[Stage Direction]
Second report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills-Mr. Parent.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: The leader of the opposition has requested the correspondence between the government of Canada and the governments of the other nations of the British empire with respect to the holding of an economic conference, and I desire now to table a return in response to that request.



PERMANENT COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE

[Stage Direction]
On the order for government notices of motion:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say that the first two resolutions under government notices of motion are more or less formal matters? If hon. gentlemen would like to have them stand over until later I have no objection; otherwise I think it would be well to proceed with them at once.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: Perhaps they had better stand until the leader of the opposition is here.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Very well.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Stand.



QUEBEC CITY WATER SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['They are made through\na purchasing agent.\nItem stands.\nProgress reported.']
Mr. H. E. LAVIGUEUR (Quebec-Mont-morency):: 
Mr. HANSON:: Do the tourists drink water?


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: Some of them do.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The hon. member should confine his remarks to the article in question.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: I would like to hear
from the hon. Minister of Health (Mr. King) as to whether or not it is his intention to remedy this grievance by putting Quebec upon the list of ports where good water may be obtained. The Canadian Pacific Railway is using our water now.


Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: Mr. Speaker, under
an international agreement we, as a department, are supposed to protect the water supply on the inland waters, and on international waters adjoining Canada. Through the provincial government laboratories in Ontario and in Quebec, the water supply used by shipping on the St. Lawrence and on the great lakes is tested. We have been fortunate in having checked any typhoid outbreaks aboard these ships. On April 30 of this year we advised the shipping companies that good water could be secured at Montreal, Levis, Lauzon and Three Rivers, these ports being on the St. Lawrence. The Quebec government had advised us that the water at Quebec contained a large number of colon baccili and was not considered to be safe water to be used by the steamships.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: It is all right for the
Canadian Pacific Railway ships.


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: The Canadian
Pacific Railway is not using this water. On April 11 the secretary of the board of trade wrote to the deputy minister complaining that in our advice to the shipping companies as to where they could obtain good water the port of Quebec had been left off the list and inquired why this was done. The deputy minister replied to that letter, advising that such notice had been given to the steamship companies. The water supply at Quebec is purely a municipal matter, and I understand from the mayor of that city, the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Lavigueur), that it is the purpose of his council to expend some 82,000.000 in improving the water supply. As soon as that is done and the water supply is approved, no doubt the ships will be glad to take on water at that point. Until that change is made, we as a department must advise the steamship companies as to where they can obtain a proper water supply.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. G. CIOOTE (Madeod):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) if he is in a position to give a statement regarding the application made by the bituminous coal operators in Alberta for a subvention on the freight rate on coal to Manitoba points.
Hon. CHARLES A. STEWART (Minister of the Interior):	The government is not yet
in a position to give any definite answer regarding this matter.
1714	COMMONS
Natural Resources-Saskatchewan


TELEGRAM PROM MAYOR OP FERNIE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. K. ESLING (West Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of the government to the contents of a telegram which I received from the mayor of Fernie. Until a few months ago the coal mines at Fernie were shipping to the United States some 60 cars of coal per day. Those shipments have been discontinued, and the result has been that 400 miners have been thrown out of employment, while the remaining miners are enl-ployed only for part time. This telegram urges the government to contribute toward the long haul freight cost on shipments to Manitoba to offset the competition of American coal. It is indicated that unless something is done before winter the situation will become much more serious. I take it for granted that when a statement is made by a minister of the crown it is necessary-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would ask the hon
gentleman to read the telegram to which he
referred.


William Kemble Esling: I would like to ask the
Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. King), who represents this district, if he will reconsider his opposition to a contribution being made to the long haul freight cost.


James Horace King: I object to my hon. friend making the statement that I offered any opposition to a contribution being made. No such statement has been made by me, and my hon. friend is playing pretty cheap politics.


RUSSIAN ANTHRACITE COAL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire if the government is in a position to make a statement regarding the importation of Russian anthracite coal. I understand a question covering this point was asked some time ago.
Hon. CHARLES A. STEWART (Minister of the Interior):	That matter would come
under the Department of Trade and Commerce. However, I will look it up and try to find out why an answer has not been given.


Edward Joseph Garland: I trust that the hon. minister or the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) will bring this matter to the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm).


NATURAL RESOURCES
[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) moved the third reading of Bill No. 17, respecting the transfer of the natural resources of Alberta.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) moved the third reading of Bill No. 58, respecting the transfer of the natural resources of Saskatchewan.
He said:	I have just been asked to make
a short explanation covering Saskatchewan in order that the information may be on Hansard. Some question arose ias to the rights of the lessee on lake Manitou, and I propose reading what Colonel Biggar, who has been advising us in these matters, has been pleased to send me as reply:
As to water rights, I am informed that when the agreements were negotiated it -was understood by all concerned that these passed to the province as completely as all other interests of the crown, and that is my present understanding. Water rights like all other rights, merely continue to be administered under Dominion legislation until other provision is made by the provincial legislature, and the minister undertakes that no water right is granted unless and until there is a very definite and binding undertaking that the rights of the public will be protected with respect to lake Manitou.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) moved the third reading of Bill No. 41, respecting the transfer of the railway belt and Peace River block.
He said:	Before this bill is read a third
time, I think in fairness to members of the ojr position I should give some information that I was to secure for them. I see the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) is not in his seat, but I can put the information on Hansard with reference to the foreshore rights in the Fraser river. Upon inquiry I find that the harbour board of New Westminster made application for the foreshore rights from Douglas island to tidewater. That was refused, but foreshore rights were granted to them to two miles west of Annacis island and in addition the foreshore rights were granted on the Pitt river some twelve miles easterly from the junction with the Fraser

Natural Resources-British Columbia
and ten miles in the Fraser river. The harbour commission of New Westminster apparently were able to convince the provincial authorities that this was necessary to protect them in connection with harbour purposes.
In answer to the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) in regard to ordnance lands, the tract of 100,000 acres mentioned by him as being in the Chilcoten valley was exchanged for Point Grey property which was granted to the provincial government for university grounds and other purposes, and is still controlled by the Department of Defence. It has not yet been transferred to the Department of the Interior.
With reference to the boundaries in regard to which the commission is set up and provision is made in the agreement, the commisison is simply to decide what the boundaries of the present areas of ordnance reserves will be. They are not definite nor well defined and the commission was set up for that purpose.
With reference to the other matter that we discussed, that is as to whether or not there could be exchanges, I am informed by our officers that that matter was not discussed in the negotiations with the officers of the provincial government, so that I was somewhat in error in making the statement that exchanges could be made. The commission is set up simply for the purpose of defining the boundaries of ordnance lands already set aside.
Mr. FRASER:: Might I ask the minister
a question in regard to foreshore rights? The paragraph in the agreement says that the foreshore rights are reserved to the federal government as far up as Kanaka creek. That is eight miles from Lillooet, or 150 miles up the Fraser river. That does not correspond with the statement the minister made a moment ago.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: I think my
hon. friend must be in error, because according to the map I have in my hand there is a Kanaka creek about twelve miles up the Fraser river, and that is the one mentioned because I have gone into the matter thoroughly with the officers of the Department of Marine and Fisheries and they say that is required. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie) who at present is not in the house, is anxious, I understand, that we should introduce legislation confirming this agreement as he claims, so I am told, that it is very necessary for the protection of New Westminster harbour and any new development in connection with it. The creek mentioned by my hon. friend (Mr. Fraser) is at least 150 miles up the river, but that is not the one referred to. The latter is about twelve miles up.


John Anderson Fraser: The agreement is clear that the bed of the Fraser river and the foreshore of the Fraser river up to Kanaka creek are reserved to the federal government. That takes in a good deal more area than the minister has stated.


Charles A. Stewart: I have gone into the matter thoroughly with the officers who have negotiated the agreement, and this is a creek twelve miles or slightly more, up the Fraser river from its junction with the Pitt river.


John Anderson Fraser: Then I am to understand
that the minister and I are not referring to the same Kanaka creek?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


John Anderson Fraser: The one to which the
minister refers is twelve miles up the Fraser river?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Mr. Speaker, before this bill receives third reading I desire again to emphasize the fact that it appears to be grotesque and absurd that the parliament of Canada should seek to give itself a jurisdiction which it has no power to do. I feel satisfied that as the implications of paragraph 16 of the agreement are so broad, there will certainly be occasions when this paragraph will be called in question. The fact that parliament is attempting to do what I submit it has no right to do, will be a matter of great concern to those who are directly involved, that is as between the Dominion of Canada, the province of British Columbia and those who may be charged as failing to observe regulations that may be imposed by the parliament of Canada. Therefore, the law officers of the crown ought to consider the situation very carefully and to avoid the possibility of trouble, likely to result in great injury to individuals, to the province of British Columbia and to the Dominion of Canada, safeguards should be provided in any validating act. I raise this objection because I feel satisfied, if nothing more is done, just as sure as morn succeeds the night, we are going to have trouble over this paragraph.


Hon. LUCIEN CANNON (Solicitor General) :: I may say the point does offer certain difficulties. These difficulties were indicated to a certain extent by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) and also by my hon. friend who has just spoken. I may assure the house that as regards whatever legislation may be necessary to put into effect these new relations as between British Columbia and the Dominion,
War Veterans' Allowances

every possible weight and consideration will be given to the suggestion offered by hon. gentlemen opposite.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


FOOD AND DRUGS ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved the third reading of Rill No. 125, to amend the Food and Drugs Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 19, respecting war veterans' allowances-Mr. King (Kootenay)-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Hon. J. H. KING' (Minister of Pensions and National Health): I might, in explanation, say that this bill after its second reading was referred to a special committee dealing with soldier matters. It has there been fully considered and now comes back to the house with certain changes made here and there, but for the most part the measure remains as it was when introduced on March 4th. I want to state definitely that this bill has nothing to do with pensions, and it must not in any way interfere in the slightest degree with a man's right to claim and the country's obligation to give an adequate pension for war disability.
The chief changes made by the committee have been that the first clause is wiped out, being considered unnecessary. The age limit has also been changed from sixty-five as in the original bill to sixty. The clause dealing with administration has also been changed, a committee being proposed that will administer outside of departmental control. The section dealing with allowances has also been amended. I think that the committee finally concluded that casual earnings should be exempted. Those are the principal changes that have been made in the bill, and as far as the government is concerned we concur in the amendments that have been made by the committee, and are pleased that the members of the committee were able to come to an unanimous conclusion.
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3

War veterans' allowance committee.
Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Would the minister read the amendment?


The CHAIRMAN:: The amendments are not marked in the copy of the bill that I have, but section 3 is printed as amended, and reads as follows:
(1 )[DOT] The war veterans' allowance committee shall consist of three members to be appointed by the governor in council, one of whom shall be appointed chairman and shall receive a salary of six thousand dollars a year and the other two of whom shall receive each a salary of five thousand dollars a year; provided that the governor in council may appoint, to be additional members of the committee, the deputy minister and, as his alternate, the assistant deputy minister, and one other person who is not on the staff of the department.
(2) Two members of the committee shall constitute a quorum.


Mr. MANION:: It might be of interest to the house, particularly to those who were not on the committee, if I explained what the real difference is. The original clause provided that the administration of this act should be left to a committee made up of officials of the department. The special committee that considered this bill was of the opinion that there was a certain risk of such a committee becoming more or less political; I do not mean under this government more than under any other government, but it was felt that there was that risk, and the proposal was therefore made and adopted by the committee that an independent committee such as is now proposed should administer the act. While there will still be a representative of the department upon that committee, either the deputy minister or the assistant deputy minister, the other three commissioners, to call them such, will be entirely independent of the department. The object is to ensure that the committee will be independent.


Mr. SPENCER:: Who will appoint these
commissioners?


Robert James Manion: The governor in council.
The appointments are political, but not the committee.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the underlying
reason for enlarging the personnel of the commission? Is it to exercise further departmental control?


John Warwick King: Personally I have not changed my mind in regard to the question of administration. As I explained to the house when I introduced the bill, this is largely a departmental matter and I felt that the administration would be more effective if it were carried on by departmental officials who are now in the department and in the civil service of this country, and who are dealing from day to day with returned soldiers.

War Veterans' Allowances
This would be merely an extension of the work which they are now doing. We have dealt with hospitalization, vocational training, treatment and relief, and vetcraft shops all over Canada for the last twelve years, and there has never been any question of political interference. These officers have always tried to do their work, and taking it all in ail I think that they have done it very well. The opposition members, however, rather objected to a departmental committee, and in the special committee the matter was thoroughly threshed out, and personally I am satisfied to accept the unanimous conclusions of that committee. As regards the deputy minister and the assistant deputy minister, I think that there is a very good reason for including them because we are going to administer this act with the machinery that we now have, and I do not think that it would be wise or that anyone would propose that new machinery should be set up throughout Canada for administration. The services of the Department of Pensions and National Health will have to be given to this independent committee. The idea in associating the deputy minister with the assistant deputy is to give that contact between the department and the committee. I think that is the real explanation in regard to it.


Mr. ERNST:: The only objection I see to reducing the quorum from three to two members is that it might be possible for the assistant deputy minister and the additional person, who is not on the staff and is to be named by the governor in council, to constitute themselves a quorum to deal effectively with cases without consulting the other members of the committee. It opens that possibility.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: The act specifies the minister or the assistant deputy minister, and there is a fifth member to be chosen by the legion itself. The quorum was reduced from three, as proposed, to two because the commission is composed of three permanent members, and what we had in mind was that two of these could form a quorum.


William Gordon Ernst: Two of the three permanent members?


Eugène Fiset: Exactly.


William Gordon Ernst: It does not say so.


Arthur Edward Ross: The committee felt in regard to the first proposal that the deputy minister should not have any further work imposed on him as chairman of this board. Therefore we considered that it would be better to have three independent members
who would actually administer the act, but that as a liaison officer there should be some person from the department. It was felt that at all sessions it would be absolutely necessary for those three paid members to be present and that two of them should form a quorum. It does not debar some person in the department with experience and knowledge of this work being appointed to the commission; but in such case he would have to resign his position in the department and become a paid member of the commission.


Mr. THORSON:: In reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst) this explanation might be offered. I do not think there would be any objection to the quorum being constituted of either the deputy minister or the assistant deputy minister and the other person who is referred to in subsection 1 of section 3. That other person was suggested by General Sir Arthur Currie as an honorary member of the committee more or less to supervise and check over its work. So that if the quorum did consist of the deputy minister on the one hand and this honorary member of the committee on the other, there would be the most careful check over of the work of that quorum. The reason for having a quorum consisting of two was that there might be several quorums operating at the same time whose duties might necessitate a certain amount of travel.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: Mr. Chairman, as a member of the committee might I suggest to the minister that the regulations to be drawn up should include a rule that the attendance of the members be recorded. I think that is very essential, because no such record has been kept of other board meetings, and we had no idea what service the paid members had given. I think it is very essential that such a record should be kept.


John Warwick King: I will keep that in mind when the committee is organized.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think it should be made absolutely clear in the legislation that the two members constituting a quorum shall be the two salaried officers; but you have not provided for this in the bill. It could be made clear by a simple amendment.


John Warwick King: Colonel Biggar drew this amendment and he advised the committee that it was properly worded. I see no objection to the suggestion; in fact I imagine that is the course which will be followed. You have paid a commission, and then you have honorary members. The decision will surely be given by the paid commissioners, and two of them will form a quorum.
War Veterans' Allowances


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not as the section is
drafted.


Mr. MacLAREN:: A quorum of two may appear small to this committee, and I think it is small, but, as just said by my friend on the opposite side (Mr. Thorson), the real reason for constituting two as a quorum was that some members of the commission will probably be travelling through various parts of the country-


John Warwick King: They will.


Murray MacLaren: -and in that event a quorum of two would be sufficient. There is also this safeguard, that in the event of a quorum of two coming to any decision, it could always be reversed by the full board.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Yes.


George Halsey Perley: The minister, as I understand, is desirous that two of the salaried members of the committee should form a quorum.


John Warwick King: I would naturally assume that, although my hon. friend from St. John-Albert (Mr. MacLaren) has thrown a new light on it-the members will have to travel a great deal.


George Halsey Perley: Two honorary
members and two salaried members might hold meetings simultaneously. If the minister said that two of the salaried members of the committee should constitute a quorum, it seems to me it would be quite in order, but to say that two members of the committee shall constitute a quorum leaves it open for two meetings to be going on at once. I do not think that is the intention of the minister.


John Warwick King: I would hesitate to amend the section. As the member for St. John-Albert informed the house, the committee gave thought to that feature. They realized that there will be travelling by the paid members of the committee, and that two members might be away from Ottawa for a considerable period during which it would be essential that certain routine matters should be attended to. In that case you would have one member in Ottawa who could not act unless he called in the deputy or assistant deputy. I think the section had better be left as it is. If the paid members are here in Ottawa, naturally they will form a quorum; but if the proposed amendment was made, business might be held up for some time to the detriment of the veterans. However, I would rather hear the views of the committee at the present time than express my own opinion.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I was not a member of the committee, but if the minister wishes to arrive speedily at a clarification of the section, he could do so by amending it to read that two members of the committee, one of whom shall be a salaried member, shall constitute a quorum.


Robert James Manion: I was one of the members of the committee and was present at practically all the meetings. With reference to our intention as expressed by the member for St. John-Albert, we did discuss the personnel. I was one of those who did not believe in the original proposition of the minister, I preferred the section as we have it to-day, and most of the other members after talking it over thought likewise. The purpose was to give an opportunity for travel, and so far as the danger of one of these members of the committee in association with the deputy minister or the assistant deputy minister is concerned I do not think there is any harm in taking whatever risk there may be. My reason for saying that is that three of the members of the committee are paid members and the fourth member is there in an honorary capacity and is recommended by the war veterans themselves. The only member associated with whatever government may be in power is the representative of the department. He himself could do nothing except with the consent of one other member. He would have to have the consent of the honorary member or of a paid member and after all if those two members did happen to do something that was not quite right the others could over-rule him. It is my opinion that the arrangement as it is presently proposed and without any amendment should be satisfactory to all concerned. It will give the best service to the returned soldiers and that, after all, was the desire of the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4.-To whom allowances paid.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I would like to ask the
minister who is to determine the question of permanent unemployability, and how it is to be determined.


John Warwick King: It will be the
duty and function of the board to develop machinery whereby they can ascertain the employability of the individual who has made application. It is a matter of detail which will have to be worked out by the board from time to time.

Militia Pension Act


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister has no further information than that?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
On section 6-Maximum allowance to a married man or widower with children.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I was not a member of
the pensions committee and I have never seen a statement of the cost to the country of this legislation. I think that information should be given as fully as possible. We should also know if the estimate is calculated on an actuarial basis.


John Warwick King: The departmental officers did appear before the committee with statistical data based on actuarial findings. The cost will vary from year to year; in the first year it will be about $2,000,000. The peak will be reached in twenty-eight years; the cost in the last year of that period will be $18,000,000. From that time it will gradually decline and run out. When we reach the peak the pensions obligations will have been decreased very materially; it will take about fifty years for this plan to run its course.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Fifty years.


John Warwick King: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is that estimate based on
a sixty year limitation or a sixty-five year limitation?


John Warwick King: Sixty years.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-Certain deductions not to be made.
Mr. NEILL:: I would ask the minister to
explain the words "additional pension". Does that mean the ordinary pension under the Pension Act or is it some special kind of pension?


John Warwick King: That is under the ordinary Pension Act; it applies in the case of a man who receives a five per cent or a ten per cent pension.


Alan Webster Neill: Why is the word "additional"
used?


John Warwick King: Sometimes pensions are refused and added to by the Board of Pension Commissioners.


Alan Webster Neill: It continues to be a pension.
Why not say, "any pension"? The word "additional" suggests some special allowance. If it is a pension it is simply a pension under
the Pension Act and I cannot see the advantage in using the word "additional." I wish to have it clear.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 8 to 20 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported.
Rodolphe Lemieux: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Now.


Robert James Manion: It does not hurry the bill
a particle by reading it now and it would not delay its passage to wait until the next sitting of the house. I think it should take the ordinary course of events.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Next sitting of the house.


MILITIA PENSION ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence) moved the second reading of Bill No. 43, to amend the Mitlitia Pension Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Adjustment of pension of certain officers.	.
Arthur Edward Ross: I wish to move an amendment to section 4, by adding thereto the following subsection:
4 (a). An officer who retires voluntarily after ten years' service and is not pensionable shall receive a refund of all sums deducted from his pay and contributed by him for pension.
Section 5 of the Civil Service Superannuation Act, which is chapter 24 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, provides that a civil servant withdrawing from the service may be given a withdrawal allowance equal to his contributions if he has been in the service ten years or over. Under the existing Militia Pension Act it is the law that officers must contribute 5 per cent of their pay to the pension and retirement fund before becoming pensionable, but if they retire voluntarily their deposits are forfeited. I want to correct that unfair situation. An officer who has served over ten years and who retires voluntarily should receive the amount he paid in.


John Frederick Johnston: The amendment states that section 4 is to be amended, but there are only two sections in the bill.


Arthur Edward Ross: This refers to section 4 of the existing act. This will have to be a new section of the bill.
Militia Pension Act


Mr. RALSTON:: My hon. friend was good enough to submit to me a copy of the amendment which he has just moved, and I have had an opportunity to consider it with the officers of the department and to compare the superannuation act with the Militia Pension Act. I know it is my hon. friend's desire to do full justice to those who will be affected by his amendment, and I assure him that I am equally impressed with that duty and that responsibility, but I regret that I must say to him and to the committee that I cannot accept the suggested amendment. In short, his amendment provides that anyone who has served in the permanent force for ten years may voluntarily retire and receive the contributions which he has made towards his pension, and my hon. friend bases his argument on the fact that a civil servant may do the same thing.
I want to point out to my hon. friend in the first place that there is in the Militia Pension Act now a provision that if an officer has served for ten years and by reason of mental or physical incapacity it becomes necessary for him to retire after that period, he is not simply entitled to draw out the amounts he has paid in to the pension fund but is entitled to a gratuity based on a certain scale set out in the act. He is also entitled to compensation if he is retired compulsorily, but I cannot favour permitting officers to enlist and serve for ten years and then, on their own volition, retire to draw out their pension contribution. The reason is quite apparent, as I think the committee will see; a great deal of money is expended by the country on the training of officers in the early stages of their military careers. I do not say they do not give value for the pay they receive, but at the same time it is not in the interests of the service that just when they become useful in connection with the training of other men they should, by reason of some opportunity which may be offered them in commercial life, withdraw with a pecuniary advantage and take up their new occupation having received the benefit of the training they have been given. The position is somewhat different from that of the civil servant.
The other point, upon which I do not wish ;o dwell, is that these two acts are not based on exactly the same principles. There are provisions in the Militia Pension Act which are more favourable to the beneficiaries than are the provisions of the Civil Service Superannuation Act, particularly with regard to the counting of service. So I would ask the hon. member to consider that point when he suggests that these two acts should be put on the same basis. If that is done certain advan-
[Mr. A. E. R.oss.3
tages now accruing to those who come under the Militia Pension Act would have to be given up in compensation for certain advantages which they might receive by having the provisions of the Civil Service Superannuation Act apply. The two acts are not on the same basis and I do not think it would be in the interest of the public service to attempt to put them on the same basis, because we are considering two entirely different sorts of service.


John Frederick Johnston: Perhaps we might proceed regularly by adopting section 1 first.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
John Frederick Johnston: The hon. member for
Kingston (Mr. Ross) moves that the following be added as section 3 of Bill 43:
An officer who retires voluntarily after ten years' service and is not pensionable shall receive a refund of all sums deducted from his pay and contributed by him for pension.


Arthur Edward Ross: I listened with a
great deal of interest to what the minister said, and I think he put the best complexion he could put on the matter. However, there is another side to it which he has not touched. Take the case of an officer who served for ten years, during which time he proved to be unsuited to the service or unfitted for it in some way; the department decides that he is not a useful member of the service and they retire him. He receives what he has contributed to the pension fund.


James Layton Ralston: I think they give him a
gratuity.


Arthur Edward Ross: The man who is
not fitted for the service gets back his contribution to the pension fund and receives a gratuity as well. On the other hand, a man serves for ten years and proves to be a useful officer; if he desires to take up some other occupation he is let out of the service and his contribution is retained in the fund, while his gratuity is also lost. That is the unfair part of it and that is what I want to correct. Certainly it does not encourage good men to come in if we say, "Well, after ten years you can go out of the service and we will keep the money you have contributed."


Robert James Manion: I have not discussed this
matter with anyone and really did not understand it until I heard it discussed this afternoon. I do not for one moment question the reasons given by the minister, but at the same time I feel an injustice is done in carrying out the provisions of the act as apparently

Militia Pension Act
they have been carried out in the past and as the minister proposes to continue in the future. After all, the militia officer earns the salary he gets, or is supposed to earn it, at all events. Part of that salary is taken from him as a contribution to the government for the time being, ultimately to be combined with some other money contributed by the government for a pension. It appears to me that really the government is taking his money. He may get some other compensations as the minister suggests; I do not know as to that, but it seems to me the money contributed for pension is distinctly this man's money, and that in justice to him he should get back that money if he feels it necessary for his own advancement or for family reasons to leave the service. While this is the first time I have heard this question discussed, on a number of occasions I have learned of similar regulations in other branches of the service, where men have made contributions to the pension fund and have not been allowed to get back their money. I think these men should receive that money in all cases, because it is their money. Without going further into the question I think the hon. member for Kingston is on very solid ground, and I should like to see t'he minister concede the point, which seems only just.


James Layton Ralston: I fully appreciate the
arguments of the hon. members for Fort William (Mr. Manion) and Kingston (Mr. Ross). If their contention is correct, it means that the money deducted from an officer's pay is still his money. Everyone admits that it is not his money if he has had for instance only eight years of service. In that case that money remains in the common pool for the payment of pensions. This money does not become the officer's until such time expires as under the act entitles him to receive a pension. It is nothing less than group insurance. I understand the hon. member for Kingston desires to make it a little easier for the man to get that money back, but I think he understands much better than I do, having been in the service for a longer period, that a man should not be allowed voluntarily to withdraw from the service with a financial advantage. I do not think he should be allowed to take his pension contribution unless he has completed the term of service provided for in the act.
If a man is found to be unsuitable, I can assure my hon. friend that we will not wait until he has completed ten years of service before discharging him. If a man is unsuitable it will be probably found out within five years, in which case there would be no reward 2419-109
paid such as is suggested by the hon. member for Kingston. Another point is this: a pension is in lieu of employability; it is for the purpose of providing for the man who is not otherwise employable. A man who has spent time in the service and is unemployable perhaps is more entitled to a pension than the man who may be perfectly independent in every way but who simply leaves the service to better his own position in life.
In the interests of the service I cannot accept my hon. friend's amendment.


Arthur Edward Ross: I think the hon. minister is quite sincere, but I do not agree with him that this thing is 100 per cent agreeable to all the officers in the service. I cannot agree with his statement that advantage has not been taken of this clause and of other amendments which have been added to the Pension Act. Favours have been granted to those who, in the opinion of the minister of the department-I do not refer to the present minister-were not entitled to them. I think it is fair to a man who has given ten years of service that he should receive back only the money he has contributed without any interest.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: The officers and men of the permanent force are, after all, civil servants; they are in the employ of the government and of the country. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross) simply seeks to give the retired officer who has put in ten years of service the same rights granted to other civil servants who retire voluntarily. The member of the permanent force should have the right when he leaves the service to withdraw the deposit which he has made towards superannuation or pension, whatever you choose to call it. It seems to me vastly unfair to discriminate against the members of the permanent force. From year to year they have put lip 5 per cent of their salaries, and when they choose to retire that should be returned to them. During times of peace their retirement would not cripple the service, as it would be an easy matter to replace them, and it seems to me to be only equitable that they should be allowed to withdraw the deposits they have made.


Arthur Edward Ross: I know of one man who put in ten years of service and was then retired. He accepted a position in Ottawa, and the pension board said to him: Your pay cannot go higher than a certain amount because you have retired. There are many things contained in this act which are unfair, and I think the minister should endeavour to

Militia Pension Act

correct them. The minister knows of this case officially, that the man cannot get more than what he retires on.


James Layton Ralston: It is the other way.


Arthur Edward Ross: That he can get more?


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


Arthur Edward Ross: I was given to understand that he could not.


James Layton Ralston: His pension and salary
could be more than what he is retired on.


Robert James Manion: I have no desire to press the matter unduly, but it seems to me that a man who has been in the service for ten years, and then withdraws should not suffer financial disadvantage.


James Layton Ralston: He should not have any advantage.


Robert James Manion: He loses the money which he has donated and thus suffers a pecuniary disadvantage. Withdrawal from the service is generally an effort on the man's part to better his position, and if he remains he suffers a pecuniary disadvantage. If he leaves, he also suffers a pecuniary disadvantage, so he gets it, coming and going. I do not say it in any offensive way, but it seems as though the dice are loaded against him.


James Layton Ralston: He cannot lose anything until it is due him, and it is not due him until it accrues according to the provisions of the act.


Robert James Manion: It is a part of his salary
which has been taken over as pension and kept by the government.


James Layton Ralston: He does not lose it when he leaves the service; he lost it when the deduction was made.


Robert James Manion: He loses it once ihe gives up his position.


James Layton Ralston: He cannot get it back until he completes the term provided for by the act.


Robert James Manion: It is his until he leaves the service.


Mr. BOYS:: What is that term?


James Layton Ralston: Twenty years at least under ordinary circumstances. If he is retired compulsorily or forced to retire by physical or mental infirmity, the period is ten years. I have not the act before me, but I believe that in the latter case he receives as well a certain gratuity.


William Alves Boys: Does the minister know of other civil servants who are treated in this way? Assume that a man is receiving $4,000 per year, the 5 per cent deduction would amount to $200 annually. A man may have been eight years in the service and have an opportunity to better his position, but he cannot do so except at a loss. Let me put it in this way: he has paid the money to the government. It is true it is a deduction, but nevertheless his salary is $4,000, and this is kept off for a specific purpose, namely, to provide for pension. After eight years' service we find that this man has $1,600 to his credit. It may be assumed that he has given faithful service during that period or he would have been dismissed. He has no redress whatever. In an ordinary insurance company any time after you have paid premiums for three years, your policy has a loan value or a cash surrender value. Why in the world is such a tremendous deduction made in this case and a man put in the position that he has to remain in the service for twenty years or lose the whole thing? I suppose after all the justice or injustice of it would depend upon what knowledge the man has of his contract when he enters the service I do not know whether or not any special pains are taken to let men know exactly the terms on which they are joining or whether such information appears on the application or not. Could the minister let us know whether one joining the service signs an application which makes this quite plain at the time? If not, it seems to me a great injustice and I cannot help thinking the amendment of the hon. member for Kingston is most appropriate.


James Layton Ralston: I thought I made the point clear and I do not want to labour it. Does my hon. friend know that every civil servant serving in this department and every other department for eight years is in exactly the same position?


William Alves Boys: I was given to understand they were not.


James Layton Ralston: A civil servant has to serve ten years before he gets anything back. It is not regarded as an injustice; it is only part of an insurance fund. The point is that the hon. member for Kingston is trying to lessen the period and I do not think my hon. friend understood this when he asked whether any other department did this. Every department of government has the same rule. I will read the section of the Civil Service Superannuation Act:
5. The governor in council may grant to any contributor who has served in the civil service for ten years or upwards and .... who for

Militia Pension Act
any reason other than misconduct or those hereinbefore specified retires, whether voluntarily or by dismissal or removal, from the civil service, a withdrawal allowance payable in one sum equal to the total amount of his contributions made under this act without interest.
I do not want my hon. friend to single out the department over which I happen to preside.


William Alves Boys: Do not make it personal.


James Layton Ralston: I am not trying to make it personal, but I do not want him to single out this department as being one which does something which somebody calls grossly unfair. The same thing is done in every department. What the hon. member for Kingston is asking is that at the end of ten years a man in the military service shall be entitled to voluntary retirement and shall get back that money. I have pointed out that the civil service is different from the military service. A great deal of money is spent by this country in training officers in order that they may be able to perform their duties efficiently. Is it in the public interest to have them enter, say the engineering service, give them a training which is very valuable in civil life, and then have them say: Give me my money back and I will go into civil life? There are certain cases in which this act is more beneficial to officers than the Civil Service Superannuation Act is to civil service employees.


Robert James Manion: Will the minister explain why?


James Layton Ralston: There is the counting of time served for pension. Nonpermanent militia service, war service, permanent force service count under this. All these things which are in the government service count toward pension, whereas a civil service employee could be in the militia for several years and then enter the civil service, and his militia service would not count for pension. I do not think it is in the interest of the service or of the individual that we should enter into a discussion or a comparison of the benefits under the two acts, because in some respects and in certain cases the Civil Service Superannuation Act is better for some individuals and in certain cases and in some respects the Militia Pension Act is better for some individuals. In certain cases, I ask the committee to remember this: this has been in force since 1900 in any case and it seems to have worked well. I have no doubt there are individual cases in which they feel they would like to leave the service and take their contribution. I have had one or perhaps two my-2419-109}
self, in which they would like to do this, but it has not been regarded as being in the interests of the service. The provision seems to have worked satisfactorily and I feel that the act, in view of the experience we have had, can be allowed to remain as it stands.


George Black: In what respect would this not be in the interests of the service? How would it injure the service?


James Layton Ralston: If my hon. friend had in a special business an employee under contract for say twenty years whom he had trained for years and on whose training he has spent a great deal of money, does he not think it would injure the business if that employee, who was under contract for twenty years, were able to put on his hat and say: "I am leaving now; give me the money I have paid in." That is the reason it is not in the interests of the service. The hon. member for Kingston says that all officers were not in favour of my proposition. I can quite understand that. If 1 were an officer, I would not be in favour of it either; I would hope the provisions would be as favourable as possible. But one has to remember one's responsibilities in conducting a department and one has to remember the history and the way in which these matters have been worked out. It has been found satisfactory in the past, and I ask the committee to accept my suggestion that the amendment be not pressed. I quite understand that my hon. friend may not agree with me, but it is my point of view backed up by my officers who have had experience in these matters.


Arthur Edward Ross: While perhaps I
should abide by the minister's request as this is a house of responsibility and he has a department under him, I did differ from him in saying it was not one hundred per cent satisfactory. I honestly believe he would get better officers if it were known that after ten years' service they could retire voluntarily without having to be shoved out for mental incapacity or physical disability or something of that kind, or else put into another job at another salary before getting what was due to them. I do not believe the service would suffer at all if this were done. All I want to point out is that these are men who are fitted for service in civil life; they have remained in the government service for ten years and all they ask is not the gratuity but the cash contribution.
This is in line with what we have been doing in life insurance.	For years life
insurance was conducted in a way that compelled men to contribute year after year and
Militia Pension Act

if by a little slip or for some other reason they failed to pay up for one year, they lost all they had contributed. That has all been corrected in life insurance and I do not believe the militia department would suffer one iota if they said: This man has given ten years' good, faithful service; we are willing for him to retire, but we will not give him a gratuity, we will give him simply the cash we have deducted from his salary without interest. If the minister feels that this cannot be accepted, I have no alternative than to withdraw for the time being the amendment, but I certainly believe I am on grounds of simple, British justice.


Robert James Manion: I asked the minister to
give the advantages that the officers in this department obtained. He gave as the outstanding advantage that an officer who, for instance, had served o%'erseas for some years, got credit for that service when it came to the matter of pension, whereas this was not the case in the other branches of the civil service. Of course there is an obvious answer to that, namely, that the man who has served overseas has had the very finest kind of training for an officer of this kind, whereas he would not necessarily have any training that would be of use in some other branches of the civil service. So far as I can see that is not an advantage of any importance to the officers. That was the main argument of the minister.


James Layton Ralston: I did not give it as an
outstanding example. I just happened to have it noted. I do not think it is to the benefit of individuals to indulge in a comparison of the two acts. That is what I am advised by my officers. I have not gone into every detail, but I am informed that there are substantial advantages under this act. I do not think it is well for us to say that we are going to put it on all fours with the Civil Service Superannuation Act.
Amendment withdrawn.


Arthur Edward Ross: I have another
amendment. I move that there be added to this bill a clause 3, which will amend section 8 of the Militia Pension Act, paragraph (f), which reads:
The time served as an officer, non-commissioned officer or man on active service during the war between Great Britain and Germany which commenced on the fourth day of August, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen.
I feel that that ought to be interpreted to include one who served in any part of that war, but on the contrary I find that certain splendid non-commissioned officers who had

retired from the permanent force on pension perhaps a year or two before war was declared were induced to come back for the purpose of training troops, and when they came back they offered themselves for overseas service, but they were forced to remain in Canada for the purpose of training troops during the four years of the war. They had had experience as artillery officers, and they were retained in Canada contrary to their own wishes, almost by compulsion, you might say, during those four years. Those who went overseas had these four years added to their service, which gives a proportional increase in their pension. I am asking that this section shall apply to these non-commissioned officers formerly of the permanent corps who were forcibly retained in Canada during the four years of the war for the purpose of giving training, and I therefore move to add the following words to paragraph (f), "including the time so served in Canada."


Robert James Manion: Would the hon. member read the clause as it would be as amended?


Arthur Edward Ross: I should really have to read the whole section. Section 8 deals with the time that may be included in the term of service and includes time served with the military forces in South Africa, time served by an officer of the Canadian militia with the South African constabulary, time served with the Royal Canadian regiment at Halifax, and so on, and then paragraph (f) says:
The time served as an officer, non-commissioned officer or man on active service during the war between Great Britain and Germany.
My amendment is to add to that paragraph the words " including the time so served in Canada." That will simply mean that they will get the four years that they served in Canada added to their permanent corps service for pension purposes. Nobody can deny that the four years they gave in Canada should be so considered. These men sacrificed very much, after taking a small pension, in the one case, I think, of $25, they came back to give their services, and they gave excellent service in the way of training men for the war, and yet that four years' service has not been counted. There are not very many of them. I think I know only about four peramnent non-commissioned officers in this class, who retired only a year or two before the war was declared, and then came back and gave excellent service, and yet they have been refused this additional time for pension purposes. I think it is only fair that they should be considered, and that those words should be added.

Militia Pension Act


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend has been
kind enough to call this matter to my attention and to submit to me a copy of his amendment. Both these cases are illustrative of the maxim well known to lawyers, that hard cases make bad laws. My hon. friend no doubt has some specific cases in mind of a man who served in the permanent force, and retired before the war, drawing a pension from the permanent force. The call comes for men to enlist for Canadian expeditionary force service. One man after he has retired from the permanent force and has become a civilian and is drawing a pension enlists and serves either overseas or in Canada. Another man who has not served in the permanent force also enlists and serves, and what my hon. friend suggests is that the man who served in the permanent force and had become a civilian to all intents and purposes the same as the man who enlisted for the first time shall receive an award for serving in the Canadian expeditionary force in addition to his permanent force pension. In other words, the man who enlisted de novo, not having served before, gets a war service gratuity, and that is all he gets for his Canadian expeditionary force service; but the permanent force man, under my hon. friend's amendment, is to get an additional award, if I might put it that way, by way of an addition to his permanent force pension. Let me say to my hon. friend-I expect that he remembers it far better than I do-that this whole case was threshed out by the parliamentary committee presided over by Mr. Hume Cronyn and I understand that at that time a recommendation was made to the effect that the case of one man should not be any different from the other, that their Canadian expeditionary force service should be exactly on the same basis, that the permanent force man who had retired and then enlisted should not have his pension increased by the fact that he subsequently served during the war either overseas or in Canada. I feel that the decision made at that time was sound, and I am sorry that here again I cannot assist my hon. friend in the one or two cases that he has in mind.


George Black: Has the man not
retired prior to the war, either voluntarily or compulsorily, then the time that he served in Canada or elsewhere during the war would have counted for pension. The mere fact that he retired from the permanent force, probably compulsorily, and then comes back -for the war and does additional service, surely should not be counted against him.


James Layton Ralston: It is not counted against him.


George Black: That is the fact.
Suppose a non-commissioned officer had continued to serve in the permanent force during the war, the full time put in by him would count for pension, but merely because he was out of the permanent force for perhaps a week before the wa.r began and his services were again required, he should not have his pension reduced. If you will look at section 8 of the Militia Pension Act, you will see that the following times may also be included in the term of service of an officer for the purposes of this act; (a) time served with the military service in South Africa; (b) time served by an officer of the Canadian militia with the South African constabulary; (c) time served with the third battalion of the Royal Canadian regiment of infantry at Halifax; (d) time served with the Yukon field force in any one or more of the years 1898, 1899 and 1900. Why the time served with the Yukon field force should count I am quite at a loss to know, because it was an absolute waste of -money sending that force up to the Yukon. They went there on a joy ride, and it -continued as a joy ride all the time that they were there.


Eugène Fiset: They were still
non-commissioned officers of the permanent force while serving with the Yukon field force. There was continuity of service.


George Black: True.


Eugène Fiset: There was continuity of service. That is the basis of the act.


George Black: Supposing there was a break in the service of any of these officers or non-commissioned officers who went back into the Yukon field force, this bill would not cover them, just as in the case the hon. member for Kingston has in mind in moving this amendment. It seems to me unfair discrimination.


Arthur Edward Ross: Mr. Chairman,
neither the minister nor the former deputy will deny that when the men joined the Canadian expeditionary force they broke their service with the permanent force.


Eugène Fiset: No.


Arthur Edward Ross: Yes, they broke
their service and had to be taken on again.


Eugène Fiset: Will you allow me a
second to explain?


Arthur Edward Ross: I have the floor,
Mr. Former Deputy Minister. That man's pension of twenty-five dollars should not be affected; he has earned it, it is his right. Now, this case is dissimilar from the other one. In the former case he had not earned his pension,
\

Militia Pension Act
but in this case he has. Yet you say that because he has earned it you are not going to give him anything further. But because some officers first went out to South Africa they did get that service. Surely the former deputy minister cannot say that they did not break their service when they joined the South African constabulary.


Eugène Fiset: They were in the
permanent force then.


Arthur Edward Ross: But will you say
these officers who joined the South African constabulary did not break their service?


James Layton Ralston: They did not break their service.


Arthur Edward Ross: They did; they
came back and rejoined the service in Canada. There was just as much a break in the service of the men who joined the South African constabulary after the war was over and remained there for two or three years and then came back into the service here as there was in the case of the men who had gone out of the permanent force and came back into it again. I think you have made your position very ridiculous in trying to say that there is no break there. I am fighting for two ordinary non-commissioned officers, to see that their time is dealt with on the same basis as that of some officers who joined the South African constabulary. I do not intend to withdraw this amendment; I am going to press it.


James Layton Ralston: As I told my hon. friend, the matter has all been thrashed out before a committee of this house and thoroughly considered. I do not think he realizes how far-reaching this amendment is. Those who enlisted in the Canadian expeditionary force after having been retired and being in civil life are all put on the same basis. That is the principle on which the former committee went, and it is the principle for which I have to stand as advised by my officers.


Arthur Edward Ross: Will the minister
then explain-


James Layton Ralston: I am not explaining at
all with regard to the act, I am dealing with the case which my hon. friend is submitting. There are a good many cases which would not be regarded at all if the men were in the civil service. They are given the benefit of it here. I do not think it serves the purpose of those who are interested in the Militia Pension Act to bring these cases up. I have introduced this amendment for the benefit of certain widows who, it is pointed

out, do not get the consideration which the law officers of the crown thought they were intended to get. I felt that they should be benefited. I do submit to my hon. friend that the bringing into this discussion of two cases that have nothing to do with the subject matter does not help us at all, and it makes us feel inclined not to introduce any further amendments to the Militia Pension Act. I would get along beautifully if I did not introduce any amendments at all, but when I try to make this amendment my hon. friend goes over the whole act to try to find some place where more generous provision is made than in the two cases he has in mind. As I have said, hard cases make bad laws. There may be cases such as he has in mind where small pensions have been granted, but the general principle is sound, and it has been accepted by a parliamentary committee and by parliament itself. I ask my hon. friend whether it is in the interest of the people for whom this act was passed for him to press this amendment.


Arthur Edward Ross: I think it is
justified by the mere fact that we come up here session after session and find that some special case is introduced. Now, I consider that my case is just as meritorious as the one brought up by the minister, and that it is just as meritorious as the one he brought up last session. As long as that is done because of some person at headquarters here or by some one with a little bit of "pull," to obtain these special favours, I am going, as I gave warning to the minister last year, to bring up these meritorious cases.


James Layton Ralston: If my hon. friend suggests that this bill is introduced because of anybody at headquarters or because of someone else who has "pull," he is very much mistaken. It has been introduced for the reason I have already stated. If my hon. friend is determined to press his amendment, I think it will be best for the committee to rise and report progress.


Arthur Edward Ross: That is the same
kind of threat as the minister made last year. I am not saying a word against his case, but I am asking for similar consideration for another meritorious case.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend-


Arthur Edward Ross: I have the floor
and I intend to keep it. Surely the minister is a bigger man than to threaten to withdraw a favour which has not been contested by me.

Department of Marine


James Layton Ralston: Will my hon. friend
permit me? I understood him to say-he will correct me if I am wrong-that this case which I have presented, and which he says is no more meritorious than his, had been presented because of "pull" exercised by somebody at headquarters. If that is the case,
I	can assure him the "pull" will cease right here, and I will ask the committee to rise and report progress.


Arthur Edward Ross: I said that time
after time we have seen cases brought up here in favour of some person, but I was not speaking against this particular case; I simply said that my case was as meritorious as the minister's. I do not think the minister, after the gallant service that he has given, will say that because I am pressing for a favour for a meritorious case, he is going to withdraw this favour to some poor widow, a favour which I am not opposing in any way.


James Layton Ralston: No.


Arthur Edward Ross: If it will help his
widow to get this favour I will withdraw my amendment.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall the hon. gentleman have leave to withdraw his amendment?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
Amendment withdrawn.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.	[DOT]

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to provide that there shall be a Department of Marine, presided over by a minister of the crown; that the powers and duties of the minister be defined, and provision made for the appointment of a deputy minister and the employment of such other officers, clerks and employees as may be deemed necessary.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Marcil in the chair.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: As members
of the house are aware, there is at the present time a Department of Marine and Fisheries. The purpose of the bill which is based on the present resolution and which will be introduced is to divide the present Department of Marine and Fisheries into two departments, a Department of Marine and a. Department of
Fisheries. For some time past it has been felt that the fisheries resources of this country should receive the attention of a separate ministry. Canada is rich in her natural resources of agriculture, fisheries, lumbering, mining and power. From the point of view of value, it is believed that the fisheries resources are second in the list of natural resources. As compared with the fisheries resources of other countries of the world, we have in our deep sea and inland fisheries the largest and most valuable anywhere to be found. During the past ten years there have been no less than three royal commissions each of which has concerned itself in whole or in part with waters pertaining to Canadian fisheries. The first commission was appointed in 1922, and was composed entirely of hon. members of this house. It was appointed to inquire into the fisheries of British Columbia. In 1926 the royal commission on maritime claims considered, amongst others, the representations of the maritime provinces in respect to the fisheries industry.


George Halsey Perley: Did the Duncan
report recommend a separate ministry or a separate department?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will come to that in a minute. In 1928 a royal commission appointed to investigate the fisheries of the maritime provinces and the Magdalen Islands made its report. The commissioners were: the Hon. A. K. Maclean, and Messrs. Cyrus Macmillan, H. R, L. Bill, Joseph Mombour-quette and J. C. Robichaud. AH three commissions were concerned, as I have said, with the question of Canadian fisheries. Two of them were concerned exclusively with fisheries, one with those on the Pacific coast, and the other with those on the Atlantic coast.
My hon. friend the member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) asked if the Duncan commission recommended the appointment of a separate minister. The report of that commission recommended the establishment of two main branches of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, the two branches to be placed under separate deputy heads, one to deal with marine matters and the other with fisheries. The commission which reported in 1928 went however, a step farther. It recommended that there should be a separate ministry of fisheries created. I shall read the recommendation of that commission as it is found at page 82 of the report:
Numerous representations [DOT]were made to us on the necessity for the establishment of a separate ministry of fisheries. It was pointed out that a separate Department of Fisheries would elevate the industry in importance, would
Department of Marine

stimulate a greater public interest in its special problems, and would permit of undivided administrative attention, thereby ensuring a more extensive and complete organization. The suggestion was also made that with the extensive fisheries of the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and such of the inland fisheries as are under federal control, there is a sufficiently large field for administrative work in the future to justify the creation of a separate ministry. It was contended that the Department of Marine and Fisheries has so wide a jurisdiction and such a variety of problems, that, as at present organized, it is unable to devote sufficient time to fishery matters.
Much can be said in support of this view. The fishing industry is territorially widespread on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, each area having difficulties that are dissimilar from those of the other. It is great in variety, in extent and in value; it holds a very large place in the economic life of the country; and in all phases it is beset with complex problems of administration. The industry may, therefore, justly claim to be of such importance as to require a separate ministry. Last year, parliament authorized the appointment of a Deputy Minister of Fisheries. We found throughout the maritime provinces a widespread feeling not only in support of this action, but also in support of the establishment of a separate Department of Fisheries under a Minister of Fisheries, and we recommend the creation of such a department to the consideration of the government of Canada.
At the time that effect was given to the recommendation contained in the Duncan report for the establishment of two deputy heads to the branches of marine and of fisheries respectivefiy, I indicated that in all probability the government would appoint at a later date a separate minister of fisheries. Perhaps at this time I should say that when the two departments are separated, it is contemplated to effect a measure of reorganization in regard to the work of some of the other departments. We believe such a reorganization would be very much in the interests of the country. For example, to-day dredging of rivers and harbours is carried on largely by the Department of Public Works; it is also carried on to some extent by the Department of Railways and Canals. The government has felt that from the point of view of efficiency and economy a much needed improvement would be effected if the work of dredging were concentrated in the department which deals more particularly with marine affairs. At a later time there will accordingly be a reorganization of the marine department along lines which will enlarge the work of that department in this and other particulars. That department will be able to give its attention more exclusively to marine affairs, while to the very important phases of the fisheries industry it will be possible to give much more in the way of attention by having those matters placed under a 
separate minister. That is the purpose of the present legislation.


George Halsey Perley: Will the right hon. gentleman tell us how many ministers there are at the present time?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There are sixteen with portfolio and one without.


George Halsey Perley: I certainly am not going to object to this proposed legislation, but I would like to call the attention of the Prime Minister to the report of the Duncan commission, which does not call for a separate minister. Fisheries are a most important part of our national life, but I have felt strongly for years that we have more ministers in Canada than we require. Whether or not there should be a separate Minister of Fisheries is beside the question at the moment, but this will add one more to the number. In the years I have been in public life it has seemed to me that we should get on with fewer ministers. It is true that the duties of the different members of the cabinet vary a great deal; some of them have a great deal to do while others have comparatively little, but here we have a country of ten million people with seventeen ministers at full salary. We all know that the United States gets along with only seven ministers.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: Why quote the
United States all the time?


George Halsey Perley: I am not arguing that we should follow the example of the United States; far from it, but I am saying that great country gets on with comparatively few ministers. It seems to me it would be easier for the Prime Minister and for the cabinet to discuss public questions if there were not so many of them. I am not going to object in any way to the creation of a Department of Fisheries, which I think is perfectly proper, but I do not think we should add to the number of cabinet ministers we have now. It is very easy to add to the number and very hard to take away from it, as the Prime Minister knows. If you make an addition now, who knows when we will have a man in the Prime Minister's chair who will reduce the number as it seems to me it should be reduced? I object to increasing the present number of ministers.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend referred to the Duncan commission which, as I have already said, recommended two deputy heads. It did not express any opinion
for or against a separate minister for each of the two branches. Evidently what that com-

Department oj Marine
mission had in mind was that its business was to consider maritime claims generally and that the fisheries was only one aspect of the question. There was however another commission to which I have already referred, which investigated the fisheries of the maritime provinces and the Magdalen Islands in 1928. The Duncan commission made its effort in 1926. The 1928 commission made the recommendation which I have just read to the house, strongly in support of a separate minister.


George Halsey Perley: I do not object
to a minister of fisheries, but it seems to me we should have some adjustment whereby the total number of ministers would not be increased.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think I can
promise my hon. friend that the number will not be increased. As he is aware, in this house we have passed to-day enactments under which the natural resources of the three western provinces must be transferred to those provinces, as well as certain lands to the province of British Columbia. When that transfer is effected it should be possible to do away entirely with the ministry of the interior. Some reorganization and consolidation will be effected as respects the Department of Immigration, the Department of Indian Affairs, the forestry service and allied branches of the public service. At present the Minister of the Interior, I believe, is acting minister as well for two or three departments; I hope it will not be necessary to have any acting minister in the future but to have one minister to whom may be entrusted the administration of these several branches. The intention being to drop one minister almost immediately, I hope my hon. friend will feel reassured as to the present measures not involving any increase in the total number of ministers.
Since my hon. friend referred to the United States, I might remind the committee that the ministers in the United States are engaged exclusively in executive work, with no responsibility to congress. We certainly could get along with a much smaller number of ministers in Canada if our ministers did not have to spend so much time in parliament, and I quite agree with my hon. friend that a small meeting of council is easier to handle than a large meeting.


George Halsey Perley: I am not suggesting that we should have as few ministers as they have in the United States; I only referred to that country to show that government can be carried on with comparatively few ministers. I quite understand that the difference in our constitutions is such that
our ministers have many other duties, particularly in this house, but I think we might get along with perhaps twelve or fourteen ministers.


Murray MacLaren: I understand that at
present there is a deputy minister of marine and also a deputy minister of fisheries, and I notice that this resolution speaks of the appointment of a deputy minister of marine. Perhaps we might have a word of explanation from the Prime Minister on this point.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The law officers are of the opinion that the most satisfactory way to create a new Department of Fisheries is to create, as it were, two departments anew, a Department of Marine and a Department of Fisheries, and then to abolish the old Marine and Fisheries Act. Under the Interpretation Act the officers who are already in the Department of Marine and Fisheries automatically will go to one or the other of these two new departments. The most convenient and effective procedure appears to be that of creating two new departments. Under one of the provisions of the Interpretation Act the officials of the old department are automatically reappointed.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: It is somewhat consoling for us to learn that the minister, or rather the ministry of the interior is to be dropped. Although the motion was not reached, I placed a resolution on the order paper to the effect that the Department of Immigration should be done away with this year. It has been urged that the United States gets along with fewer ministers than we have, and the Prime Minister has replied that the ministers in the United States have not the parliamentary work to do. We might also remember that in England they do not require quite so many ministers as we have, but they have a system whereby undersecretaries do a certain amount of the parliamentary work. I do not see why we could not adopt a similar system here, and instead of having a full time minister on full pay we might have some of the younger members of the house, who perhaps might be ambitious to find a place in the cabinet some day, get their training by undertaking the parliamentary end of the work. In any case we would have the deputy minister carrying on the executive work. It seems to me to be unfortunate to increase the number of ministers in the cabinet.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As far as the
British cabinet is concerned there is a certain distinction to be made between the ministry and the cabinet. The ministry is a much
Department of Fisheries

larger body, although some of its members perform functions quite as important as those performed by our own ministers. When all are considered, the number is considerably in excess of the number of ministers in this country.


Charles Stephen Booth: It should be borne in mind that we have nine provincial organizations in addition to ouir federal organization, with only one quarter the population.


Mr. HEAPS:: Could the Prime Minister
give the committee the number of cabinet ministers in Great Britain?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They are as follows:
Prime Minister, First Lord of the Treasury.
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
Lord Privy Seal.
Lord President of the Council.
Lord Chancellor.
Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Secretary of State for Home Affairs.
Secretary of State for the Colonies and Dominions.
Secretary of State for War.
Secretary of State for India.
Secretary of State for Air.
First Lord of the Admiralty.
President of the Board of Trade.
Minister of Health.
Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.
Secretary for Scotland.
President of the Board of Education.
Minister of Labour.
Chancellor of Duchy of Lancaster.
First Commissioner of Works.
The ministers not in the cabinet are as follows:
Attorney General.
Minister of Pensions.
Minister of Transport.
Solicitor General.
Postmaster General.
Lord Advocate.
Solicitor General for Scotland.
When the number of under secretaries in addition is considered, it will be seen that Great Britain has a very much larger organization.


Abraham Albert Heaps: There is no comparison between the size of the countries and the number of people to be governed. The work done by our deputy ministers is carried on by under secretaries.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not wholly.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It is to a certain extent.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Mackenzie King thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 126, respecting the Department of Marine.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to provide that there shall be a Department of Fisheries, presided over by a minister of the crown; that the powers and duties of the minister be defined, and provision made for the appointment of a deputy minister and the employment of such officers, clerks and employees as may be deemed necessary.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Marcil in the chair.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Mackenzie King thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No.
127,	respecting the Department of Fisheries.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That the Salaries Act be amended to provide that the Minister of Marine and the Minister of Fisheries shall each be paid a salary of $10,000 per annum.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Robert James Manion: The statement has appeared in the press to the effect that one of these cabinet positions is to be filled by Professor Macmillan. I was wondering if the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) was not looking for an opportunity to tell the house whether or not this statement is true.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to take the house into my confidence but I would prefer to do so at a later date.


Mr. SMITH (Cumberland):: Will it be a maritime man?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would like to reserve for the present any expression of view on this matter.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Mackenzie King thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No.
128,	to amend the Salaries Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Supply-Post Office


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Salaries and allowances, $18,632,694.40.
Mail service, including mail service by air, $17,267,000.
Miscellaneous, including $5,000 for the payment of compassionate allowances to employees injured wdiile in the performance of their duties, or to the dependents of employees killed while on duty, such payments to be made only on the specific authority of the governor in council, $1,286,675.
Yukon Territory, $150,000.

Total, $37,336,369.40.
Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: I notice in this
item there is a substantial increase, namely, SI ,177,230, over the amount voted last year. Would the Postmaster General be good enough to explain the reasons for the increase?


Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Postmaster General):: The increases in salaries and allowances amount to SI,177,230.	The post office increases amount to SI ,212,970. The explanation is as follows:
1,882 statutory increases, $200,220 divided up as follows:
2	at $180; 1.451 at $120; 429 at $60.
325	new appointments required each year as the business increases, $353,580, divided as follows:
3	senior postal clerks.
7 senior letter carriers.
2 senior mail porters.
100 letter carriers.
91 postal clerks.
84 postal helpers.
12 mail porters.
2 clerks, grade 4.
1	clerk, grade 3.
2	clerks, grade 2.
1 clerk, grade 1.
6 stenographers, grade 2.
1 stenographer, grade 1.
6 postal chauffeurs.
1 postal garage repair man.
6 watchmen.
326	new appointments estimated for the coming year to meet the proper needs of the postal service up to March 31, 1931, $352,620, divided as follows:
1	principal postal clerk, $2,100.
2 senior postal clerks, $1,860 each.
156 postal clerks, $1,080 each.
121 letter carriers, $1,080 each.
12 mail porters, $1,080 each.
34 postal helpers, $1,020 each.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Did I understand the Postmaster General to say that some new post offices had been established?


Peter John Veniot: Quite a number of new post offices have been established during the last year. This does not provide for post offices
in country districts or anything of that kind. It provides for the services in the higher graded offices. This is all done through the Civil Service Commission.


Charles Stephen Booth: Have any steps
been taken to increase the salaries of the lower paid postal workers? This question was brought up last year. As I understand the matter, the minister took the ground that the responsibility lay with the Civil Service Commission. A year has elapsed since then and I should like an announcement as to what has been done in the meantime or what is proposed to be done.


Peter John Veniot: Since last year further
representations have been made to -the department. I again took the matter up with the Civil Service Commission and asked them to let me know whether they had changed the decision or had any reason to change the decision formerly given. The answer was no.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I have a complaint to make in this particular regard. I remember last year when the late Minister of Finance raised the question of an increase to the technical and professional employees of the government, I directed attention to the lower paid civil servants and asked whether some form of commission could not be appointed to consider the wages of the lower paid men. If my memory serves me aright, the late Minister of Finance left the impression that something would be done with regard to referring the question of the wages of the lower paid men to some committee or commission. We had a commission appointed which inquired into the salaries of the higher paid men in the employ of the government and it recommended increases to those men who no doubt deserve higher salaries than they are getting at the present time. But if salaries are to be increased to persons employed by the government, the first people who ought to be considered are those who are receiving low wages. Nobody will contend that the salaries at present received by the postal workers approach a living wage. I understand they start at a salary of $1,000 a year.


Peter John Veniot: 


Abraham Albert Heaps: And it increases, I think, to $1,250.


Peter John Veniot: It increases, according to class, up to $1,320, $1500, $1,740 and so on.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am appealing at the present time, not for the higher paid but for the lower paid men. As well as receiving low wages, they have a 5 per cent deduction for the civil service superannuation fund. This
Supply-Post Office

means that many men who enter the postal service start at a wage of about $85 a month. They have to pass a very thorough examination; they must be men even above the average. The government having been so considerate of the higher paid men as to go to the extent of appointing a commission to investigate their salaries, the commission having reported favourably and, I understand, the government having decided to accept to some extent the recommendations of the commission, I am surprised that they are doing nothing for the lower paid men. I want to know whether it is possible for the government to do for the lower paid men, particularly those in the postal service, exactly what they have done for the higher paid men. I appeal to the Postmaster General to say that he will appoint a committee or commission of some kind to investigate the salaries of the lower paid men under his jurisdiction.


Robert James Manion: Before the minister replies, may I ask him in his reply to tell the committee what is the lowest salary paid and how many men in the department are receiving that salary? The question was under discussion last year. The hon. member for South Wellington, my hon. friend who has just spoken, a number of others and myself took part in the discussion and I should like to have that information if the minister has it at hand.


Peter John Veniot: I have not at hand the number employed at that low salary, but I will get the information for the hon. gentleman.


Robert James Manion: Can the minister give a rough estimate?


Peter John Veniot: No, it would only be guessing, but I shall be glad to get the information. Beginning at $1,020, the postal helper goes up to $1,320, which is the maximum, so after three or more years' service they receive the maximum of $1,320. Of course, the postal clerks start at a higher minimum; I believe it is about 81,200, although I have not the exact figure at hand. I am not contending that they are paid too much or that they get enough.
I merely wish to point out that when hon. members speak of postal helpers drawing less than $100 a month, there is a short period during which they do receive less than 8100 a month, but it is not very long before they are receiving more than $100 a month.


Mr. V OODSV ORTH:: Does the minister think that anything around $100 a month, even $115, is a living wage under conditions that prevail in Canada to-day?


Peter John Veniot: I am not in a position to express an opinion upon that just now, but I 
will say this. I would certainly be sorry to have anyone in Canada live on a wage of under $1,000 a year. I must, however, draw attention to this point. The impression prevails that these men remain at that salary. They do not. They go as high in that class as a maximum of $1,320. Then there is the opportunity for promotion from postal helper to postal clerk, and so forth, and as they advance to these higher grades the salary increases to $1,800 and $2,100, but they must begin at the bottom of the ladder. I am not going to offer what I am now about to say as an excuse for low wages, but let me draw attention to this fact, that every time the Civil Service Commission advertises for applicants for these lower grades, we have more applicants than we can handle.


Charles Stephen Booth: That does not prove anything.


Peter John Veniot: Let me finish. I oannot undertake to answer questions flung at me from all sides of the house at once. After I am through, I shall be glad to answer any questions that I can. In the city of Montreal last year when applications were asked for these lower grade positions we had over 2,500 applicants who underwent examination. We had them in Winnipeg, in Toronto, and in all the large cities, and we have them in increasing numbers every year. I wish it to be clearly understood that I am not giving that fact as an argument against the payment of higher wages. I am merely pointing out to the committee that that is the fact, and hon. members can judge for themselves.
I have the figures here that were asked for by one hon. member. We have in the service 1,365 railway mail clerks; 3,201 postal clerks in post offices; 2,763 letter carriers; 762 mail porters in post offices and 8 in district offices, and that class would be receiving a minimum of $1,020. Also receiving that minimum of $1,020 are 870 postal helpers.


Abraham Albert Heaps: How many of those are receiving the minimum wage at the present time?


Peter John Veniot: There are 770 mail porters and 870 postal helpers.


Abraham Albert Heaps: How many postal carriers are receiving the minimum wage of $1,020?


Peter John Veniot: I will have that information in a moment.


Mr. GEARY:: What was the date at which the present salary schedule was inaugurated and the minimum placed at $1,020?


Peter John Veniot: I think it was at the time of the Griffenhagen classification, about 1919.

Supply-Post Office


George Reginald Geary: While that point is being
looked up, I would ask another question. The minister has stated that this year again the question of raising the salary schedule was taken up with the Civil Service Commission. Last year the minister was good enough to give us almost categorically the steps taken in the negotiations with the commission or the representations made to that body. I should like very much to know what was done this year in that regard, because my information is that the position of these men has not been bettered at all, but rather with the cutting down of the living allowance they are in a worse position than they were a few years ago.


Peter John Veniot: No.


George Reginald Geary: I mean relatively, because
they had had increased duties and are required to assume greater responsibilities now than some years ago. If these matters are placed before the Civil Service Commission, it seems to me that we should get some results. We have been on this now for three or four years.


Peter John Veniot: I have not done anything
further this year than what I stated a few moments ago. I asked the commission if they adhered to the position they took last year, and the reply was yes. I have not gone any further this year. W'hen the hon. gentleman says that they receive less now than they did formerly-


George Reginald Geary: Relatively.


Peter John Veniot: When they received the
bonus and living allowance the minimum salary was less than it is to-day. That living allowance was a war measure and it was gradually cut down until there is no longer any bonus being paid since 1924, I think, when the minimum salary was fixed at $1,020.


George Reginald Geary: My point is that no benefit
has come to these men from raising the minimum, that they are worse off to-day than when the minimum was lower, and I think that that is a fact, when you take the living allowance into consideration.


Peter John Veniot: It is a fact, but that allowance was as a war measure. It continued during that period and for a few years after.


George Reginald Geary: But it should have some
relation to the cost of living.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Mr. Chairman,
the Postmaster General is endeavouring to create the impression that there stands between him and a substantial increase for a
considerable number of employees the attitude of the Civil Service Commission. I think it is time we had all the facts bearing on this case. The minister has been dodging for a couple of years.


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Chairman, I do not
think the hon. gentleman should be allowed to use that expression. I do not think anybody in this house will say that I have not the courage of my convictions, or that I ever dodged any question.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am not saying that the minister has not the courage of his convictions. All I want now is to ask him how many employees are affected by the difference that exists between his department and the Civil Service Commission.


Peter John Veniot: I have given the number.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Then I would
like the minister to tell the house what amount he recommended for these employees and what amount the Civil Service Commission allowed.


Peter John Veniot: I gave that information to the house last session; I have no objection to repeating it. It would involve an additional expenditure of $273,000. Last session I read the reply of the commission. Their reply, in effect, was that they could not see there was any necessity for increased salaries as recommended by the Postmaster General. That is all the information I can give the hon. member.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: How many employees are involved?


Peter John Veniot: I gave that information a
few minutes ago.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I want to find
out how much is needed for each employee.


Peter John Veniot: It included letter carriers,
2,763; mail sorters, 707; postal helpers, 870.


Abraham Albert Heaps: A few minutes ago the Postmaster General referred to the fact that in the city of Montreal last year 2,500 men applied for the lower paid positions.


Peter John Veniot: I did not say that, I said
2,500 passed the examination.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Well, 2,500 applicants passed the examination for these lower paid positions and he seemed to suggest that this justifies the low rate of pay.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. gentleman should not put into my mouth words that I never uttered. I distinctly stated I was not giving
Supply-Post Office

it as a reason why there should be no increases, but I was merely stating the facts so the house could judge for itself.


Abraham Albert Heaps: There is only one inference
the house could draw.


Peter John Veniot: Let the member draw his
own inference.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I think the fact that 2,500 men sat for the examinations simply indicates the serious unemployment situation then existing. That is the inference I draw from the statement made by the Postmaster General. But there is something more. Only yesterday the house passed a fair wage bill. The government is solidly behind any fair wage bill when somebody else has got to pay the wages. I think, Mr. Chairman, it would be only the right and proper thing for the government itself to act as a model employer. How can this house be consistent in its attitude towards the wages paid by private corporations when the government itself which, as I say, should be a model employer, refuses to pay its employees what, after all, is a decent minimum standard. We intend that the fair wage bill shall go into operation in the very near future. That bill will specify wages which, I am satisfied, will not be as low as eighty-five dollars per month for able bodied men. These postal men who are working probably forty-eight hours a week, start at a little over twenty dollars a week wages, which is about twenty cents per hour; and yet these men have to pass a civil service examination, have to be physicially fit, and are engaged in delivering important mail to householders. We are asking these men to be honest and upright employees and to lead a decent life on only twenty dollars a week.
I do not see how we can justify a public utility such as our post office in paying such low wages. I think the people of the Dominion would rather sooner pay a little more for the postal service than see the men receiving these low wages. I do not think there is any credit coming to the postal department in reducing the cost of the services and at the same time paying low wages to the men performing those services. As only yesterday we passed a fair wage bill, I am going to ask the government itself to inaugurate the measure by paying to our own employees a fair wage

something at least which will be worth while for the private employer of labour in this country to follow.


Charles A. Stewart: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?-because I am very much interested in whether or not the contention of the Civil Service Commission is correct. It is stated that the reason 
there are so many applicants capable of passing the examination and doing the work is that the remuneration under present conditions is better than those applicants receive in commercial work or similar occupations? Can my hon. friend give the house any information on that?


Abraham Albert Heaps: One of the reasons in my estimation is that there is so much unemployment at the present time.


Charles A. Stewart: That is no answer, because I happen to know that at least fifty per cent of these men leave occupations in other lines; they are not out of employment.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am going to give two
answers. Fir^t of all, the large number of applications is due to the serious condition of unemployment in Canada; there is also the important question of irregular employment. In the postal service there is the attraction of steady employment. That is no excuse for paying low wages


Charles A. Stewart: But may I say the answer we get-I am not speaking now particularly of the postal clerks,. I am speaking of the lower paid staffs in the whole civil service-the answer we get is that even in regular employment in, for instance, the banking institutions of this country, men do not get a salary comparable with the minimum wage paid to this service.


Robert James Manion: But the government should set an example to private employers.


Charles A. Stewart: I am not arguing as to that. But I do want my hon. friend to realize that there may be something in the contention of the Civil Service Commission that these salaries are comparable with the salaries paid in commercial undertakings generally in Canada.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The point is not well taken
by the minister; to my mind the government should be a model employer of labour. I think also the government should pay to its permanent employees a sum approaching a living wage. No member of this house could say that a man who begins work in the postal service at $85 a month is receiving a living wage. I have had some experience with public bodies and I can say that in the city of Edmonton, with which the minister is acquainted, labourers are paid sixty cents an hour.


Charles A. Stewart: I might remind the hon. member that those men work only six months of the year.

Private Bills


Abraham Albert Heaps: No, they are permanently
employed.


Charles A. Stewart: Men working by the hour in any city are not salaried men.


Abraham Albert Heaps: In the city of Winnipeg we have hundreds of labourers who are permanently employed by the city, and they receive-


Charles A. Stewart: Are they
employed on a monthly basis?


Abraham Albert Heaps: No; they receive a wage of
57 cents an hour.


Charles A. Stewart: Is that for
twelve months' employment?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Yes. There may be occasions when a man would be off for a few days or a week, but we call them permanent employees; they receive the benefits of all permanent civic employees. In the city of Winnipeg they receive the benefit of the superannuation fund, and in that city the wage is 57 cents an hour. Temporary labourers receive only 42jj cents an hour; in the city of Toronto labourers receive 60 cents an hour and work a forty-eight hour week. There is no reason why we should not pay our postal workers the same wages as other workers in the same category.


Peter John Veniot: Perhaps it would throw
some light on the subject if I were to give some information as to grading in the postal department. They enter the service at a minimum of $1,080 for the first year; the next year it increases to $1,200 and the next year to $1,320. These figures apply to letter carriers. There is an annual increase of $120. The maximum is reached in the fifth year and it is only during the first year that the employees receive less than $100 per month.


Robert James Manion: I thought the increase was $60 a year.


Peter John Veniot: It is $120.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 73 for the relief of Herbert Nelson Vaughan.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 77 for the relief of Walter Joseph David Penly.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 97 for the relief of Margaret Piton. -Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 107 for the relief of Harry Jackson Carr.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 109 for the relief of Margaret Malvina Cole.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 110 for the relief of Quartus Bliss Henderson.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 114 for the relief of Mildred Alma McCallum.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 116 for the relief of Mabel Monk. -Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 117 for the relief of Harry Edward Elvidge.-Mr. Tummon.
Bill No. 119 for the relief of Emily Anderson.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 120 for the relief of Helen Marie Ferguson.-Mr. Hubbs.

[Stage Direction]
On the order being called for third reading:
Charles Stephen Booth: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of members who would like to be present when the vote on this bill is taken but who are absent to-night. Therefore I should like the permission of the house to have the bill stand until next Tuesday, when I think it should be understood that the vote will be taken.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Stand.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
[Stage Direction]
The house again in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
John Frederick Johnston: When the committee rose at six o'clock we were considering vote No. 299, which is to be found on page 70 of the estimates.


Robert James Manion: When the committee rose at six o'clock we were discussing the question of salaries. The minister gave the committee the number of employees in the lower grades who received below $100 per month. He gave various figures, including 770 in the lowest grade and 800 in the next grade.


Peter John Veniot: The total was 4,403.


Robert James Manion: Who were getting under $100 per month.


Peter John Veniot: Before the committee rose at six o'clock I gave the following figures:
Letter carriers	2,763
Mail porters	 770
Postal helpers	 870
Total	4,403
Supply-Post Office

The annual increase amounts to $120, so that in five years they would be receiving around $1,600. It must not be understood that the total number of 4,403 are receiving only $1,020.


Robert James Manion: Could the minister tell the committee how many are receiving that salary?


Peter John Veniot: As far as I can find out, the average would be from 20 to 25 per cent.


Robert James Manion: Could the minister give a rough estimate of how many are receiving under $100 per month?


Peter John Veniot: At the present time there are not more than 20 per cent of the 4,403 receiving the minimum of $1,020.


Robert James Manion: I would like to say a few words along the lines taken by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps). There are some hundreds of men receiving $100 per month or less. The minister pointed out last year, and has pointed out again this year

I believe he mentioned it two years ago as well -that the Civil Service Commission has recommended against any increase, and therefore that he is more or less helpless. I have no desire to question the word of the minister, and I do not do it in any offensive way, but it would seem to be obvious that if the minister and the government desired to increase the wages paid to these men in the lower grades, this House of Commons would support such a measure. It does not seem fair that the minister should place the whole responsibility upon the Civil Service Commission. This government has a statistical department which has issued figures showing that the cost of living for the average family in Canada is considerably more than the minimum paid to these men. In view of that fact, it would seem to me that the government might well set an example to the private employers and make a ruling which the Civil Service Commission would have to obey, or bring a resolution before the house. If that were done, I am sure the minister would receive the support of the whole house. The fact that the minister argued that there were many private corporations paying similar salaries is really no argument, because-


Peter John Veniot: I did not make that argument.


Robert James Manion: Somebody did.


An hon. MEMBER:: It was the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart).


Charles A. Stewart: I said that
that was the basis upon which the Civil Service Commission fixed the salaries, in comparison with the remuneration paid for work of. a similar character.


Robert James Manion: I thought it was the Postmaster General who had made that statement. The fact that private corporations pay a smaller salary is all the more reason why the government should set a good example. I do not think either the people of this country or the members of this house believe the minister to be absolutely sincere in this matter. He has taken the attitude that he is helpless before the Civil Service Commission, when in fact the government could bring in a resolution which would have the effect of forcing that commission to raise the salaries of these men.


Charles Stephen Booth: Mr. Chairman, I
would like to add a few words in support of what has been said by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) and by my colleague. The minister objected to the use of the word "dodging" by an hon. member, but it would appear that he is hiding behind the Civil Service Commission, because he has told us again and again that they are the ones who are responsible. When we ask him what he has done, he simply replies that he has asked what the Civil Service Commission has done. It seems to me that he is the one really responsible in this matter. The Civil Service Commission was not set up in order to control parliament; parliament is here to control the Civil Service Commission, and parliament has a right to look to the minister and to the government to introduce such legislation as will meet the needs of this case.
As has been pointed out to-night, there is no reason why legislation could not be introduced which would provide the minimum asked for, that is, at least $100 per month. If we stipulate that corporations having contracts with the government pay fair and adequate wages, there is no reason why the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) should not introduce such legislation as would ensure the employees of his department receiving an adequate and reasonable wage. The minister himself admits that this is not a living wage. If that is so, why does he not introduce this legislation, and introduce it at this session?
I cannot conceive, in view of what has been said, of objection being raised by hon. members on this side of the house. The Postmaster General must be held responsible for the low wages being paid to his employees.

Supply-Post Office
The Postmaster General has referred to the large number of applicants for the different positions. He contends that that is not the reason for the low wages, but why should it be referred to unless as an excuse? We have been told by the Prime Minister that the policy of his government is not to consider labour as a commodity; it should not be bought and sold subject to the fluctuations in the market. In spite of that statement by the Prime Minister, the Postmaster General apparently considers that wages can be kept down just so long as there are a large number of people seeking positions.


Peter John Veniot: That is certainly a wrong interpretation of what I said.


Charles Stephen Booth: It is an inference, not an interpretation.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. member has no grounds for such an inference.


Charles Stephen Booth: I think the house must judge of that. When the minister has it within his own power


Peter John Veniot: He has not.


Charles Stephen Booth: -to introduce legislation that will give a living wage and he refuses to exercise that power, and when he reminds the house that there are large numbers of people who are anxious to get jobs, what does that mean if not what I say? The minister does not tell us what it means. I think, as my colleague pointed out, that the number of applications is in itself an indication of the large amount of unemployment in the country, because ordinarily people would not accept $100 and less a month if permanent jobs at reasonable wages were being offered throughout Canada. While this situation indicates the large amount of unemployment, it is no excuse for our squeezing men because we find them on the verge of the bread line.
Reference has also been made to the low salaries paid to bank employees. We all know that the salaries paid to junior clerks in banks are nothing less than a scandal. The minister himself would have to admit that, but why drag that in as an excuse for the Dominion government paying low wages?
The Beatty report, to which reference has been made, makes this statement:
Having in mind the obvious desire of the government as indicated by the reference to us, to improve the status of its technical officers with a view to increasing the efficiency of that 2419-110
branch of the service, it has occurred to us that an investigation of the civil service generally, that is. as to numbers, nature of work and rates of pay. might conceivably result in some economy and greater efficiency.
The Beatty report itself suggests this wider review of the situation. I cannot see why the minister should not follow up such a recommendation as this with regard not merely to the higher paid but also to the lower paid employees in the civil service. In a communication that I received a short time ago from the Amalgamated Civil Servants of Canada, I find the following statement:
That to increase the salaries of the nearly
4,000	employees who were stated to be male adults receiving less than $1,200 per annum to that figure, would entail an extra cost of only $765,000 annually.
If this figure is correct, we have the figure that the hon. member for Fort William has been looking for. There are about 4,000 who are receiving under $100 a month.


Peter John Veniot: Will the hon. member permit me to correct him? There are fewer than 4,000 receiving $100 a month. Out of that 4,403 mentioned, there would not be more than 20 per cent receiving under $100 a month.


Eugène Fiset: The hon. member means the whole service.


Peter John Veniot: I am referring to the postal service in regard to what the hon. member for Fort William has said.


Charles Stephen Booth: The hon. member for Fort William was trying to get some figures
and I was giving it on the authority of the Amalgamated Civil Servants of Canada that altogether some 4,000 civil service employees are receiving $100 or less a month. Is that figure approximately correct?


Peter John Veniot: I cannot speak for the other departments; I can speak only for my own.


Charles Stephen Booth: I am considering the larger question. As a matter of fact, the sum mentioned is only, by the most conservative estimate, one and one-half per cent of the civil service salary list.
The statement continues:
Civil servants' salaries generally have by no means kept pace with those of workers in the important classes of the industrial world. We find from a study of the government's own publications that the wages and salaries of the latter class have, since 1913, advanced approximately 88 per cent, while the former have advanced only 64 per cent. Cost of living figures have risen as high as the latter figure, so that the standard of living of civil servants is, as a matter of course, far below that of his coworkers of outside employ.

Supply-Post Office

Let me come back, in closing, specifically to the post office workers. I find in the statements presented yesterday by the Minister of Finance that the post office revenue for 192829 was 830,611,964, and the estimated revenue for 1929-30 is $33,346,000. Since the post office is such a large revenue bearing department of government, I think I am right in saying the only revenue bearing department, and since we have such large sums coming in, due no doubt not merely to the monopoly that exists but also to a considerable extent to the efficiency of the service rendered by large numbers of these comparatively low paid workers, the least that can be done under that circumstance is to ensure that those workers obtain a decent living wage. We can urge only, as we have done year after year, as the civil servants themselves have done for some ten years, that their salary shall be put on the basis of a reasonable wage. I ask the minister whether he can see his way clear this session to overcome any opposition which he says exists on the part of the Civil Service Commission, by introducing legislation that will establish a minimum wage based upon the cost of living.


Mr. PLUNKETT:: I wish to add a word
to what has just been said. It is strange that this readjustment of salaries should have had to be asked for during several consecutive sessions. When we consider the responsibilities of the postal workers and the character of the service they render, is it fair to ask them to work for $90 or less a month? They are looked upon in every home in Canada as messengers of good will. They bear tidings, sometimes of joy and sometimes of regret. Why should the house demur to the proposal that at least $100 a- month be paid to the postal employees? I am not going to ask the house to compare them with United States postal employees, because if I did the Prime Minister would say: We turn to Westminster and not to Washington. But I submit that they are underpaid, they are certainly inadequately paid for the work they do and the responsibility they have to assume. I wish to concur in the sentiments expressed by hon. members who have spoken in this connection. We should raise the minimum salary for postal workers to $100 a month. I hope the Postmaster General will consider the matter, and I can assure him he will have my en-dorsation and vote in regard to any measures taken to accomplish that end.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: I should like to inquire
of the minister whether anything has been done respecting the rural mail carriers. Of

all the employees of this department they are the worst treated in the whole of Canada and it is pretty nearly time that parliament felt ashamed of itself. This matter has been brought up time and again in the house and it is a condition that should be remedied. It is absolutely the worst instance in the whole civil service of employees being underpaid.


Mr. POULIOT:: Is the hon. gentleman
speaking of rural mail carriers?


James Dew Chaplin: That is what I am talking about.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am in favour of higher remuneration for the mail carriers, and I have several times advocated the introduction of legislation for that purpose. The trouble is that in some parishes there are people who are crazy enough to submit a ridiculously low tender in order to get the contract. Apparently they consider it an honour to work for nothing. They are a nuisance to the community. When the fair value of a contract would be, say, $600, one or two people-one is enough- in a parish will be foolish enough to submit a tender for half that amount. The man who gets the contract is proud of it, and afterwards he complains to the member that he is not well enough paid. That is the way it goes. I know a gentleman who has been around this house for several years, who charges each of these mail carriers $5, and in that way collects for himself a sum aggregating about $5,000 a year. His name is Garfield McKinnon. He comes around this building with his propaganda urging that the salaries of these men should be increased. If there was some wav of stopping the present stupid system of tendering under which a bid far too low is submitted and often gets the contract, there would be no trouble of that kind.


James Dew Chaplin: The way to stop it is to stop the tendering system altogether.


Jean-François Pouliot: If the tendering system
were stopped, then my hon. friends opposite would complain that the minister was giving the contracts to his friends. It is a very difficult proposition. I am sorry that the situation exists, but the remedy does not depend upon the department any more than upon my hon. friends who have just spoken. The trouble is with the men in the different parishes who are silly enough to underestimate the value of the contract and submit a low bid in order to take the contract away from another fellow who is carrying it on satisfactorily at a reasonable rate. I am sure no one in this house will deny that that sort of thing is going on.

Supply-Post Office
Another thing: if these poor mail carriers were not silly enough to pay $5 a head to Garfield McKinnon, who goes around the corridors of the house with his propaganda that these men are underpaid, they would be better off. But he lives like a gentleman at their expense, and then comes here and complains that they are not getting enough money. The first point in his propaganda should be to urge all tenderers for mail contracts to put in a reasonable tender, and then there would be no trouble at all. Very often I go to the department to see Mr. Anderson, who is the friend of every member of this house, and he will tell me that such and such a tender is too low, but he says, we have to award it because that was the lowest tender. If that were not done I am sure we should soon hear from hon. gentlemen on the other side of the house. They would at once protest because the contract had not been awarded to the lowest tenderer, and would say that there was waste and no economy in the department. In other words they would preach exactly the opposite of what they are preaching now. I have great respect for my hon. friend from Lincoln, who is a business man, and if he could find a way of getting these people to submit decent tenders, I should be glad to broadcast his advice from this house with a view to getting better pay for the mail carriers. That man Garfield McKinnon is a pest to this house.


Peter John Veniot: I was asked by an hon.
gentleman if I had done anything since last year in connection with the rural mail carriers. This applies not only to the mail carriers on what are called the rural routes, the mail box routes, but to all contractors carrying His Majesty's mail in the rural districts, say from office to office, and so forth, and to the mail carriers in small towns who are carrying mail from the station to the post office, and vice versa. The claim has been made that the carriers on all these routes should be put on a yearly salary basis at a rate for the longer hauls of S70 a mile, and that the shorter hauls should be rated in a different way. I have had the officials of the dapartment go very fully into the matter, and I find that to grant what was asked would mean an extra cost of S7,000.000 a year for the transportation of mails by land alone in Canada. The Post Office department, at the present time at least cannot stand that increased expenditure.
I recognize that in some respects the tender system is a bad one because in numerous cases the tenderers have no idea of what it will cost them to carry on the work efficiently. Only within the last day or two I have had several applications for increases in mail con-2419- noi
tracts from individuals who tendered a year or so ago and got the contract because they put in the lowest tender, and now they find that they cannot do it for the money. The only remedy I have under the existing postal service law is to say to these people, " If you find you cannot do the work for the amount for which you tendered and upon which you received the contract, we will grant you the privilege of retiring from the contract and call for new tenders." But even when we make that offer, they will not accept it.
May I say further to the committee that out of a large number of offers of renewals of existing contracts that we have made, only four per cent of these renewals at the former price have been refused. Under these circumstances I cannot see how anybody can reasonably accuse the Post Office department of not treating these mail carriers right.
What the hon. member for Temiscouata has said is true to a certain extent. Up to three or four years ago there was no movement in Canada for placing these mail carriers on a salary basis. The individual that he named is the self-constituted secretary of an unorganized so-called postal carriers' association. I do not know how far this individual travels to the west, but I know that he has travelled right down to the Atlantic coast and has been in my own county. He goes to each mail carrier, whether he has a rural route or a post office route, and obtains from each $5, in some cases $2, and in other cases what he can get, as secretary of this so-called organization. I know whereof I speak because I have the evidence. He tells them that he is about to obtain for them an increase in the amount of their mail contracts.


Robert Knowlton Smith: What objection is there to that?


Peter John Veniot: Because it is not an organized association of mail carriers. The postal department recognizes every organization within the postal service that is properly organized, but not a self constituted organization of two men only.


Robert Knowlton Smith: He is representing these men, is he not?


Peter John Veniot: No, he is not even a mail carrier himself.


Robert Knowlton Smith: He is paid by the men.


Peter John Veniot: No, he goes around and collects money under false pretences for work he says he is doing, but is not doing.
Supply-Post Office


Edward Joseph Garland: But, Mr. Chairman, what does it matter if the cause is good?


Peter John Veniot: Up to that date there was no complaint as to the tender system.


William Alves Boys: As the minister well knows, this American system has been urged in this house for the last ten years.


Peter John Veniot: It could not have been, because it has not been in vogue in the United States until the last six or seven years.


William Alves Boys: I am not suggesting the figure of seventy dollars a mile; I am referring to the system. When the minister says it has been in vogue only for the last three years, I wish to say that I spoke in this house on the question at some considerable length long before that period.


Mr. SMITH (Stormont):: We do not want to copy anything from the States.


Mr. BENNETT:: That is running true to form.


Peter John Veniot: The American postal department are very sorry to-day that they ever adopted that system, and they would be glad to get clear of it. They find it is not working out satisfactorily. Now, when it means an additional expenditure of some seven million dollars, I think the postal department is doing right in hesitating before recommending to this house the change in the contract system.


Mr. STEW  ART@Leeds: Mr. Chairman, all that the Postmaster General has said sounds very much like a rehash of what he gave us last session.


Peter John Veniot: It is the same thing, it is true.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The matter is in just the same position as it was last year.


Peter John Veniot: It is.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have before me what he said to the house last session, and there is no intimation from him that he has done anything in the meantime. Let me correct the minister. I am not aware that any member of this house suggested seventy dollars a mile as a minimum rate for rural mail carriers at all.


Peter John Veniot: I did not say any hon.
member had done so.
Mr. STEW7ART (Leeds): But it is upon the seventy dollar a mile rate that the Postmaster General raises this enormous figure of seven million dollars. There were several [Mr. Veniot.l
other suggestions made to him, one of them I recall being about as follows: that a study should be made of these different routes, that they should be classified under, say, four or five classifications-they are not all alike, the conditions vary-and for class one the rate should be perhaps only forty dollars a mile-


Peter John Veniot: The average rate throughout Canada now is over forty-five dollars a mile.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That may be so; some may be very high and others low. I am suggesting that only as an illustration. The second might be forty-five or fifty dollars or higher. That suggestion was made to the minister. I have before me Hansard of 1929, and I find at page 1631 the minister was dealing with this question. Let me quote:
Mr. Veniot:	If the hon. member desires me
to do so, I will have the contracts gone over and I will produce the information this week.
I do not intend to deal with this matter at any greater length, beyond repeating what I said at the beginning. My attention was called to it in a casual way in 1928, and later on my attention was more closely drawn to it, I think towards the end of 1928. But from the spring of 1928 to the present time, some attention has been paid to the existing system, and we are reviewing the situation to see whether or not a more equitable system can be put into practice.
Mr. Bennett: I think the hon. member means 1927, because he will remember that in 1928 we discused the matter.
Mr. Veniot:	Yes, it was in 1927 that my
attention was first drawn to it. I thank the hon. member for the correction. I feel that I have enough information now to warrant my saying that the application of the United States system in Canada is an impossibility. But I do not say that a better system than the one we have cannot be put into practice and it is with that end in view we are at present reviewing the situation.
Apparently the situation has been under review and there is no remedy suggested; instead, an attack has been made on a gentleman who has, I submit, a perfect right to do what he is doing in the interests of these rural mail carriers. What possible objection can there be to a man, satisfactory to this class of public servants, going around interviewing them, getting first-hand knowledge of conditions and looking after their interests, and receiving from them, voluntarily, such contributions as they wish to make to him, he in turn presenting their claims to the Postmaster General for relief and help? I cannot see any objection to that. The Postmaster General seems to think his activities are beyond the pale altogether and says this man is extorting money from the people. On what does he base any such statement?

Supply-Post Office


Mr. YENIOT:: I will answer my hon.
friend right now. I have letters received from mail carriers throughout the country asking who this man is and what right he has to demand money from them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He has no right.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is not
extortion; they are not compelled to pay him anything unless they wish to do so. It is a purely voluntary arrangement.


Peter John Veniot: They say not.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The minister is
endeavouring to hide behind a smoke-screen; he is not dealing with this question honestly or fairly, nor is he treating this class of public servants as they should be treated. From year to year there is the same evasion; the matter is under consideration, we are reviewing it. But he does not get anywhere with it, and I do not think he intends to do so.


William Alves Boys: Mr. Chairman, I have expressed myself on two or three occasions in the past on this matter and I have very little to say now. I have no charge to make against the minister in this connection, but I want to say to him in all sincerity that I do not think there is a servant in the service of Canada as poorly paid as the rural mail carrier. Taking the average route, which is perhaps fifteen miles, the average pay is about forty-five dollars a mile-$675-for working every day in the year except one day, unless there has been some change made since two or three years ago when, I understand, one holiday a year was granted. I am not including Sundays, of course.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. gentleman is mistaken; they are not all daily services.


William Alves Boys: As far as my county is concerned they are daily services. There may be an isolated case or two.


Peter John Veniot: It is not an isolated case at all; there are hundreds of them.


William Alves Boys: I am speaking of the settled
parts of the country. Take my own county of Simcoe-I presume it is typical and therefore take it as an illustration. As far as I know every solitary rural service in the county of Simcoe is a daily service, excluding Sundays. Will the minister say that is not so?


Peter John Veniot: That is the rural service?


William Alves Boys: That is all I am speaking of.


Peter John Veniot: We are talking generally now of mail carriers. The hon. gentleman will excuse me, but I just wish to put the record right.


William Alves Boys: There need not be any misunderstanding.


Peter John Veniot: You have in your locality
regular services three times a week.


William Alves Boys: I am speaking of the rural
mail carriers; I thought the minister would know that when I took a typical route of fifteen miles at $45 a mile. Is there any other postal service that that would apply to except the rural mail carrier?


Peter John Veniot: Certainly, there is the
service from post office to post office, which is not a rural box service.


William Alves Boys: That is not by the mile, though.


Peter John Veniot: Yes it is, and it is under
tender the same as the others.


William Alves Boys: That is quite immaterial, anyway. I wish to make my statement very definite and I would like the minister to understand it. I am directing my remarks towards the conditions affecting the rural mail carriers. Let us take the case of the average service of fifteen miles for every day in the week except Sundays at an average cost of $45; some are as low as $40 and some as high as $60, but we will take the average of $45 a mile, which makes a total of $675. That is not $2 a day all the year round, and as far as I know these men have only one holiday in the year with the exception of Sundays. They have to maintain a motor car for summer service and one or two horses for winter. I have nothing to say against the civil servants; I have nothing to say against mail carriers from the cities, but when I hear of pleas being made on behalf of the urban carries for increased pay I wonder what those who are seeking assistance for them think of the salaries paid to rural carriers. No matter what the weather may be or what the condition of the roads, the rural mail carrier has to cover his route. In many places the roads are in wretched conditions; while the carrier can remain on the main highway his progress is somewhat easier, but when he turns to the side lines and concessions in many cases he cannot get throught without extreme difficulty. The only answer is that the work is let by tender and the department takes the attitude that it will not pay more if it can get it done for the small sum which is paid to the rural carrier. I say to the minister that there is not a service of the government let out by tender which could not be performed for less money than is paid at the present time. I hold no brief for Mr. McKinnon; in some respects I think they could get a better advocate, but I am not here to
Supply-Post Office

say anything about him. The fact that these men, voluntarily or with a little persuasion see fit to, have Mr. McKinnon represent them is a matter of their own concern. It does not belong to me and it does not belong to the minister; if they choose to let Mr. McKinnon represent them it is entirely their own affair. I am not advocating the payment of $70 a mile; I do not think it is fair to take that attitude, but in my opinion it is a matter which should be worked out. In the main, there are two kinds of routes; there are the routes where the roads are sandy or hilly and where travel is difficult, and there are the routes where the roads are good and the country is more or less level. It might be that one price should be fixed for certain routes and another price for others. It is my view that steps should be taken towards fixing, not a living wage but something within the realm of fairness for the services of these rural carriers.


Peter John Veniot: They do not do this work
for a living.


William Alves Boys: I have heard that statement
before. We are told that very early in the morning when the dew is on the ground they could go out and hoe potatoes and that when they come in at night they could do something else. The point is, however, that these men have to be on the job. They have to plug through in the winter with the horses and use the motor in the summer, true, they might use the motor for other purposes. I am sure the minister will not say to this house that he thinks $675 is sufficient remuneration for a rural mail carrier who covers a route of fifteen miles. Surely the minister will not say that;-I know he is too fair-minded to suggest such a thing. No doubt his answer will be that the department calls for tenders and that if the carriers are content to work for such small salaries they may do so.


Peter John Veniot: The tenderer does not
think he is worth a greater sum when he puts in his tender.


William Alves Boys: Oh, yes he does; not one of
them is satisfied. Many of these men have been devoting themselves to the service for some years; they have horses and motors, and if they lost the work they would not have anything to do. In many cases they are men sixty or sixty-five years old and as their powers of labour are becoming limited they do not want to give up the work. This work provides a living for them. I believe the time has come, in view of increases in

other lines of work, when the minister should consider some increases for the rural mail carriers. I made the statement that I had addressed remarks to this particular question on another occasion, and to substantiate my statement I have before me Hansard of April 13, 1923. On that occasion and on several others I made some statements upon this subject. The minister may rest assured that this suggestion of a given rate per mile has not been developed in the last two or three years. I endorse what has been said on behalf of the rural mail carriers; I do not wish to see them get an extraordinary amount and I would not suggest that the country could afford to pay an increased expenditure of $7,000,000. However there is a big difference between that total and an increase from the present rate to $55 or $60. I do not believe such an increase would any more than exhaust the surplus about which the minister boasts at the present time.


Peter John Veniot: I am boasting of no surplus, because there is none.


William Alves Boys: I thought there was a surplus
of $2,000,000.


Mr. ROBINSON:: I wish to revert to
the question of letter carriers. For the last four years, with one exception, I have mentioned the high cost of living in the border cities. In 1927 the minister promised me that he would look i-nto the situation and in 1928 he replied as follows:
Mr. Veniot:	I did look into it and I made
a recommendation to the Civil Service Commission for an increase in salary. That recommendation has not been acted upon and I am not in a position to do any more.
I would like to know what increase that recommendation was for and whether it was to cover the extra cost of living.


Peter John Veniot: If I remember correctly the documents were laid on the table last year.


Sidney Cecil Robinson: I was not here at that time last year.


Peter John Veniot: If I remember correctly
the recommendation was for an increase in the minimum and the maximum so that the employees would, receive over $100 a month to begin with.


Sidney Cecil Robinson: I was under the impression that it was $60 a year or $5 a month. If I am correctly informed, the responsibility of the letter carriers in the cities has considerably increased during the last four or five years. Apparently there are many more

Supply-Post Office
circulars and parcels to be delivered; there is the sale of stamps, and numerous other duties have to be attended, to. In 1920 the letter carriers of Canada were receiving more than the letter carriers in the city of Detroit. For the information of hon. members I shall place on Hansard the figures for the year 1918 and for the last three years. In 1918 the minimum in Canada was $626 a year and the maximum $909, with a bonus of $350, bringing the total up to $1,289. In the same year in the United States the minimum was $800 and the maximum was $1,200. At that time the Canadian letter carrier was receiving more than the letter carrier in the United States. In 1920 the minimum in Canada was $780 and the maximum was $1,260 with a bonus of $396, bringing the total up to $1,656.


Peter John Veniot: Those figures apply to
Canada?


Sidney Cecil Robinson: Yes, those figures apply to the Canadian letter carrier.


Peter John Veniot: May I correct the hon.
gentleman by saying that the bonus would not apply to $1,260 until they had reached their maximum. It would begin to apply at $780.


Sidney Cecil Robinson: The bonus in 1924 was only $18, and the Canadian letter carrier during 1927, 1928 and 1929 received a minimum of $1,080 and a maximum of $1,700, as against a minimum of $1,500 in the United States and a maximum of $2,100. I should like to place this table on Hansard, with the permission of the committee.
Statement of salaries paid Letter Carriers, Dominion of Canada and U.S.A.
1918	Canada	
U.S.A	
1919	Canada	
USA	
1920	Canada	
U.S.A	
1921	Canada	
U.S.A	
1922	and 1923 same salaries.
1924	Canada	
U.S.A	
1925	Canada	
U.S.A	
1926	same as 1925.
1927	Canada	
U.S.A	
^	1928 and 1929 same as 1927.
N.B.-5% deducted for retirement
Minimum	Maximum	Bonus	Total$ 626	$ 939	$350	$1,289800	1,200	1,200626	939	420	1.3591,000	1,400	1,400780	1,260	396	1,6561,000	1,500	Bonus Reduced	1,500780	1,260	25 J% 297	1,5571,400	1,800	1,8001.080	1,440	18	1,4581,400	1,800	1.8001,080	1,440	18	1.4581,700	2,100	2,1001,080	1,500	1,5001,700	2,100	2,100
or superannuation fund.


Peter John Veniot: Surely you would not want that comparison to go on Hansard, because it will lead someone astray, and I know you do not wish to do that.


Sidney Cecil Robinson: The bonus in 1919 was $420.


Peter John Veniot: But you were adding it to the maximum, I think.


Sidney Cecil Robinson: I think these figures are correct, and I should like the Postmaster General to give a little consideration to these letter carriers.


Miss MACPHAIL:: I agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for North Simcoe. In Grey county I think in all cases we have daily mail service, and that is a county hard to travel, with a number of hilly back roads. I believe the rural mail carriers in Southeast Grey are very badly paid,
and while I realize that under the tender system it is their own fault, yet there are just two kinds of people who submit these tenders. On the one hand you have the man who has been doing the work, who has the equipment, and who fears that he will be underbid by an inexperienced man who may not know the cost of the equipment or the work which will be required. The inexperienced man is likely to tender at a lower figure than the man who has the equipment, and the other man feels that to hold his job he must put in a still lower bid, with the result that the man who gets the contract does the work for less than it is worth.
The minister says the government cannot afford to pay the carriers any more. I would respectfully suggest that it would have been better to keep the postage rate at three cents and pay the men who deliver our mail a living wage than to reduce the postage to two cents
Supply-Post Office

and not pay a fair wage. I realize that it will not be an easy thing to change the whole method of paying rural mail carriers, but surely some system could be introduced better than the one we have now. I know there are probably half a dozen different kinds of routes, but surely they could be graded and wages paid according to the kind of route covered. In communities where they can use a car all year round, with improved highways on which to travel, it may be a simple matter to deliver the mail in a very short time with an old car, but in the county of Grey these carriers cannot possibly use a car in the winter time and unfortunately we only have about six months of summer. Then it becomes very hard work for these rural mail carriers to make their rounds. I do not know of any service that has brought as much joy and contentment to those living in the country as has been brought by the rural mail delivery. Had I been choosing a secretary for the rural mail carriers I am quite frank to say my choice might have been different, but that is nothing to me and I doubt if it is anything to the Postmaster General. I am quite sure that if the rural mail carriers had not felt that they were poorly paid and had a real grievance no one on earth would have been able to secure money from them to improve conditions. I want to say these few words to help the other members who are seeking to have something done to better the condition of the rural mail carriers.


William Alves Boys: When I made my few remarks a short time ago I did not have Hansard before me. Now I should like the minister to know what was said by myself and others on April 12, 1923, in view of his statement that this matter had been brought to his attention only within the last two or three years. I refer to page 1781, where I am credited with these remarks:
Let us make a comparison or two. What is the system in vogue in the United States? There they adopt the uniform system of $75 a mile, and the position is a permanent one so long as the work is properly performed. Why should not some such system be adopted here? The only objection I have heard to it is that there is a variation in the routes; one route is harder than another, and for that reason such a basis of remuneration might not work out fairly. Well, it must work out fairly in the United States or they would not have adopted it there.
And again at page 1782:
Now to satisfy these men I would suggest that they be put upon a par. If the country cannot stand what is being paid in the United States, $75 a mile, perhaps it should be made less. I do not know for certain what the 
carriers themselves are urging upon the government, but I have heard it placed at $70. It seems to me that that can be gone into, and when it is gone into a reasonable allowance can be made.
This has been a live question for the last ten years, and it does seem to me it is time something was done.


Mr. McGREGOR:: Since I have been in this house this question has come up every year, and I think it hardly worth while to try to convince the minister that he should do something for these people who are so poorly paid. However, there is one question I should like to bring to his attention. I should like to know if there is a fair wage clause inserted in the contracts for mail collection in the big cities?


Peter John Veniot: Yes.


Robert Henry McGregor: What is it?


Peter John Veniot: The sum is not fixed, but it is supposed to be the wages paid for similar work in the city where the contract is let.


Robert Henry McGregor: Then would that mean that the wages paid on government building in that city would be the fair wage for these mail collectors?


Peter John Veniot: No, it would be the current wages for similar work. I may say that I have had only one complaint along this line, which came about three or four weeks ago from Vancouver, if I am not mistaken, and the departmental officials immediately took up the matter with the contractor. The complaint was that the contractor was paying very small wages to those who collected the mail from the boxes. We took up the matter at once and are awaiting a report from our superintendent.


Robert Henry McGregor: The information I have comes from the city of Toronto. The men start to work at 6.30 a.m.; they are off for different periods during the day, but they are on duty fifteen and a half hours per day and actually work ten hours and thirty-five minutes daily. They are off one day every week and one Sunday out of every four, and these men receive $16 per week. I should like to ask the minister if he is aware of that condition.


Peter John Veniot: No. I am not aware of it. I think if that condition did exist in Toronto some official there would have made the department aware of it. I do know, however, that in comparison with the mail service throughout Canada, the delivery in the city of Toronto is considered to be the very best.

Supply-Post Office


Robert Henry McGregor: I have no complaints to make about the collection or delivery of mail; the complaint is that the men doing that work, thirty-three of them, receive only $16 per week. I should like to ask the minister also whether the men in the mail service come under the Workmen's Compensation Act?


Peter John Veniot: No, they do not come under the compensation act, but you will find in the estimates an amount of $5,000 which was devoted to the relief of men who were victims of accidents in the discharge of their duty.


William Gordon Ernst: Was that paid to their
dependents?


Peter John Veniot: No.


Robert Henry McGregor: Does the minister not think that these men who are driving their horses and wagons all day long should receive some compensation?


Peter John Veniot: I believe that most of the men come under the compensation acts because they are hired by contractors-they are not civil servants.


Robert Henry McGregor: I am told that they do not.


William Gordon Ernst: Of course they do not.


Peter John Veniot: That is not our fault; that is the fault of the Ontario Compensation Act.


Robert Henry McGregor: This government lets the contracts. .


Peter John Veniot: It is quite true that we let the contracts, but the contractors are subject to the Ontario Compensation Act; we have nothing to do with that act.


Robert Henry McGregor: Is it not up to the government when they let these contracts, to see that the law is carried out?


Peter John Veniot: There is nothing whereby we can enforce a civil law in any province. The compensation act is a civil law of the province of Ontario, applicable to all men working under contracts.


William Gordon Ernst: The hon. gentleman knows differently.


Peter John Veniot: Why?


William Gordon Ernst: It is not applicable to the individual employee.


Peter John Veniot: I did not say it was applicable to the individual employee.


William Gordon Ernst: You said it was applicable to all men.


Peter John Veniot: Working under contracts.


William Gordon Ernst: That would not apply to the individual employee in New Brunswick.


Peter John Veniot: I referred to the contractor having ten men or one hundred men under him.


William Gordon Ernst: If it is applicable to all men, it would be applicable to one man only; surely the Postmaster General does not mean that?


Peter John Veniot: I am sorry I cannot make the hon. gentlemen understand what I mean.
Mr. McGREGOR Will the Postmaster General investigate this case?


Peter John Veniot: If the information has been received from a reliable source, and the hon. member will give me that information, then I will investigate it. I will not investigate such cases upon rumours; I have the right to know the source of the information.


Robert Henry McGregor: I can assure the hon. minister that this is not a rumour. This man would lose his job if it were known the information came from him.


Peter John Veniot: He is not an e-mployee of the Post Office department.


Robert Henry McGregor: He is the employee of a man who has the contract from the Post Office department, and I see no reason why that man's name should be divulged simply because the minister is being arbitrary in this matter.


Peter John Veniot: I am not being arbitrary, but if the hon. member has not faith enough in me to give me the name in confidence and accept my word that it will be kept in confidence, then it should not be expected that this case will be investigated.


Robert Henry McGregor: I have given the minister the information and if he does not accept it I will not give him the name.


Peter John Veniot: I will instruct the superintendent to make an inquiry.


Robert Henry McGregor: That is all I ask.


Peter John Veniot: But not on information
given in that way.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: I have a great deal of
sympathy for any man who is underpaid, and I agree to a large extent with the remarks made by the hon. member for Southeast Grey. However. I think the hon. members for Southeast Grey and North Simcoe are making a
Supply-Post Office

mistake in blaming the department and the minister instead of the men themselves. I think the main trouble which many members of parliament have-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is in getting elected.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: -is the number of complaints received as to the service rendered bv the men who carry the mail from the trains to the post office and on the rural routes. When these complaints are investigated it is generally found that those making the complaint have a friend whom they desire should be given the contract.


Robert Knowlton Smith: Does the hon. member claim that the carriers are paid enough?


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: No, but I claim that
the fault is with the men rather than with the government. I do not think there is one mail contract in my district which, if it were thrown open, would not be bid for by at least ten men.


William Gordon Ernst: Will the hon. gentleman
permit a question?


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Will the hon. member
allow me to complete my remarks?


William Gordon Ernst: Has the hon. member's district shared in the abundant prosperity we have heard so much about?


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: My district will have
shown its state of prosperity when I return after the next election. The hon. member knows bow I came back in 1926 in spite of all the mud that was slung by the opposition. They slung so much mud that they got mired in it themselves and they could not get their nomination before the returning officer.
The Postmaster General and the Post Office officials are not to blame for the underpaid rural mail carriers or the underpaid carriers who carry the mail from the trains to the post office. I know that if those tenders were opened to-day there would be at least ten bids on each one. They are all trying to cut one another's throats. Many of these carriers transport commodities for the different farmers, and thus make a little additional money.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: As the bon. member (Mr. Beaubien) has just said, I do not think that all the blame must rest upon the Postmaster General or upon his department. Not so long ago the Minister of Labour introduced in this house an eight hour fair wage bill in which he was given the power to set fair and reasonable wages. I think it would be perfectly 
feasible for the Postmaster General to make a survey of these rural mail routes and set a fair and reasonable wage to be paid to the carriers. There are men in his department who could survey these routes and if it was found that a man was carrying mail at a wage which was not fair and reasonable, that wage could be raised. If the Minister of Labour can set a fair and reasonable wage to be paid to men working on certain contracts, then the Postmaster General should be able to do likewise. I think he would do well to take this matter under consideration and have these mail routes surveyed and set a fair and reasonable wage for the services rendered.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: Mr. Chairman, it is my opinion that these rural mail carriers do not receive an adequate return for the services they perform; nevertheless I find it rather difficult to shed crocodile tears over men who set their own wages. These men tender for these jobs, and they tell me that they can take the contract at the price tendered because they are enabled to render this service in addition to their other work. They are under no obligation which pledges them to undertake the work at a particular price. I do know that some contracts have been taken at what appears to me to be too low a price; however, that is their own business.
I would like to say a word to-night, as I have on previous occasions, regarding the letter carriers in the cities. I have always been under the impression, and I am under that impression to-night, that the men in the lower grades are not receiving a sufficient salary for the work they do. I would like the Postmaster General to give this matter his consideration, as I would like to be one of those assisting in giving these men in the lower grades of the service a higher initial salary. It is strange that the Civil Service Commission seems to run that part of the show and that parliament is apparently powerless to take in the matter the stand which it desires to take.
I have a good deal of respect for the Civil Service Commission and I suppose they would tell me that if they set a higher standard in this department they would have to go over all the departments. If that is their point of view I am quite satisfied that they should do so.
I have nothing to say to-night about the report of the Beatty commission, but I have some firm convictions in regard to it and I think we should give serious consideration to these, the lowest paid employees, before we talk of giving the higher paid men any further increases.

Supply-Post Office


William Gordon Ernst: I would ask the hon. member
for Saskatoon whether he thinks a man who under economic duress tendered for a job and took it at a certain price, should not be permitted to ask for a higher salary. Many of these men have taken these jobs under conditions which really amount to duress. They have been obliged by economic circumstances, in order to earn a living, to take these jobs at prices at which they would otherwise never have taken them; yet the hon. member for Saskatoon says that they have bargained to take these jobs at certain amounts and they should stick to their bargains.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I did not say
anything of the kind. I said that they set their own price.


William Gordon Ernst: That is the inference. The
hon. member said that they had taken a job at a certain price and consequently he had not so much sympathy for them, if I may quote his own words. The minister, being an honorary LLT)., as is disclosed on his calendar, will appreciate the meaning of the word "duress."


Peter John Veniot: It does not take any more brains than the hon. gentleman has to learn what it means.


William Gordon Ernst: The minister has advertised
on his calendar his honorary LL.D.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: I was entitled to it or I
you Id not have got it.


William Gordon Ernst: Many of these men have
taken these positions under duress. In order that the circumstances may be known I should like to cite a few instances from a return which has been made in regard to my own constituency. I have not the mileage, but no doubt the Postmaster General can supply that information, and I am fairly familiar with the number of trips the men are obliged to make a week. I will not give the complete list, but these are a few of them:
Name of Service-Contractor-Cost per Annum Baker Settlement and Upper Chelsea via Chelsea: A. Weagle, $185.
The round trip is between thirty-five and forty miles.
Name of Service-Contractor-Cost per Annum Block House and Sweetland via Farmville: A. Slaunwhite, $120.	.
Bridgewater and Pine Grove: A. Veniot, $64.
This is a bi-weekly service. Some of them are bigger sums, the mileage being larger and the service greater, but these are typical. Name of Service-Contractor-Cost per Annum Caledonia and Westfield: S. Frail, $60. Camperdown and Middlewood:	Estate of
James Z. Wamboldt, $72.
The mileage between Camperdown and Middlewood is about six miles each way.
Name of Service-Contractor-Cost per Annum Cherryfield and Sarty's: H. Robar, $69.33.
I have no doubt the previous contract was for $70, and this gentleman, being a friend of the government, cut the price sixty-seven cents. It is approximately four miles each way.
Name of Service-Contractor-Cost per Annum Danesville and railway station: A. Whynot,

Hemford and Nineveh: A. Lohnes, $75.


Peter John Veniot: Why does the hon. member not give the frequency of the service?


William Gordon Ernst: I will give the whole schedule if the minister would like me to do so.


Peter John Veniot: There is no difficulty about giving the frequency.


William Gordon Ernst: Those I am giving are biweekly and tri-weekly. If the minister thinks a man can perform a six-mile service biweekly for $60 and come out square, he is certainly practising the doctrine known as duress. He is taking advantage of a situation, whereas if any business man did so he would be run out of the community.
Name of Service-Contractor-Cost per Annum Hemford and railway station:	W. Silver,

Lunenburg and Second Peninsula:	A. R.
Zinck, $52.
The distance is approximately six miles, and the service is bi-weekly.
Name of Service-Contractor-Cost per Annum Middlewood and railway station: Mrs. Annie Slauenwhite, $35.
This is a bi-weekly service and a distance of about two miles. Those comprise all the items which I purpose giving from this return, but anybody who desires to look at it may have it. I have only to add, if the minister considers those adequate remunerations for the services rendered and commensurate with what is paid to other people in my district who are rendering the same value in work, then he is certainly taking advantage of conditions which exist or have existed and is doing no credit to the government of which he is a member.


Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton South):: What salaries are now paid to the letter carriers, for instance, in Sydney and Glace Bay?


Peter John Veniot: They start at a minimum of $1,080, and rise to $1,500 which is reached by an increase of $120 a year.
Supply-Post Office


Finlay MacDonald: When we consider the class of men we must employ in that service in those two places- and I know something about the men; they are responsible; they have to handle a great deal of mail and money-their salaries should be materially increased, and I hope the Postmaster General will give the matter his attention.
As regards the item of $5,000 compassionate allowance, on February 26 I put on the order paper a question regarding the case of Robert Atkinson who on February 6, 1929, was injured in carrying the mails. I wanted to know whether any provision had been made to recognize officially this man's bravery and devotion to duty. The minister was good enough to reply that he was taking steps to ascertain the exact conditions with a view to assisting him. On April 21 I got this notice from the man:
Robert Atkinson, veteran mail driver, who m a brave attempt to get the mails here from irlace Bay last February, almost lost his life on the Glace Bay sand bar, where he was found almost frozen to death, arrived home to-dav from the general hospital at Glace Bay where lie was a patient for several weeks, and where it was found necessary to amputate four fingers completely and the tips of the other four in order to save his life. Mr. Atkinson, although well past the military age, enlisted in the great war and served with the Canadians in France. His last great feat of courage and bravery in attempting to carry the mails across the sand bar in a raging blizzard after he had lost his horse has been brought to the attention of the postal authorities and was not long ago brought up tor discussion in the house of parliament at Ottawa, and no doubt Mr. Atkinson will be suitably rewarded for his bravery. He takes tus severe loss philosophically and states it might have been worse.
Up to April 21st ho had beard nothing from the minister. Is it the intention of the minister to make any substantial grant in this
case?
Mr. \ ENIOT: Did I understand the hon. gentleman to say that up to April 21st Mr. Atkinson had heard nothing from the department?


Finlay MacDonald: That is my information.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. gentleman's information cannot be correct. If it is, the department in that section of the province is certainly neglecting its duty, because the moment I got word of Mr. Atkinson's accident it was more than that, beoause he showed great bravery and great devotion to duty in the services he rendered on that occasion-he was approached when in hospital concerning the matter, and he said that he felt he had 
only done his duty. When that matter was reported to the department I issued an order that as soon as Mr. Atkinson left the hospital it should be ascertained what material damages he had suffered in loss of time and of his horse, as well as the extent of his injuries, so that we might consider what compensation should be granted. We are awaiting a final report on that matter. I can assure the hon. gentleman that the case of Mr. Atkinson will be taken care of.


George Halsey Perley: I would like to draw to the attention of the minister the case of a post office which has been closed in the constituency of Argenteuil.


Peter John Veniot: What is the name of it?


George Halsey Perley: The name is Dalesville. I had a question about it on the order paper, which was answered on March 10 last. This post office is one of the very oldest in the Dominion. According to the answer given me, it was originally established on June 1, 1853, so it is one of the oldest post offices that we have. It is a very old community, settlement having taken place there ovetr a hundred years ago. Only three or four years ago the Baptist church there held the centenary celebration of its foundation. It is a small community, and the land is not very good thereabouts, but at the same time I protest as strongly as I can against the closing of a post office like that after all these years. I have asked the reason.


Peter John Veniot: Will the hon. gentleman read the reason?


George Halsey Perley: Certainly. I have it in front of me. The reason given is that the post office was closed because they could not get anybody to keep it at the remuneration offered by the department, and the answer also states that the post office will be opened as soon as a suitable candidate can be found who is willing to accept it at the regular salary. What is the salary? It is $181 a year. I am much in sympathy with the pleas that have been made for employees of the Post Office department in the cities and towns, but here is a post office which is needed by that community and' which has been closed after all these years. It is true that the revenue is not large, and prehaps that is a reason why the postmaster has not been paid more, but this community is now without a post office because remuneration is so small and no one can be found to take the office at $181 a year. There must be something wrong with the system for that to occur.

Supply-Post Office


Mr. BOTHWELL:: How many people get their mail at that post office?


George Halsey Perley: I do not know. It is a small community, and as I have said, the land thereabouts is not good. But I want to draw to the minister's attention the fact that from this post office there was a mail route to another post office, to Pine Hill and St. Michel. Now the carrier has to make the trip from Dalesville to Brownsburg, a distance of three or four miles, in order to get the mail which he used to get at Dalesville. The reason he got it there was that there was one route going from Brownsburg, and he took the mail bag for the carrier who was going to Pine Hill. But now he has to make this extra trip. So the post office could very well afford to pay more for keeping the post office at Dalesville open.


Peter John Veniot: I am sorry that we cannot do it under the law.


George Halsey Perley: May I point out to the minister that the Post Office department is put to extra expense on account of the closing of this post office, because the mail carrier going to Pine Hill has to go several miles farther on his round. Surely the post office can afford to pay that much more. As a matter of fact, they are paying it now. Not only is the post office at Dalesville closed, but as a matter of fact the Post Office department has to pay extra for carrying the mail from Dalesville to Brownsburg, which it did not have to do before. So if the department gave that much more to the postmaster at Dalesville, the department would be no worse off and the people would have the service. What is going to happen if nobody will take the post office at the present rate?


Peter John Veniot: We can put it on a rural route.	.


George Halsey Perley: All right; give them a rural route.


Peter John Veniot: That is what I am considering now.


George Halsey Perley: That would be
quite satisfactory but I feel very badly about this post office which we have had since 1853 being closed, and the people of that district being without postal service.


Peter John Veniot: That case was brought to my attention by the hon. gentleman's question some time ago, and I am looking into it. I can assure the hon. gentleman that either that office will be opened or we will place it on a rural route.


George Reginald Geary: I want to know if my memory is correct as to what the Postmaster General said last year, that the objection raised by the Civil Service Commission to giving an increase to the letter carriers was that if that were done there would be other classes in the service who would feel that they were entitled to the same rate. I am told to-night that there are about forty thousand civil servants, of whom nine per cent, or something like thirty-five hundred, are receiving less than $100 a month, less than $1,2000 a year. Perhaps the Postmaster General cannot take up the question in the large, but surely it is not valid on the part of the Civil Service Commission to object that if they raise the letter carriers' pay they are bound to raise the pay of other civil servants who are drawing less than $1,200 a year. Certainly $1,200 a year for a male adult is little enough as a minimum. It seems to me that the answer of the Civil Service Commission should not commend itself to the Postmaster General. If all they can say is: "If we raise the mail carriers to a minimum of $1,200 we shall have to raise other civil servants to a similar minimum , then I think the Postmaster General, together with his colleagues should say, "'Very well, that is perfectly satisfactory to us, because we do not want to see any of our adult male workers at a salary less than twenty-five dollars a week of $100 a month". May I point out to the minister that if he were to cut down on one expense, entirely unwarranted I am referring to the carrying of certain newspapers at a tremendous loss-he would have more than enough money to make this increase in wages. To-day he is carrying newspapers at a loss of millions of dollars-


James Dew Chaplin: At a loss of $7,000,000.


Mr GEARY:: At any rate, at a loss of
millions of dollars. His department could raise these salaries if it cut down this loss in a reasonable way.
It is said by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworbh) that the Beatty report contains a suggestion that the whole matter be investigated. With that I am perfectly in accord, but the granting of an investigation is only a postponement of the increase, and while I shall be very glad to see such an investigation instituted in due time, I do not think we should relax our efforts in the meantime to get an increase for these letter carriers. Let me remind the hon. minister that in 1924 the then Postmaster General recommended that the maximum salary of these men be $1,560. They were then getting a cost of living bonus. The cost
Supply-Post Office

of living has not decreased since 1924. But in answer to that recommendation of the then Postmaster General the Civil Service Commission did what? They established a maximum of $1,440 and cut off the cost of living bonus, thus effecting at the moment an actual reduction in the pay of the letter carriers. If there was any reason in 1924 for that cost of living bonus, a bonus to enable a man to live, that reason is just as strong to-day as it was then. It seems to me the Civil Service Commission was not standing on solid ground when it pretended to accede to the recommendation of the Postmaster General and at once, by cutting off the cost of living, in effect reduced the then prevailing salary. It should also be borne in mind that the letter carriers now perform several additional important functions having to do with money collections on delivery of packages, insurance, and so on.
Let me once more remind the minister that he has done nothing this year towards presse ing this matter on the attention of the Civil Service Commission. I suggest to him the time is ripe for him to do so. I cannot believe that he has yet made his best effort in that direction. A year has elapsed and perhaps the mind of the Civil Service Commission has changed. At all events the commissioners may be more amenable to reason. I would suggest that this item should not pass until the Postmaster General agrees to go to the Civil Service Commission with the backing of the government and get an adequate reason from that quarter as to why this increase should not be granted.


Finlay MacDonald: May I direct the attention of the Postmaster General to a case similar to that already referred to? I am informed that the post office at Holmville has been closed. It had been opened for eighty-five years. True, there is not any very large settlement there, only twelve families, but now they are obliged to go from two to four miles for their mail. Will the hon. Postmaster General see if he can establish a rural mail delivery there?


Peter John Veniot: That post office was closed
because the revenue was only $1.95 a year, while we were paying $100 to the postmaster and from $75 to $100 for transportation of mail. However, I will look into the matter more closely and see if the hon. gentleman's request can be dealt with.


Finlay MacDonald: I do not think that the revenue from a post office should be the determining factor.


Peter John Veniot: That is quite true in many cases.


Finlay MacDonald: Of course, it should have some weight, but if it is possible to put that office on a rural route, will the minister consider it?


Peter John Veniot: I will look into it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Might I ask the minister between now and the day when we again take up his estimates to look into two or three matters? (1) Can he supply us with information as to how many men have been added to the letter carrier and other branches of his service who are not subject to the Ci\il Service Act? (2) What is the maximum salary they are receiving? (3) Is it not possible for the minister so to adjust the revenues derived from the services rendered by making the charges therefor-if necessary securing the sanction of parliament for the purpose-such as to permit of this country paying a decent wage to its postal employees?
I should like to say that I cannot think of anything less than $100 a month as reasonable remuneration. The first two questions are purely questions that can be answered by the officials of the department securing the information. The third involves a consideration of the entire sources of revenue- stamps, money orders, and the carriage of newspapers and parcels. The theory of the post office service is that it should not make money, as the minister has so often been reminded and has said, but it is intended that it should pay its way. We have reduced the postage charges recently to South Africa and to other countries of the world. But we find that the rural mail carrier is receiving less compensation because of the keenness of competition in the tenders. That keenness,
I think, as the member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst) has explained, is reailly due to economic necessity. This little money that the men get is sometimes the only money that some of them receive for a whole year. For the service they render the department they get cash, and they also get something for carrying persons and parcels, and in their frenzied zeal to get the contract they take it at a price which .is not satisfactory to them.
I am not going to add anything to what has been so well said by my friend from North Simcoe (Mr. Boys) with respect to the matter, but I should like again to say a word about these letter carriers. I have done it on previous occasions and I do it again now When I see them staggering along day after day with a great load of letters and newspapers on their backs and I realize the little

Supply

Public Buildings-Quebec
compensation they get, I cannot think it is fair, having regard to the prosperity of those who produce the commodities which they carry. Surely we can adjust matters in this country so there will be a fair distribution of the profits resulting from publication. I should think it could be done. It may involve coming to parliament to do it.
One other matter. We have said that we think no civil servant should have less than $100 a month. I should like to think that everybody must be agreed about that, that twenty-five dollars a week, roughly speaking -it is not quite that as a matter of fact- is not too much. Is not this the difficulty, that we are creating too many civil servants, with the result that we are not paying some of them a decent wage? If we paid a minimum wage of $100 a month we would get the work done thoroughly, because then there would be an earnest desire to make the employment permanent on the part of many people who do not now look upon it in that way. I should like to say that we who sit to the left of the Speaker will support the government in any measure they may introduce looking towards reasonable compensations being paid to the civil servants of this country, and nothing less than $100 a month is a reasonable salary upon which a man can live, and certainly live and support a family.
In connection with letter carriers I think we should be supplied with evidence as to the number of postal employees outside the civil service who are receiving compensation larger than that allowed in the civil service. If the Civil Service Commission is standing in the way of this parliament I should be very much surprised. Now that there is unity in respect to the matter I think that those who sit to the right and left of the Speaker should unite and provide fair compensation for those who render a public service.


Peter John Veniot: I intend to allow the Minister of Public Works to proceed with his estimates: I shall take this matter up at another time. In order that the information will be on record may I say to the leader of the opposition that in addition to the salaries the letter carriers receive they are provided with two uniforms each year, two pairs of boots and three weeks' leave. On sick leave they receive their salary as provided in the civil service regulations. In the large cities they have free transportation on the street cars.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is it not a fact
that in some instances you have not accepted the recommendation of the Civil Service
Commission but have gone to the governor in council and through the treasury board have added something to the allowance recommended by the Civil Service Commission?


Peter John Veniot: We have added to what?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Added something to the recommendation made by the Civil Service Commission. I have an order in council before me dated 21st March, 1929, in which the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission is rejected and the allowance supplemented.


Peter John Veniot: Give me the particulars
of that case.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have before
me P.C. 394-187 which is certified to be a true copy of a minute of a meeting of the treasury board approved of by His Excellency the Governor General in Council on March 21, 1929, and relating to a railway mail clerk.


Peter John Veniot: If the hon. gentleman will
give me the information I shall look into the matter.
Item stands.


DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
[Stage Direction]
Maritime provinces generally - DominioE public buildings-improvements, repairs, etc., $50,000.
Robert James Manion: AVhat is that expenditure
for?


Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Minister of Public Works):: For improvements and repairs. This amount has been expended annually for some time. It is an amount of $50,000 expended in the maritime provinces generally for repairs to Dominion public buildings.


Robert James Manion: Have items 118 and 119
been carried?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes. they were carried.
We are just continuing from where we left off.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Quebec - Beauharnois - public building, $43,000.
Robert James Manion: AVhat. is that for?


John Campbell Elliott: That is for a post office.


Robert James Manion: Is Beauharnois a new
town?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


Robert James Manion: I should like to know something about it.
1752	COMMONS
Supply-Public Buildings-Quebec


John Campbell Elliott: It is for the erection of a public building for postal service in the town of Beauharnois.


Robert James Manion: What is Beauharnois?


John Campbell Elliott: It is not a new town; it is the old town of Beauharnois.


Robert James Manion: What is the population?


John Campbell Elliott: The town has a population of 2,400.


Robert James Manion: Has the minister any information as to the population of Beauharnois during the past year, or has there been a change in the population?


John Campbell Elliott: It is growing slightly. In 1911 the population was estimated at 2,000; it has increased to 2,400.


Robert James Manion: What building has been used for post office purposes up to the present time?


John Campbell Elliott: They had rented quarters and the postal authorities reported that the quarters were entirely inadequate.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Quebec 

 Dominion public buildings - improvements, repairs, etc., $120,000.
Robert James Manion: Is that throughout the whole province?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, for the whole province of Quebec.


Robert James Manion: Are tenders called for those repairs?


John Campbell Elliott: If they are important and extensive, tenders are called for.


Robert James Manion: How much was spent of the amount voted last year?


John Campbell Elliott: It was all used; in fact a larger amount was used. That is why we are asking this year for $10,000 more. We owed something at the end of the fiscal year.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Is the work done by contract or by day labour?


John Campbell Elliott: Both methods are used; the larger ones are done by contract.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Is the fair wage clause in all contracts?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Is there any specific item or is this a general repair bill?


John Campbell Elliott: It is a general repair bill for all the buildings in the province of Quebec.


Robert James Manion: I wish to ask a question bearing on that asked by the hon. member for Toronto East. What was the largest amount spent in any one place under that vote of $110,000?


John Campbell Elliott: The largest contract let
by tender, from my hurried glance over these details, appears to have been $2,300 which was expended at Iberville, Quebec.


Robert James Manion: Is there any limit to the
amount that can be spent under this item? For instance, supposing a post office needed an improvement costing $10,000; would it be possible to have that done under this item, or would that have to be a separate item?


John Campbell Elliott: It would be a separate
item; there is no such large amount spent under this item.


Richard Burpee Hanson: With the permission of the committee I should like to speak to the previous item dealing with public buildings in New Brunswick, since I was not here when this item was called. I desire to direct attention to the fact that throughout the entire province of New Brunswick provision is made for only one new public building this year, at Atholville in the county of Restigouche. It should be of interest to the committee to know that Atholville, or Athol as it is commonly called, is a small village situated two miles west of Campbellton in the county of Restigouche. Recently a large pulp mill was erected there, but the offices of the company are in the town of Campbellton, and I should say that the revenue from that post office at Athol could not exceed $1,000 a year. I am just estimating that amount, but I know that all the business of the corporations which operate in the west end of Campbellton and in Athol is done in Campbellton, where they have their executive offices.
In the distribution of public money and in the erection of public buildings surely some principle should prevail other than the wish of the sitting member. There is no public service conducted at Atholville except the post office; there is no customs house or anything of that kind, and I do submit that there are many places in the province of New Brunswick which are entitled to public buildings before a small community like Athol is considered. For five years or more I have been asking the minister for a post office in the town of McAdam, where there is a public revenue of between $40,000 and $50,000 per year. This is a junction point on the Canadian Pacific railway through which many trains pass every day; there is a large passenger

Supply-Public Buildings-Quebec
traffic and a very large customs import entry. At that point there is not only the customs and the post office, but the immigration service and the health of animals branch of the Department of. Agriculture as well. The immigration officers are housed in the Canadian Pacific railway station, where the space is very cramped, and the post office is in a wooden shack erected and owned by the postmaster himself, and is a perfect disgrace to the public service of New Brunswick. No one knows that better than the Postmaster General himself. A year or two ago I asked the Minister of Public Works to make an investigation in respect to the public services at Me Adam. I do not know whether or not he ever made that investigation, but I am satisfied that if he did so he would know that there is a very urgent need for a public building at that point.
I do not suggest that the post office at Athol should not be built, although I can say without fear of successful contradiction that a public building there is absolutely unnecessary at this time. However, if the minister is bound to erect one there then I think he must take into consideration the needs of the public service at other much more important points. I should like to ask the minister if he woidd be good enough to refer to the item and tell me the revenue from the post office at Athol, and then compare it with the revenue at McAdam.


John Campbell Elliott: It is much as my hon.
friend has indicated; it amounted to $859 in 1928.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I thought I was being quite generous. Now you are proposing to erect a $10,000 building at a point where the income is only $859, and I can tell the minister that the revenue from the post office will not be increased at that point because all the business of the company is done through its executive offices in Campbellton. The saw mill, which also is owned by the same company, does its business through its Campbellton office as well, and these are the only two industries in Athol. Furthermore I can tell the minister that there is no probability of Athol growing as a residential centre, because the company has decided that there is ample housing accommodation for its employees in the west end of Campbellton, where they are now residing, and the company does not propose to build any company houses or operate any company stores at that point. As a matter of fact I believe the company is under contract not to operate company stores, by reason of 2419-111
concessions granted by the municipality in regard to taxes.
I submit to the minister that he should investigate a little further before the Athol post office is built, unless he is prepared to give proper consideration to the public needs elsewhere. Since this government came into power they have built only one or two new post offices in the province of New Brunswick. When my genial friend the Minister of National Health was the Minister of Public Works he consecrated his own memory by erecting a very pretty little post office in his native town of Chipman. I have no objection whatever to that; it was quite all right, but I want to tell the minister that a dozen Chipmans and a dozen Athols would not contribute to the public revenue half the amount contributed by the town of McAdam. I suppose that town has not received consideration because it is in a Conservative constituency and is a strong Conservative poll; nevertheless I submit that these people who contribute to the public revenues are entitled to fair consideration at the hands of any Minister of Public Works. I do protest against this sum of money being spent at Athol while other much more important communities get nothing at all. I am not opposing the vote for Athol; as a mater of fact it has gone through already, but I want to voice the strongest possible protest at this discrimination against a community which does not support the administration.


John Campbell Elliott: I have not the memorandum here with regard to McAdam, but I remember the request made by my hon. friend and I am satisfied that investigations were made. I think there is no doubt but that the income from the McAdam post office is larger than the income from the Athol post office. However, I should like to direct his attention to the report with regard to Athol which was sent in by the district superintendent of postal service at St. John under date of November 27, 1929. First it refers to the postmaster and his assistants, giving their ages and so forth, and then the report proceeds:
The post office is being kept in the residence of the postmaster with a separate entrance. There is a little lobby about 7 by 10 feet dimension, and the working space of the office is about 5 by 10 feet. The office was packed up with parcels and people could hardly move around to deliver the mail. During my visit, when I entered the door of the post office I could hardly open it as the lobby was packed with people and it was all I could do to go through to the working space of the office, and the same condition was going on all the afternoon after the arrival of the mail and many

1754	COMMONS
Supply-Public Buildings-Quebec
people, I noticed, were waiting outdoors. If there were more room for the postmaster and his help to work in, they could attend to the post office work much easier than they are looking after it at the present time.
There was a petition presented by the residents asking for a building at this point. The report of the district superintendent continues :
I interviewed the manager of the Fraser Lumber Company-
I assume that is the company to which my hon. friend refers.
-who informs me that it is the intention of his company to employ at least 300 men in the pulp mill when it goes into operation and that besides these they will eventually employ 300 men in the saw-mill which will be in operation about the middle of January. He stated further that it was the intention of the company to tear down the 60 houses which are situated near the former site of the Shives Athol post office and to use this space as a lumber yard.
While my hon. friend is probably correct in stating that considerable business is being carried on at the other point, I understand that the employees of the company do their postal business at Shives Athol.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I know that that is not
correct; I know that most of the men live in Campbellton and go back and forth on the trolley cars. It is not the Fraser Lumber Company at all, but a subsidiary company, and it was not their intention to house their men at this point, it being felt that that could be more conveniently done at Campbellton. As far as the petition is concerned, it would be quite easy to have a petition signed in any community to have a public building erected. I leave it to the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) to say where the post office should be as between Shives Athol and McAdam Junction. Last year I asked the Postmaster General if it was not necessary to have further accommodation at McAdam Junction, but I never received an answer. He must know personally of the cramped condition at that point, and if he did not requisition for a post office I think he was derelict in his duty. This is not the only public service rendered at that point. There is also the customs service, there being eight or nine officers who have their headquarters there. They travel in and out of this junctional point every day, and to all intents and purposes it is a border point. Then there are the immigration services, and the Department of Agriculture. The revenue at Athol is less than $1,000 per year and the minister cannot justify the building 
of a new post office when there are other points with ten and twenty times the revenue which are being left in the condition to which I have alluded.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I would like to direct
the attention of the minister (Mr. Elliott) to the fair wage clause which provides that the wages paid shall be those generally accepted as current. I understand the wages paid in Nova Scotia are something like 25 cents per hour.


John Campbell Elliott: No, it is 30 cents per hour.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Bill No. 49, which was passed a short time ago, contained the provision that in all cases the wages paid should bn fair and reasonable. I would suggest to the Minister of Public Works that that provision be inserted in the fair wage clause.


John Campbell Elliott: We consult with the men who make inquiries regarding the fair wages prevailing in each province, and the fair wage clause is based upon the recommendations of those men. I shall be glad to convey to my colleague the Minister of Labour the representations made by my hon. friend regarding wages which are fair and reasonable.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: That that clause be inserted in the fair wage clause?


John Campbell Elliott: That the clause be inserted.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Farnham-public building, $30,000.
Robert James Manion: Would the hon. minister explain this item?


John Campbell Elliott: This is required for the erection of a new public building at Farnham to replace the existing structure which is too small to serve adequately the requirements of the community.


Robert James Manion: What is the population of Farnham?


John Campbell Elliott: 3,809.


Robert James Manion: And the revenue?


John Campbell Elliott: The postal revenue is $10,000 and the customs revenue $88,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grand'Mfere-public building, $50,000.
Robert James Manion: Would the minister give the committee the details of this item?


John Campbell Elliott: This is to complete the erection of a public building in the town of

Supply-Public Buildings-Quebec
Grand'Mere, the work on which is being performed by Messrs. A. Beaulieu and O. Boisvert of Shawinigan Falls, at a contract price of 145,382.60.


Robert James Manion: What is the population and revenue?


John Campbell Elliott: The population is 7,631; the postal revenue is 37,124, and the customs revenue, $103,294.


Robert James Manion: This vote will be used for both purposes?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grosse lie quarantine station-improvements, repairs, etc., $21,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the minister explain this item?


John Campbell Elliott: This is to provide for general improvements, repairs and so forth, to the various buildings at Grosse Isle quarantine station as requested by the Deputy Minister of Health on November 30, 1929.


Robert James Manion: Who is the member for that constituency?


John Campbell Elliott: Mr. Laflamme.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Huntingdon-public building, $30,000.
Robert James Manion: Would the minister explain this item?


John Campbell Elliott: This vote is to provide for the erection of a public building for postal and customs purposes on a site situated at the corner of Bouchette and Prince streets.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Les Eboulements post office-installation of fittings, $2,500.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Where is Les Eboulements?


John Campbell Elliott: That is in the constituency of Charlevoix-Saguenay.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the population of that town?


John Campbell Elliott: I do not believe I can give my hon. friend the population. This vote is to provide for the installation of fittings in a building already constructed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
La Tuque-public building, $39,000.
Robert James Manion: Will the minister explain
this item?
24X9-1114


John Campbell Elliott: This is to provide for the erection of a public building on a site at the corner of St. Antoine and St. Joseph street, purchased in August, 1929, for the sum of $5,250.


Robert James Manion: Would the minister give
the population and the revenue of the town?


John Campbell Elliott: The population is 5,800;
the postal revenue is $10,656 and the customs revenue, 853,211.


Robert James Manion: Where was the post office situated previously?


John Campbell Elliott: In a rented building.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
M a isonneuve-public building, $25,000.
George Halsey Perley: Will the minister kindly explain what has been done in Maisonneuve? Are they putting up a new building? How much will the total expense be? Is there any plan in connection with it?


John Campbell Elliott: This is to provide for the fitting up of the old city hall building at Maisonneuve, purchased from the municipal authorities for the sum of $100,000 in 1928-29.


George Halsey Perley: How much is it going to cost to fit it up?


John Campbell Elliott: The total vote of $125,000 was provided in 1926-27 for the purchase and fitting up of the building. The sum of $100,000 was for the purchase and the sum of $25,000 for fitting up the building.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Montreal-postal terminal building, $400,000.
George Halsey Perley: Will the minister give us an explanation of this? Whereabouts in Montreal is this building to be? Is it under contract now or is this a new vote?


John Campbell Elliott: This is required for the
purchase of a site on which it is intended to erect a postal terminal building for handling the mails in connection with the railway terminals at Montreal. Where that will be located is not definitely settled. We have had a site in mind and if it can be purchased at a price that is considered reasonable, no doubt it will be purchased, but we are not at the present time committed to any site.


George Halsey Perley: Is this to be a
building to handle the mails from both railways?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.

Supply-Public Buildings-Quebec


George Halsey Perley: There is a postal station just across from Bonaventure station, is there not?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


George Halsey Perley: Is that used as
a postal terminal station for the Canadian National?


John Campbell Elliott: Is my hon. friend referring to the general post office?


George Halsey Perley: No; that is
further down in the city; but there is a postal station jlist- across the street from Ronaven-ture station, is there not?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes. That is a postal
station. It is an old building.


George Halsey Perley: That is simply
an ordinary post office?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


George Halsey Perley: This proposes something entirely new. It is for the purpose of handling mail from both these railways?


John Campbell Elliott: This will be a sorting building for mails coming from both railways.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What will be the total expenditure in connection with this building? How many millions is the minister going to ;spend on it?


John Campbell Elliott: The building will cost
around $700,000 and the fittings about S250,->000. This amount is to provide for the site.


George Halsey Perley: The minister has not yet bought the site?
r Mr. ELLIOTT: No.
Sir GEORGE PERLEY': And of course, until he buys it, he does not want to give any indication as to where it will be?


John Campbell Elliott: We cannot. We are not committed to any site and of course my hon. friend will understand the disadvantage of naming any site.


George Halsey Perley: It will have to be somewhere between the two stations?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Montreal-St. Henri postal station, $15,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Is this a revote?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the work be gone on with this year?


John Campbell Elliott: We have not yet completed arrangements for the site for this building.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This is only for the site?


John Campbell Elliott: Yres.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Montreal-government's share of cost of local improvements, $22,500.
Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the necessity of this?


John Campbell Elliott: It is made up of twenty-four items, comprising the government's share of the cost of local improvements adjoining the various public buildings in the city of Montreal.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Under the municipal bylaw?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Montreal-postal station "B"-improvements and equipment, $6,000.
George Halsey Perley: Where is postal station "B" in Montreal?


John Campbell Elliott: It is situated on St.
Catherine street, Montreal. It is a three storey brick structure, fifty-one feet wide by forty feet deep with a one-storey annex fifty-one feet wide by fifty feet deep.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Montreal-Stephens building-improvements, alterations and equipment, $12,500.
George Halsey Perley: Is this a building rented by the government?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


George Halsey Perley: Why should we be spending so much money and what is it going to cost altogether? Has the government been in possession of this building for a long time?


John Campbell Elliott: This is for improvements, alterations and equipment for the Stephens building at present temporarily used by the Post Office Department pending the construction of a new postal terminal building.


George Halsey Perley: Where is it
located?


John Campbell Elliott: It is a four-storey and
basement building at 38 St. Antoine street.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Public Buildings-Quebec
Quebec citadel-Governor General's quarters -improvements, maintenance, etc., $17,000.
Robert James Manion: Will the minister kindlv explain what this is for?


John Campbell Elliott: This is for improvements, maintenance, and so forth, of the Governor General's quarters in the citadel at Quebec.


Robert James Manion: For one or two years now we have voted pretty fair sized sums for this building, and I should like to know what has been spent on it say in the last four years.


John Campbell Elliott: This is for maintenance very largely. The amount is made up as follows:
Salaries-[DOT]
Caretaker	 $1,260
1	engineer G2, 12 mos. at $125	1,5002	engineers Gl, 8 mos. at $110	1,7601	gardener, 5 mos	
450

Heating, fuel oil.. ..	.. ..	3,500
Light and power	 2,400
Telephones-
Operator during residence,
say 3 months	$225 00
15 phones during residence
at $41.60, say 3 months. .	124 80
2	phones when not in
residence at $9.90, say 9 months	 89 10
say 440
Maintenance and supplies..	5,690
Total	 $17,000


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister might tell us just how much this vice-regal residence in Quebec has cost the country during the last three or four years, and how much we have spent for maintenance and operation, because it seems to me that it nans into a very large sum of money just for one month's residence. I think we might hire the whole Chateau Frontenac for the same money, or the necessary suites in the Chateau.


John Campbell Elliott: There are not very many of them.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This is a very expensive household at Quebec. Would the minister give us the amounts that have been spent on renovation, new equipment, new furniture, and maintenance for the last three or four years? I would like to know what this vice-regal residence has cost the country, and I think the country would be interested in knowing it.


John Campbell Elliott: The appropriation for 192930 was $3,000 more than is being asked this year. In 1929-30 the gardening and fencing
had to be done at a cost of $3,000. That is not required this year and consquently the appropriation is reduced by that amount. The amount expended in 1929-30 was $20,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What did it cost to reequip the building? I understand that two or three years ago the building was not habitable; at ai events representations were made to that effect in this house by either the present minister or his predecessor. From my. recollection I think the sum has run into hundreds of thousands of dollars.


John Campbell Elliott: For 1927-28 the appropriation was $100,000. That is for reconstruction, alterations and additions. The expenditure that year was $99,988.54.


Robert James Manion: Out of the $100,000?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes. For 1928-29 the appropriation was $150,988.54 and the expenditure $142,118.34, making a total expenditure of $242,106.88.


Robert James Manion: What was the expenditure in 1926 and in 1927?


John Campbell Elliott: I do not think there was anything before 1927-2S. That was the beginning of the reconstruction.


Robert James Manion: How long is the citadel occupied each year by the vice-regal party?.


John Campbell Elliott: I think there was a return tabled a short time ago giving particulars of. the periods during which the Governor General has actually been in residence since the citadel was reconstructed, as follows: November 24, 1928 to January 9, 1929; June 4, 1929, to August 6, 1929.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister did not give
us the cost of refurnishing the citadel in addition to the $250,000 that he has already mentioned.


John Campbell Elliott: That amount includes
*everything. It is divided in this way: Construction and alterations, $170,175.70; furniture, $71,931.18; or a total of $242,106.88.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Are Their Excellencies
actually in residence for the full periods that the minister has mentioned? I understand that it is their home during that time, but that they are travelling about.
' Mr. ELLIOTT: I think that their residence has been pretty constant during those periods.


Henry Elvins Spencer: For about three month*
in the year?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.

Supply-Public Buildings-Quebec


Robert James Manion: Is it expected that this
cost of from $17,000 to $20,000 is going to be an annual cost?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, I would think so.


Robert James Manion: That is if the vice-regal
party desire to live there.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has the government in
contemplation the establishment of any more vice-regal residences?


John Campbell Elliott: Not that I have any information about.


Arthur Edward Ross: Can the minister
say how much of this money went into the reconstruction of the wall?


John Campbell Elliott: The walls are under the
jurisdiction of the Department of National Defence, and none of this amount went into the walls. This was for the reconstruction of the citadel proper.


Arthur Edward Ross: For the inside.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: When the estimates were
before the house two years ago I was under the impression from what the minister said that part of this money was to be used for the walls, but now we are told that it was not for the walls at all.


John Campbell Elliott: I think my hon. friend
must have misunderstood the explanation because it never was so intended1.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How big is this residence which has cost the country a quarter of a million dollars within the last two years, and what is its capacity?


John Campbell Elliott: I think this will be the
information that my hon. friend requires:
The citadel buildings were delivered over by the imperial authorities to the Dominion government on December 2, 1871, among which was the officers' barracks, consisting of a two story stone structure 340 feet long by 48 feet wide A portion of this building 152 feet in length was fitted up as living quarters for the Governor General, and since then the following additions have been made, viz:-
A ball room 60 feet wide by 41 feet deep to the east of the original quarters.
A tent room 38 feet by 48 feet at the rear of the ball room.
A one story addition 80 feet by 20 feet for servants' quarters east of the ball room.
A one storey addition 199 feet by 17 feet at the rear of the original quarters.


Robert James Manion: I understood the minister to say that a certain staff of servants is kept on throughout the year.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Robert James Manion: Is it necessary for the
sake of two months' residence to keep a large staff engaged the year round? Would it not ,be a little more economical in these hard times, when we cannot find anything for unemployment relief and other urgent matters, to close up the building except for the period it is occupied and a week or two more at either end?


John Campbell Elliott: This is a structure which
originally cost a great deal of money. It is a very valuable building. Two servants, I understand, caretakers, are kept on during the year; that is all.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It costs $3,500 a year for
fuel alone.


John Campbell Elliott: It has to be kept reasonably heated so as to prevent deterioration.


Robert James Manion: Before it was used as a
vice-regal residence, how big a staff did we keep on there?


John Campbell Elliott: Do you mean before 1927 and 1928?


Robert James Manion: Yes.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, there was a caretaker in charge continuously.


Robert James Manion: And there are two caretakers at the present time?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I have some figures taken from the Auditor General's report. I notice that in 1928 in round figures we spent SI02,000 and in 1929, $148,000. Will similar amounts have to be provided in the years to come?


John Campbell Elliott: No, that was the reconstruction, which is completed. Now from year to year we will have to provide for maintenance.


Henry Elvins Spencer: About how much for maintenance?


John Campbell Elliott: It is estimated at $17,000 for this year. It will probably decrease a little, as that includes some things that may not be required every year.


Abraham Albert Heaps: How much money has been
spent actually on the walls?


John Campbell Elliott: That is not in this department and we have no information in regard to it.


Milton Neil Campbell: It seems to me we are all skating around the real problem-whether we are going to continue this sort of thing or not. If we are going to have an official

Supply-Public Buildings-Quebec
residence in Quebec, why not one also in the maritimes, in the prairie provinces, and also in British Columbia? Certainly if there is justification for more than one official residence, there is justification for additional ones in each section of the country. It seems to me absolutely absurd and a pure waste of public money. The Auditor General's report shows that in 1928 we spent about $99,988. This included contracts for additions, $65,492; on account of alterations, $17,918; renovations of plumbing and heating, $4,260; refrigerator plant, $3,679, and so on. In 1929, for the last fiscal year, we find salaries and wages $2,506.05; carpets, 1,871 J yards, $10,036.09.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Were those carpets bought in London, Ontario?


Milton Neil Campbell: No, from the Brinton-Peterborough Carpet Company, Peterborough. There was also a carpet lining, $100; freight and express, $52.94. It seems to me it will be very difficult to justify this expenditure before the people of this country, many of whom cannot afford ordinary carpets in their homes. Then I find this item: Canadian National Railways, (Montreal car shops): furniture, $2,182.29. There are furniture items scattered all over the account-six or eight items. It seems to me rather remarkable that these items could not be grouped together so that we would know at a glance how much furniture went into the building. The same thing occurs in regard to Rideau Hall. What becomes of all the carpets, dishes, furniture, and so on that is supplied year after year; is it thrown out and supplanted by new articles before it is worn out? It seems to me high time that something was done to check up on this expenditure. Coming back to the Quebec citadel, I find the following in the Auditor General's report:	Alterations and
additions, $66,962.95; renovating and plastering ballroom, $7,712,-I doubt if that ballroom would be used more than four or five times in the season.


An hon. MEMBER:: Only once.


Milton Neil Campbell: Yet	in one year we
spent for furniture repairs $2,560.70; hangings, $7,536.43; pillows, mattresses, springs, etc., $752; sundries, $421.47; renewing roof, $3,249.10; repairs, $334; electrical work, $844.95; renovating heating and plumbing system, $11,081.69; repairs, $989.45. I do not know what these repairs are for; they are scattered all over the report. Then I find the following items: 72 blankets, $914.40; cleaning carpets, $518.22; sundry supplies, $632A3; electrical work, $3,269.27. Here is
another furniture item; Krug Furniture Company, Kitchener, 33 chairs, $1,107.70 -very expensive chairs, I would think; renewing wooden terrace platform, installing surface drain and grading grounds, $4,566.80; interior decorating, $3,218.10; sundry painting and repairs, $1,907.87; electrical supplies, $164.80; locks, door sets, et cetera, $86154; plumbing supplies, $523.09; carpets-another item-Morgan and Company, Montreal, $388.89; dishes, $1,320.73; electrical fixtures, $3,330.80; furniture, $1,332; linoleum, $1,034.80, and many other items. Then I find also this further expenditure: pictures, $204.92; radio, $545; window shades, $307.63; sundries, $2,367.85; cleaning, painting, etc., $328.05; kitchen equipment, $1,91857. Then there is still another furniture item of $1,070. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that something ought to be done to curtail that kind of expenditure. Is any check kept on this furniture?


John Campbell Elliott: It is not the intention to establish vice-regal quarters in other sections of the Dominion. We are simply continuing the quarters that for years past have been maintained for His Majesty's representative in Canada.


Milton Neil Campbell: For how many years?


John Campbell Elliott: Since 1871.


Milton Neil Campbell: I have the figures back for twenty years and the annual expenditure has been about $2,000.


John Campbell Elliott: That is correct. In 1927 there was a general desire that those old, historic and very beautiful quarters in the city of Quebec, on a site unequalled I think on the North American continent, should not be allowed to fall further into disrepair.


Abraham Albert Heaps: But 'these are new buildings.


John Campbell Elliott: No, this is a reconstruction of the former buildings with some additions in order that this old historic citadel should not be allowed to fall into decay.


Milton Neil Campbell: Was all this furniture and equipment necessary to preserve the building?


John Campbell Elliott: No, but there would not
be much object in preserving, restoring and reconstructing a building if furniture were not placed in it. I have given my hon. friend details of the costs of reconstruction and furnishing. When my hon. friend considers the matter, and especially if he will give himself the pleasure and satisfaction of going down there and visiting this place-

Supply-Public Buildings-Quebec


Robert James Manion: Is this an invitation to go down?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, certainly it is.


Milton Neil Campbell: May I remind the minister that I would not be permitted to go into the building if I did go down there?


John Campbell Elliott: Oh yes, you would be
permitted.


Milton Neil Campbell: A friend of mine visited there some time ago and on my advice he went to see the citadel. I told him that it was a place of historic interest, and on his return he told me he was not allowed to go in.


John Campbell Elliott: I would like to know the
name of the gentleman who was refused admission and if possible the name of the gentleman who refused him admission. I have no doubt that my hon. friend, with his appearance, would be admitted if he cared to make application.


Mr. SANDERSON:: I might tell my hon. friend that I was through the citadel a few weeks ago.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, but you are the chief
whip.


John Campbell Elliott: Seriously, I wish to say to the committee that in my opinion it was in the interests of the country that for the maintenance of historic traditions these expenditures should have been made. There has been an excellent result. I believe that the contact with the sister province of Quebec in reviving the old custom of having His Majesty's representative reside there a portion of each year has had very beneficial results. The representative is enabled to become better acquainted with the different portions of the country and particularly with the picturesque sections. To my mind that is something highly desirable and in the interests of the whole of Canada. I am satisfied that anybody who looks at the building will be delighted. The citizens of this country have the opportunity of visiting it and I regret the fact that any citizen has been refused admission. I think the application must not have been made in the manner in which my hon. friend would have made it. We have received value for the money expended, and I believe the result has more than justified the decision of the committee that the citadel should be restored. The original cost was great, and the building is of great value to Canada. I would particularly request members of this committee to visit the citadel when they have occasion to be in the city of Quebec, and in that way they may gather an idea of the value of this building.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister has spoken
seriously in regard to this matter. I think gentlemen on this side of the house are as much concerned as he is with the dignity of government. I want to tell the hon. gentleman that there is a growing conviction in this country that under his regime vice-royalty has been a very expensive proposition, and I think the committee should know how much viceroyalty has cost the country in the last few years. I venture to say the sum will astonish the taxpayers of this country. The money expended on Rideau hall, the citadel at Quebec, new private cars and the refurnishing of everything used by vice-royalty would astonish the taxpayers.


John Campbell Elliott: I think the taxpayers have been kept pretty well informed from time to time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would like to have the
full information in regard to this matter; I would like to know how much it has cost in the last three years, and I ask the minister to get that information.


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be pleased to give
our expenditures.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am satisfied the amount will run into hundreds of thousands of dollars and will be very much more than it has been in previous years. We have had governors general going to Quebec year in and year out, but we have never had suggested anything like the expenditure on the citadel proposed by the present Minister of Public Works. I daresay his remarks were true when he told of the condition into which the citadel had fallen, but I think the sum required for reconstruction is extremely large, and he will have to justify the expenditure to this house and to the country. To my mind this would be a good place to close discussion so that the minister may have an opportunity to get the information. We want to have full details of the total expenditures for Rideau hall, for the citadel and for travelling accommodation for the governor general.


John Campbell Elliott: I assume the hon. member does not require repetition of the information I have just given.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, not as to the citadel.


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be pleased to furnish the hon. member with any information I have as to the items he has mentioned. I would like to ask him how far back he wishes to go, because if he will compare the repairs and expenditures of recent years with those of past years he will find that in comparison the recent expenditures have been very moderate.


Robert James Manion: To what years does the
minister refer?


John Campbell Elliott: I would say about 1914
and 1915.


Robert James Manion: How much was spent at
that time?


John Campbell Elliott: Over $200,000 was spent
on Rideau hall.


Robert James Manion: We are speaking of the
citadel at the present time.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend has referred to both the citadel and Rideau hall.


Richard Burpee Hanson: As far as I am concerned
the minister can go back as far as he likes; the farther back he goes, the better. What method is adopted in making these purchases? Are the purchases made through a government purchasing agent, or otherwise?


John Campbell Elliott: They are made through
a purchasing agent.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, May 5, 1930.