expiration of six months, reject any person assigned or appointed to any position under his control or direction, or he may extend the period of probation within which such person may be rejected for another six months; and the cause of rejection, or the reason for extending the period of probation, shall be reported by the deputy head of the commission.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Whittaker had been appointed subject to probation.


John Campbell Elliott: Oh no. My hon. friend
has not, I am afraid, been paying the attention which he usually pays. He had been appointed subject to a certificate of physical fitness, and no certificate of physical fitness had ever been made to the inspector who is the judge as to physical fitness, and who reported that he was physically unfit.
Now, I also want to call attention to this-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Time.


Hewitt Bostock: I beg the hon. gentlemen to kindly listen to the hon. member.


John Campbell Elliott: I want to say I would not object to the question, only the time is very short, and I had hoped that my hon. friends during this discussion would get into their heads what really took place in connection with this matter.
I referred to the question of rejection. I want-


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member's time has expired.	*


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: In my observations in this house I have always been impressed with several things which emanate from the other side of the house. One is that on every possible occasion my hon. friends hug the old flag to their bosoms, raising shouts of patriotism. Another is how, when they find some unfortunate individual, they can depict most terrible conditions and pose as the champions of such an unfortunate.
ISIS	COMMONS
Simcoe Postmastership-Mr. Hepburn
I refer to the famous McConachie case in Halifax. In the present case hon. gentlemen opposite are taking advantage of the infirmities of a poor unfortunate soldier in order to make political capital. The expression has been coined to-night that we might differentiate between an official Liberal and an official Conservative; some further reference was made to an artificial Conservative, and I would particularly refer that expression to hon. gentlemen opposite if they are really sincere in their desire to look alter the interests of returned men. I would ask them to turn their attention to the provincial government of Ontario, and in this connection I am going to refer to just one town, the town of Simcoe, whose post office is under discussion now. I find that since 1926 the provincial government has appointed many men in that town; they appointed the clerk of the surrogate court, a civilian and a Tory; the issuer of motor licenses and the examiner for motor licenses, civilians and Tories; the entire staff of the liquor store, all Tories and all civilians with one exception. Those appointments were made during the time my good friend from Fort William (Mr. Manion) was on the Liquor Control Board. I do not know just what effort he made to curb the greatest exponent of patronage in this country, Hon. G. Howard Ferguson, or whether he made any effort. I would also point out that just recently the jailer of the town of Simcoe resigned and according to the Brantford Expositor his successor has been named already in the person of George M. Bough-nee, a civilian and a defeated Tory candidate in that riding.
Now I want to tell hon. gentlemen opposite that they are not humbugging the people of Ontario at all by putting their feet in one direction and their face in another with regard to the returned men, their duplicity is so apparent that they are not going to get by with it. My riding adjoins the county of Norfolk, in which county this controversy has arisen, and I want to assure the Postmaster General that he has nothing whatever to fear with regard to these unfair attacks. I say that Mr. Whittaker, a poor unfortunate soldier, has been caught in the whirlwind of this Tory barrage, and is finding himself left with so many public utterances which are not true and according to fact that I believe he is sadder and wiser for having been a tool in the hands of hon. gentlemen opposite.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) read certain extracts from the Toronto Globe with regard to a statement made by Whittaker in which he said an attempt had been

made to buy his silence. In order to refresh the memory of the house I will read just what Mr. Whittaker said:
Last summer, after word of the appointment of Mr. Bowyer to the postmastership had come through. I was approached by a member of the local Liberal executive, presumably delegated by W- H. Taylor, M.P.. the Liberal member for Norfolk, and was offered a proposition somewhat as follows: The local Liberals, backed by the member, were to agree to lend me their support in securing an appointment at Brantford, Ontario. In return I was to promise to maintain a discreet silence in regard to my treatment at the hands of the Postmaster General and not to be seen conversing in public with any person known to be of the Conservative stripe. In addition, I was to be bound by the conditions of a letter which they were to submit for my signature and which was to be made public prior to the public announcement of my appointment.
I do not hesitate a moment to read that statement because I want to read something else which has a direct bearing upon the question, another statement of which I believe the leader of the opposition had full knowledge when he read Mr. Whittaker's statement to the house. Surely he wants to be fair, so why did he not go further and read the reply which was broadcast throughout the country by Doctor English, who was named by Mr. Whittaker as having been the intermediary between the Liberal party and himself in the attempt to buy his silence?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I can assure the hon. gentleman that I have not seen the document to which he refers.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: You are going to hear it now and I will tell you that I do not think you are going to like it very much.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: 
Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Would the hon. member be good enough to give the date of that affidavit?


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: This affidavit was made in Ottawa on April 24, 1928.
Our political friends went much farther and tried to introduce politics into the Canadian Legion. I happen to be a member of the Canadian Legion in the city of St. Thomas, and a resolution was introduced into that body for the sole purpose of discrediting this government. What was the result? The Canadian Legion threw out the resolution by unanimous consent. Why did they do that? They are not interested in choosing as between one or another returned man so long as the government is carrying out the principle of giving the returned man the preference. I will not quote this resolution, as it appears in the records of the Canadian Legion.
The report of the inspector showed very clearly that Mr. Whittaker was not physically able to handle this job. Any member of this house with any knowledge as to how a man is handicapped through having to walk on two stumps can realize that he could not carry on.


Otto Baird Price: Did he not carry on a
grocery business under his own name?


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: He never worked in a grocery store, nor did he ever own a grocery store.


Otto Baird Price: Did he not do that before
he made application to the Civil Service Commission?


Hewitt Bostock: Order, please.


Otto Baird Price: Was not the inspector sent
there as a friend of the department?


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman is
out of order.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: The inspector reported
that he was not physically fit to carry on the work in a class 2B post office, and if he were appointed it would be necessary to put another man on the staff to do the work for him. What would be the position of Mr. Whittaker then? He would be holding a nominal position and drawing salary, and the other man would be doing the work; in other words, he would have his pension supplemented by something like $2,040 per year.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: That is what has happened now.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: There are many double
amputation cases in this country, and if it is fair to put Mr. Whittaker in an office where he would hold a nominal position and thereby supplement his pension, why is it not fair to extend that privilege to every other double amputation case in this Dominion? This country prides itself on trying to do the fair thing by its returned men. Last year I sat on the pensions committee and I believe that we made it possible for all returned men to obtain equity and justice. I believe we pay the highest rate of pension of any country in the world, and if any returned man with a hundred per cent disability is not able to obtain sufficient to live on, then it is up to the pensions board to supplement his income; it is not up to any particular department to give him a nominal position and appoint another man to do the work.
The motion which is before the house reads:
That all the words after the word "that" in the motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"in the opinion of this house the Postmaster General has acted in a most arbitrary manner and in utter disregard of the letter and the spirit of the Civil Service Act in connection with the recent appointment of a postmaster at the town of Simcoe."
What is the spirit of the act? I think it was pretty well set forth, by a letter which was written by Doctor Roche, in which he outlined the usual procedure followed in filling an appointment of this kind. He said:
I have received several similar letters on behalf of this gentleman, and have no doubt that he would make an excellent postmaster. The commission, however, largely depends upon the report of the post office inspector and district superintendent of postal service, who after interviewing all the applicants place them on order of merit from a post office standpoint. If Mr. Whittaker has not as yet been re-established, his disability would of course entitle him to the preference, and I can assure you that the very best consideration will be given his claims by the commission before an appointment is made.

Simcoe Postmastership-Mr. Hepburn
The point I desire to make there is that the usual procedure followed by the commission is to have the proper inspector in that district make a report. That procedure was carried out in the first report of Inspector Murray, who is a very capable man, and who stated this with regard to Mr. Whittaker:
George Edward Whittaker is a married man, twenty-eight years of age. Has a very good education. Has resided in Simcoe for about two years and eight months. He has no postal experience but would devote his entire time to the work. Was at school previous to enlistment and since the war has been an adjuster for the soldier settlement board, and is now accountant and office manager for the St. William's Preservers at Simcoe. Enlisted in the 55th battery and served in France eight months with the 22nd battery and discharged as medically unfit and recived 100 per cent pension. This applicant has a double amputation below the knees, and I do not think he woidd be able properly to attend to the duties of the office with this disabilty.
That was the first report of the inspector. The Civil Service Commission then sent out the inspector to get another report as to the physical ability of this man to carry on.


William Irvine: They sent out the same
inspector, did they not?


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: The same inspector, and this is what he said with respect to Mr. Whittaker:
I would say that on the 3rd instant, I again interviewed Mr. Whittaker, and would say that his right leg is amputated about three inches below the knee, his left at the ankle, and he walks without the use of a cane. _ He states that he was vrith the St. Williams jam factory for three years and in that time was off for one month with a blister in his right stump. He also states that it is necessary for him to go to Toronto at intervals for adjustments to bis artifieal limbs.
When questioned, Mr. Whittaker stated that it would be impossible for him to do any heavy lifting.
If the Simcoe post office were a revenue office, the postmaster could, if necessary, hire an additional clerk to perform the heavy v'ork, and in the case of a city office there would be sufficient other work, so that it would not be necessary for the postmaster to perform duties of a heavy nature, but, in the case of a 2B office, it is my opinon that what is required is a working postmaster. Apart from the postmaster, there is one man in the office, who works from 5.30 a.m. to 9 p.m., with some hours off for meals. His actual working hours are 12 hours each day, and in his absence the postmaster does any heavy work.
If the department requires a working postmaster at Simcoe, it is my opinion that an additional male clerk will be necessary in the event of Mr. Whittaker's appointment, as he is not physically capable of performing any heavy duties.


Mr. SPENCER:: What reason is there for
sending the same inspector twice to crossexamine this man?


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: Certain men are allocated to certain postal districts; they cover those districts and become very familiar with them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They asked for a definite report.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: The Civil Service Commission asked for this second1 report. W. J. May, district superintendent, chief of the whole district, concurred in the report of his inspector. This is what he said:
Replying to departmental memorandum of the 24th ultimo file POS-Simcoe, having regard to the physical fitness of George Edward Whittaker who was an applicant for the position of postmaster, the district superintendent would advise that inspector Murray interviewed Mr. Whittaker on the 3rd instant, -and his report in connection is enclosed for the information of the department and commission.
It would appear that Mr. Whittaker's dis-abilty would not permit hm to perform the duties such as would be expected of a postmaster of -a grade 2B office, and his appointment, therefore, would probably make it necessary to add an additonal employee to the establishment of the Simcoe post office.
The charge has been made of political partisanship and almost everything else; but as the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott) -pointed out, this is not a matter of choosing between a Grit and a Tory. Mr. Whittaker told me repeatedly, while he was lobbying here in Ottawa, that he was a strong Liberal, and that all his people were Liberals. The Globe depicted him on one occasion as being carried on -his father's back to vote for Sir Wilfrid Laurier. It was also pointed out that the men who recommended hi-m were not only representative Liberals but executive Liberals in the riding. It was not a matter of choosing between a returned' man and a civilian either, because both men had enviable war -records. I have under my hand- a telegram from the Canadian Legion of the town of Simcoe. Strange to say, they were backing another man entirely; outside of both of these men they chose a third. The telegram reads:
Norfolk county veterans endorse candidature of Mr. Roy Col-lver for position of postmaster at Simcoe. Your cooperation requested.
So it seems to me that the Postmaster General instead of disregarding the spirit of the act, -really carried out the spirit of the act, and when Mr. Whittaker was proved to be physically unfit for the position-and I am very sorry for him-the next in order of -merit was chosen, that is the first on the eligible list of returned men. I can see nothing wrong with that. If anybody disregarded- the spirit of the act, it was the Civil Service Commission when, knowing Whittaker was physically unfit, they issued a certificate in his favour.
1822	COMMONS
Simcoe Post mastership-Mr. Hepburn


An hon. MEMBER:: And he was seventh on the list.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: Yes, and on top of that he had been reestablished. Another significant fact is that after they had issued this certificate, they put this notation on it: "Subject to physical fitness". Apparently they thought they were not doing the right thing, and yet the Postmaster General has to bear the brunt of all this. I tried to find out, from the Civil Service Commission and others, who had advised Mr. Whittaker to take this false affidavit. It was not done officially. Whoever did it, did it unofficially. I think the Postmaster General has been the victim of circumstances in this case, and were it not for the disgruntled Globe and our Conservative friends endeavouring to make political capital out of it, nothing would have been said about the matter. The most unfortunate part of it is that Mr. Whittaker did not keep his position in the Department of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment, land settlement branch. He had a good position there which he was capable of filling, but he thought he was moving into better fields. That of course, was his own business. When, however, the question is one of seeking a position which he is not fitted to hold, I do not think it is fair to the country that we should appoint Mr. Whittaker to an office, and then appoint another man to do the work for him.
I am going to vote in support of the Postmaster General, and I believe I am doing the fair thing. I am not going to take up more of the time of the house because I think too much time has already been wasted. I could quote many newspapers, favourable to the Postmaster General, including even The Farmers' Sun, the comment of which might be of interest to our friends from the west. This is what The Farmers' Sun has to say:
There are 17,000 postmasters in Canada and the Deputy Postmaster General refused certificates of ex-soldiers in four cases, as follows:
(1)	Because the ex-service man intended to keep his other job and farm out the post office to somebody else at half price, pocketing half the salary himself.
The Tory papers certainly made a great fuss about this until the boomerang came back and hit them in the face.
(2)	Because of old age and unfitness for the position.
(3)	-
And this is the important one, in this case: -For phj'sieal unfitness.
(4)	For lack of proper qualifications.
We must have some regard for the qualifications of men seeking public office. I could
TMr. Hepburn.]
instance a case in a town in my county where a returned soldier was chosen for a position and within a few months he had embezzled about $1,700 of the country's money and had got away. Another man was put in his place and he also got away with a considerable sum of money. Then a third man was put in and he is serving efficiently and well. This goes to show how careful we must be in getting a man qualified to fill the office. In my county there was another case..where several returned soldiers applied for a position. They were all disqualified and a lady who was the cousin of a former Conservative member for the riding got the position. At that time there was no howl from my hon. friends; they were meek as cats, in spite of all their apparent sentiments in favour of returned soldiers.
Let me say to the Postmaster General that he need have no fear with regard to the sentiment of the clear-minded people in southern Ontario. While the rubbish put forth across the floor might appeal to unenlightened minds, there are very few of them, if any, in that particular district.


Otto Baird Price: It is
not my intention to permit the remarks of the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Hepburn) to pass without some observations which I have to make in connection with this appointment. I am sure it has been clear from the beginning of this debate that the matter of appointments by the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) has been, from start to finish, one of political expediency. For the past week the Postmaster General has not been able to get one item of his estimates through, and he has met with severe criticism because of the fact that political interference has been permitted to intermingle with his duty. This has been apparent from the various cases that have been brought to his attention. The criticism he has received has been such as has never been directed towards any previous minister of his department.
Who was this man Whittaker, about whom there has been so much talk? He is a returned soldier, having lost both of his legs below the knee. At the -time of his appointment he was running a store, which called for considerable energy. He was in the grocery business.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: No, he was not.


Otto Baird Price: My hon. friend knows all
about it. I am speaking now. He was running a general store.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, he was not. He
never had to do with a general store.


Otto Baird Price: I may be in error, but in
whatever business he was working, it required considerable physical energy, and he carried on. What occurred? A position as postmaster was advertised and he applied to the Postmaster General for appointment. He was recommended to the department of the Postmaster General for appointment. What happened? It was found out that his political leanings were not of the right kind.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Otto Baird Price: They were not of the right
kind and some excuse had to be made to get him out of the position. That excuse was similar to the one offered in other cases that have been referred to on the floor of the house during the past week. They set about forthwith to send an inspector to investigate.
I do not know his name, although I presume it was given to-night. I believe the same thing occurred in this case as has occurred in New Brunswick since the present adminis-tiation took office, and especially since the present Postmaster General was appointed, namely, that a suitable official was sent to perform the duties of investigation. The strongest objection that I have heard tonight and the last few days against this man's fitness to fill the position, was with regard to his physical condition. The postmaster has to sort the mail, lift the bags, and do certain little duties, but to 'hear the arguments advanced to-night from the other side you would think in order to handle the mail bags the postmaster had1 to be a Sandow. What are the Canadian government railways doing today? Let me ask the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) if there are not in the employ of the government railways to-day switchmen, on whom the precious lives of hundreds of people depend, and who in some cases are performing their duties efficiently minus an arm or a leg. These men are supposed' to be alert and active and strong enough physically even to turn a switch with one arm, a switch that either turns a train into a siding or runs it out on the main line. Does not the minister agree with that?


Charles Avery Dunning: May I point out that it is the -njan's bVain that determines whether he turns the switch one way or the other? The arm simply carries out the dictates of the brain.


Otto Baird Price: I am very much surprised
at the minister making such an observation,
Simcoe Postmastershi'p-Mr. Price
because it requires considerable physical force to turn a switch. Did the -minister ever turn one? No, and that is why he does not know.
I have, and I know. That is a pretty lame excuse, and it must be apparent to the people throughout this country that the excuses made by this administration, particularly in connection with the Postmaster General and his appointments and dismissals, and the manner in which investigations have been conducted, do not reflect credit on the present administration.
Let me give only one little example, and this is a very mild case compared with others that have been brought forward. At the little village of Hartlamd, the postmaster, Mr. Mc-Cullum, died. He had as his assistant, Miss Currie, a very nice young lady, who had had previous experience in the postal service at that place. In the usual course Miss Currie was asked to act until such time as a permanent postmaster or postmistress should be appointed. This she did. Eventually the position was advertised, but in the meantime Miss Currie- was advised that a Mr. Lasky would take charge in her place. Among those applying for the position was Miss Currie, who had previously acted as assistant to the postmaster. Mr. Lasky and a returned soldier. The Civil Service Commission recommended that the returned soldier be appointed, returned men having the preference, but before his appointment had been confirmed by the Post Office department, he received notice that under the rules and regulations of the department another appointment had been made, and that he would1 n-ot have the opportunity of demonstrating whether or not he was fit for the position. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that the whole thing has been political from start to finish. It has been a question all along of political expediency. I want to say to the Postmaster General and to the government that in making appointments such as they have, they are flying pretty strongly in the face of public opinion. Furthermore, should the Postmaster General continue in this way there will be investigations which possibly have not been- contemplated in- the past, and with all due regard for the ability of the Postmaster General, let me tell h-im that he will -come in for more criticism than he has met with during the last week.
Hon. CHARLES MARCI-L (Bonaventure): The hon. leadeT of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) started out this evening rather warmly, -making the whole ministry practically responsible for the utterance of a newspaper
1S24
.	. COMMONS
Simcoe Postmastership-Mr. Marcil
called Le Droit published in the city of Ottawa. I hope the hon. gentleman himself will never be held responsible for newspaper articles, and I think it is unfair to hold the Postmaster General (Mr. Yeniot) responsible for the utterance of this newspaper. As some hon. members of this house may know-the French members read Le Droit daily,-it is an independent newspaper which has been criticising the government every second day for not making appointments according to its own views. The paper has been carrying on a very intensive campaign especially against the Department of Justice because certain appointments have not been made, in the province of Ontario, where there is a large proportion of French-speaking people, and generally throughout the country. Some months ago this paper conducted a very extensive campaign regarding the civil service, taking up that old issue which has been threshed out thoroughly in the last fifteen years, that the French-speaking people have not their proper percentage of appointments in the various departments at Ottawa. This newspaper, therefore, cannot be considered as an organ of the party.
The hon. leader of the opposition also referred to the bilingual stamp.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Pardon me, I did not.
I read from the paper that referred to it.


Charles Marcil: When in connection with
the diamond jubilee of confederation 'a meeting was called two years ago, presided over by the Governor General, I was appointed vice-chairman of a committee, which included Sir Lomer Gouin, Sir Robert Borden, and Senator Graham, to organize for the celebration. Remembering that confederation had been brought about by the representatives at that time of the two great races in this country, that Quebec was the keystone of the arch of confederation as it exists to-day, and that without the consent of Quebec there would never have been any confederation in this country, we decided unanimously in this committee to have a celebration that would appeal to both races, that our publications would be in both languages, and the jubilee celebrated throughout all the provinces. We asked for the cooperation of all the provincial governments, and incidentally we made the suggestion that as the language of the International Postal Union is French, it would be an appropriate occasion to place at least one French word on the Canadian stamps of this country, showing that French is one of our official languages. This was done on vht motion of the Hon. Mr. Marler, seconded IMr. Marcil.]
by Mr. Tom Moore, both members of the committee. The proposal carried unanimously, and was transmitted through the governor in council to the Postmaster General. I mention that to show that this request was made by a nonrpolitical committee brought together for the purpose of organizing the celebration of the jubilee of confederation. The leader of the opposition, for whom I have a great deal of respect and esteem, may be called upon some day to fill a still higher position than the one he now occupies. Would he allow me to ask him to glance at the past history of the Conservative party and to remember that there was a time when the province of Quebec was the backbone of the Conservative party in this country, and that the greatest of all Conservative leaders understood the spirit and did not stick to the letter, when he came to deal with the people of the province of Quebec? Minorities the world over are sensitive of their rights, sometimes of their duties, and they wish to be treated fairly and honestly. I have no doubt that the hon. gentleman, who knows Quebec thoroughly, and who has had occasion since he has been chosen leader of his great party to speak in Montreal, the city of Quebec, and other parts of the province, will at all times be a friend of the idea of concord and union in this country. Canada can only stand when the two great races understand each other thoroughly and give to each other that which is their due. I need not go back into the .past history of the province or of Canada. We all know what the French-speaking people have done for this country, and what they are doing at the present time and are prepared to do. I hope that for his own sake and for the sake of the party that he now leads he will: not permit the mistakes made by the former leaders of the Conservative party, those who trod in the footsteps of Sir John A. Macdonald and lost power as a consequence through alienating the people of the province of Quebec.
There is another question that I should like to lay before the house. The impression should not go abroad that civil service reform was initiated by the Conservative party. I had the honour in 1908 to be associated with the late Hon. Sydney Fisher, then Minister of Agriculture, when he introduced the first Civil Service Act. That was the first attempt to establish civil service reform in this country. From 1867 to 1873 and from 1878 to 1896 the Conservative party were in power, but they found no time to introduce a civil service act to bring about civil service reform. It was

Simcoe Postmastership-Mr. Marcil
not until 1908 that, as I have said, the first move was made in this direction. The act applied to the inside service.
In 1911 there was a change of government, and in 1921, just before the general election, the Conservative party realized that in adopting the Civil Service Act of 1918 they had gone too far, and the Spinney bill was introduced by the late Hon. Mr. Spinney, who then represented the county of Yarmouth, for the purpose of taking away from the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission certain classes of employees, one being rural postmasters. These men had never been considered civil servants; they are not now, being part-time employees. The Spinney bill was intended to eliminate precisely this class of men. The late Hon. Mr. Edwards, whose absence at the present time we regret, was one of the strongest supporters of the bill, as was also the late Sir Sam Hughes, another of the strong men of the Conservative party. Mr. Spinney gave this brief explanation of the purpose of his bill:
I first wish to state that it is conceded that when the Civil Service Act was framed and enacted in 1918 the commission was given powers and obligations entirely in advance of those entered into by either the United States or Great Britain, imposing duties beyond the ability of any commission, however efficient they may be, to accomplish without some sacrifice to the public service.
On account of serious complaints against the administration of the Civil Service Commission, for reasons already assigned, from both inside and outside parliament, it was deemed advisable to appoint a special committee of the house to make careful inquiries into actual conditions and, if necessary, to offer practical suggestions in order that a remedy might be applied.
The bill had practically the unanimous support of the Conservative party, and it proposed to exempt from the operation of the Civil Service Commission three classes; one, men employed on railways and ships; two, postmasters; three, labourers. We were on the eve of an election. We have a saying in Quebec, the more things change the more things happen again. Well, I have seen this parliament change nine times, and I have seen the same game played by the same men on both sides of the house-in one way when they are sitting to the left of the Speaker and in another way when they are sitting to his right. It was thought at the time by the Conservative party that the bill if enacted would afford opportunity of making a large number of appointments throughout the country; but such strong opposition developed that finally the bill was withdrawn. In 1914 hon. gentlemen who were then members of the house will recall that the late John Sinclair, member for Guysborough, moved for a return showing
the number of dismissals that had been made by the Conservative party in the last three years following the general election of 1911. It took a couple of sessions to get the return. When it came down it showed that there had been eleven thousand dismissals and twenty-two thousand appointments in that period of time. It had been explained that the introduction of the rural mail service was one of the reasons for the large number of dismissals. In my county I have only a very small mileage of rural mail service, and certainly the numerous dismissals of postmasters there were not for that reason; they were dismissed purely for political reasons.
A moment ago the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Price) condemned the Postmaster General's conduct in regard to the dismissal of certain officials in New Brunswick. Let me cite an instance of a man who played probably the most important part in encompassing the defeat of the present Postmaster General, at the time that he was appealing for reelection as premier of New Brunswick, and bringing into power his successor, the Hon. Mr. Baxter. I refer to Mr. Angus McLean, the man who organized the pulpwood and waterpower resources of Grand Falls. He was postmaster of the post office at Chaleurs; he lived hundreds of miles away. He had the work done by the clerks in his office. He took a prominent part on the hustings against the Liberal party in New Brunswick, and when I called the minister's attention to this, he said, "The member for Bonaventure will allow me to apply the law to Mr. Angus McLean." I am sorry the member for Westmorland is not in his seat, for I am sure he must be familiar with these facts. Mr. Angus McLean returned the compliment by doing me the honour of coming into my constituency and making speeches against me, but I am glad to say they had very little effect on the electorate.
For many years I have had the honour to represent a constituency where the people agree to live together in harmony. One-third of my constituency is English-speaking and Protestant. The Anglicans generally are Conservative, the Presbyterians, Liberal. For forty or fifty years up to 1870 the French-Canadians gave practically a solid Conservative vote, but in 1890, the Hon. Mr. Mercier, who was then one of the greatest public men in the province of Quebec, carried the constituency by the strength of his appeal to all classes of the population. In 1891 an English-speaking Protestant was elected by an overwhelming majority of the Roman Catholic vote, although his opponent was a Roman Catholic.

Simcoe Postmastership-Mr. Marcil
It shows the broadmindedness and tolerance prevalent throughout the province of Quebec.
The postmastership at Simcoe has been thoroughly discussed. I would remind the house that up to 1918 our political history discloses that the principle followed by both parties was "to the victor belong the spoils". An attempt was made to change that state of affairs, but the Conservative party overdid itself, and to-day I have no doubt that the members of the Civil Service Commission- especially the chairman, Doctor Roche, with whom I had the honour to sit in this house for many years when he represented the constituency of Marquette-would be the first to declare that the commission is not equipped to look after the outside service as it should be looked after. What happens? The Civil Service Commission calls upon the inspector of the district. He is not the official of the Civil Service Commission. He is the official of the post office, called upon by them before they make a report, and, as the late Mr. Spinney said, the Civil Service Commission have to accept the report of the post office inspector. They have no other officials at their disposal.
The Civil Service Commission costs over a quarter of a million dollars a year. It costs half a million dollars a year to equip it with all the necessary officials it needs to carry on its work. So that I think we should go back to the principle that we used to have in the old days, which was a very old principle of the British constitution. After all, the Postmaster General is responsible for what takes place in the Post Office department. He is responsible to this house, and we individually are responsible to our constituencies. When an election takes place in Calgary, the voters there vote yea or nay, for or against the leader of the opposition, who carries on his back the faults and the advantages of his party, the iniquities and otherwise which may be charged against it. We are all in the same position at election time. We have to answer for all that has been done.
When I came to the house first there was no Civil Service Commission; there was no railway commission; there was no soldiers re-establishment commission; there were none of these various commission, which have taken away from the representatives of the people the privileges they used to have in the old days. I receive many letters to-day from my old constituents, the oldest among them, because I have reached the second generation now, telling me that at such and such a time I could have obtained appointments on the Intercolonial railway. The Minister of Rail-

ways and Canals at that time had the administration of the road. I could appoint a snow-ghoveller, a section man, or one of the working gang. But that to-day is impossible. An application is received by a member who forwards it to the minister, and that is the end of it so far as the member is concerned. And still we have to render to our people an account for all these things. The people look to us; they look to the member of parliament who is responsible for everything that is going on. He has to render an account for the actions of all these commissions; he has to vote the money in this house. I am compelled to repeat what has been repeated very often: we have removed responsible government from the shoulders of those on whom it used to rest. Responsible government should rest upon the representatives of the people. The Postmaster General is in exactlj' the same position as all the other ministers, but when we consider that he has 17,000 employees under him is there any comparison possible between him and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, for instance, or the Minister of Justice? Why, in*my constituency there is not a single employee of the Department of Justice. The only man who comes into my constituency having any connection with that department is a nonresident judge who sits once or twice a year. I have no representative of the Department of Trade and Commerce in my constituency, therefore, there can be no change in that respect. But I have nearly 100 post offices, and that is the case generally throughout the whole country.
All things considered, I think that the Postmaster General deserves the thanks of this country for the energetic manner in which he has carried on the duties of his office. In the old days, when the Liberal party came into office in 1896, the post office department was at a very, very low ebb. Sir William Mulock, who took oharge of that department, was perhaps the greatest of all our postmasters general. He introduced penny postage anil put Canada on the map of the empire; he brought about efficient service in the Post Office department, and, all in all, was as .1 say the greatest of all our postmasters general. The present Postmaster General is following in his footsteps, following the principles laid down by him, introducing reforms as the country develops. He has introduced, for instance, the air mail service, establishing rapid communication and transportation from one part of the country to the other. If for no other reason, therefore, than to second him in his valuable efforts I think this house will take

Simcoe Postmastership-Mr. Evans
the view that not only in relation to this case of Simcoe-where, after all, the Postmaster General should have something to say, otherwise he is a nonentity, with no privileges at all- but in relation to other oases as well, this amendment should be thrown out by an overwhelming majority.


Hewitt Bostock: Is the house ready for the question?


Mr. JOHN EVANS (Rosetown):: Mr. Speaker, there are three parties in this house, at least so-ealled. I have always looked on a political party as a group of men who have gathered around a set of principles, and who have organized for the bringing of those principles into effect.
In dealing with this question, I may say that this is one of the questions that this group in this corner is often called upon to decide as between the two parties. This little group has often been placed in this position before. Now, we decided years ago to vote on the merits of any question before the house. In this case a vital principle is concerned, and one on w-hich for many years we, as an organized economic group, have pronounced repeatedly. This, as I see it, it is not a case of deciding on anything specific, or deciding as to the discharge of one postmaster and the appointment of another in his place; although I know that in that regard a good deal of hardship has been created even since the last federal election, which we can easily find to be the case where some of these country post offices have been established in conjunction with a store. A man who is appointed postmaster in a given district sets up a little business, and the first thing we know he is thrown out of office because of party politics, and then he has to move his business. That is a real hardship; and I should think that, at this late date, 1929, more than sixty years after confederation, this game of party politics should come to an end.
As to the amendment itself, it is a question of patronage in general, so far as we are concerned, and we are utterly opposed to such a thing. We cannot overlook the fact that since 1921, I am sorry to say, this government has done practically everything in its power to discredit and destroy the work of the Civil Service Commission. In fact, one of the members of the Liberal party, speaking on the budget a little while ago, advocated that "to the victor belongs the spoils." I refer to the member for Antigonish-Guys-borough (Mr. Duff).
Every year a greater number of appointments is made subject to the proviso, "notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act." The little group in this corner are here in support of certain definite principles in this matter, and even when deciding as between the two parties, with whom a principle does not seem to count for a great deal, we have, as I say, to decide on the merits of the question. And we also have to take into account the course we are expected, by our constituents, to follow. Every member who calls himself a Liberal-Progressive, even if sitting with the Liberal party, must find it rather hard to vote with the government on a question of this kind. As one of the speakers to-night has already said with regard to the discharge of civil servants, this is a case of political expediency. To the members in this corner this whole case looks like one of party expediency, and I do not want this incident to pass without letting the house know where we stand on this question. In closing I want to say that we are unalterably opposed to patronage in any form.


John Livingstone Brown: Mr. Speaker, I would not have taken part in this discussion but for the remarks just made by the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans). However, I fee! it my duty to tel the house of my experiences with the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot). The hon. member for Rosetown has intimated that it might be hard for the Liberal Progressives to support the government on this occasion, and he has suggested that we should express ourselves against what he calls the violation of the principles of the Civil Service Act by the Postmaster General.
Since coming to this house I have had several experiences with the Post Office department. I have had one or two experiences with that department within the last year or so, since the present Postmaster General took office, and I want to say that I found him absolutely insistent that the provisions of the Civil Service Act with regard to returned soldiers be strictly observed. I have had no occasion to recommend the dismissal of any postmaster. I hold just as firmly as do hon. gentlemen opposite the view that these matters should not be questions of patronage, but according to my experience during the last two or three years, in the face of strong requests coming from members of the Liberal party for the appointment of certain individuals to office, the Postmaster Gene

1 has stood firmly by the position that the law should be observed and that the soldiers should get the preference to which they are entitled. In that position I strongly uphold him.

Simcoe Postmastership-Mr. Brown
The hon. member for Rosetown frequently assumes this holier-than-thou attitude, intimating that we who sit in this row and who call ourselves Liberal-Progressives are not true to the principles which we have enunciated time and again in regard .to the Civil Service Act. In view of his remarks to-night I felt it my duty to pay at leadt this tribute to the Postmaster General, and to say that in my experience he has been true to those principles and to my knowledge has refused on more than one occasion to yield to pressure which was brought to bear upon him in order to have him depart from the principle that returned soldiers should receive a preference.


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: In view of the remarks which have been made by the hon. member
for Rosetown (Mr. Evans) I want to direct the attention of the house for a moment or two to the facts which were placed on the record by my colleague the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott), but which I feel perhaps are not yet quite appreciated in connection with the motion before the house. The motion is:
That all the words after the word "that" in the motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"In the opinion of this house the Postmaster General has acted in a most arbitrary manner and in utter disregard of the letter and the spirit of the Civil Service Act in connection with the recent appointment of a postmaster at the town of Simcoe."
My hon. friend from Rosetown has suggested that there is some great question of principle involved in connection with which he feels he should record his vote on this occasion. I submit that if the facts which have been placed on record by the Minister of Public Works are carefully examined it will be found that no question of principle is involved in any way. If I may say so, this is simply a flimsy attempt to find some ground for criticism of my colleague the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot), particularly in connection with returned soldiers. My good friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) prefaced his remarks by a great deal of discussion with regard to dismissals and with regard to the Civil Service Act; he even travelled as far as India and finally cited the case of the Salvation Army. I do not know what that had to do with this case; after all what we are dealing with is a vote of censure on the Postmaster General with regard to the appointment of a postmaster for the town of Simcoe. So we must discover the facts with regard to that particular case and it is on those facts that we must decide how we are going to record our votes.

A vacancy occurred early in 1927 and, as the Minister of Public Works pointed out, that office was immediately declared a 2B office, which is an office requiring what is called a working postmaster. That is, it required a postmaster who would not simply sit in an office and direct proceedings but who would take a direct part in the work, who would be prepared to do his share in the handling of mail bags, the sortation of mail, the taking of those bags to the place of delivery to the courier, the lifting and emptying of the bags on the table, the standing and sorting of mail into the boxes, and so on. Perhaps I know more about these things than some hon. members, because I happened to have a father who was a postmaster. All this work must be done in connection with a 2B office and in January, 1927, not after the applications were received as was suggested by my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) but immediately after the vacancy occurred, that office was declared a 2B office and the advertisement issued. I am not sure that the advertisement has been put on record, but it indicated plainly that it was a 2B office by the fact that the salary to start was $2,040 per annum whereas, as we all know, revenue ofiices are on the basis of a small salary plus a percentage of the revenue received.
As has been pointed out by the Minister of Public Works there is an impression abroad in this country that this is some sort of dispute between a disabled ex-service man and a civilian. It is well to remember that according to the record, which is on the table of this house, no less than ten ex-service men and fourteen civilians applied for the position, twenty-four applicants in all. There were not simply the two ex-service men to whom reference has been made during this debate; I think there were at least six or seven ex-service men who had good records and who were well reported upon by the inspector. That advertisement described those who were eligible for appointment as follows:
According to law preference is given among candidates possessing the necessary qualifications, first, to persons who are in receipt of a pension on account of disabilities received as a result of war service, who by reason of such service _ are unable to continue their pre-war occupation and who have not been successfully re-establishd; and secondly, to persons who have been on active service overseas or on the high seas.
Candidates mu9t be Britsh subjects and must have resided in Canada at least three years.
The leader of the opposition mentioned the fact that the statute made a prescription with regard to residence, but I would ask hon. gentlemen to note that the statutory prescription

Simcoe Post mastership-Mr. Ralston
with regard to residence has nothing to do with the particular locality but requires three years residence in Canada. The residence provision is in the advertisement itself, and the advertisement states that applications will be received from residents of Simcoe and locality. There is the advertisement; according to law preference is given to candidates possessing the necessary qualifications who have disabilities and have not been re-established, and after that come those who have seen service overseas. Who is to decide as to who "possess the necessary qualifications"? What are the regulations of the Civil Service Commission? To whom do they look to decide who has the necessary qualifications? One of the hon. members in the far corner asked about the sending of an inspector. I have in my hand the instructions which were issued by the Civil Service Commission in February, 1918, to the various post office inspectors, asking the inspectors to co-operate in reporting in connection with the qualifications of candidates. The commission do not use the officers on their own staff, but utilize the post office inspectors for the purpose of deciding who possesses the necessary qualifications. That has been the practice since 1918, and applies to other departments as well. Generally speaking, a report is made by an officer of the department for which the appointment is to be made. The Minister of Public Works has read half a dozen letters which go to show that in this particular Simcoe case the Civil Service Commission asked the Post Office department to pass on the qualifications of the candidates. I will not read them all, because my hon. friend has put them on record, but the following letter, written by Mr. W. Foran, the secretary of the commission, to Mr. May, the district superintendent of postal service at London, is very significant. The letter is dated March 10, 1927, and reads as follows:
You will find herewith an application for the postmastership at Simcoe from Mr. Charles R. Bowyer. Mr. Bowyer is being advised that his application has be.en transferred to you for the necessary report on his qualifications.
The secretary of the Civil Service Commission sends that application to the superintendent of the Post Office department in order that a report may be received as to his qualifications. That application is sent not to the minister, but direct to the district superintendent.
The Minister of Public Works quoted several letters in which Doctor Roche, the chairman of the commission, pointed out to those who were recommending candidates that
the commission largely depended upon the reports of the post office inspector as to who would get the positions. He outlines the whole procedure in a letter of February 26th, 1927, to Colonel Parkinson, as follows:
The commission, however, largely depends upon the report of the post office inspector and district superintendent of postal service, who after interviewing all the applicants place them on order of merit from a post office standpoint. If Mr. Whittaker has not as yet been re-established, his disability would of course entitle him to the preference, and I can assure you that the very best consideration will be given his claims by the commission before an appointment is made.
The definite statement is made that that is the procedure which is followed in all cases, namely, that the post office inspector is the one who makes the report and whose report is recognized by the commission.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: After considering these reports, does not the final authority rest with the commission?


James Layton Ralston: It is quite true that in law the final authority rests with the commission, but these people are the agents of the commission, and I am going on to point out that the commission appoints these agents and say in effect, you are the ones to decide'.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, no.'


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Not to decide, to report.


James Layton Ralston: I will permit the hon. members to interrupt in order to ask a question, bu't I am going to try to continue my argument without 'being interrupted too much.
I admit that the commission have the legal jurisdiction, but the commission use as their agents the inspectors of the Post Office department, and they are the ones from whom they ask a report.
The applications come in and they are sent to Mr. May, the district superintendent at London. Mr. May sends them to Mr. Murray, the inspector for that particular district, and Mr. Murray goes and interviews the candidate. He did that in this case, and finally sent in a report which is found at page 130 of the return. This is a very long, detailed report setting out the particulars of the candidates, their residential qualifications, their disabilities, and all about them placing them in order of merit. He reported on no less than twenty-two candidates, besides two whom he was unable to interview. As has already been pointed out by my hon. friend, the candidate at the top of the list in order of merit, is a civilian named Wallace, the next is Mr. Bowyer, the seventh on the list is

1S30	COMMONS
Simcoe Postmastership-Mr. Ralston
Mr. Whittaker and Mr. Collver is in ninth place. They appeared to have very good candidates in Simcoe. The report has this to say about Mr. Bowyer:
Charles Rex Bowyer is a married man 28 years of age. Has a good education. Resided at Simcoe until about a year ago but is now living at Mount Albion. Has had no postal experience but would devote his entire time to the work. Was a student previous to enlistment and since discharged has been farm manager for his father, W. A. Bowyer, and is engaged in looking after some seven or eight farms owned by his father. This applicant states that owing to his being a minor he enlisted under an assumed name, that of C. R. Musgrove, and served 27 months in France with the R.C.H.A. Discharged by reason of demobilization. Xo physical disability. Is a fine type and impressed me favourably.
The next ex-service man is sixth on the list, he is Mr. Wark, who, by the way, is ahead of Mr. Whittaker. He had no physical disabilities and was very wel recommended. The next, the seventh, is Mr. Whittaker, about whom the report has this to say: George Edward Whittaker is a married man 28 years of age. Has a very good education. Has resided in Simcoe for about two years and eight months. Has had no postal experience but would devote his entire time to the work. Was at school previous to enlistment and since the war has been an adjuster for the soldier settlement board and is now accountant and office manager for the St. Williams Preservers at Simcoe. Enlisted in the 55th battery and served in France eight months with the 22nd battery and discharged as medically unfit and received 100 per cent pension. This applicant has a double amputation belorv the knees and I do not think that he would be able to properly attend to the duties of the office with this disability.
The next returned man is ninth on the list; that is Mr. Collver, and the report says:
Roy Ward Collver is a married man thirty years of age. Has a good education. Has resided his entire life in the vicinity of Simcoe as he lives on Nixon No. 1 R.R. two miles from Simcoe. Has had no postal experience but would devote his entire time to the work. Has been mostly engaged in farming. Enlisted in the 133rd battalion and served about two years in France with the 14th battalion. Discharged by reason of demobilization. Has now an appeal before the federal appeal board for a pension and it is stated that he will receive 75 per cent disability. It is thought that this applicant's disability w-ould prevent his proper performance of the work.
The inspector said that this man who had a 75 per cent disability could not properly perform the work. If it is contended that politics were being played in this particular instance, Mr. Collver would have been a very attractive man to appoint, because he was recommended by the Norfolk Veterans and Colonel Pratt and by Mr. Anderson. He is the 
ninth on Mr. Murray's report and has a 75 per cent disability. Yet he was turned down because it was felt that a 75 per cent disability would prevent him from doing the work of that office, and yet the hon. gentlemen opposite say that a man with a 100 per cent disability should have obtained the position. Let us put it the other way; they say that the Postmaster General should not accept the report of an inspector who says that a man under those circumstances could not cany out his-duties.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Does the hon. minister know that the Postmaster General approved the appointment of a man at Billing's Bridge who had a 100 per cent disability?


James Layton Ralston: I have no idea of what he-did in that case, but I would imagine that Billing's Bridge is not a 2B office.


Peter John Veniot: The Postmaster General did not appoint him, it was the Civil Service Commission.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is the same thing.


James Layton Ralston: That was the report of
March 28, 1927. There was some delay, as has been suggested by the Postmaster General, because some difficulty arose in connection with Bowyer's enlistment, and there was a very sharp letter from the Postmaster General with regard to the residential qualifications of some of the candidates and he certainly showed no partiality for Bowyer in that letter.
I think it was in October, 1927, when these applications reached the Civil Service Commission. But officials of the Post Office department were not the only ones who took time in connection with the matter. Although it was in October, 1927, when the applications reached the Civil Service Commission, the first word from them was the following February, February 18. Therefore, I do not think the matter of delay is important one way or the other in connection with this particular case. At any rate the report goes to the Civil Service Commission and, as the record shows, an inquiry is instituted with regard to Mr. Bowyer's residence. It is found he is resident in Simcoe. On February 18, 1928, comes this significant letter which is found on page 144 of the record. Let it be remembered that the Civil Service Commission had before them the report of Mr. Murray which I have read, which stated that he did not consider Mr. Whittaker was able to carry on the duties of the office, and in which he also reported on the other applicants. This is a letter which comes from-.

Simcoe Postmaslership-Mr. Ralston
the Civil Service Commission. Does my hon. friend suggest that the commission were still going to act on their own judgment, or were they accepting that of the Post Office department? Listen to this. This is dated February 18, 1928:
With further reference to the postmastership at Simcoe, Ontario, I am directed by commissioners to say that they will be prepared to select Mr. G. E. Whittaker, O.A.S., for this position, provided the department feels that he possesses the necessary physical fitness to perform the duties.
I am to point out that the commission is endeavouring, in common, with the Past Office department, to provide for seriously handicapped cases to as great a degree as possible, and postmasterships have been mentioned as particularly suitable employment for such applicants. In this case -the Amputations' Association is strongly supporting Mr. Whittaker, as well as the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, both claiming that his disability will not prevent the proper discharge of his duties. I should be glad, therefore, if the department could furnish the commissioners with a definite report, at as early a date as possible, with reference to Mr. Whittaker's physical fitness for this postmastership.
There was a recognition again that the decision was to lie with the Post Office department. They say:	We are ready to recommend him if you say he is fit. What happened? The Post Office department then asked for another report, and on page 122 of the record will be found a letter written from the department at Ottawa to the superintendent, enclosing a copy of the letter of the Civil Service Commission and asking that a full report be made. That letter is sent to Mr. Murray who, on March 5, 1928, makes a full report which has been read and which was put on the record the first day of the debate by the Posmasler General. Mr. Murray goes into the matter very thoroughly, and he finds once more that Mr. Whittaker could not properly fulfil the duties of the office. That report is forwarded to Mr. May, district superintendent, who concurs and makes some further report about it to the same effect. It goes to Mr. Gaboury, Deputy Postmaster General, and he forwards it to the Civil Service Commission. I ask hon. gentlemen in all fairness: would they not expect there would be nothing more about the matter?
What happened? That report goes to the Civil Service Commission on March 16, 1928, and on May 29, two months and a half afterwards, the Civil Service Commission issues a notice to Mr. Whittaker, but, as has been pointed out by the Minister of Public Works in a brand new form, a form that I think has rarely if ever been seen before in the files of the Civil Service Commission. It bears the notation:	"Appointment subject to physical
78594-116J
fitness". This means: we hereby certify that you, Mr. Whittaker, are qualified for the position provided you are physically qualified. The Post Office department had already decided that he was not physically qualified, and that report had gone to the Civil Service Commission. That is the appointment to which the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) refers as being the appointment or decision of the Civil Service Commission. It is not a decision at all; it is a conditional certificate-if you are physically fit, you can be taken on. The Postmaster General says that he does not hide behind his deputy. In view of the report of the inspector, he issues written instructions-and they are on the file -to his deputy stating that in view of the report of the inspector he cannot accept the certificate with regard to Mr. Whittaker. Mr. Gaboury accordingly writes to the Civil Service Commission telling them the same thing and asking them to make a new appointment.
What is the result? The result is that, not the Postmaster General, nor Mr. Gaboury, nor Mr. Taylor, nor anybody else but the Civil Service Commission, without any further correspondence, issues a. certificate, without any condition in it, in favour of Mr. Charles R. Bowyer, selecting him as postmaster of the post office at Simcoe. Those are the facts. That is why1, I said when I commenced my speech, that it seems to me we are getting a bit off the track when we are talking about questions of principle in dismissals. We have a simple question to decide:	Did the Postmaster General act arbitrarily or reasonably? Had he reasonable grounds for acting as he did in connection with this particular case? My hon. friends say that he acted directly contrary to the spirit of the act. I have only a moment to refer to the act. As the hon. member for Leeds suggests, under the act the Civil Service Commission had the-right to make appointments, but section 24 reads:
The deputy head may, at any time before the expiration of six months, reject any person assigned or appointed to any position under his control or direction, or he may extend the period of probation within such person may be rejected for another six months; and the cause of rejection, or the reason for extending the period of probation, shall be reported by the deputy head to the commission.
2. Where a person is rejected, the commission shall thereupon select another person to take the place of the one rejected.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does not that section
clearly indicate that a probationary period must elapse before the rejection occurs?


James Layton Ralston: I only want to point out, in answer to my hon. friend, that in 1919 an
1832	COMMONS
Simcoe Postmastership-Mr. Ralston
opinion was asked for by the Department of Agriculture with regard to that particular section. I have before me the correspondence that has been tabled. I will not take time to put it on record, but I will read the paragraph which is an answer to my hon. friend's question. The department were asking the same question of the Department of Justice: Must we take a man on if we do not consider he can do the work? Can we reject him without a period of probation? The answer of the then deputy minister, Mr. E. L. Newcombe, now a Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, is dated December 9, 1919. It is quite a lengthy document, but this paragraph occurs in it:
If the deputy be reasonably satisfied upon preliminary examination of the person nominated that the latter is unsuitable or not qualified for the duties of the office or employment to which he is assigned, I think he may, if he think it advisable, reject him without entrusting him with the discharge of any duties;; otherwise in conceivable cases considerable prejudice to the public service might ensue.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But "the deputy of course, like other individuals, must yield compliance [DOT]to the law as justly interpreted." Let the minister read the whole thing.


James Layton Ralston: I am not going to read
the whole thing.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, it is not advisable to read it.


James Layton Ralston: It goes on:
The fact that the man selected is not as good as his predecessor; or in your words, not a man of reputation or outstanding ability, would not, I should think, in the absence of other objections, justify the deputy to reject him, provided he have passable qualifications.
The deputy, of course, like other individuals must yield compliance to the law as justly in

.terpreted

JVIr. STEVENS:	Hear, 'hear.
"Mr. RALSTON:	And an interpretation in
accordance with the opinion of the then Deputy Minister of Justice would be regarded by most people in this country as being "justly interpreted."
-no matter what his view may be as to the policy of the law; and it must be realized that the provisions of the Civil Service Act are designed to limit selections for office to those who apply and compete, rather than to enable a deputy minister to obtain the officer who in his opinion is the best available for the position; moreover, even among the competing class, returned soldiers are by law preferred if they obtain sufficient marks to pass the examination.

I do not think that I can add to the above in the absence of further particulars as to the nature of the information or inquiry upon which you refused to accept Mr. Betts, and as to whether or not he was afforded an opportunity of probation.
So well and so authoritatively was that extract which I read first regarded by the Civil Service Commission of that day, not the Civil Service. Commission under the Liberal government, but the Civil Service Commission of that day under the Union and Conservative government, that that extract which I have read was incorporated into the notice which goes out to every applicant, including Mr. Whittaker, and his attention was called to section 13 of the Civil Service Act, which is the probation section now section 24, "subject to the following interpretation," given to it by the Department of Justice, and then that particular portion of the opinion was printed right on the face of the notice which he received. In other words, it told him that he could be rejected without a period of probation.
Do my hon. friends suggest that in view of that we can fairly charge that my friend the Postmaster General acted directly contrary to the spirit and the letter of the Civil Service Act, when as a matter of fact he acted in absolute accord with the act as interpreted by the Deputy Minister of Justice? I do not think that that is a fair conclusion to come to; I do not believe it is a conclusion to which this house or this country will come. I say that my friend the Postmaster General -I am speaking to some gentlemen on the other side of the house who have had the responsibility of running departments-has some responsibility to the public service of this country, and he has some responsibility with regard to his officials, to these men he appoints expecting them to do their work. They make reports to him in the regular course of their work, and if those reports and recommendations were overruled by a blue pencil in the hands of the Postmaster General, and he said, "I will do something else," there would be a very loud hue and cry with regard to a man who would ride over the opinion of his responsible officials. It seems to me to be the case of being damned if you do and damned if you don't. In view of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that the Postmaster General accepts the opinion of officers whose honesty has not been called in question in the slightest, men who themselves have been nominated or designated by the Civil Service Commission themselves to make these investigations and report, I believe that this country will absolve him of any arbitrariness and of

Simcoe Postmastership-Mr. Ralston
any unreasonableness or of any intention but justly and fairly to observe the Civil Service Act and to administer the department entrusted to him.
I think there is also some justification for the department's conclusion to be found in outside evidence altogether, evidence not within the reports; for I find that the gentleman who recommended Mr. Whittaker, Mr. Johnson, the manager of St. Williams Preservers, Limited, told the Civil Service Commission at the time that he had been carrying on as a bookkeeper. Another man in the Department of Soldiers Civil Re-establishment who recommended him says that he finds his present work, which Mr. Johnson had said was that of a bookkeeper "rather arduous" and he would like to go into the post office where shorter hours would make the work desirable. But in view of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that one man at least in that post office was at work from 5.30 a.m. to 9.00 p.m., I question whether he would get the benefit of the shorter hours that he expected. Another man, Mr. Groff, who made a recommendation, said that Mr. Whittaker was "unfit for duties requiring physical activity." All these recommendations are on the file. These ought to be considered when we are passing on whether the Postmaster General had reasonable grounds for the conclusion he came to.
There are also on the file a couple of letters which I should like to read. There was a letter from the Postmaster General to Mr. Sutcliffe, of the Amputations Association. The Postmaster General there wrote a letter which, it seems to me, ought to convince most people in this country that he is trying to do and has been trying to do the fair thing for the ex-service men. He writes:
I note what you say touching efforts having been made to modify the preference given to returned soldiers under the act. Let me assure you that such attempts will never receive my support. I am prepared at all times to give preference to returned soldiers wherever their physical disability does not render them incapable of doing the work of the position they apply for, but I claim that it is not fair that the postal service should be called upon to provide positions for men who cannot do the work owing to their physical disability. If their disability is so great as to exclude them from such positions, I feel that the Pensions Act should be changed so as to give such men greater financial assistance if what they are receiving now is not considered sufficient. It would be better to do this than to seek to place these unfortunates in public positions which call for such work as would render the service they are willing to give inadequate, and consequently lower the standard of efficiency exacted by the public.
Canada, to my mind, owes it to the 100 per cent disability men to place them in a position where it should not be necessary for them to apply for public positions in order to live in comfort and provide for their families.
That is the expression of the man who is now being .charged with having acted arbitrarily and gone directly in face of the Civil Service Act in order to deprive ex-service men of their rights and particularly the 100 per cent disability cases.	_
May I say one thing more to indicate the reasonable ground which the Postmaster General had? There was some talk in one of his letters in regard to Whittaker being reestablished. I do not know whether he was re-established or not. I only hope he was. I happen to know intimately a veteran who is in a very similar position to his and nobody sympathizes with him more genuinely than I do in the plight in which he finds himself. I know some of the difficulties of the amputation cases but at the same time I believe that veterans themselves will consider that the Postmaster General was on pretty sound ground not alone in connection with the public service but for the benefit of returned men generally, and I believe that the ex-service men themselves will agree that it is not in the best interests of the returned soldiers to insist on being put into positions wffiere they are not physically fitted to carry on because that simply lends support to people who are seeking to take away the preference which is given to ex-service men. It enables them to argue, that the efficiency of the public service is being injured by this provision.
But the Postmaster General said something about Mr. Whittaker being re-established. What was the position? I just want to see if he was reasonable in connection with this, and I think his reasonableness in connection with the whole case might be judged by it. Major Ashton, of the Soldier Settlement Board, writes that Whittaker was employed five years with the board, that he received several promotions and salary increases on merit, and that he resigned from the staff of the board in August, 1924, to go with the St. Williams Preservers, Limited. WTe know that he had the position there of bookkeeper and office manager for two or three years until October, 1927. His own letter says that his contract was terminated-I understand that it was terminated voluntarily, and he left the St. Williams Preservers, Limited, and went into a monumental stone business. He was, as a matter of fact, bookkeeper in the St. Williams Preservers, Limited, when he made application
1834	COMMONS
Message from His Majesty the King
for this .position. Later in February 1928, he bought the Monumental Stone business. The Minister of Public Works has read the declaration and the statement which Mr. Whittaker *made in the papers with regard to his prospects in this business. I do not make any choice between those two statements and hon. gentlemen can take whichever they like, but I do submit that the Postmaster General ought not to .be chained with being arbitrary or unfair when he forms the opinion that Mr. Whittaker was reestablished within the meaning of the act. Be that as it may-


Hewitt Bostock: It being -eleven o'clock-



William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I have received from the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs a message issued by His Majesty the King from Craigwell House today. I think hon. members would be interested in hearing it, and if the house will give me permission I will, notwithstanding that we are past the hour of adjournment, read the message. It is as follows:
In looking back on my long illness and recovery my heart is full of thankfulness of far deeper origin than any mere sense of relief.
I have been brought back from danger and weariness of the past months by the wonder-full skill and devotion of my doctors, surgeons and nurses. And help has come from another source of strength:	as month after month
went by I learned of the widespread and loving solicitude with which The Queen and 1 were surrounded. I was able to picture to myself the crowds of friends waiting and watching at my gate and to think of still greater numbers of those who in every part of the empire were remembering me with prayers and good wishes. The realization of this has been among the most vivid experiences of my life.
It was an encouragement beyond description to feel that my constant and earnest desire had been granted-the desire to gain the confidence and affection of my people. My thoughts have carried me even further than this. I cannot dwell upon the generous sympathy shown to me by unknown friends in many other countries without a new and moving hope. I long to believe it possible that experiences such as mine may soon appear no longer exceptional: when the national anxiety of all the peoples of the world shall be felt as a common source of human sympathy and a common claim on human friendship.
I am not yet able to bear the strain of a public ceremony but I look forward on some appointed day to joining with my people at home 
and overseas in thanking Almighty God not merely for my own recovery but for the new evidence of a growing kindly significance of the true nature of men and nations.
In the meantime I hope this message may reach all those even in the remotest corners of the world from whom I have received words of sympathy and goodwill.
(Signed) George R. I.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, April 23, 1929