Mr. FONTAINE:: 1.	How many immigrants were admitted into Canada, during each year, between 1911 and 1929 inclusive?
2.	What amounts were spent by the government for immigration purposes, each year, between 1911 and 1929 inclusive?
1680	COMMONS
Questions as Orders jor Returns


Mr. GORDON:: 

SOLDIER SETTLEMENT

Mr. SPENCER:: How many parcels of dominion lands have been relinquished by soldier settlers since the soldier settlement department started operation?


George Gordon: The answer is as follows: Number parcels dominion lands relinquished by soldier settlers not available. Total number soldier and civilian settlers in which lands including dominion lands have reverted to department, 13,012.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY

Mr. BERTRAND:: 1.	What portion of road in Ontario, if any, was recognized as Trans-Canada highway by the dominion government?
2.	Was it done by order in council?
3.	If so, on what date?
4.	Was there an order in council passed recommending a dominion contribution of 50 per cent towards the cost of the construction of any portion of Trans-Canada highway in Ontario: (a) in 1933; (b) in 1934?
5.	If so, what were then the amounts contributed by the dominion government: (a) in 1933; (b) in 1934?
6.	Towards what part of highway in Ontario known as Trans-Canada were these amounts paid?


Mr. GORDON:: 1.	Under relief legislation since 1930, the dominion has contributed to the province's expenditures on the following roads which have been designated by the province as Trans-Canada highway:
(a)	Ottawa valley section, from Renfrew- Nipissing, Pembroke through Mattawa to North Bay.

(b)	Thunder Bay section from Schreiber to Nipigon, through Port Arthur and Fort William to English river.
(c)	Western section from English river through Dyment, Dinorwic, Dryden, Kenora to Manitoba boundary.
(d)	Hawkesbury-Pembroke.
(e)	Vicinity of Arnprior and Braeside.
2.	Works undertaken on the above sections of the Trans-Canada highway under the various relief acts, with the exception of those carried out under the Unemployment Relief Act, 1930, were approved by orders in council.
3.	The orders in council authorizing dominion contribution to the above mentioned Trans-Canada highway construction are as follows: P.C. 2853, November 14, 1931; P.C. 310, February 13, 1932; P.C. 1022, April 30, 1932; P.C. 2344, November 13, 1933; P.C. 1023,
.May 17, 1934; P.C. 573, March 28, 1934.
4.	5 and 6. The dominion contributed towards the cost of work carried out during the fiscal year 1933 on sections (a), (b) and (c) above mentioned, 60 cents per man-day of work, the amount of the dominion contribution on these sections being as follows: section (a), $262,500; section (b), $300,000; section (c), $307,500. The dominion also contributed on a 50 per cent basis to work carried out during the calendar year 1933 on sections (d) and (e) above mentioned, the amount of the dominion contribution being as follows: section (d), $171,469.67; section (e), $1,209.01.
The agreement entered into with the province of Ontario under the provisions of the Relief Act, 1934, provides, amongst other things, that the dominion will pay to the province 50 per cent of such expenditures as may be approved by the dominion for highways designated by provincial order in council as part of the Trans-Canada highway, exclusive of the cost of administration and of acquisition of lands. Under this agreement dominion approval has to date been given for the building of 8'4 miles of Trans-Canada highway from Iveewatin west at an estimated cost of $255,000, dominion proportion 50 per cent or $127,500 for which accounts have not yet been received.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	What is the total amount of money laid aside for the public works program in Banff and district?
2.	Would this program include the construction of an administration building, the laying out of a golf course in connection with the

Royal Canadian Mounted Police
tourist camp, the road to Mount Norquay ski camp and the summit of Stony Squaw mountain?
3.	At what rates of pay to the workmen were these propeets to be carried on?
4.	How many men have been employed on each project and for how long?
5.	Has the work ceased on any of them?
6.	If so, on which project and for what reasons?


PORT ARTHUR GOVERNMENT TERMINAL ELEVATOR
Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	Is the federal government terminal elevator at Port Arthur still being operated by the government?
2.	If not: (a) to whom was it leased; (b) when was it leased; (e) what were the terms and duration of such lease?
3.	Did the government cease operating this public terminal elevator and lease it to a private concern?
4.	If so, for what reason?


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury) :: Return tabled, herewith.


COAL PURCHASES IN NOVA SCOTIA AND NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	What are the names of the companies from whom coal was purchased in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick in the years 1934 and 1935 to date?
2.	What quantity was purchased from each company ?
3.	What was the price paid to each company either f.o.b. ears at mine, or if delivered, state where and at what price?
4.	What tonnage of coal was purchased from the United States in 1934, and at what price?



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. PETER VENIOT (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit a few questions to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie). I have these questions written down in order that there may be no mistake in the report of Hansard. Will the minister lay on the table of the house copies of the evidence and the report of the investigation held in Bathurst in 1934, into the allegation that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had practised1 the third degree on a prisoner? Also copy of the evidence and report on the allegation that the patrol boats had lain for days at the wharf in Bathurst while smuggling was going on in the vicinity. Also a copy of the contract between the government of New Brunswick and the federal government in connection with the transfer of the enforcement of laws in that province to the Department of Justice through the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Also a copy of the names of the provincial police of New Brunswick
who were transferred from that force to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police when the latter took over the enforcement of provincial laws. Will the Minister of Justice lay on the table tlie decision of the appellate branch of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick in the matter of appeal in the case of the captain of the Paul T seized under the liquor law of New Brunswick in which certain questions were raised which may materially affect the investigation now proposed, and in which His Lordship, Chief Justice Baxter took part? Will the minister inform the house from whom he received the information that no person in Shippigan was on direct relief between May 1, 1934, and January 1, 1935?


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice):: These questions can go on the order paper in the ordinary way.


Peter John Veniot: Then I will present this
document to the clerk of the house.



EX-SERVICE MEN UNEMPLOYED

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, with reference to
the order in council just tabled by the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Sutherland) with regard to the setting up of a committee to investigate the special situation of ex-service men who may be unemployed, may I ask the minister if it is the intention of the administration to submit the report of this committee to the house during the present session?


Hon. D. M. SUTHERLAND (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: Yes, that
is our intention.



PACIFIC HALIBUT FISHERMEN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. OLOF HANSON (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) what progress has been made with respect to the application of the Pacific coast halibut fishermen to come under the marketing scheme. If they are to come under this scheme, I should like to know if it would be possible to have them brought in before the end of this month as fishing starts on April 1. I am told that they cannot be brought under the scheme but other industries have been taken care of and I should like to have an answer to my question.


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for
Eight Hour Day

Skeena (Mr. Hanson) was good enough to give me notice of this question. The scheme has been given consideration by the dominion marketing board; has been submitted to the Department of Justice with respect to the legal aspects; certain changes in the scheme have been referred back to the petitioners for their approval and certain other changes, if any are made by the Department of Justice, would have to be referred back to the petitioners for their approval. Copy of the scheme was submitted to the secretary of the United Fishermen's Union of British Columbia to give them an opportunity to make any representations they wish to make. They were given until March 15 to make representations. No opposition to the scheme has yet been received and it is expected the board will deal with the scheme early next week. It has been handled or dealt with in the same way as other schemes submitted.



PRICE SPREADS COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the acting leader of the government (Sir George Perley) if the government has received any intimation from the price spreads commission as to when its report will likely be presented?


Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have not heard anything about it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Might it not be well to inquire so that the house may be informed as to when the report will likely be received?


George Halsey Perley: I should like to know myself when it is likely to come in. If I get an opportunity I will inquire from the chairman and see whether he can give us any idea when it will come in.



EIGHT HOUR DAY


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, March 13, consideration in committee of Bill No. 21, to provide for limiting the hours of work in industrial undertakings to eight in the day and forty-eight in the week, in accordance with the convention concerning the application of the principle of the eight hour day or of the forty-eight hour week adopted by the general conference of the international labour organization of the League of Nations,
(Mr. R. Weir.]
in accordance with the labour part of the treaty of Versailles of 28th June, 1019,-Mr. Gordon (for Mr. Bennett)-Mr. Morand in the chair.
P. F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Saguenay): Mr. Chairman, I 'have in my hand a letter addressed to the hon. member for St. Hya-cinthe-Rouville (Mr. Fontaine) which I have been asked to read to the house in the absence of the hon.. member. This letter is in connection with the working hours in certain industries such as the canning industry. The letter is dated February 26, 1935, and reads as follows:
The convention applies to all industrial undertaking which of course includes all manufacturers. While we approve these regulations for the industry in general, on behalf of the canning industry we feel that certain provisions of these regulations would not work out satisfactorily in our industry, and would cause in some instances very serious hardship to the growers who are furnishing the raw products to our industry, as many factories are located in centres of a small population, and owing to the nature of our business whereas we may have heavy deliveries one day, and light deliveries another day, due to climatic or other conditions, we feel that it is pretty nearly impossible to secure sufficient help to work two shifts in these centres.
Also taking in consideration that all produce pertaining to a canning industry is perishable in a great many instances within few hours, therefore it is necessary that this produce be taken care of regardless to the hours we may have to do so, other than this it would be a total loss to the growers.
We also had instances where during the rush of the season the rain held farmers from harvesting their crop causing the factory _ to have to close up or work just few hours during that time, and was then necessary for the factory to work long hours to catch up again, or otherwise the grower would loose his crop. Owing to the fact that most canning factories are only a seasonal operation, we feel in this particular respect that there should be some special provisions to work hours necessary to handle farmers crops without any injury to the help.
We trust we have made ourselves plain and that you may see your way clear to take this matter belfore the house.
Respectfully yours,
St. Hyacinthe Canning Factory.
(Signed) J. H. Logan.
A letter enclosing a copy of this letter was sent to the Prime Minister. I put this letter on record so that these people will have their wish known to the house.
George Gordon: 
Richard Burpee Hanson: Section
10 is one to which a good deal of study has been given and we desire to make some amendments. In order to clarify them we have had a new section 10 drafted. I therefore beg to move that the section as at present printed in the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
10.	(1) The governor in council may by
regulation except any or all employment in any industry from the limits of hours of work fixed by this act, whenever he is satisfied that,
(a)	the work of the employees must necessarily be carried on outside the limits laid down for the general working of an establishment because it is preparatory or complementary, or that,
(b)	the work is essentially intermittent in that,
(1)	the worker is not continuously occupied during the hours of employment, or
(ii)	the work is seasonal in its nature, or
(iii)	the work is of such a character that it must necessarily be performed in variable periods of employment, or
(iv)	the work in its nature is subject to intervals of discontinuance or variations in supply of raw materials, or that
(c)	there is an exceptional pressure of work;
Provided that fair and humane conditions of
labour in the matter of hours of work prevail in respect of such employment; and provided further that in the case of exceptional pressure of work the regulation shall be temporary.
(2)	If any organizations of employers and workers concerned in the employment affected by any regulation made under this section exist, such organizations shall be consulted.
(3)	Whenever it is practicable the maximum of additional hours shall be fixed by the regulations and in any such case the rate of pay for additional hours shall not be less than one and one-quarter times the regular rate.


Mr. NEILL:: I wonder if the minister would let this new section stand over. It is so long and complicated that it is utterly impossible for one to grasp its scope by hearing it read even a couple of times. As I have heard portions of it read, it may go a long way to meet some of the objections I have raised, but I should like the minister to let it stand. It says something about "where it is possible"; that is rather difficult to understand in regard to fixing the maximum of additional hours. What does "additional" mean? Suppose in the fishing industry they work four hours today and want to work twelve hours the next day so that you have the equivalent of the eight hour day. Does the word "additional", carrying time and a quarter, apply on the second day to all the hours in excess of eight, or would it only apply to all the hours over forty-eight in a week? It makes a substantial difference. Apparently the purport of the amendment is to equalize the hours. If they
have to work only a few hours to-day, owing to the fact that the fish are not coming in, they will work longer to-morrow. Now if the suggestion is that when they work four hours to-day and twelve the next day, under these circumstances, all the hours beyond eight on the second day must be paid for as time and a quarter, then there will be a hardship not only on those who are running the plant but also on the employees, because there will be a tendency for the plant on the second day to say, "We will not work over eight hours to-day because it will be too costly", and they might simply refuse to take the fish, with the result that men who have gone out on their own to get the fish will not be able to sell them.


George Gordon: I think the regulations can take care of the situation suggested by the hon. gentleman. What he suggests is the intent of the law and I believe that is the proper interpretation to place upon it. If they worked four hours to-day and twelve hours to-morrow the time and a quarter would not apply.


Alan Webster Neill: Would not?


George Gordon: I do not think so.


Alan Webster Neill: What about letting the section stand over?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: This morning I received a long telegram from the dairy companies in Edmonton, protesting against coming under the act. They do not desire to come under the provisions of the act at all As I understood the minister the other day, the act is wide enough to make provision for labour such as is performed for the dairy companies. Was I wrong in that?


George Gordon: The amendment to section 10 will take care of that. It vests in the governor in council authority to make regulations so that the law can be adjusted to the dairy industry, and this I think is very important.


Mr. MacINNIS:: The hon. member for
Comox-Alberni has asked that this section be allowed to stand seeing that it is so complicated. It is quite impossible for anyone who has not read the amendment to follow all its implications. I cannot, and consequently I am unable to discuss it intelligently. It appears to me to be so farreaching as possibly to nullify the eight hour day law, and I cannot agree to it without having studied it. I would ask the minister to hold it over.


George Gordon: I do not think the hon.
gentleman need be worried about the des-
Eight Hour Day

truction of the bill because of this amendment. The proposed amendments are designed to enable the governor in council by regulation to exempt in any industry such activities as cannot be strictly adjusted to the eight hour principle. That is the substance of the clause as redrafted. I hardly think it is sound to say that the clause as redrafted will work any such havoc to the bill as the hon. member suggests.


Angus MacInnis: I did not say that it
would; I said that it might. The wording is very strong; it is to the effect that the governor in council may by regulation exempt any and all occupations from the effects of the eight hour day bill. The point I wish to raise is that the workers in the industry, for whom this legislation is ostensibly put on the statute books, have no say in its organization or management, or in the way in which it works. Consequently the employers may say that such and such is not feasible or possible; yet if an effort is made in conjunction with the employees by bringing them into consultation, such an outcome might be made possible. So I do not tliink it will work any hardship on the government or parliament to leave this clause over until, say to-morrow, so that we may see the amendment in Hansard and have time to study it.


Mr. MITCHELL:: Anyone who has made
i study of the conventions of the international labour office does not need to read the amendment; it is all theTe. I am not saying that the clause should not stand, but to anyone who has read article 6, this is strictly in accord with that article of the international labour office convention. I suppose the government feels it is necessary to make the clause read in that way. Article 6 reads:
Regulations made by public authority shall determine for industrial undertakings:
(b) The temporary exceptions that may be allowed, so that establishments may deal with exceptional cases of pressure of work.
These regulations shall be made only after consultation with the organizations of employers and workers concerned, if any such organizations exist. These regulations shall fix the maximum of additional hours in each instance, and the rate of pay for overtime shall not be less than one and one-quarter times the regular rate.
As I understand the amendments as they were read, they were more or less in conformity with article 6 of the convention. If many men who work overtime in industrial organizations are granted -time and a quarter by the laws of this country, this will -put a great deal of money into the pockets of our workers.


Mr. HANBURY:: There will be less overtime.


Humphrey Mitchell: That may be quite
true. The clause covers compensation to workers. Notwithstanding opinions to the contrary, I have always held that the workers must organize in order to secure the full fruits of legislation on their behalf, and I have said this many times: If you think by giving three cheers and dropping a ballot in the box, your troubles are all over, you are just fooling yourself.


Wilfred Hanbury: Wait until after the election is over.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am not talking about bed time stories; I am talking about practical things. In Great Britain and other European countries where labour organizations are powerful, naturally they had a great deal to do with drawing up these conventions which are all predicated upon the views of the workers themselves. If this legislation in its practical application gives an impetus to the organization of workers so that they can meet their employers-and I am not one- of those who think employers and employees cannot sit down together and iron out their difficulties, because I have had some experience and I believe they can-the amendment will be a really constructive effort and will aid in bringing employees and employers together.


Alan Webster Neill: The amendment may be all that the hon. member for East Hamilton says, but we do not know. I defy anyone to hear it read twice and be able to decide accurately whether it covers any particular industry or branch of such; not- even a clever lawyer, let alone the average layman could do that. So far as I can judge the redrafted clause without having an opportunity to study it carefully, meets a good deal of the objections I raised the other day. As regards its application to the operation of canneries and fish plants, I should like to study it further.
Another point is this: there is an attempt to make it almost too comprehensive. It is sometimes a mistake to try to cover almost everything that can possibly arise, for when you finish you will find that you have left out the one thing you should have provided for. It is like a will. A man plans everything for his children and grandchildren, leaving out a provision for the very thing that does happen and that he could not foresee. I sent over to the minister a copy of the provision in the British Columbia laiw which has been in existence for eleven years, and which so' far as I know, has not produced any friction.

Eight Hour Day
It has the merit of being simple and I believe comprehensive also, but I suppose it would be too simple for the man who drafted this bill.
I want to make this one other point: I know the minister has had telegrams, because I have had copies of them, from the British Columbia Canners and pilchard men who protest very strongly at the idea of their being under this legislation. They point out, as the minister knows, that obviously their industry is highly seasonal and the commodity very perishable, subject to weather variations which no one can foresee and various other conditions of that kind. That is quite true. What they ask is, not that they shall have an opportunity of making representations and coming under the somewhat involved and uncertain procedure of the proposed clause 10, but to be exempted altogether under clause 2. In some industries near the border line, it might well be a matter of debate whether they should or should not be exempted, and in these cases I freely admit that it is for the minister or the governor in council to exercise judgment. But in this case there is no doubt; no one can say that there is any doubt that the fishing industry cannot be run on an eight hour day basis. It would be equally absurd to put the agricultural industry on an eight hour day and say that you can get out under clause 10. That clause states among other things that you have to consult organizations of employers and employees. In many of these industries there are not organizations or what would be considered by the government as organizations. Would it be half a dozen men in the particular factory or plant or some organization calling itself some kind of a union in British Columbia, with probably no interest at all in the merits of that particular industry? The clause also states that the maximum additional hours shall be fixed. Supposing there is a big run of fish coming in, have they to apply to Ottawa and say that suoh and such conditions prevail at this plant in this district; that under the weather conditions they could not get in with their fish yesterday and there is a heavy run today? Have they to apply to Ottawa, because the clause speaks of the power of the governor in council, to fix additional hours-and of course you can do anything if you take long enough to do it? But they cannot be fixed in that way and a business cannot be run by applying to Ottawa three thousand miles away. Here is a condition that prevails on Thursday and when they ask for relief, the reply comes back the following Tuesday. For instance, there is a steel plant with an excess of orders; that would be an unusual condition, but everyone present knows and, still more, everybody connected with the fishing business knows you cannot run it on an eight hour day basis. Then why play with the subject? Why suggest that it can ;be so run? Why not give them now the exemption which must be granted eventually? Otherwise delay is caused, and delay in the fish business means money and a great deal of it, because once the fish gets past its best, there is a heavy loss. Away out in some remote place where there is not even a radio service, they have to apply to Ottawa for an additional number of hours which may vary to-day from those of last week. It is on those grounds that the cannery men and the fish reduction plants ask that their exemption shall be definitely provided for in the bill, so that they may not have to trust to the, so to speak, day to day application. Of course it says "permanent exemption" but further on it say "wherever it is practicable the maximum of additional hours shall be fixed...." Can you fix them weeks or months ahead? It would have to be done day by day as occasion arose. You could not say that on a certain Tuesday of next month or three months hence so many additional hours should be permitted. It is for these reasons that these men ask that they be exempted finally in the bill itself.
Mr. MaoNIiCOL: The amendment may cover t'he subject matter of one or two questions I had intended to ask, in order to get a clear conception of some phrases in sections 9 and 10, but as ll could not hear all that was read, perhaps if I ask the minister now he will answer what I have in mind.
I am concerned about the promptness with which the governor in council will reply or attend to requests from industries for the privilege of changing the schedule of hours. I can quite see circumstances that would result in serious loss as far as employment is concerned if a speedy reply were not given to such a request. I have in mind some half dozen schedules used in various groups of industries. In group No. 1 they work from 8 to 12 in the morning and from 1 to 5 in the afternoon and on Saturdays from 8 to 12 in the morning, making a forty-four hour week. Group No. 2 works from 750 to 12 in the morning and 1 to 5 in the afternoon and on Saturdays from 7.20 to 12 making a forty-eight hour week. Group No. 3 work from 8 to 12 in the morning and 1230 to 4.30 and do not work at all on Saturday, a five day week of forty hours. Group No. 4 work from 8 to 12 and 1 to 5 for five days, and on Saturday from 7 to 12 a week of forty-five hours. Group No. 5 work from 7 to 12 and
Eight Hour Day

1 to 5 and five hours on Saturdays making a fifty hour week. Group No. 6 work from 7 to 12 and 1 to 5.45 for four days, eight hours on Friday and do not work on Saturday, making a forty-seven hour five-day week.
I should like to ask a question, particularly in reflation to groups 1, 3, 4 and 5 which work from forty to forty-five hours a week. If the management of such companies or groups wish to increase their schedules to forty-eigCt hours a week will they, working less than the 48 hour schedule, have to get an order from the governor in council to do it and if so will it be possible to obtain that order promptly.
Then I have in mind one or two other conditions in connection with great industries. Section 7 does give certain relief in case of urgency, and section 9 applies to the same matter. I have in mind a company receiving a rush repair order to turn out, say a new line-shaft or to make a large gear, for the want of which, employment in the whole plant is subject to disarrangement. In shaft or gear manufacturing companies their schedules are set. At present they are running on a forty hour week. What will happen in such a case where a rush order has to be taken care of? They can	put some of	the men	towork and send the	others	home	to sleep	orto rest while others work so that operations can be continuous	until	the	repairs arefinished. I would like to know if this bill provides completely for such a case, where twenty or thirty hours or more may be consumed in making a rush repair. That will of course upset the eight hour day schedule, but. that schedule can be taken care of in the three weeks allowed under one of the other sections.	But	what	I want	to
ascertain is, would such a company have to have an order in council to expedite that work, and, if so. whether the order in council would be available forthwith. After all the objects of this bill as I see them are good and among other things are designed to give the workers more leisure time and to increase the number employed. It was said yesterday that this bill would not result in any increase in the numbers employed through a reduction of working time. But anyone who has served in industry a long time knows that the reduction in hours will increase employment; perhaps not in plants in which the machines are of such a nature that they can be speeded up, but certainly in plants in which precision is the main factor the numbers to be employed will be increased.
I have in mind another case, a very recent one, in which a company was asked to produce a large order of motor engine units com-

plete. The competitor of the Canadian company was a company in Dayton, Ohio, and the company had to make up its mind quickly, 'because the delivery schedules were fairly large. During December they were to turn out twenty-five engines a day, then in . January up to the 15th they were to produce one hundred and fifty a day, and after January 15 the number was to be one hundred and eighty-five a day. But every hon. member knows that .motor car sales have increased tremendously of late, and in this case the purchasing company jumped the schedule of deliveries to two hundred a day from January 1, and two hundred and fifty on the 15th and on the 18th to four hundred a day. Now men who are capable of turning out engine units are not on tap, they have to be trained. This company so as to retain the business immediately asked the Ontario labour department to permit them to extend the hours of labour and to work in preparation part time on Sundays, and the request was granted. They then proceeded to train men, and took on about one hundred that could be specially trained to mould non-ferrous engine units. The result was that for the first week they were compelled to raise their schedule up to seventy-two hours, but the second week through additional employees they were able to reduce it to sixty hours and for the third week to fifty-five hours and during the fourth week were able to get back on the schedule of forty-eight hours after having trained additional men. I would like the minister to make clear just what a company in that line of manufacture would have to do under this bill, having in mind that the principal object of such legislation is to increase the numbers employed in industry. I could give numerous examples along the same line, but perhaps one answer will cover it all.
Then I have one or two other questions.
I have forgotten which clause refers to the three weeks permit for extending hours of labour. Everyone associated with industry knows the pay schedules are not on a three weeks' basis. They are on a two weeks' basis, and it might be advantageous to either reduce the period to two weeks or extend it to four weeks. I have no doubt that in the administration of the act some relief will be given in this regard, because after all length of pay schedules has some bearing in this connection. I should like the minister, however, to indicate clearly just how an order in council can be passed quickly enough to permit rush work to be carried on as I have indicated.

Eight Hour Day


George Gordon: If the act goes through
with the amendments which will follow the one now under discussion it- will not come into force for a period of three months after the date of assent. In the interval the governor in council must make these regulations.
I do not think the hon. member who has just taken his seat need have any fear with respect to the schedules of pay to which he has made reference, so long as they do not do violence to the eight hour day principle. Regarding those rush orders and the exceptional pressure of work to which reference has been made, it will not be necessary in each case for those concerned to come to Ottawa in order to secure permission to go outside the main sections of the bill. Under the amended section power is given to make a regulation which will cover cases of exceptional pressure of work in all industry. If occasion should arise when there is a rush order such as the hon. member has suggested, there will be no necessity of coming to Ottawa because the regulation will be there, covering an exceptional pressure of work, and the regulation will exempt that industry from the operation of the bill. I do not think any difficulties will arise in connection with those matters to which the hon. member has made reference.


Alan Webster Neill: Would the minister allow a
question? Does not the amendment say that the governor in council must be convinced of these facts? That involves placing the facts before the governor in council in each case, does it not?


George Gordon: I think not.
Mr. OHiUR'CH:	I have read the proposed
amendment to section 10 and I fail to see how it improves the section. In this country there is altogether too much in the way of contracting industries outside the provisions of statutes. This amendment gives the employer and employee the right to contract themselves out of the operations of the statute. I contend that there is altogether too much law about this act. If we are going to do something practical about an eight hour day we should cease being lawyers and think of the work done in the last few months and the revelations brought out here in Ottawa by one of the select committees of the House of Commons. We should cease pussyfooting in connection with these large corporations, mergers and combines in restraint of trade in this country, that can go to whatever government is in office and have orders in council passed. I sat in opposition as a private member and I am speaking today as a private member; after all is said
and done, a private member who represents three hundred large and small industries in his riding is the connecting link between the government of the day and the electors of that riding. I represent many working people and a large number of industries, many of which are going to find the cost of operating their plants increased as a result of this legislation. The same thing applies to chain stores to whom this act will apply. In connection with drug stores, the chain drug stores will have to increase the number of their employees and, consequently, their cost of operation, while another store perhaps next door and all the small retail stores will not be affected by the act at all. The employees in that store can work twenty-four hours a day in competition with the chain store or those who have to close.
For some seven years I was a police commissioner of the city of Toronto; for some seventeen years I was a member of the city council. We had the eight hour day; when my hon. friend from Parkdale (Mr. Spence) was a member of the council, we applied the eight hour day to all city services, including the police and fire departments. For many years the police had only one day off a month; to-day they have one day off every week, and the white collar workers of the city have had a seven hour day for forty-five years and a half-holiday from noon on Saturday.
This principle of permitting individuals to contract themselves out from under the operation of particular statutes is a vicious principle. When I was in opposition I condemned government by order in council, and I have heard other members sitting on this side do the same thing. If we want to do something practical, in view of the revelations that have been made here in the special inquiry, let us either have an eight hour day or not have it. I regret that we have had to lean on the League of Nations in order to bring in this measure. In the city of Toronto we put it through in connection with the estimates. The League of Nations is all very well in its way, but it is only for those who cannot help themselves. Every time we introduce a statute in this parliament to improve the condition of the workers we are met with the same objection; hon. gentlemen opposite refer to the British North America Act and say the proposed act is ultra vires of this parliament. They are very fond of raising the constitutional question. For nine years they sat over here; they had the example of the city of Toronto before them, but they did nothing to give the workers of this country an eight hour day. The day
Eight Hour Day

before yesterday the Ontario members representing maritime cities on lake Erie and lake Ontario brought a deputation before the Minister of Marine. What were they asking for? This is a class of casual labour, which is referred to in the proposed amendment; this is casual seasonal labour for the summer and may be excepted by this amendment. The shipping interests on the great lakes are the most determined opponents of this act. They treat the men on some of these boats like cattle. The members representing Ontario maritime cities know the revelations which were contained in a memorandum prepared by these gentlemen.
I should like to refer also to the oil companies, the gasoline companies, the textile industry and the tobacco industry. Those are some of the people who are evading the law. They get over the law; they just snap their fingers at this parliament. Some of our oil companies are owned by United States companies, or interlocked with them, and the way they treat many of their employees in the larger cities is a disgrace. They give them a few dollars a week, mix them up in sports a little and then work them long hours. I know some of them worked twelve and fourteen hours a day, and some even longer. In the shipping business the situation is even worse. In the summer time off the exhibition grounds we often see these sand boats out in the lake, loading sand which is taken to the cities to be used by contractors and public bodies. Many of them work on Sundays, seven days, and the employees work many hours a day. If this amendment goes through I am afraid delegations will be in Ottawa continuously, going over the head of this parliament and appealing to the governor general in council.
I do not wish to criticize this legislation too much, but as I say I am sorry we have had to lean on the League of Nations. To-day the British North America Act is not an act for the living at all; it is an act for the dead. You cannot solve any economic problem in this country so long as that act remains in force. It is the old man of the sea on the backs 'of the people of this country, and it is a millstone around the neck of this parliament. You can cure no disease in the body politic or the body economic while that act exists. Whenever we attempt to do something we are met with opposition both in this house and on the part of the provinces, and as a result we sit here day after day and accomplish nothing in the way of relieving some of our economic problems. I know that the present government are pioneers in this work. I sympathize with the govern-

ment in having to draft the act in view of the attitude that is being taken by the opposition at 'the present time, and also because of the great burdens and artificial barriers that are being placed on business to-day and which make it almost impossible for business to carry on and therefore as I say I sympathize with the government in trying to hold an even balance in connection with this act.
I think it would be far better, instead of having a bill of thirteen clauses, to have written just one clause into the criminal code to effect the purpose we have in view in this act. It need only be a simple thing, like the Lord's Day Act, the Alien Labour Act and others, and once it is written into the code it should be strictly enforced. Of course, the industry of farming should be exempted. The farmer's capital has gone and to-day he cannot make his production costs. He is in such a position that he is to be pitied and sympathized with. We should also exempt a few of the industries dealing with the products of the sea, the soil, the forest and the mine. I admit that there are some industries that should be excepted, including our great agricultural industry. But so far as industry in general is concerned there should not be one law for the rich and another law for the poor. This particular section 10 contains some eighteen or twenty subsections and the penalties which we are providing for an infraction of these subsections are just as great for the small man as for the big corporation. Persistent evaders of the law should be treated differently from the small storekeeper. I know that most stores are exempt from this legislation, but some are not, including some of the chain stores. I believe that a civilization that is based on principles such as long hours of .labour, sweat shops, and child labour is in need of immediate and drastic overhauling and should no longer be tolerated in this country.
I am sorry that the bill does not go further than it does. No doubt it is a very good bill in many respects, and it is a start in the right direction, but like the Liquor Control Act of Ontario it will no doubt be evaded. This act should have more teeth put into it to take care of these persistent evaders, and we know there are such from the evidence that has come out before one of the committees of this house in the past fifteen months. This act should be enforced by the police court, upon summary conviction, and there should be no appeal from that court's decision. It's decision should be final. Otherwise the large corporations can engage lawyers to argue along

Eight Hour Day
the lines that have been used by hon. gentlemen opposite, that this legislation is unconstitutional. I believe that if we are going to do anything in a practical way we should not have a lot of exceptions and provisos put in the statute, but rather have one simple clause inserted in the criminal code. Why, Mr. Chairman, in 1847 England adopted an act, upon the initiative of Lord Shaftesbury, dealing with the sweat shop and providing for a shorter working day, of ten hours, and now, nearly a hundred years after, the Canadian parliament is arguing about excluding some industries from the eight hour day. That act of 1847 was the first parliamentary act of Christian socialism, and it was Christian socialism based on the evangelical Wes-leyan-Oxford movement and principles, and of Shaftesbury and men of that description. Christian socialism is not a thief; it is a policeman, and we want police to enforce this act, or the large corporations will be coming to the government of the day and asking for an order in council to get their industries exempted. This act with all its provisos and exceptions will be taken advantage of by just the very people that parliament intends to have it apply to. They will find a way of evading t>he law.
The quicker we can write an eight hour day into our law for industry, the better, and it should apply to all industry. Hours of labour and the length of shifts should be reduced. 1 hope the day is not far distant when this government will adopt the five day week and a shorter working day as a trial for one year, for the thousands and thousands of its own employees. That is the only way to make more jobs for soldieTs and civilians. 1 have been a consistent supporter of this kind of legislation long before I was in this house.
I am sorry to see so many amendments being made to the statute because I do not think they are in the public interest and in the interests of a fair enforcement of this act. I believe that these large corporations I have referred to will find a way of evading the act over the head of parliament by getting an order in council passed. Some industries in Toronto and elsewhere, for instance, can come down here when parliament is not sitting and can get an order in council virtually nullifying what this parliament has done this session. What are we here for? Are the private members just a lot of proxies? We might as well have representation by proxy if that sort of thing is going to be done. Edmund Burke said that government is a practical thing, not something to please the fancy and imagination of ordinary politicians. We are sitting here and we should deal with the merits of the questions that come before us. Should we or should we not have an eight hour day, and if we are going to have an eight hour day should it apply to all industry and to department stores as well. These department stores followed the city of Toronto over early closing at noon on Saturday during July and August. They have had to reduce their hours, and did it voluntarily I may say.
They are not included under this bill because their maximum number of hours is a fair one, but I believe the day is not far distant when we shall have to have less government by order in council and more government by the high court of parliament.


Mr. GAGNON:: Mr. Chairman, I desire to offer a few observations with respect to clause 10. I understand that this legislation is drafted to protect the workmen engaged in general industry, but of course I understand that parliament must make a distinction between Industry with a capital "I" and the small industry that is operated in the rural districts. I happen to represent a farming constituency and I have received a few letters from some small sawmill owners who are very anxious to find out whether they will be subjected to this legislation. I understand that the [DOT] amendment which is now proposed is drafted in order to meet the exigencies of their situation and will probably afford them relief. I understand that the sawmill owners are carrying on very intermittent operations and that their work is seasonal. They have been working a few hours in a day and for only a few weeks in the year, and of course it would prove a hardship to them if they were subjected to this legislation. Therefore I would respectfully ask the minister whether in his view this amendment he is offering to the house would have the effect of affording relief to the small rural industries.


George Gordon: Mr. Chairman, replying
to the question raised by the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon) with respect to the small sawmill owner and those other industrial activities which are intermittent and seasonal in their character, they are taken care of within the terms of section 10, and they are also provided for, of course, in the convention itself. Section 10 as at present drafted carries out in substance and in spirit article 6 of the convention, and those seasonal activities will be exempt from the operation of the act. Of necessity they would have to be. You cannot apply, so far as I can see, a horizontal law right across Canada without
Eight Hour Hay

making exceptions of industries such* as have been referred to by the hon. member for Dorchester.


Angus MacInnis: My objection to the section passing still stands. As the minister himself has asked that section 9 stand I cannot understand his objection to allowing this section to stand until we have an opportunity of studying the amendments. The section which is being substituted for the section in the bill is a long one and it is impossible to follow it simply by hearing it read once by the mover and once by the chairman. I think the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell) has said that this section conforms exactly with article 6 of the convention. Section 10 as at present in the bill conforms exactly to article 6 of the convention. The section sets out that the competent authority may by regulation do certain things. It may make exceptions to be allowed in preparatory or complementary work. It may make regulations covering certain classes of workers whose work is essentially intermittent. It may also make regulations for temporary exceptions so that establishments may deal with exceptional cases of pressure of work. I think the section which it is intended to substitute goes much further than that. It will vest altogether too much power in the hands of the governor in council. As I said yesterday, if this law is within the competence of this parliament it is possible that it will supersede provincial legislation already on the statute books. I do not want to go back to British Columbia after having voted for legislation which is less stringent than the legislation already on the statute books of that province.


George Gordon: If it will shorten the discussion, I can assure the hon. member that the further amendment which I intend to move as section 14 of the bill will take care of the provincial legislation.


Angus MacInnis: In view of the fact that all the amendments which have been offered so far have had the effect of weakening the bill, I do not feel greatly reassured to know that there are further amendments to be offered.


George Gordon: The amendment I have just suggested is the very one the hon. member is advocating.


Angus MacInnis: I want the minister to understand that I am in favour of the legislation and I want to be able to vote for it when the final vote is taken. I do not want to have to refrain from voting because I do not understand the legislation. I believe that is what should be done by those who do not understand the bill. The minister has asked 
that section 9 stand and I think he should allow this section to stand until such time as the other section is being finally dealt with.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If section 10 as now drafted and clarified is compared with article 6 of the convention I am sure that every fair minded man will say that it conforms to the convention and does not depart from it in any particular.


Angus MacInnis: In what respect does article 6 differ from section 10 as it now apears in the bill?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Subsection 2 of section 10 states that the regulations shall fix a maximum of additional hours. In studying that subsection I gave one interpretation; somebody else gave another and yesterday the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Yeniot) gave still another. We therefore decided that we would redraft this subsection in order to make it abundantly clear that it actually followed the wording of the convention. This was done for the purposes of clarification and not to limit or increase the scope of the section.


Angus MacInnis: I have article 6 before me and in my opinion section 10 as it now appears in the bill is exactly the same as that article.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Of course, we do not agree.


Angus MacInnis: We can read it and follow the wording. I should like my hon. friend to assure the committee that the amendment now proposed is no different from section 10 of the bill and article 6 of the convention.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I move
that Bill 21 be amended by inserting the following section immediately after clause 13 as clause 14:
Nothing in this act contained shall be construed as relieving any employer from any obligation under any provincial statute establishing shorter hours of work than those established under this act.
The intention is to take care of those cases where there is provincial legislation so that the hours of labour shall in no case be greater than those now in the provincial statutes when they provide for shorter hours than does this statute.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I move
that the bill be amended by inserting the

Weekly Day oj Rest
following new section immediately after clause 14 now carried by the committee as clause 15:
This act shall come into force three months after the date on which it is assented to.
The idea is to give industries and employers three months' time in which to adjust themselves to the conditions of the regulations.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is my hon.
friend not sure the idea is not to get past a general election before the validity of the act can be tested?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am quite sure.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We had
exactly the same thing in the unemployment measure; its provision respecting payment is not to come into force for a few months. It will be the same I imagine when we come to the minimum wage and other social legislation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not think that suggestion is worthy of the right hon. gentleman.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: We have the wording
of the bill.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Are you
against the bill or are you for it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We want to
get it in force; my hon. friend does not want that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If my
right hon. friend was a practical business man, which he is not, he would know that a bill of this character could not be put into force immediately upon assent.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then why did my hon. friend not have that provision in the bill; why does he come along with his amendment now?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Because
I did not have an opportunity of studying it.


Ernest Lapointe: You had better keep
your good manners.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is the hon. member's colleagues then who are at fault not himself?


Mr. MARCIL:: I should like to ask the
minister if this bill will apply to agriculture, fishing and lumbering as we know these industries down in our part of the country?


Richard Burpee Hanson: If the
hon. gentleman would be good enough to read the definition of industrial undertaking
as given in section 2, I am sure he could answer his own question. It applies to the industrial life of the country and does not apply to what my hon. friend has referred to.


Charles Marcil: I wanted to make sure.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: May we return to section 9?


George Gordon: A little while ago I asked to have section 9 stand because I want to give it further study. The suggested amendment is a very important one.


Ernest Lapointe: Is an amendment suggested to section 9?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes. Objection was taken to the amendment yesterday by the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell) and we wish to study the matter carefully. It is involved and the ramifications are very great. We do not want to do injustice to anyone.


George Gordon: I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



WEEKLY DAY OF REST


[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour) moved the second reading of Bill No. 22, to provide for a weekly day of rest in accordance with the convention concerning the application of the weekly rest in industrial undertakings adopted by the general conference of the international labour organization of the League of Nations, in accordance with the labour part of the treaty of Versailles of June 28, 1919.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have looked at the bill and compared it with the Lord's Day Act and with what is provided by the statutes of the different provinces and it does not appear to me that the bill either adds to or subtracts from the law as it is at the present time, and there is therefore no reason why exception should be made to the second reading beyond what I have indicated. It does seem to me that what would better meet the needs of the day would be a bill providing for the certainty of one day's work in seven instead of one day's rest in seven.
Weekly Day oj Rest


George Gordon: I thank the right hon. gentleman for his contribution to the debate.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Morand in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Industrial undertaking.


Richard Burpee Hanson: A slight amendment is proposed to section 2. The section reads:
In this act, unless the context otherwise requires, the term "industrial undertaking" includes-
(a), (b), (c) and (d), and (d) reads:
Transport of passengers or goods by roads, rail, or inland waterway, including the handling of goods at docks, quays, wharves or warehouses, but excluding transport by hand.
The word "roads" in line 21 is a mistake; it should be " road." It is proposed to omit the words " or inland waterway." I move therefore that section 2 be amended by striking out in subsection (d) the words "roads, rail or inland waterway" and substituting the words " road or rail." That would have the effect of correcting the typographical error and omitting the words "or inland waterway."


Humphrey Mitchell: Why are these words omitted?


George Gordon: It will be noted that these words do not appear in Bill No. 21. Yesterday, in discussing one of the sections of Bill No. 21. the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell) referred to the convention and made some observations with respect to the omission of these -words from that bill. Article 1 of the convention on which Bill No. 21 was founded reads:
Transport of passengers or goods by road, rail, sea, or inland waterway, including the handling of goods at docks, quays, wharves, and warehouses, but excluding transport by hand.
The provisions relative to transport by sea and on inland waterways shall be determined by a special conference dealing with employment at sea and on inland waterways.
The countries that were signatories to the treaty, and involved in the adoption of the convention, held two conferences, one in 1920 and another in 1929, with a view to arriving at some decision with respect to including such transportation in the convention. The countries were unable to come to any decision in the matter, and very much the same difficulty arises in incorporating transportation by sea and on inland waters into Bill No. 22 which is now before us. I have gone into it carefully and have come to the conclusion that it would be impossible to incorporate in

the bill such transportation in Canada, where we have vast inland waters. In my judgment, and in the judgment of many of those with whom I have discussed the matter, it is not possible.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Period of rest of twenty-four hours in each seven days.
Richard Burpee Hanson: There is a short amendment to this section, the addition of a new subsection 4.
The provisions of this section shall not apply in the case of persons holding positions of supervision or management, nor to persons employed in a confidential capacity.
It is represented that there are occasions in the railway companies when supervisory officers must, in case of emergency or of accident, do some work on the day of rest, and this is to exempt them and them only.


Humphrey Mitchell: They are exempted
already.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We do
not think so, and so I am moving that a new subclause 4 be added to clause 3 of the bill. It is in Bill No. 21 that I think the hon. gentleman will find the provision, but not in Bill No. 22, and it was left out by mistake.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Charles Marcil: I would like to direct
the attention of the minister to the fact that in Quebec a great deal of objection is being taken to Sunday work especially in the paper mills. Many actions have been taken under the provincial law. Does this legislation encourage greater respect for the Sabbath day, or does it allow the law to stand as it is now, because* there are many complaints of the kind I have mentioned?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Notwithstanding the opinion expressed a few minutes ago by the leader of the opposition, we believe this legislation will encourage a greater respect for the Lord's day.


Charles Marcil: In the paper mills it is
contended that there is a class of work that must be done on Sundays and great objection is taken to this by people who have brought charges against the companies under the provincial act.


Ernest Lapointe: It is a federal act.


Charles Marcil: The Lord's Day Act. Will this supersede the Lord's Day Act or amend it in any way?

Weekly Day oj Rest


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would
direct the hon. member's attention to the provisions of subclause 3 of clause 3 which states:
This period of rest shall wherever possible be the Lord's day as defined in the Lord's Day Act, chapter 123 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927.
The intention is that it shall give effect to that as the day of rest.
Clause 3 as amended agreed to.
On clause 4-Regulations for total or partial exceptions.


Alan Webster Neill: Should the word not be
"exemption" instead of "exception"?


Richard Burpee Hanson: It means
the same thing.


George Gordon: I think the terms are
interchangeable.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.
On section 7-Penalty for violation.
Mr. STITT (Nelson):: I would like the
minister to assure me and the committee that this legislation is going to be enforced. In my constituency there is a situation where several mines work seven days a week, three shifts a day, and there are a number of miners working in and around these mines. The office staff including the stenographers have to work seven days a week. There are a number of conscientious objectors there, but when they object they have to do so under their breath, because any man who does not appear on Sunday loses his job on Monday. I do not want to see the employees have to face that sort of thing. I do not think there is in this legislaiton anything that does not appear in the Lord's Day Act, and if it is not to be enforced any better than that act, there is no sense in our passing it. I would like to know if this is to be rigidly enforced so far as it is humanly possible to do so.
Having worked in the mines for some years and knowing something about them, I know there are many jobs that have to be done on Sundays. A mine working three shifts every day in the week cannot timber in the new haulage w'ays, or cannot break into new crosscuts, or repair machinery while the plant is running; some work has to be done on Sundays. The same thing applies to the roaster, the smelter and the mill. The furnaces have to be kept white hot; there have to be men there on Sundays, but while I
t2582-108
appreciate the fact that some exceptions will have to be made, great care will have to be taken to see that there are not too many abuses. I hope the companies will be given ample time to make the necessary adjustments.


Charles Marcil: Who will have charge of the enforcement .of this law? Will it be the provincial or the dominion authorities?


George Gordon: The enforcement of the law will be of course in the hands of any peace officer, whether he be an employee of the province or of the dominion, and I think it is the accepted and proper constitutional and legal course that the enforcement of these laws is primarily with the provincial authorities, but there is undoubtedly concurrent power in the dominion to see to the enforcement of the legislation.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I desire to move a similar amendment to that moved with respect to bill 21, namely a suspensory clause. I therefore move:
That Bill No. 22 be amended by adding thereto as clause 9 the following:
"This act shall come into force three months after the date on which it is assented to."


Ernest Lapointe: What is the justification for this? I quite understand that there may be a reason given for such a clause being inserted in the other bill in order to let industry and other interested parties adjust themselves to the new legislation, but why should such a clause be inserted in a bill to enact a weekly day of rest?


George Gordon: I have given some thought to the question raised by the hon. member for Quebec East, and my view is that Bill No. 21 and Bill No. 22 are complementary in many ways. I can assure the leader of the opposition that I did not think he was serious when he made the suggestion he did a little while ago. There is no sinister purpose behind the postponement of bringing into operation these statutes, for the very obvious reason that industry must be given an opportunity to adjust itself to the provisions of these laws. That is the primary reason for the postponement of their coming into force. There is another reason with respect to Bill No. 21, and the same applies to this bill; regulations of necessity must be drawn, and drawn carefully, in order on the one hand that industry is not impeded needlessly, and on the other hand that the principle of the bill, namely, that an eight hour day shall prevail, is not imperilled.

Canada-France Agreement

That shortly is the reason why the amendment is sought to postpone the operation of the bill for three months.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: That last clause will be known as the general election provision.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



CANADA-FRANCE TRADE AGREEMENT BILL TO CONFIBM ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL OF 1935 TO THE CONVENTION OF 1933

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State) moved the second reading of Bill No. 32, respecting the additional protocol of 1935 to the Canada-France trade agreement of 1933.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.
Mr. CAHAN:: I intended on the second reading to make a general statement concerning the bill and the tariff item involved so that when it comes before the committee of the whole house hon. members may have a general view of all the provisions. For that purpose I should like to make a statement.
The house will remember that in the session of 1933 I introduced a bill to this house to confirm a commercial arrangement between Canada and France which was signed at Ottawa on May 12, 1933. I had the honour to negotiate at Paris with representatives of the government of France the provisions of that agreement which was confirmed by act of this parliament in the session of 1933. In negotiating that commercial arrangement, between the two countries, I was under certain disadvantages, due to the fact that the negotiations, opened as early as October, 1932, were begun with the government of Mr. Briand, that after the fall of that government I had to initiate the negotiations again with the government of Mr. Paul Boncour, and after that government had fallen I had to resume negotiations with the government of Mr. Deladier, which were postponed until a French commission came to Washington and I had an opportunity to continue negotiations at New York with that commission and at Ottawa with Mr. Arsene Henry the French Minister to Canada in respect of the matters which had been left unfinished in the negotiations at Paris.
In the negotiations at Paris the government of France naturally contended for more favourable terms of admission for French brandies, liqueurs and wines into Canada.

Difficulties then occurred arising out of the empire trade agreements made at the imperial conference which had recently been held at Ottawa, because under the agreements then made with South Africa and Australia their wines were given certain preferential treatment, and, under the agreement with the United Kingdom made at that conference, brandies from the United Kingdom had preferential treatment on entry into Canada. After the agreement with France was signed at Ottawa on May 12, 1933, negotiations were reopened between the government of Canada and the government of France through Mr. Arsene Henry the French minister, with regard to more favourable terms of admission for French wines, liqueurs and brandies than were agreed upon in the convention of May 12, 1933. It was therefore necessary for the government of Canada to open negotiations with the government of South Africa and also the government of Australia on the one hand, and with the government of the United Kingdom on the other, before the concession which France then sought could be granted by Canada. Those negotiations proceeded until Mr. Arsene Henry left Canada with certain propositions which were to be placed before the government of France for consideration. Later the Prime Minister of Canada and the Under Secretary of State for External Affairs visited Geneva as representatives of Canada at the Geneva assembly of September, 1934, and on their return from Geneva a protocol forming a supplementary trade agreement between Canada and France was drawn up and signed in Paris by the Prime Minister on September 19, 1934. That new agreement conceded more favourable terms of entry to Canada on French wines, liqueurs and brandies, and it came into force by reason of a provision in the Tariff Act which enables the government of Canada by order in council to make concessions to a foreign country in consideration of equivalent concessions being made in the tariff of the foreign country with respect to importations into that country of Canadian goods.
The present bill is intituled an act rsepect-ing the additional protocol of 1935 to the Canada-France trade agreement of 1932. The term "protocol" is one employed, I believe, in diplomatic practice to denote an agreement, somewhat less formal than a convention and which usually revises or modifies an earlier treaty or convention. In the present case the draftsman of the bill has deemed it desirable to use the term "additional protocol" rather than the simple term "protocol"

Canada-France Agreement
in order to distinguish between the protocol as expressed in the arrangement which is annexed to the bill and confirmed by the bill and the notes signed at Paris by the Prime Minister on September 29, 1934, which were published in the Commercial Intelligence Journal issued by the Department of Trade and Commerce dated October 6, 1934, and are therefore quite well known in all commercial circles in Canada. But since those notes were signed and delivered in Paris certain other concessions have been made on both sides, so that the agreement which is now before the house for ratification by this bill embodies not only the concessions made by the notes of September 29, 1934, signed at Paris, but also additional concessions which have been negotiated since that time between our Department of External Affairs and the French government through the present French minister to Canada.
When the notes were signed in Paris it was contemplated that these further negotiations would take place, and therefore when certain other concessions were made by both parties they were embodied in the additional protocol which forms the schedule to this bill.
Certain difficulties had arisen with regard to carrying into full effect the commercial treaty of May, 1933. On June 16, 1934, Canadian wheat had become dutiable under the French general tariff, and the French exchange compensation surtax and the special import tax levied by France were detrimental to the improvement of Canadian trade with that country, the export of Canadian wheat and flour to France in particular being prejudicially affected. The first tariff reductions which were made upon the exchange of notes in September, 1934, were embodied and made effective by order in council P.C. 2420 under section 11 of the customs tariff, which provides that the governor general in council may by order in council make such reductions of duties on goods imported into Canada from any other country or countries as may be deemed reasonable by way of compensation for reductions on Canadian products imported by any such country or countries. If the house so desires I will see that at the conclusion of my remarks a copy of that order in council is laid upon the table
of the house for the information of hon. members.
After that exchange of notes the French government by administrative decree extended the benefits of their minimum tariff to a considerable list of Canadian products and accorded definite quotas on a number of Canadian products of classes subject to quota. The French government also reduced the special import tax and cancelled the exchange compensation surtax so far as Canadian goods were concerned. To make that clear may I state that after we had negotiated the convention with France of May 11, 1933, by which our exports to France were admitted under the minimum tariff, the French government undertook to limit exports from Canada to that country, while admitting them under their minimum tariff, by prescribing quotas by which our exports were restricted to certain quantities and certain times. Under the convention of May, 1933, two quotas were recognized, one on lobsters and the other on salmon products. Thereafter, however, due to the difficulties which the French government met in maintaining their currency on a gold standard, they felt impelled to restrict their importations from foreign countries, and they proceeded to make global quotas which restricted to certain quantities the entire imports into France from foreign countries, allotting to Canada a certain percentage of those global quotas. So although our products continued to be admitted under the minimum tariff of France the quantities which could be so admitted were restricted by their quota policy.
I would direct the attention of hon. members to schedule C of the protocol now under consideration. The additional protocol was mainly designed to extend tariff concessions on both sides to cover commodities which it was not found possible to investigate fully in the September negotiations, and if hon. members will allow me I will call attention to those additional concessions. Would it be necessary for me to read them or might I be allowed to place them on the record?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Certainly; put them on the record.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The statement is as follows:
1702
Canada-Franee Agreement

On the Canadian side the intermediate tariff, less the discounts mentioned, was extended to the following additional French products:-
Number
of
French
Customs
Tariff
Ex	30...
Ex	529..
	529a.
Ex	535..
	545..
Ex	565..
Ex	568c.
Ex	529..
Pepper, unground	
Lace, nettings and bobinet, n.o.p., wholly of cotton	
Lace and embroideries, wholly of cotton, not coloured imported by manufacturers for use exclusively in the manufacture of clothing in their own factories	
Fibres of raffia or of sisal, n.o.p	
Lace and embroideries, wholly of flax, or of hemp, or of flax, hemp and cotton, not coloured, imported by manufacturers for use exclusively in the manufacture of clothing in their own factories	
Embroideries and lace, whether containing tinsel or not, nettings and bobinet, n.o.p.
Women's dress gloves of kid, elbow length	
Lace and embroideries wholly of cotton, coloured, imported by manufacturers for use exclusively in the manufacture of clothing in their own factories	
Intermediate tariff less a discount of 20 p.c.
Intermediate tariff less a discount of 20 p.c.
Intermediate tariff less a discount of 15 p.c.
Intermediate tariff less a discount of 20 p.c.
Intermediate tariff less a discount of 20 p.c.
Intermediate tariff less a discount of 15 p.c.
Intermediate tariff less a discount of 35 p.c.
Intermediate tariff: 17J


Mr. CHAPLIN:: What are the principal
items?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Pepper, lace, nettings and
embroideries of cotton, fibres of raffia or sisal, and embroideries of flax and then certain other items, women's dress gloves and certain other lines of embroideries wholly of cotton. There were also French products admitted into this country under the intermediate tariff with certain discounts therefrom which I should like to place on the record of the house.


Charles Marcil: Did rayon silk figure in these negotiations?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: These are admissions from
France and include fibres of raffia or of sisal, not rayon silk.
I want to make it clear that in consideration of the reduced Canadian duties which I have mentioned certain products of Canada were also admitted into France on their minimum tariff, in exchange therefor as shown in supplementary schedule A, as follows:



SUPPLEMENTARY SCHEDULE A

[Stage Direction]
Canadian Products Subject, on Their Importation into the French Customs Territopy, to the Duties of the
French Minimum Tariff
Number of French Customs Tariff	-	-Ex Ex	16B 49 68 69 70 71 76 83 115 168 174 222 99A 0376 bis 0381 0381 bis 462 495 C 595 597 600 602	bis 603	quater A 603 quater B 603 quater C 617 617 bis 620 N, 1	
Minimum tarifi
			
			Minimum tariff
Ex			
			
Ex Ex Ex		Resinous products artificially prepared, except synthetic resins listed under item 0376 bis.	Minimum tariff
			
			
			
Ex Ex			
			
			
Ex Ex			
			
		Casks, empty, serviceable, staves fitted together or not, hooped with wood or metal		Minimum tariff
			
Ex			Minimum tariff
			
			
			Minimum tariff
			Minimum tariff
			
		Footwear of all kinds with uppers of rubber or other material, single or double, rubberized and soles of rubber or other material glued or attached in any other manner		Minimum tariff
[Stage Direction]
Canada-France Agreement
These include the French items Ex 49, Ex 68, Ex 222, Ex 224, which were included in the former treaty of May, 1933; Ex 115 and Ex 462. Under certain items of the French tariff in the former treaty Canadian products were subject to maximum duties less certain discounts as shown in schedule B to this bill. They are now placed, not on the maximum tariff -with a discount, but upon the minimum tariff for all purposes.
In addition it will be found that with the concessions made to France by Canada this rate of 17J per cent ad valorem, in item Ex 529, which is the same as our intermediate rate, becomes a fixed rate for France for lace and embroideries wholly of cotton, coloured, imported by manufacturers for use exclusively in the manufacture of clothing in their own factories (Ex tariff item 529). This item Ex 529, is one on which the United Kingdom enjoyed a margin of preference under its trade agreement with Canada, and this reduced rate in favour of France was made after due consultation with His
Majesty's government in the United Kingdom.
A change was made in the tariff classification of non-sparkling wine in the Canadian tariff (Ex 163). The concession of the intermediate tariff which prevailed under the agreement of May, 1933, was continued, less a discount of 63-63 per cent on all nonsparkling wines containing not more than 23 per cent proof spirit. Under the previous treaty the international tariff was restricted to non-sparkling wines containing not more than 23 per cent proof spirit, other than sparkling wines intended for sacramental use. This reduction of 63-63 will also extend to wines for sacramental use containing 26 per cent proof spirit. These wine concessions I shall detail with more particularity later.
On the other hand, on the French side, the concessions accorded to Canada by the exchange of notes of September 29 have by this official protocol been extended to include the following which are found in schedule A:
Item No.-

Potatoes destined to the French West Indies	 Minimum	tariff
ex	115

Resinous products artificially prepared except synthetic resins listed under item	0376 bis... Minimum	tariff
ex	168

Wood-pulp, chemical, dry, bleached, treated with bi-sulphite, sulphate or soda	 Minimum	tariff
ex 0381... .Vinyl acetate	 Minimum tariff
ex 495C...Pen nibs of gold including pen nibs for fountain pens	 Minimum tariff
595____Casks, empty, serviceable, staves fitted together or not, hooped with wood or metal	 Minimum tariff
In addition maple sugar and maple syrup, ex 91 and ex 93 of the French customs tariff, imported into France by the French Tobacco Monopoly for use in the preparation of tobaccos, were exempted from internal taxes.
These additional French concessions have already gone into force provisionally by administrative decree.
Now referring back to article 1 of the protocol, by this article Canadian products classified under twenty-eight items or parts of items of the French customs tariff are accorded the benefits of the minimum rates in place of the general tariff rates of France which were previously applicable to nearly
all of them, and in order that this comparison may go on the record I am presenting the following table showing each of these items in the French maximum or general tariff which formerly applied of so many francs per 100 kilos, and the minimum tariff of so many francs per 100 kilos which will now apply. By reading that table in tabulated form it will be perfectly clear as to what are the reductions made in favour of these products.
The following table sets forth the general tariff rates as compared with the minimum tariff rates which now apply to Canadian products:
Item No.
General	Minimum
tariff	tariff
Francs per 100 Kilos.
ex 16B	Frozen pork livers	
200ex 49	Lobsters, preserved or prepared	
12068	Wheat, spelt, meslin, in the grain	
160
Crushed wheat and bran meal containing more than 10 per cent
of meal	  256
Wheat flour at rate of extraction of:
70 per cent or more	 256
Between 60 per cent and 70 per cent	 320
Less than 60 per cent	 370
69	Oats, in the grain	  80
Oats, crushed grain and bran meal containing more than 10 per
cent of meal	 118
Oatmeal	   133
70	Barley, in the grain	 80
Barley, crushed grain and bran meal containing more than 10
per cent of meal	 118
85*
128
160
40
66-50
59
1704	COMMONS
Canada-Franee Agreement
Item No. 71
83
168
Rye, in the grain	
Rye meal	
Groats, rolled oats	
Potatoes destined to the French West Indies:
March 1st to July 1st	
Rest of year	; [DOT]
Resinous products artificially prepared except synthetic resms
listed under item 0376 bis	[DOT][DOT][DOT][DOT][DOT]	[DOT] [DOT] [DOT]
Wood-pulp, chemical, dry, bleached, treated with bi-sulphite,
sulphate or soda	
Whiskey, in bottles, jars or similar containers	 ^ 2,200 Jranra per
Whiskey in other containers	
ex 0376 bis
0381 bis
222	Lead ore, matte and slag of all kinds containing 30 per cent and
less of metal	
Same containing more than 30 per cent of metal	
Lead in crude lumps, pigs, bars or slabs:
Argentiferous (containing 25 grams and more of silver per 100
kilos.)	
Non-argentiferous	
Lead alloyed with antimony, in lumps	
Lead, hammered	
Lead, rolled	
Lead fillings and scrap	
224	Zinc ore	,	
Zinc in crude lumps, pigs, bars or slabs	
Zinc, rolled	
Zinc fillings and scrap	*	
462	Insulating board of vegetable fibre of a thickness exceeding 10
millimeters	
Vinyl acetate resin:
If soluble in oil and not polymerisable	
Capable of becoming insoluble and infusible	
Infusible	[DOT] [DOT] [DOT] [DOT] [DOT]
Vinyl acetate	ad. val
Derivatives of glycol	
Ethylene glycol (Irgasol)	
ex	495C	Pen nibs of gold	including pen nibs for fountain pens.. per	kilo.595	Casks, empty,	serviceable, staves fitted	together or	not,
hooped with wood or metal-
Containing 500 litres or more	
Containing less than 500 litres	
697	Builders and Cartwrights wood, shaped:
Hard wood	
Soft wood	 [DOT] [DOT]	
600	Wood, planed, grooved and/or tongued, planks, strips or veneers for flooring, planed, grooved and/or tongued:
Of oak or hard wood	
Of fir or soft wood	
ex	602 bis	Canoe paddles:
Varnished, waxed or coated in any manner	
Other	
603 quater A Veneer sheets and leaves of common, fine, or cabinetmakers wood, sawn, of a thickness of 2 millimeters or less, and such woods, rolled or sliced of any thickness, not assembled, planed or not, not cut for a particular purpose:
Of elm, poplar, pitch pine, fir or aspen	
Of other wood	
Painted, varnished or waxed of any wood	
Same, cut for a particular purpose	
603 quater B Veneers and counter veneers	
603 quater C Unspecified wares of wood	
617	River boats	:'*y	
617 bis	Collapsible canoes with hull of rubberized tissue	
620N1	Footwear of all kinds, with tops of rubber or of single or double
rubber tissue and soles of rubber or other material, stitched on or fixed in any other way, with uppers and extending
above the ankles	 14 to 28 fr. per pair,
but not less than 50% ad val.
Same with uppers extending above the ankle	 40 to 144 fr. per pair,
but not less than 50% ad val.
Minimum tariff granted to Canada within the limits of annual quota, f Not including internal taxes, flncludes licence tax.
General	Minimum
tariff	tariff
Francs per 100 Kilos.	
80	40
160	80
160	80
84	42
60	30
300	75
16	13
2,200 francs per	550 francs per
hectolitre of liquidf	hectolitre of liquidf
2,200 francs per	550 francs per
hectolitre of pure	hectolitre of pure
alcoholf	alcoholf
Free	Free
1-30	1-30
4-25	4-25
48	12
44-20	11-05
44-20	11-05
114-40	28-60
23-80	5-95
Free	Free
56	14
120	30
Free	Free
224	56
200	50
1,400	350
2,400	600
80%	25%
80% ad val.	20% ad val.
800	200
16,000	4,000
152	38
60-80	15-20
70t	38t
66-60t	35-40f
104+	48-50J
81-80*	42[DOT]95f
400	100
240	60
80	20
120	30
160	40
Duties as above according to kind, increased by 50%	
425	106
224	56
60% ad val.	15% ad val.
1,200 fr. each	300 fr. each
3-50 to 7 fr.per pair, but not less than 25% ad val.
10 to 36 fr. per pair, but not less than 25% ad val.
fMr. Cahan.]

Canada-France Agreement
Ernest Lapointe: Were the items shown
in schedule C under the general tariff or the intermediate tariff prior to this protocol?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If the hon. gentleman will
turn to page 9 of the bill he will find
schedule C. I could give him the general scope, but perhaps it will not be necessary.


Ernest Lapointe: No; it will be in
Hansard.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I will have that schedule C put in Hansard. It is as follows:



SUPPLEMENTARY SCHEDULE C

[Stage Direction]
French products subject on their importation into Canada, to the intermediate tariff rates less discounts as hereinafter indicated based upon percentages of the rates payable by virtue of said intermediate tariff or subject to the same rate as the British preferential tariff
Number of Canadian Customs Tariff
Ex	17	Cheese-
Roquefort, Camembert, Pont-I'Eveque, Bleu
d'Auvergne, Munster	Intermediate tariff less
a discount	of 15	p.c.Ex	30	Pepper, unground	Intermediate	tariff	lessa discount	of 20	p.c.Ex 85	Mushrooms, canned, the weight of the packagesto be included in the weight for duty	Intermediate tariff lessa discount	of 25	p.c.Ex	141	Candied chestnuts	Intermediate	tariff	lessa discount	of 10	p.c.
of the ad valorem rate.
Ex	156	
Liqueurs	Intermediate	tariff	lessa discount	of 10	p.c.Ex	156	Cognac brandy and Armagnac brandy	Intermediate	tariff	lessa discount	of 20	p.c.Ex	160	Alcoholic perfumes	and	perfumed	spirits-(a)	when in bottles or flasks containing notmore than four ounces each	Intermediate tariff less
a discount of 33-33 p.c.
Ex	163	Wines of the fresh	grape	of	all	kinds, not
sparkling, imported in barrels or in bottles-
(a)	containing not more than 23 p.c. proof
spirit	Intermediate tariff less
a discount of 63-63 p.c.
(b)	for sacramental purposes, containing
not more than 26 p.c. proof spirit.. .. Intermediate tariff less
a discount of 63-63 P-C.
165	Champagne and all other sparkling wines-[DOT]
(a)	in bottles containing each not more than a quart but more than a pint (old wine
measure)	Intermediate tariff	less
a discount of 20	p.c.
(b)	in bottles containing not more than a pint each, but more than one-half pint (old
wine measure)	Intermediate tariff	less
a discount of 20	p.c.
(c)	in bottles containing one-half pint each
or less (old wine measure)	Intermediate tariff less
a discount of 20 p.c.
(d)	in bottles containing over one quart each
(old wine	measure)	Intermediate tariff	less
a discount of 20	p.c.
Ex 178	Advertising and printed matter, on paper or
cardboard, printed in France, in the French language, describing and accompanying French
products	Same rate as British
preferential tariff.
Canada-France Agreement
[Stage Direction]
SUPPLEMENTARY SCHEDULE C-Continued
French products subject on their importation into Canada, to the intermediate tariff rates less discounts as hereinafter indicated based upon percentages of the rates payable byvirtue of said intermediate tariff or subject to the same rate as the British preferential tariff
Number of Canadian Customs Tariff
Ex 197	Cigarette paper, gummed or not, in rolls.. ..Intermediate tariff of Ex 198		Item 197 less a discount of 10 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
Cigarette paper, gummed or not, in tubes, booklets or packets	Intermediate tariff less
a discount of 15 p.c.

[Stage Direction]
529 a.
Ex 535 a 545..

[Stage Direction]
Lace, nettings and bobinet, n,o.p„ wholly of
cotton	Intermediate	tariff	less
a discount of 20 p.c.
Lace and embroideries, wholly of cotton, col. oured, imported by manufacturers for use exclusively in the manufacture of clothing
in their own factories	Intermediate tariff: 17J
p.c.
Lace and embroideries, wholly of cotton, not coloured, imported by manufacturers for use exclusively in the manufacture of clothing in
their own	factories	Intermediate	tariff	lessa discount	of 15	p.c.Fibres of raffia or	of sisal, n.o.p	Intermediate	tariff	lessa discount	of 20	p.c.
Lace and embroideries, wholly of flax, or of hemp, or of flax, hemp and cotton, not coloured, imported by manufacturers for use exclusively in the manufacture of clothing
in their own factories	Intermediate tariff less
a discount of 20 p.c.
Embroideries and lace, w-liether containing tinsel
or not, nettings and bobinet, n.o.p	Intermediate tariff less
a discount of 15 p.c.
Women's dress gloves of kid, elbow length. . .. Intermediate tariff less
a discount of 35 p.c.
For instance, Ex 17, cheese, Roquefort, Camembert, et cetera; this item is now subject to the intermediate tariff less a discount of 15 per cent while formerly the discount was 10 per cent. Ex 30, pepper; this is a new item and it is placed in the intermediate tariff less a discount of 20 per cent. The next item is mushrooms, canned; formerly this appeared in the intermediate less a discount of 20 per cent, it now has a discount of 25 per cent. Item Ex 141, candied chestnuts, is a new item to which the intermediate tariff applies with a discount of 10 per cent. Ex 156, liqueurs, was previously under the intermediate tariff; it is now under the intermediate tariff less a discount of 10 per cent. Ex 156, Cognac brandy and Armagnae brandy; formerly this item was under intermediate tariff but it is now under the intermediate tariff less a discount of 20 per cent. Ex 160, alcoholic per-
IMr. Cahan.]
fumes, et cetera, were previously under the intermediate tariff; they are now under the intermediate tariff less a discount of 33-33 per cent. Ex 163, wines of the fresh grape of all kinds, not sparkling, imported in barrels or in bottle; the first division of this item was previously under the intermediate and it is now under the intermediate less a discount of 63-63 per cent. The next division of the item was previously under the intermediate tariff; it is now under the intermediate less a discount of 63-63 per cent.
Ernest Lapointe: How would that compare with wines from Australia or South Africa?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I shall have to ask for advice w-ibh regard to that. The next item is 165, champagne and all other sparkling wines. The four divisions of this item were previously under the intermediate tariff; they are now

Canada-France Agreement
under the intermediate tariff less a discount of 20 per cent. Ex 178, advertising and printed matter, is now given the same rate as the British preferential tariff. Ex 197, cigarette pa^er, was formerly under the intermediate tariff; it is now under the intermediate tariff less a discount of 10 per cent. Ex 199, cigarette papers, in tubes, was formerly under the intermediate tariff less a discount of 10 per cent; the discount has been increased to 15 per cent. Ex 529a, lace, nettings and bobinet, wholly of cotton, was under the intermediate tariff; it is now under the intermediate tariff less a discount of 20 per cent. The next item, lace and embroideries, was previously under the intermediate tariff; it is now under the intermediate tariff with a fixed rate of 17^ per cent. Item 529a, lace and embroideries, wholly of cotton, not coloured, was under the intermediate tariff; it is now under the intermediate tariff less a discount of 15 per cent. Ex 535a, fibres of raffia or of sisal, was on the intermediate tariff less a discount of 10 per cent; it is now on the intermediate tariff less a discount of 20 per cent. Item 545, lace and embroideries, wholly of flax, et cetera; this item was previously under the intermediate tariff less a discount of 10 per cent and it is now under the intermediate less a discount of 20 per cent. Ex 565c, embroideries and lace, whether containing tinsel or not, nettings and bobinet; this item was previously under the intermediate tariff and is now under the same tariff less a discount of 15 per cent. Item Ex 568c, women's dress gloves of kid, elbow length; this item is now allowed the intermediate tariff less a discount of 35 per cent.
I remember a very amusing incident in connection with the negotiations in Paris. I found that women's kid gloves were given preferential treatment in the agreement between Canada and Great Britain and I could not concede any discount from the intermediate rate being allowed in favour of France. However, I understand that the French experts have since gone into Great Britain and have found that these gloves are not manufactured in that country. Therefore, Great Britain is not entitled to any preferential treatment in connection with this item, and this fact has been admitted by the authorities of the British board of trade.


Charles Marcil: I should like to know
whether French wines, brandies and liqueurs
are going to be admitted into Canada at a cheaper rate than they were before?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If the hon. member has been following the schedule C he will see that the rates are being reduced. Perhaps I might give the explanation which will have to be given sooner or later. The difficulty in connection with the importation of French products is the fact that the prices in Canada seem to be high is due to the rate of exchange between Canadian and French currencies. France has remained on the gold standard while at the present time in international exchange we find that our currency in terms of gold has depreciated by about forty per cent. The result is that the Canadian dollar expressed in terms of gold now represents about sixty cents in gold of the old standard. It sometimes runs around fifty-nine cents but I am taking sixty cents as the average. The result is that the French product which we formerly bought and paid for with a dollar of our currency by the purchase of exchange on France is now bought and paid for with our currency computed at a depreciation of forty per cent. What I bought before at a certain price in French francs now requires sixty-six and two-thirds more in Canadian currency to pay for the same product bought at the same price in francs in France. I had this brought home to me when my wife told me that she was making some purchases of toilet and dress articles in France. She said the price in French francs was exactly the same, but when she paid for them in Canadian currency she found that the price in Canadian currency had increased as forty is to sixty, that is, by two-thirds, which is sixty-six and two-thirds per cent. So that those of us who occasionally purchase French wines may not hope, despite the present reduction in the tariff on French wines, to purchase French wines in Canada at the same low price expressed in Canadian currency as we did before the fall in the value of the Canadian dollar in international exchange.
Articles 3 and 4 of the additional protocol serve merely to apply to the additional commodities mentioned in the supplementary schedules (a) and (c) the same provisions as apply under the trade agreement of May 12, 1933. Article 3 of this additional protocol is clear. It provides that:
The natural or manufactured products, originating in and coming from Canada, enumerated
Canada-France Agreement

in supplementary schedule A to this additional protocol, and the natural or manufactured products, originating in and coming from French customs territory, enumerated in supplemenl ary schedule C to this additional protocol, shall, on their importation into the territory of the other party, enjoy the most favourable rates accorded to any foreign country, that may arise from modifications made in the tariff classification as a result of administrative or legislative action or of conventions entered into with other countries.
The result is that, in respect of these schedules, if France makes any larger concessions by way of reducing her tariff in favour of any other foreign country Canada will enjoy the advantage of these concessions; and if Canada, in negotiations with any other foreign country, grants a lower rate of duty to any such foreign country, these reduced rates automatically apply to French products.
In article 4 the same reductions apply with respect to the French colonies and it is provided that:
The natural or manufactured products, originating inland coming from French colonies, "assimilees" and "non-assimilees," countries under French protectorate, and territories under French mandate, enumerated in supplementary schedule (C) to this additional protocol shall enjoy any other more favourable tariff rate which Canada may accord' to the same or simiar products of any other foreign country.
I have already clearly indicated to the house in previous discussions that some of the French colonies have tariffs of their own. The tariffs of some of them are assimilated to and are the same as the tariffs imposed by France. The tariffs of others of them are not assimilated to the French tariffs but are tariffs which prescribe rates that differ from the rates imposed by France on importations into France.
I call attention to the fact that after we had negotiated the convention of May 12, 1933, which provided for quotas on our exports of lobster and salmon and salmon products to France, a very large number of quotas were imposed by France for the purpose largely of maintaining France's position on the gold standard. On January 1, 1934, after the previous trade arrangement had been ratified by this parliament, France put into force a greatly extended list of quotas-in fact, a general system of quotas-and a number of these quotas have interfered very considerably with the Canadian export trade to
fMr. Cahan.]
France. It was deemed advisable therefore to secure a clear provision in this additional protocol whereby the quotas allotted to Canada could not be decreased below a certain proportion.
The terms of article 5 relating to quotas, which are expressed in schedule E, were drawn in collaboration with the French government experts who have control of the administration- of the quota system in France, and this article 5 closely follows in terms, though not in respect of the definite quotas, the commercial treaties 'that other countries have recently made with France in which such other countries have been accorded similar concessions under the French quota system.
The quotas which are expressed in schedule E are expressed as percentages of the basic global quotas, so called. The basic global quota is the quota for the entire importation into France of the particular product, and out of that total importation into France from all countries Canada is allowed a certain quantity. In order that the house may have before it a statement of the quotas which have been allowed under this protocol, I would ask permission to place on Hansard a clear statement, because this will be very important indeed for those who are exporting from Canada to France. In the fourth quarter of 1934 certain quotas were allotted, and in the first quarter of 1935 there are other quotas allotted. They are expressed in metric quintals. The metric quintal is equivalent to 220 pounds avoirdupois. The total quotas for 1935 on common and manufactured woods are only eighty per cent of the quotas of 1934, that is the Canadian allotments have been reduced.
As this is important, perhaps the house will allow me to place these quotas on Hansard, where hon. members will be able to follow the figures more closely:
Fourth quarter of 1934
Quintals
Cheese	 306
Frozen salmon	 375
Canned lobsters	 1,375
Fresh apples and pears	 5,280
Cornflakes	 15
Common wood	 3,410
Tomato ketchup	 60
Lead	 7,310
Patent-leather	 60

Canada-France Agreement
First quarter of 1934-Concluded
Quintals
Calf leather	 14
Manufactured wood	 5,900
Automobiles	 800
Ice skates	 10
Barley	 1,200
Insulating fibre board	 125
Agricultural machinery	 333
First quarter of 1935
Quintals
Cheese	 300
Frozen salmon	 1,125
Barley for brewing	 1,000
Apples	 10,340
Sweet biscuits	 28
Tomato ketchup	 56
Lead	 7,300
Insulating board	 139
Patent leather	 60
Calf leather	 13
Agricultural machinery	 311
Veneers	 50
Automobiles	 800
The total quotas for 1935 on common and manufactured woods are 80 per cent of 1934 quotas. The Canadian allotments are 0.12 per cent on common wood and 9 per cent on manufactured.
The metric quintal is equivalent to 220 pounds.
Article 6 of the additional protocol refers to schedule F. These commodities by reason of their special character did not require that the quotas should be established on a global basis, and the French government therefore agreed to establish for the Canadian products specific quotas which are found in schedule F to the agreement. These items are four in number; they were included in the treaty made in May, 1933, but now the following quotas are fixed for Canada:
Number of French customs tariff Ex 347 bis A Ex 347 bis B 524 bis K Ex 524 bis M
Schedule F
Additional quotas	Quintals
Porcelain insulators without parts of metal	 60
Porcelain insulators with parts of metal	
Electric heating apparatus including electric stoves	 100
Vacuum cleaners and parts thereof	 ^
Article 7 of the additional protocol is one of the most important for Canada, and I shall read it in full:
Article 7
In the event that the system of temporary admission of wheat into France is modified or abandoned, and that suitable facilities are not provided whereby wheat, the produce of Canada, would' retain marketing opportunities in France equivalent to those now enjoyed, the French government recognize the right of the Canadian government, with regard to the advantages conceded by the present additional protocol in respect of wines, liqueurs, cognac and Armagnac, specified in supplementary schedule C to this additional protocol, to take whatever measures they may consider advisable, provided that these measures shall not constitute a discrimination against France as compared with any other foreign country.
Since December 1, 1929, there has been in France a domestic milling quota which as at present applied makes it compulsory, subject to certain provisions to which I shall hereafter refer, to use one hundred per cent of French domestic wheat in wheat flour produced in France for home consumption. Due
to this regulation, Canadian wheat except when admitted under the "temporary admission' system to which this article 7 refers, may be imported into France for purposes other than human food, such as seeding, animal feed, industrial use, et cetera, in which cases a special licence must be obtained by the importer and the wheat must be thoroughly denatured by colouring at the customs port of entry. There has been practically no demand in France for denatured foreign wheat, as the domestic product has filled all the requirements of that market, and therefore for practical purposes the result is that all Canadian wheat imported into France has to enter under the "temporary admission" system.
The French "temporary admission" system permits the refund of customs duties paid on importations of foreign wheat, upon the exportation by the French miller of a corresponding quantity of French wheat in the form of flour. For instance, a French miller imports 1,000 bushels of Canadian wheat under a "temporary admission" permit, and he deposits or is debited under this arrangement
Canada-Fmnce Agreement

with the amount of the customs duties on the wheat which he has imported into France. If thereafter, within a maximum delay determined by the law, the miller exports a corresponding quantity of French flour, the amount of the import duty deposited in respect of the importation of foreign wheat is refunded or credited to the miller in France by the customs authorities. This privilege of exporting domestic flour to compensate for importations of foreign wheat was granted at the request of the. French millers, who have claimed and continue to claim that a certain proportion of foreign wheat must be blended with French wheat to obtain certain grades of flour which are required in France for domestic use. Foreign wheat so imported is of a class corresponding to our hard wheat in Alberta and Saskatchewan, which is not produced in France. Hon. gentlemen will remember that on a previous occasion I drew the attention of the house to the fact that France in the very year I think in which I negotiated the treaty of May, 1933, produced within its own country more wheat than was produced in all Canada, but they did not produce in France proper the equivalent of Canadian hard wheat. They have, as I pointed out to the house on a previous occasion, been importing Saskatchewan wheat and planting it in colonies of northern Africa which belong to France. They found in the first year that from Saskatchewan seed they produced a hard wheat; planting then as seed again their own product, they produced a very good hard wheat in the second year; but I was told that in the third year the wheat so produced begins to lose its quality of hardness and to become a soft wheat which is not as good for mixing for domestic use in France. The foreign wheat imported into France under the "temporary admission" system becomes according to French law "nationalized"; that is, legally assimilated to French wheat, and may be mixed with French wheat in any proportion for milling purposes regardless of the quota.
The concession afforded to Canada on wheat, namely the French minimum tariff, was undoubtedly a valuable one to this country, and from the Canadian point of view it was very important that the principle of this "admission temporaire" should not be abolished in respect of Canada. That became the subject of these later negotiations. From the French point of view the concessions accorded on 
French cognac, and liqueurs and sparkling and non-sparkling wines, our Canadian tariff items Ex 156, Ex 163 and Ex 165, were also important for the extension of the French wine trade in Canada, and so in this additional protocol it was agreed to make the Canadian tariff concessions on French cognac and liqueurs and sparkling and non-sparkling wines conditional upon the maintenance by France of facilities under which Canadian wheat would retain its present marketing opportunities in France. That is the purpose of article 7 which I have just read, and which in the view of the government establishes a very important principle.
Article 8 deals with another matter. It reads:
The increase in the rate of the import tax provided' by article 32 of the law of March 31, 1932, shall not apply, as long as the present additional protocol remains in force, to products originating in Canada, in accordance with the terms of the decree of September 29, 1934.
The application of the French special import tax of four per cent on semi-manufactured goods and six per cent on manufactured goods affected detrimentally our competitive position in the French market. When I had the honour to negotiate in France on behalf of the Canadian government for the trade agreement of May, 1933, I urged very strongly that these special import taxes of four and six per cent should be removed or reduced. I was unable at that time to obtain an agreement to that effect, but the French government gave assurances that they would give favourable consideration to the Canadian representations, but it was then claimed that it was impracticable to remove these import taxes at once, since manufactured products of French origin had to bear at various stages of manufacture a turnover tax of two per cent, and were therefore at a disadvantage compared with imported foreign goods which paid an import tax at uniform rate of two per cent regardless of their degree of manufacture. In view, however, of the concessions which have been made to other countries Canada pressed for equal treatment with the United Kingdom, Belgium and Italy, which had been accorded a rate of two per cent. The effect of this article 8 is to afford to Canadian goods the rate of two per cent instead of four and six per cent respectively which had formerly been imposed, and thus places Canadian goods

Canada-Franee Agreement
on a footing of equality with those of the most favoured nations in this respect.
Article 9 deals with maple sugar and maple products. The trade agreement signed on May 12, 1933, conceded to Canada minimum tariff rates on maple sugar and maple syrup. The effect of article 9 in this additional protocol is to secure a further concession by exempting maple sugar and maple syrup, when imported for use in the manufacture of tobacco, from certain internal taxes which are levied on sugar in France. The main internal tax, which is now cancelled, is a consumption tax of 85 francs per one hundred kilograms, about 2J cents per pound at the present rate of exchange. A refining tax of 2 francs, and a surveillance tax of \ franc per one hundred kilograms are also cancelled but taxes levied internally in France will nevertheless apply to maple sugar and maple syrup if imported for uses other than in the preparation of French tobacco.
The French decree of December 5, 1931, mentioned in article 9, authorized the government to limit by quota the importations of foreign sugar, and the other decree mentioned, that of October 8, 1934, limited to 32,000 metric tons the quantity of foreign sugar that could be imported in the period between October 8, 1934, and October 15, 1935. Article 9 exempts Canadian maple sugar and maple syrup imported for use in the preparation of tobacco from these quota restrictions. If maple sugar and maple syrup are imported from Canada into France for any other purpose there is an annual quota fixed for Canada of 1,000 kilograms or one metric ton.
As to article 10, on certain articles of clothing for children, by order in council No. 2838 of November 12, 1931, the price was fixed at S8 and S9 per dozen. The French government contended that the values so fixed under the authority of that order in council were much in excess of the true market value of the articles, and it was accordingly agreed to reduce the value for duty under section 43 of the Customs Act to 84.50 per dozen, or about one-half. With respect to cherries "glace" the value for duty had been fixed by the Department of National Revenue at 8 francs per kilogram, and the French government contended that the market price in France did not exceed 6-5 francs per kilogram, and it was accordingly
agreed to reduce the value for duty by twenty per cent.
Little need be said by me with respect to the remaining articles 11, 12 and 13. A feature of the negotiations which, though not set forth in the articles of agreement, will result in considerable advantage to Canada is the cancellation of the exchange compensation surtax on Canadian goods. By a French decree of November 12, 1931, the French government imposed an exchange compensation surtax ranging from seven to twenty-five per cent ad valorem on imports from. specified countries whose currencies were then depreciated as compared with the French franc. It was stated that the purpose of these surtaxes was to countervail the indirect exchange bounty resulting from the depreciation of certain foreign currencies from their legal parity. Articles which are exempt from French customs duty under the French minimum tariff, such as wheat, for which a world market exists, are not subject to this surtax in France. On December 10, 1931, an exchange compensation surtax at the rate of eleven per cent ad valorem was imposed on all goods imported from Canada. Canada's competitive position in the French market was thereby rendered more difficult. In 1934 the French government cancelled the exchange compensation surtax on goods imported from the United Kingdom, the Irish Free State, Norway, Finland and the U.SS.R. Now, as the result of this exchange of notes, the French government has exempted all imports from Canada from the operation of this exchange compensation surtax, placing , Canadian goods in a better competitive position in the French market.
I have endeavoured as best I could, Mr. Speaker, to state generally the purposes of this additional protocol which is now before the house for ratification. If when the bill reaches the committee any further information is desired I will endeavour to obtain it from the experts of the department and present it to the committee.


Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: Before the bill is given second reading I should like to ask the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) a question. Perhaps he will recall that at one time I had a question on the order paper in regard to the French treaty, and I suggested that when this protocol was before us for ratification I might discuss the matter, which had to
Canada-France Agreement

do with certain conditions arising out of the former treaty. When the bill is in committee I assume that it will be taken for granted that we may discuss the treaty of 1933 and some of the conditions that have arisen out of that treaty.
Mr. CAHA.N: Clearly the discussion will be opened wide.


John Livingstone Brown: In that case I will reserve any remarks I have to make until we are in committee.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If the house permits I will move that we go into committee of the whole on the bill and then move that the committee rise and report progress, so that I may not go into these details until hon. gentlemen opposite have had an opportunity of reading the explanation I have given in summarizing the terms of the protocol itself.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Morand in the chair.
On section 2-Additional protocol approved.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Without discussion and without division I will proceed to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Ernest Lapointe: May I ask when my hon. friend intends to go on with this bill?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I should be quite willing to go on to-night, and it is possible that the acting leader of the government intended that I should go on, but as I began to go through my notes in preparation for this afternoon's discussion, it seemed to me that there should be some delay an order that hon. gentlemen who so desire may read the explanations I have given so that they may be in a position to discuss with greater clarity the particular sections of the protocol.


Mr. COOTE:: To-morrow?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I would ask that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again to-morrow.
Progress reported.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Post Office
supply to-night?


Mr. MANION:: I think so.


Ernest Lapointe: And what else?


Robert James Manion: We will have to take up something else if the Post Office estimates get through, but I think they will take up the evening.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Morand in the chair.
Post Office-outside service
[Stage Direction]
Salaries and allowances, $15,169,603.
Mail services, including mail service by air, $14,062,450.
Miscellaneous, including $5,000 to provide for payment of compassionate allowances to employees injured while in the performance of their duties or to other persons injured while performing duties in any way connected with the postal service or in protecting His Majesty's mails, or to the dependents of such employees or other persons who may be killed while so engaged, payments to be made only on the specific authority of the governor in council, $1,084,600.
Mr. POULIOT (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a few questions of the hon. the Postmaster General. How many post offices have been closed from August, 1930, to date?


Mr. SAUVE (Translation):: Will the hon.
member be kind enough to ask me another question; I shall give him the information later.


Jean-François Pouliot: Could the
hon. Postmaster General let me have a detailed statement of the dismissals and appoints ments made in his department since the day he has taken charge of it?


Arthur Sauvé: If I understand correctly the hon. member's question, he wishes to know how many postmasters have been changed?


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, sir, in
the first place.

Su-pply-Post Office


Arthur Sauvé: There were
800 changes made.


Jean-François Pouliot: How many
new post offices have been opened?


Arthur Sauvé: Has the hon.
member another inquiry to make, while I look up the information? We have the information for the year about to expire, but we have no record for each of the previous years. I understood all the dismissals were included in that-


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, the dismissals were made in different ways. Oftentimes the minister went about it like a dentist who practises painless tooth extraction. He would not always tell the postmasters that they were ousted for political partisanship; sometimes he would close the post office and then open another one across the street, on the ground that better accommodation was necessary. In other cases, he would first close the post office and open another one a short distance away and thus it did not appear as if the office was closed on account of political partisanship.
Threatening letters were also sent to postmasters in order to frighten them. There were a great many who were alarmed and sent in their resignation to the minister before the department took action. It is most important to know the number of dismissals and I must say to the Postmaster General that I should like to have these particulars. I do not want to ask him questions to which he is in no position to reply, but it seems to me that a minister may be compared to a bank. At a general meeting, the board of directors is supposed to give the shareholders such information as may be asked for concerning their administration during the preceding years. It is true that the other day I gave notice to the hon. Postmaster General that I wished to obtain information in connection with the dismissals, but gave no further particulars. If the hon. minister were kind enough to let me have that memorandum which he showed to me a few minutes ago, I might bring down the number of my questions to ten or so, perhaps, and the matter could be disposed of in much less time.


Arthur Sauvé: I am exceedingly sorry. Had I better understood the
question asked a few minutes ago by the hon. member, I might have given him the information.


Jean-François Pouliot: Of course, it is always unpleasant to deal with dismissals and at all times it is irksome to lay stress on that particular subject.
The minister was kind enough to let me have a short while ago, a memorandum showing the number of dismissals, by province and for each year, made between the 7th of August, 1930, and the 28th of February, 1935, for political partisanship and other reasons.
Would the hon. Postmaster General have any objection to hand over to me a copy of that memorandum or to let me keep the one I now have.


Arthur Sauvé: Certainly, not.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I keep this copy?


Arthur Sauvé: Certainly, you may keep it as a gift from me.


Jean-François Pouliot: those who are entrusted with the dominion patronage on behalf of the Conservative party in that province. They are the ones to blame for so many dismissals and to a certain extent the Postmaster General can wash his hands in that connection.


Arthur Sauvé: And also because of the precedents. It has been so for the last forty years; the number of dismissals was always larger in the province of Quebec than in the province of Ontario.


Jean-François Pouliot: It ill
behooves the hon. minister to refer to precedents, because if, from 1922 to 1930, the Liberal party made a few dismissals it was in order to redress the wrongs that had been perpetrated by	the Hon. Louis-Phillipe
Pelletier and the other Conservative ministers. And, in this connection, the story of the Conservative party, in so far as the post office department is concerned, from Sir Adolphe Caron to the Hon. Louis-Phillipe Pelletier is by no means a pleasant one to recall. It is regrettable indeed that the minister should have allowed the axe to fall on the head of the unfortunate victims that the Conservative members as well the defeated candidates in the province of Quebec led to the block.
I find that the dismissals for political partisanship in the province of Quebec were far more numerous than elsewhere. And what is more distressing than that is the fact that, in a great many cases, political partisanship was given as the reason for the dismissal when there was none at all. The honourable Postmaster General knows very well, for instance that, at Notre-Dame du Lac, he gave instructions to suspend action upon receiving certain information which I gave him in connection with a complaint lodged against the former postmaster. Unfortunately it was too late, the transfer having already been made. 1 must give him credit for his readiness to act on that occasion but the fact remains that the stand taken at the time by the Conservative party was disastrous.
I shall not insist on what took place in the other provinces, but it should be interesting to see in what constituencies of the province of Quebec the axe was wielded with greater efficiency: in Argenteuil, 2 dismissals for political partisanship, and three for other reasons, total 5. In Bagot, 2 for political partisanship, one for other reasons; total 3.

In Beauce, 3 for political partisanship, 1 for other reasons; total 4. In Beauharnois, 1 for political partisanship. In Bellechasse, 10 for political partisanship, 1 for other reasons; total 11.


Arthur Sauvé: Since 1930.
Since five years.


Jean-François Pouliot: Since 1930. yes.
Berthier-Maskinonge, 8 for political partisanship, 1 for other reasons; total 9. In Bonaventure, 45 for political partisanship, 4, for other reasons; total 49. In Brome-Missis-quoi, 2 for political partisanship and one for other reasons; total 3. In Cartier, 2 for other reasons. Chambly-Vercheres, 2 for other reasons. In Champlain, 3 for political partisanship, 2 for other reasons; total 5. In Charle-voix-Saguenay, 10 for political partisanship. 5 for other reasons; total 15. In Chateauguay-Huntingdon, 0, 0. I must congratulate the hon. member for that constituency on the fact that he apparently is broadminded on that question at least, though he may not be in other respects. Chicoutimi, 2 for political partisanship, 1 for other reasons; total 3. Compton, 6 for political partisanship, none for other reasons; total 6. It would appear that postmasters in Compton are really honest, since the only thing they can be reproached with is their political faith. Dorchester, 10 for political partisanship, 10 for other reasons; total 20. Drummond-Arthabaska, 8 for political partisanship, other reasons; 1. Gaspe, 46 for political partisanship, 16 for other reasons; total 62. Hochelaga, 0, 0. Hull, 2 for political partisanship, other reasons 1; total 3. Jacques-Cartier, political partisanship 1, other reasons 1; total 2. Joliette, other reasons 3. Kamouraska, political partisanship 7, other reasons 5; total 12. Labelle, other reasons 1. Lac Saint-Jean, political partisanship 16, other reasons 2; total 18. Laprairie-Napierville, 1 for political partisanship. L'Assomption-Montcalm, 6 for political partisanship, 2 for other reasons; total 8. Laurier-Outremont, other reasons 1. Laval-Deux-Montagnes, political partisanship 5, other reasons 3; total 8. Levis, political partisanship 5, other reasons 2; total 7. L'Islet, political partisanship 5, other reasons 1; total 6. Lotbiniere, political partisanship 7, other reasons 2; total 9. Maison-neuve, other reasons 9. Matane, political partisanship 7, other reasons 3; total 10. Me-

Supply-Post Office
gantic, political partisanship 3. Montmagny, political partisanship 10, other reasons 3; total 13. Mount Royal, other reasons 1. Nicolet, political partisanship 5, other reasons 2; total 7. Pontiac, political partisanship 2, other reasons 1. Portneuf, political partisanship 3, other reasons 2. Quebec-Montmorency. political partisanship 9, other reasons 3. Quebec-East, other reasons 1. Quebec South, 0, 0. Quebec West, political partisanship 1, other reasons 2. Richelieu, political partisanship 4. Rich-mond-Wolfe, political partisanship 5, other reasons 2. Rimouski, political partisanship 2, other reasons 3. St. Ann, 0, 0. St. Antoine,
0,	0. St. Denis, other reasons 2. St. Henri, other reasons 1. St. Hyacinthe-Rouville, political partisanship 5, other reasons 2. St. James, 0, 0. St. John-Iberville, other reasons
1.	St. Lawrence-St. George, 0, 0. St. Mary, other reasons 1. Shefford, political partisanship 3. Sherbrooke, 0, 0. Stanstead, other reasons 1. Temiscouata, political partisanship 10, other reasons 7. Terrebonne, political partisanship 5, other reasons 1. Three Rivers-St. Maurice, political partisanship 3, other reasons 2. Vaudreuil-Soulanges, political partisanship 1, other reasons 2. Wright, political partisanship 5, other reasons 2. Yamaska, political partisanship 1, other reasons 1.
All of which is very sad. So much so seeing those figures do not paint a true picture of what actually happened.


Arthur Sauvé: If the hon,
member will permit me, I am giving an account of the present fiscal year, and not of the four preceding years. I was willing to give the information asked for by the hon. member, but I do not want him to think it extraordinary if I do not have at hand all possible information regarding the affairs of my department for the last four years. I am ready to answer questions in regard to the year on which I have now to give explanations.


Jean-François Pouliot: The minister must not get mad.


Arthur Sauvé: Not at all, I say it with great calmness.


Jean-François Pouliot: For the
moment, I am giving a review of the minister's career which will be crowned in a different world, probably in the red chamber.
Mr. GO/REIL (Translation): Not in a better world.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not mean that, because the atmosphere is sometimes duller in the Senate than in the House of Commons. Anyway, it is the crowning of a career, because the Senate gives certain benefits to its members.


Mr. MBRCIER (Saint-Henri) (Translation) :: He is a lucky bird.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is a reward for political services; the minister has rendered great services to his party and he deserves a reward.
Now I am reviewing the report of dismissals made by him during nearly five years. I do not want to say that all those dismissals happened in one year, but he made a lot more secretly. I want the minister to understand that very often dismissals have been recommended for political partisanship without sufficient proof; in those cases, he closed post offices and opened others a little farther. Would the Postmaster General have any objections to give me a report in regard to post offices that have been closed, like the one he gave me in the case of postmasters who have been dismissed?


Arthur Sauvé: It is pretty hard to supply the hon. member with all the information he wants. Really, I cannot understand; what he means when he says that I closed post offices in order to open other post offices a little farther down the street and this was a camouflaged way of dismissing postmasters for political partisanship. I have no information on that point, neither here nor in the department; I do not think theTe were many such cases. If there were any, they must have been exceptional cases.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is very simple: I want a statement, by provinces and by electoral districts, of post offices that have been closed and, on the other hand, of post offices that have been opened, since August the 6, 1930. The minister should have no objections to have such a statement prepared if he has not got it now. Is he ready to give me that statement?


Arthur Sauvé: Yes, surely, as soon as possible.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you. The officials should be in a position to pre-

Supply-Post Office

pare such a statement in a very short time, and it seems to me that I could get that information next week.


Arthur Sauvé: When I said "As soon as possible," I thought the hon. member would understand that I would give him the statement before next week.


Jean-François Pouliot: I think we
will finally get somewhere. If the minister would act in such a way that the tears, which he has occasioned in many a family by dismissing postmasters, could be forgotten-


Arthur Sauvé: Weep over
yourself.


Jean-François Pouliot: There is
another thing. I mean the transfer of post offices on account of changes in location. Would the minister be kind enough to give me information in regard to transfers of post offices under the pretext of bettering the location?


Arthur Sauvé: Surely, with
pleasure.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the minister. We want information on the following points: first, a list of post offices that have been closed since he has taken charge of the department; secondly, a list of the new post offices that have been opened and, in the third place, a list of post offices where the location has been changed, from August 6, 1930, to the present date, by provinces and by electoral districts.
According to the list here, the minister has dismissed a total of 882 postmasters since August 6, 1930. How many has he appointed since August 6, 1930? How many has he appointed since that date as permanents or as temporaries?


Arthur Sauvé: They have all been replaced.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am ready
to show the greatest courtesy possible, and the greatest patience towards the minister; experience has shown that his colleagues who have answered me properly have had no difficulties with me; but if a minister begins to play the smart Alec with me, he will have trouble; and I am giving a formal warning.


Arthur Sauvé: I have been
answering quite naturally.


Jean-François Pouliot: Answering
naturally and not answering properly are two different things. I want to know how many dismissals have been made by the hon. minister. There are 882 here, that is an answer. Now, I want to know how many postmasters the hon. minister has appointed permanently or temporarily; that is a very clear question.


Arthur Sauvé: Since 1930?


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Arthur Sauvé: I cannot give
an answer to-night, because I am not called upon to account for my administration since 1930. The hon. member will admit that I cannot bring all the files in my department to the house in order to answer any questions that might" be asked.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the elementary points relating to the administration can be discussed right now and ought to be discussed while we are on the estimates of the Post Office Department. I would understand perfectly, if it were a special case, if I were asking, let us say, for particulars on the Sully post office, that the minister would say that he has not the file at hand. He would probably send for it; there are officials here who have nothing to do; there are others in the gallery; he would send them to his office to get the file in order to answer my question. I do not know if things were going on like that in Quebec, but here in Ottawa, it must be different, because I want that information and things will not go in such an easy way. When I ask the minister for the number of appointments made since 1930, it is a very simple question. He ought to keep a kind of ledger of his dismissals and appointments in order to be able to say what he has done since 1930 in that regard. I am asking a very reasonable question. The minister is not here to have his 1930 estimates passed by the house; they were passed in that year and I will shorten my remarks in order to give him a chance to pass his estimates to-day. I am asking a very serious question. What has been done since 1930 in the matter of appointments of postmasters? I ask the question and I am expecting an answer. It seems to me that, in the mass of papers he has before him, he could find that information and tell me how many postmasters he has appointed since 1930, permanently as well as temporarily.

Supply-Post Office


Arthur Sauvé: We have not here all the information since 1930. To answer the hon. member for Temiscouata I must first deny his statement to the effect that I was hiding something. The dismissals were made after inquiries or charges made by members who claimed that they were personally aware of political partisanship on the part of the postmasters. Others were dismissed for ill-administration and I had to replace them. A few post offices were closed. Some of them were reopened in the public interest after representations were made to the department.
Now, with the best of intentions, I will ask the hon. member for Temiscouata not to ask me to follow the methods employed by the premier of Quebec or the government of Quebec, when the estimates are under consideration.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, we are here in Ottawa and I will deal with the Postmaster 'General as I would with any of his colleagues, English or French. When a member seeks information of such a reasonable nature, he has a right to get an answer. Perhaps I could alter my question; I could ask the Postmaster General to give me the number of the last appointment he has made of a postmaster; is it the four thousandth postmaster he has appointed? The appointment must bear a number, is it 4,000 or 5,000? How many did he appoint, in round numbers? Is it 5,000 or 6,000? That is what I want to know.


Arthur Sauvé: Four days were required to prepare the list the hon. member has in hand. The hon. member does not seem to realize the amount of work his questions impose on the department. We have not that information here. We have to get it from the different branches. The hon. member will admit that it is impossible for me to supply, off hand, all the information. Two or three days would be required to get the exact answer to these questions. I know the hon. member wants a reliable answer that will give him the information he is seeking.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, a moment ago somebody said "Hear! hear!" If the hon. members who come here for the first time and have no knowledge of parliamentary customs, would wait a few years before teaching others, it would be so much the better for them. First of all, they could learn French and they would realize that it takes some time to become acquainted with parliamentary customs.
I could help the minister to answer the question I have just put to him by referring C2582-109J
him to certain answers of his which are found in Hansard of May 12, 1933, page 4950, and according to his own words, he had dismissed but 783 postmasters when he had appointed 3,035. What I would like to understand is how he could appoint 3,035 men when he had dismissed only 788. It is unbelievable, it is a mystery, it is a thing I have yet been unable to understand.


Arthur Sauvé: The hon.
member does not take into account the dismissals, the deaths, etc.


Jean-François Pouliot: The dead? Very well. All the postmasters are not dead. Many are quite old and have occupied their post for a long time. Some died from grief on account of the ill-treatment they received.


Arthur Sauvé: In Ontario, a great many people are dying just now.


Jean-François Pouliot: Has the Postmaster General appointed any new postmasters since the 12th of May, 1933?


Arthur Sauvé: I did not quite catch the drift of the question.


Jean-François Pouliot: Since the 12th of May, 1933, has the hon. minister appointed any new postmasters?


Arthur Sauvé: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: How many?


Arthur Sauvé: I have not the figures here.


Jean-François Pouliot: How many did he appoint last year, in 1934?


Arthur Sauvé: I promised the hon. member, very graciously, I think, that I will bring down the information asked for. He was kind enough to take my word a moment- ago, so far as the list of dismissals was concerned. I promised to bring down that list and the one he is asking for just now.


Jean-François Pouliot: When?


Arthur Sauvé: As soon as possible. The hon. member knows what I mean by that.


Jean-François Pouliot: Have you any temporary postmasters just now?


Arthur Sauvé: A few.


Jean-François Pouliot: How many,
approximately?


Arthur Sauvé: 7 or 8.


Jean-François Pouliot: Has the Civil Service Commission made many appointments
Supply-Post Office

in the last two years, since 1933, or have most of the appointments been made by the minister?


Arthur Sauvé: Most of them have been made by the Civil Service Commission.


Jean-François Pouliot: Even now?


Arthur Sauvé: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: From $3,000
up, the commission looks after the appointments?


Arthur Sauvé: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is the number of postmasters receiving less than $3,000 greater than the number of those getting more than that amount.


Arthur Sauvé: There are 12,033 postmasters; of that number, 11,213 receive less than $3,000.


Jean-François Pouliot: How many get more than $3,000?


Arthur Sauvé: 690, no, 820.
Mr. POULIOT (Translation); So, many postmasters receive more than $3,000?


Arthur Sauvé: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: Above $3,000, the appointment is made by the Civil Service Commission?


Arthur Sauvé: Such has been the practice for the last two years.


Jean-François Pouliot: And under $3,000, they are appointed by the minister?


Arthur Sauvé: Certainly.


Jean-François Pouliot: Without consulting the Civil Service [DOT] Commission?


Arthur Sauvé: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then, in
that case, has the minister not made more appointments than the commission?


Arthur Sauvé: Possibly.


Jean-François Pouliot: I want an answer from the minister.


Arthur Sauvé: Yes, likely.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am asking the minister whether lie did or not, whether it is true or not. I am not asking him whether it is likely or not. The minister knows what he is doing. He is a sensible man, and when he affixes his signature in approval he very well knows how many appointments he rati-
[Mr. Pouliot.l
fied. I am not asking him whether it is likely, but if he actually affixed his signature many times a year for the appointment of postmasters.


Arthur Sauvé: I signed as many times as there were appointments to be made.	[DOT]


Jean-François Pouliot: How many times did it happen?


Arthur Sauvé: I cannot remember.


Jean-François Pouliot: Last year?
Some hon. MEMBERS (Text): Carried.


Jean-François Pouliot: I would ask hon. members to keep order. As I was saying a moment ago, it does not befit newcomers to dictate to us in this house; let them get older before doing that; if need be we shall tip them over, and that will do them good. We shall take our time.


Arthur Sauvé: I do not recall the particulars.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is too bad. The hon. minister says that he has this information, but these are things that he should foresee. His officers should tell him that it may 'be the first question put to a minister when he presents his estimates to the house and asks for more money to administer his department during the coming year.
It is elementary. The hon. minister who has been Leader of the Opposition in Quebec and who has had great experience ought to be able to supply this information at once to the house, in order that the members may know what he has done since he is Postmaster General. If the hon. minister were a new member, if it were the first time that he was in charge of estimates, he might say that he forgot it, but he is a man who has great experience, who has long been in public life and he does not even know how many appointments he has made; he does not remember. Did he .make so many that the number of new postmasters cannot be figured out? And is the number of postmasters who were dismissed also incalculable? Sometimes children can count up to a certain number then they cannot go further. Is the hon. minister afraid to give the house the number of appointments and dismissals that he made? It is a very serious thing.
If the hon. minister says: "I shall give you the information in two, or three, or four days," very well, I will take his word; he will only ibe two or three days late, and that is all. He had time to think it over. The other

Supply-Post Office
day, he presented part of his estimates to the house and he had no difficulty. We let him pass some of them in order to discuss the rest today; but again he comes with empty hands and he makes promises. I am sure they will be better kept than those made by his leader in 1930.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: The hon. minister dismissed in all 882
postmasters, either for political partisanship or for other reasons. Have all their places been filled?


Arthur Sauvé: Yes


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Then, he appointed 882.


Arthur Sauvé: Certainly, those who have been replaced.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Then he appointed at least 882 and he need not dig into his files to find that out.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I protest against my hon. friend's assertion. Hansard of two years ago says that we had thousands of appointments. There are so many that the hon. minister does not remember the number.
Now just another question. Can the hon. minister tell me whether Mr. Laurent, who has the contract for the carrying of parcel post in Montreal, holds a permanent or temporary position?


Arthur Sauvé: Temporary.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is it not a fact that Mr. Laurent has the largest contract throughout Canada for the carrying of parcel post or mail.


Arthur Sauvé: I do not think so.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then who
has the largest contract?


Arthur Sauvé: Throughout
the country?


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes.


Arthur Sauvé: We have one in the Yukon whose contract is much larger- at White Horse.
Mr. POULIOrr (Translation):	Larger?
You have one in the Yukon; but besides that one, is there any other whose contract is larger than that of Mr. Laurent?


Arthur Sauvé: (Translation) There is the
Canadian Transfer in Toronto. There is at Montreal-


Jean-François Pouliot: Is it not a fact that Mr. Laurent has the largest contract throughout Canada for the carrying of parcel post?


Arthur Sauvé: I beg your
pardon?


Jean-François Pouliot: I am asking the hon. minister if it is not a fact that Mr. Laurent, at Montreal, has the largest contract throughout Canada for the carrying of parcel post.


Arthur Sauvé: Yes, on account of the importance of Montreal.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then why
is he still temporarily employed instead of being permanent?


Arthur Sauvé: The matter
is under consideration.


Jean-François Pouliot: How long
has Mr. Laurent been holding this temporary position?


Arthur Sauvé: Three years, I think.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is it not
a fact that he has had it since 1930?


Arthur Sauvé: Yes, possibly.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then it
would be five years.


Arthur Sauvé: Not quite.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, the hon. minister is not serious. Here is a man who has a contract for the carrying of parcel post, the largest throughout Canada. He is supposed to carry and he does carry parcel post throughout the city of Montreal; it is an enormous contract. He is not permanent, but only temporary. I am asking the hon. minister why he is not permanent and he replies that the matter is under consideration. That is not a serious answer.
I am going to ask the hon. minister what is the amount paid each year to Mr. Laurent by his department and how much he has received since 1930. Does the hon. minister refuse to answer?


Arthur Sauvé: We have not before us this information concerning Mr. Laurent in particular. We have the cost of the different services, urban and rural mail, but I have not the information concerning Mr. Laurent in particular.


Jean-François Pouliot: Would the hon. minister tell me what amount was paid to Mr. Laurent during the last fiscal year?
Supply-Post Office


Arthur Sauvé: If my memory serves me well, I think it is $27,000.


Jean-François Pouliot: Will the
hon. minister give me before the middle of next week, the total amount paid to Mr. Laurent, each year, since his appointment?


Arthur Sauvé: Certainly.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is understood? The minister says yes, does he not?


Arthur Sauvé: Yes, certainly.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I strongly protest against such dealings. It is not reasonable to give such a large contract to an employee without appointing his permanently.
Now may I put another question to the minister? Has Mr. Laurent secured the contract pursuant to the calling of tenders? And if so, was he the lowest tenderer?


Arthur Sauvé: No, because it
was a temporary contract.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then, Mr. Chairman, you understand why Laurent is temporary. He has a temporary contract because the hon. minister would not ask for tenders for the most important parcel post carrying contract throughout Canada, a contract of $27,000, as he just said himself. Mr. Laurent is temporarily employed, he has a temporary contract because the hon. minister would not call for tenders, and he will not call for any even now. That is why Mr. Laurent enjoys such benefits. The hon. minister is not reasonable; there is no sense in that.
Now may I ask the hon. minister up to what amount he may grant contracts for the carrying of mail without tenders?


Arthur Sauvé: I think I mentioned it last year-$200.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, you see how it is. I shall not dwell upon it any longer. I do not want to stir all these unfortunate things of the Post Office Department. The law allows the minister to grant a contract for the carrying of mail up to an amount of $200, without tender. That is for the small parishes. But in the largest city of Canada, a friend, a political favourite, has a contract of at least $27,000 a year-and I am sure it is more, it will prove to be more- a contract of $27,000 a year without tender. The minister flouts the law by leaving this man in a temporary position. He cannot make him permanent without asking for tenders, but he leaves him as a temporary
[Mr. Pouliot.J
employee in order to keep on protecting him to the prejudice of those who could tender at a lower price than the one he is getting. This is a question of public interest. How do we know that the Postmaster General would not save several thousand dollars a year and would not have done so since 1930, if he had acted according to the law and called for tenders for such an important contract.
I am not surprised, Mr. Chairman, that the Postmaster-General, with his apparent good nature, with his genial and unctuous disposition, should make an attempt to sidetrack the issue when one expects a direct reply from him. It is a tactic of his and when he comes in the house without the papers required to enable him to answer any serious and timely questions that may be put to him concerning his own department, it is because he will rather not answer or enlighten the country as to what takes place within his department.
I already had the opportunity of pointing out to him the fact that quite a large amount, a sum of over $27,500, had been paid to a man for mail boxes made from stove pipe. The pipe itself was worth around 50 cents while the manufactured product was, at the most, worth 75 cents. And yet, he gave the order to that man without calling for tenders, and he had the boxes made from stove pipe. The Postmaster-General knows what I mean; I refer to that contract awarded to Amcdee Lesieur.


Arthur Sauvé: 10,000 boxes.


Jean-François Pouliot: 10,000 boxes at $2.75; that makes $27,500. iMr. SAUVE: $10,000.


Jean-François Pouliot: The Postmaster-General should not say that when the Hansard shows that the price of each box was $2.75. If the minister is not satisfied with that statement, I shall show him the very page of Hansard. Besides, I have in my room upstairs a photograph of the stove pipe transformed into a mail box. The hon. minister is laughing at that! There is nothing to make light of; it is a sad affair!
No tenders have been asked. We have here a former furniture dealer in Montreal who comes to the minister with a tale of woe. He says: "I have here a wonderful invention, a stove pipe which I can change into a mail box. And I will sell that box at the price of $2.75 to your department." Iask you to note, Mr. Chairman, that Amedee Lesieur was not the inventor of that famous box with a raising door, a lowering door, as well as a door that opened on the side. That

Supply-Post Office
famous discovery had been made by another individual, but the former took it to the Postmaster General. In a memorandum submitted to his colleagues, the members of the government, the minister stated that, owing to that wonderful invention, that is the door opening at the bottom, at the top and on the side, it was important to give encouragement to such a genius. What happened? At that time, no patent had been secured as yet. Not only that, but the patent had not even been applied for at the patent office. The department still had thousands and thousands of boxes that were in perfect order and of a far better construction than these boxes. But the Postmaster-General bought .Amedee Le-sieur's mail box. He did not purchase only a thousand of them, but 10,000; just think of it, 10,000! Ten thousand at $2.75 each! Which means that out of that sum of $27,500, there was an obvious robbery of $20,000 on the part of either Amedee Lesieur or the man who was with him. We frequently urge upon the government to include in the estimates certain sums for important things, and we are told: "The country cannot afford it; we have no funds". But you had to make a gift of $20,000 to Amedee Lesieur. The hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) gave a detailed account of the transaction and, last year, he again referred to it. We were unable to get a satisfactory reply from the government. We have here another instance of money wasted to the extent of $20,000. I shall not insist on other expenditures, no less absurd than this one, made by the Post Office department. And at a time when the employees complain of being unable to secure justice, when they can scarcely make ends meet, one sees how spongers, such as the one I just mentioned, manage to grab $20,000 from the government through changing a stove pipe into a mail box, and that with the approval of the hon. Postmaster General, in whose eyes, a gift of $20,000 on a $27,500 transaction is quite right.
At that time a man wrote to me saying that if he were given the contract to manufacture boxes of that kind with stove pipe, he could produce as many as the government might require, not at $2.75 but at 75 cents a box, which price would leave him a profit of 25 cents a box. You see how it is. If I speak to the minister, he will say: "It might be like that, it might be not altogether like that." There it goes and people say: "He is a good fellow." Are there not in the county of Two Mountains voters who need the S20.000 that have been given to Amedee Lesieur? Are there no voters in Temiscouata, in Gloucester, in Provencher, in Rimouski,
in Essex or anywhere else who need these $20,000? They are poor, they have greater need of this gift than Amedee Lesieur. It is shameful.
There is one more thing I complained about last year and about which I complain again this year. I wonder why Mr. Anderson is not retired. I have great respect for old men when they are useful. But he is harmful. He is entitled to his pension. He is there simply to lick the boots of all the ministers. He is absolutely useless. I think it is time to send him home to smoke his pipe. I would be all the more pleased to see him go so that he could be replaced by Mr. Saint-Germain, who, though modest, is an excellent official. It is high time to get rid of Anderson. There are other elderly men in the civil service. I have great respect for them. Some of them are indispensable, but let us get rid of those we can spare. Mr. Anderson would not be on the street; he is entitled to a substantial pension and his retirement would allow the promotion of a modest official who is loyal to his chiefs and who could render much greater service than the present incumbent.
I also say to the minister that it is sovereignly unjust of him not to appoint a deputy minister in his department, which is one of the most important departments of the government. I have no recommendation to make as to individuals, but I say to him that be has been guilty of a grave injustice towards the man who is actually filling the post of deputy minister without drawing the salary thereof, although he has borne the responsibility for a long time. It is unjust. I do not share the opinion of those who think that the man who replaces a deputy minister with satisfaction should receive an increase of salary without an increase of status. I am not at all in favour of that, for the deputy minister is the assistant head of the department, that is, he is directly responsible to the minister for the administration of the department. I regret that it should be two departments presided over by my French Canadian compatriots that have been so long deprived of a deputy minister. It seems to me that a minister should have sufficient authority to say to the Prime Minister: "The act entitles me to a deputy minister; give me one." I cannot conceive of an English speaking minister waiting years, as my two French speaking colleagues have done, without thus reproaching the Prime Minister. It is all very well for the Prime Minister to submit these appointments to the Privy Council, but on the other hand, each minister, the hon. Postmaster General and the hon.
Supply-Post Office

Minister of Marine should say to the Prime Minister: "Appoint a deputy minister to my department; if you do not render justice to my department, I say good-bye and I give up my responsibilities." If the Postmaster General and the Minister of Marine had thus spoken to the head of the government they would have been listened to. It is time that these appointments be made. Appoint whomever you like, but appoint someone and let him be a competent man. It seems to me that it is much more important to appoint this deputy minister than to create throughout the whole country irresponsible commissions. At the present time we have no responsible government. We are governed by individuals who have no responsibility towards the representatives of the people, and very often when we ask a minister if such and such a commission is responsible to him, he is hard put to reply as he does not know himself.
Mr. Chairman, perhaps I may not be here
when the resolution concerning the appointment of an economic council will be submitted to this house, but I can say right away that, to my mind, it is ridiculous to create an economic council, for we have one already under the British system of parliament; we have had for centuries. It is nothing else but the cabinet. The departments cover all branches of material activities of the nation, commerce, banking, industries, railways, everything. This means, Mr. Chairman, that each ministry must 'be directed by competent men. To get them, one must rely on the merit system; you must tell the employees: Having been faithful servants, you are entitled to a promotion, you have a right to expect that your services will receive a reward proportionate to the good you have done for the country. That is, Mr. Chairman, the British parliamentary system which has been maintained for centuries. In the course of the last few years, what have we seen? You have boards which in most cases have no designation: the "Marketing Act Board," this board, and that board. And I am told that we are to have some other boards, irresponsible boards.
Let me say not only to the hon. Postmaster General, for in this case they should appoint a deputy-minister in his department, not only to the Minister of Marine, who also has no deputy-minister, but to each member of the government:	Either the ministers of each
department are or are not efficient. If they are efficient, we have no need of an economic council; if they are not efficient, let them resign at once. There is no other way out.

Is it the intention of the government to appoint new men, burned out brains, dreamers who will submit plans as ridiculous as those that have been recently refused by the three western provinces in connection with the marketing of poultry and eggs.
Mr. Chairman, what I regret, is that the government does not seem to realize the strength of our present system of government, The government refuse to assume any responsibility. They rely entirely on irresponsible individuals. Mr. Chairman, I protest strongly against such a policy, a policy that makes Canada similar to Russia. The right hon. prime minister has declared publicly, in Montreal, that he was following, to a certain extent, Litvinof, Strachey and other prominent communists, taking advantage of the experience of the French revolution and of the Russian revolution in presenting this so-called social legislation. Let the government come back to common sense. Since our French-Canadian ministers often mention Cartier and Macdonald, let them act according to the principles followed by those statesmen. Let them follow the principles of Gladstone, of Disraeli, of Campbell-Bannerman, of Baldwin, of Blake, of George Brown, of Laurier, of Borden, of all those great political men who have written history. When in a department, there exists a vacancy as important as that of deputy-minister, the ministers should fill that vacancy, were it only to render justice to the loyalty of the employees who have a right to the salary set by law. But this is not all: it is false economy to prevent an employee from obtaining a well earned promotion so as to save a few dollars. The salary is not set by the ministers, it is set by law. The law says: There must be a deputy-minister in each department. Why this delay on the part of the Postmaster General? Instead of reading memorandums from conservatives asking for dismissals of good postmasters, why did he not study the law relating to the nomination of deputy-ministers? An injustice was committed by the Postmaster General and the Minister of Marine when they refused to appoint their deputy minister sooner. If they want an economic council, let them first apply the law of justice, let them respect the terms of the law relating to the appointment of deputy-ministers. Let them be mindful that the creation of an economic council does not bring us still nearer to Russia than any other government legislation.


Mr. YENIOT:: I understand that in 1932 an agency was organized through which used stamps are sold to the public. I wish the

Supply-Post Office
minister would give us some explanation of the operations of this agency and why it was established.


Arthur Sauvé: It was established to provide stamps for philatelists.


Peter John Veniot: Used stamps?


Arthur Sauvé: No.


Peter John Veniot: What does that agency consist of?


Arthur Sauvé: The financial superintendent in control and a small staff.


Peter John Veniot: I understand that only
about $139 or $140 has been received from this agency. There is a rumour which I think should be straightened out. It is rumoured throughout the country that unused stamps which are sold for such small amounts are being traded around the country and providing immense profits to those fortunate enough to be friends of the government and able to get hold of them. Up until 1932 new issues were not sold through an agency, they were sold through the department; and if my memory serves me aright, in some instances amounts of $15,000, $20,000 and $30,000 were realized by the officials and paid into the treasury of this country. At the present time any profit which might be gained through the sale of these stamps does not come to the government; all the government receives is the small amount it gets from the agency established by the financial branch of the department. I want an answer to these questions.


Arthur Sauvé: I do not understand what the hon. member means. I never heard anything about immense profits and I have never received any information in that connection.


Peter John Veniot: I should like to direct the minister's attention to certain questions which have been asked and the answers he gave thereto. The first question was whether or not the department maintained a philatelic agency at Ottawa, and the answer was yes. The next question was:
If so, what was the cost of operating the 6aid agency in each of the fiscal years, 1931 to 1934 inclusive?
The answer was:
Prior to September 13, 1932, the work was done by employees who were also engaged in other duties, and no separate record of salary cost was kept.
September 13, 1932, to March 31, 1933, $5,007.64; April 1, 1933, to March 31, 1934, $9,828.
The minister now says that he knows nothing about this matter and I should like
to know where he got the information with which to answer those questions. The next question asked was:
What was the total revenue derived from the philatelic agency during each of the years 1931 to 1934 inclusive?
The answer given was:
Fiscal year 1930-31,	$42,269.65;	1931-32,
$38,891.83; 1932-33, $56,250.60; 1933-34, $54,813.31.
Information was given at that time but the minister now tells the committee that he knows nothing about this matter and does not understand what I am talking about. It is queer that the minister can stand up and tell me what he has told me to-night when he has given these answers.


Arthur Sauvé: The philatelic branch has had a revenue of about $50,000 this year. It sells all stamps at face value.


Peter John Veniot: Do I understand that that is the cost, or the revenue?


Arthur Sauvé: That is what it takes in.


Peter John Veniot: Why did the minister not give that answer when he was asked before? That figure does not agree with the figures given in the answer I have quoted. The figures given in that answer do not even average $50,000 a year. I should like to know why this agency was organized for the sale of used stamps. Why should not this business be carried on as it was before by the officials of the department instead of giving an opportunity to outsiders to make a profit for themselves? Why was this done?


Arthur Sauvé: About $50,000 was taken in this last year and the hon. member knows perfectly well that it is growing every year.


Peter John Veniot: What is growing every year?


Arthur Sauvé: I understand the hon. member is referring to stamps sold through the philatelic branch.


Peter John Veniot: I am talking about used stamps sold to philatelists. Up until 1932 these stamps were sold by officials of the department, and the profits came to the country. Since 1932 these stamps have been sold through an agency which makes a large profit at the expense of this country. Why are these used stamps sold through an agency instead of being sold direct by the department and the profits accumulated to the credit of the dominion, as was done when I was Postmaster General?


Arthur Sauvé: They are not sold through
an agency unless you call the philatelic branch an agency.
Supply-Post Office


Peter John Veniot: Then why was this answer
given in Hansard? Why deceive this house? Why not give us the truth? I am not blaming the minister but the policy adopted by the government of running this department, not in the interests of the public but of certain friends who are making graft out of the Post Office department to-day, by establishing an agency to sell these stamps which in the past brought a revenue. To-day that revenue is nil, but those handling these stamps are making a fortune. That is the statement I make. Let the minister have an opportunity to consult his assistant so as to be able to answer the question intelligently.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Peter John Veniot: If you have no more respect for the minister than that, he ought to get out of your company and resign.


Arthur Sauvé: The hon. member for Gloucester knows French well enough-


Peter John Veniot: Yes; I will be pleased to get an answer in the French language.


Peter John Veniot: The reply in French will be satisfactory to me and will be easier for the minister.


Arthur Sauvé: I know what the hon. member said in French.


Arthur Sauvé: The hon. member for Gloucester has laid against the Post Office Department a charge that is both exaggerated and unfounded. May I tell him that I am most surprised at his statement and, specially, at the way he treats the Postmaster General.


Peter John Veniot: I treat you right.


Arthur Sauvé: The hon. member for Gloucester claims that there is no proper control in the department, specially so far as the stamps he spoke of are concerned. If the hon. member for Gloucester, who not only has some experience in the administration of the department but has the habit of making extraordinary statements, will only formulate a definite charge, I promise to look into it immediately. If there is graft in the department-


Peter John Veniot: I did not say that.


Arthur Sauvé: The hon. member has insinuated something to that effect and I want to answer the charge.


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order.


Peter John Veniot: I did not say there was
graft in the department but that the policy followed since 1932 favoured graft for parties outside of the department. I am not accusing the department of graft.


Arthur Sauvé: Will the hon. member for Gloucester give details?


Peter John Veniot: I did give you the details.


Arthur Sauvé: They are not complete enough. It is but an exaggerated statement, words inspired by passion without any serious foundation.


Mr. MULOCK:: Were there any supercharge raised stamps, from five to six cents, of the air mail, sold to stamp collectors or vendors or purchasers, whatever the minister likes to call them? If so, how much did the department receive, and were they accounted for? The stamps I refer to are those which were printed upside down by mistake.


Arthur Sauvé: I will obtain the information and give an answer to-morrow.


William Pate Mulock: Do I understand that the minister is leaving this particular item open until he is in a position to answer the question? I would ask the minister this further question. Does he know what price these stamps are selling at now to stamp collectors in the country?


Arthur Sauvé: If the hon. member will put the question on the order paper I will answer it.


Peter John Veniot: I do not think that we
should be required to place a question of that kind on the order paper. The Postmaster General's estimates are now before the committee and he can answer the question. He is quite right in declining to answer it to-night, seeing that the question has been raised for the first time, and therefore he should have an opportunity to look into it. I do not want to push him to-night, but so long as that -answer is not given I dfc not think that these estimates should pass. That is the point I make. The Postmaster General, speaking in French, said that I was not treating him right. I have sat on this side for four sessions and have listened to the minister's estimates going through. I have had millions of reasons to criticize the Post-

Supply-Post Office
master General's estimates, not only in a general way but in detail, and when the hon. gentleman, reviewing my attitude in the last four years, can get up and say that I am not treating him right because I want a definite answer to a question which interests the public as a whole concerning what to my mind is one of the worst principles ever established in the Post Office Department, namely, allowing outsiders to make a profit on the sale of stamps which should go to the government, then I say that he cannot appreciate it when he is properly treated, and from now on I will reserve to myself the right to criticize him as severely as I feel he should be criticized. I have not criticized the Postmaster General; I have endeavoured to have his estimates go through. I know the responsibility that rests upon his shoulders; I know what a difficult department he has to administer; I know that he represents the largest vending and revenue department of the government of Canada; I know that he has from thirty-five to forty thousand men under his supervision, and I know how difficult it is to administer the department without having undue criticism hurled at him. For this reason I have refrained from criticizing the minister. But when it came to my notice within the last day or two that this transaction was put through in 1932, I felt it my duty not to criticize the minister severely but simply to point out that this had been done and to find out the reasons why it had been done and why outside parties should have been allowed to participate in the surplus revenue that should have come to the Post Office Department. I think the minister has gone out of his way to-night in stating that I have treated him unfairly in handling the question. When I was Postmaster General I stood here for twenty-one days with my estimates held up, but I found no fault with the opposition for the action they took because I was able to meet them. I was able to answer every question that was put to me; I was able to meet and answer every attack that was hurled against me; I stood by my guns and I refused to give in even when the opposition in the dying hours of the attack, after twenty-one days, thought I could no longer go across to England and sit as the first Canadian who ever sat as president of the world postal union, and when they offered to compromise and withdraw their dogs I refused to accept the compromise. If I were to show toward the minister the same disposition that his friends displayed towards me during my tenure of office, he would never get his estimates through the house.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: All right; go ahead.


Peter John Veniot: What have you to say about the matter? You are not the minister and you know very little about what is going on in the house. Pardon me, Mr. Chairman, for addressing the hon. gentleman directly and not through the chair, but he had no right to interfere. The biblical injunction is that when you are struck on one cheek, you should turn the other. I want to say that I newer turned the other cheek, but I fought straight from the shoulder. I have every sympathy for the Postmaster General. I know his department is not allowed to be run to-day in the way it should be run; I know he is not the master of that department. In my time I would brook no interference in the internal working of the department from any member of the government, not even from the Prime Minister under whom I worked. He knew enough, in carrying on the business of the country, to allot to each minister his department and to rely upon each minister to be able to conduct it properly. That is not the situation to-day, and proof of that is to be found in the fact that for the last two years there has been no deputy postmaster general. Why? If rumour that is circulating is true, the position is being kept vacant for the appointment of a Conservative member of this house who fears that he will not be elected in his constituency in the next election.


An hon. MEMBER:: Name him. '


Peter John Veniot: No; hon. gentlemen opposite can name him better than I can, because some of them, as I understand the matter, have been pushing his application to the fore. There is just now a little row in the Conservative party to see which one of two or three should get the position, and not one of those gentlemen whose names are mentioned is fit to fill the position of assistant deputy or assistant to the assistant deputy of the Post Office Department, because they do not know the first thing about it. I want to appeal now to the government: Name your deputy minister according to merit; do not go outside the department and take in to place at the head of that important department a man who knows nothing about it. Name a man according to merit; such men are to be found in the Post Office Department. There are in it members of the civil service the equal of whom cannot be found on the whole continent of America, and I say that after having had four years experience with such men. There are in that department men the equal of whom cannot be found in any other
Supply-Post Office

civil service on this continent; there are there men whom the United' States and France take the trouble to consult in regard to the method of administering their departments of mail service. Yet those men are not advanced; they are held back and their being held back is a threat held over their heads.


Leslie Gordon Bell: You cut their heads off; what are you talking about?


Peter John Veniot: I did not cut off one head, but I would be only too pleased to cut off the heads of men like my hon. friend when the time comes, because-


Leslie Gordon Bell: You never will.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: -there are many empty heads that should be cut off.


Leslie Gordon Bell: All right; start with yourself.


Peter John Veniot: Let me appeal once more to the government: Grant to the service the money that it deserves; do not hold that position open any longer. This may be only my own opinion that I am expressing, but I take the responsibility for it as I do in everything else that I may say. I say to the government of to-day: Should the fortunes of war in the coming election go against them and your humble servant is called upon to fill the position he once filled in the government of another day, if a deputy minister is appointed from outside the service, I will cut his head off five minutes after I take office.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Why?


An hon. MEMBER:: Political patronage.


Peter John Veniot: It is not a question of political patronage; it is a question of fitness for the position, because if you appoint a man from outside the civil service he would ruin and wreck that department inside of three months. That is why I stand by the principle of promotion. I want promotion in the service. I carried out that principle when I was at the head of the Post Office Department, and I want the present government to carry it out and to appoint men from within the service and not to give such positions to political heelers.


Mr. LUOHKOVICH:: I do not wish to derogate from the glory of the former Postmaster General. I notice he has a beautiful rose in the lapel of his coat and I think all that is needed now is a laurel wreath to deck his brow. All I wish to do at present is to find out what is the practice of the department in the establishment of new post offices. In certain districts in the west there are local-
ities very much in need of new post offices. What are the factors that enter into the establishment of new offices? How many miles apart must they be? What estimated revenue and what number of people in the locality are requisite to the establishment of a post office? What is the factor as to operating cost, and outside of all the factors I have mentioned are there any mitigating circumstances that might justify the department in establishing a post office in order to give service to people who find it very hard to have to go twenty or thirty miles to the nearest post office already established?


Mr.   SALIVE@: It would depend on local
conditions and needs.


Michael Luchkovich: The condition of the people or the condition of the Post Office Department?


Arthur Sauvé: Of the locality.


George Gibson Coote: In view of the fact that the government is introducing a minimum wage bill, is the Post Office Department taking any action to increase the salaries of some of the lower paid postmasters?


Arthur Sauvé: Postmasters are paid on
commission.


Mr.   OGOTE@: The commissions paid I think are inadequate. What is the minimum salary for a postmaster?


Arthur Sauvé: A minimum of one hundred
dollars a year.


George Gibson Coote: And what commissions does he receive?


Arthur Sauvé: Seventy per cent.


George Gibson Coote: Up to what point?


Arthur Sauvé: Seventy per cent on the first thousand dollars.


George Gibson Coote: Has there been any change in the salaries paid to postmasters in the last two years?


Arthur Sauvé: No.


George Gibson Coote: Were they not reduced a few years ago? Are they not affected by the salary deduction?


Arthur Sauvé: Yes, over one thousand dollars.


George Gibson Coote: Is any action contemplated to increase the remuneration for rural mail carriers? Have the government any intention of changing the system under which these men are engaged?

Supply[DOT]-Post Office


Arthur Sauvé: They are paid by contract. My hon. friend will admit that it depends upon the contract.


George Gibson Coote: Will the government consider bringing them under the minimum wage legislation?


Arthur Sauvé: No.


George Gibson Coote: Then may I ask, if not why not? Are not these men entitled to be brought under that legislation?


Arthur Sauvé: Because their payment is on a basis of tender, not salary.


George Gibson Coote: Not the postmasters, they
are paid by salary, not by tender.


Arthur Sauvé: Postmasters are paid commissions.


Michael Luchkovich: What does it cost to operate an ordinary rural post office in the west?


Arthur Sauvé: A minimum of one hundred dollars a year plus the cost of the mail service.


George Gibson Coote: Is there a permanent postmaster in charge of the post office at Moose Jaw?


Arthur Sauvé: Moose Jaw is in the charge of the district director.


George Gibson Coote: Is the district director at the same time in charge of the district and acting as postmaster? Is he filling both jobs?


Arthur Sauvé: Yes.


George Gibson Coote: Can the minister give any reason why he is filling both these jobs? Should there not 'be a postmaster appointed for Moose Jaw?


Arthur Sauvé: It is a new departure. A
new organization has been adopted.


George Gibson Coote: How long has this man been filling both these positions?


Arthur Sauvé: Since October.


George Gibson Coote: Is it the intention to appoint a postmaster as well as a district director?


Arthur Sauvé: No.


George Gibson Coote: This man is to continue to do both jobs?


Arthur Sauvé: Yes.


George Gibson Coote: Is he paid a salary as postmaster?


Arthur Sauvé: He has a staff for the purpose.


George Gibson Coote: Is the salary paid to him as postmaster or as district director?


Arthur Sauvé: The range of salaries has been increased by the Civil Service Commission.


Mr. REID:: Last year I drew the minister's attention to the fact that some sixty householders in a 'district within a mile of the post office at New Westminster who have no mail delivery had to put up boxes seven or eight blocks away, although the district all round them is served with a house to house delivery. I am making an appeal this year on behalf of those householders. Surely if the district surrounding them can be given a house to house delivery there is no reason why this district should not have it. There are about sixty householders and the district is growing fast. I know the statement has been made that before there can be house to house delivery there must be sidewalks. It may be true that sidewalks should be constructed in low lying districts, but the district of which I am speaking is one of the highest areas in the town,, and if it rained forty days and forty nights one could still walk with dry feet there because it is not only on a hill but is also very gravelly. I see an increase in the estimates of some $9,600, and I make an earnest plea on behalf of these people. They are well within the city limits, and I do not think the excuse that it would require one extra postman should be considered sufficient for refusing a service that is long overdue. I ask the Postmaster General what can be done about it this year.


Arthur Sauvé: I shall have an inquiry made immediately and will inform the hon. member what it is possible to do.


Olof Hanson: The minister, I presume, has some authority over the housing of the post office employees throughout the country. I notice in the third line an item of $1,084,600 for miscellaneous, including provision for compassionate allowances to employees injured in performance of their duties. I refer to conditions existing in the Prince Rupert post office. I have already stated on the floor of this house that a respectable farmer would not use that building as a bam. It is cold, it is insanitary, it is a fire trap, and when it is about twelve above zero the people have to go home. I appeal to the minister that he should use part of that million dollars to safeguard the health of those employed there. I have made this plea for them the last three or four years, but I am afraid the minister does not realize the conditions that exist there. Naturally the poor employees themselves cannot complain, because they would take the
Supply-Post Office

chance of being discharged, but I make the complaint and ask the minister to look into it and see that something is done to safeguard the health and the life of those employed in the Prince Rupert post office.


Arthur Sauvé: Surely.


Humphrey Mitchell: Could the minister tell me the subsidies paid the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific for carrying the mails?


Arthur Sauvé: There are no subsidies.


Humphrey Mitchell: Then what are the
Canadian National and Canadian Pacific paid for carrying the mails?


Arthur Sauvé: They are paid by the car
mile.


Humphrey Mitchell: But I want to know
the amount. I know they are paid by the car mile, but what is the total?


Arthur Sauvé: 
Humphrey Mitchell: Could the minister tell me why the people's own railroad, with so much more mileage, should get less than the Canadian Pacific?


Arthur Sauvé: The amount paid the Canadian Pacific is greater because the trains of this company operate through districts more densely populated than the districts through which the Canadian National operates.


Humphrey Mitchell: The thought has passed through my mind, and I wondered if the government had taken it into consideration, of pooling the amounts paid the two railroads and dividing them equally between the two companies.


Arthur Sauvé: I do not think that would be practicable.


Robert James Manion: I have heard that question asked many times; I have asked it myself, and in addition to what my hon. friend the Postmaster General has said in regard to the density of population there is another very good reason why the Canadian Pacific happen to have more business in the carrying of mails than the Canadian National. As Minister of Railways I am naturally interested, and I am told that the Canadian Pacific, being the older system, having been the only system as a matter of fact up to 1900 or 1903, and having not only the denser traffic but also the older contracts, naturally has continued those contracts because there has been no good reason advanced for taking them away, since the contracts have been

properly carried out. I think that has a good deal to do with the fact that the Canadian Pacific has that advantage. Yet another reason is that the Canadian Pacific, with its ocean services on both Atlantic and Pacific, furnishes a through route, and naturally that must be taken into consideration to a certain extent.


Mr. RHEAUME (Translation):: Has any decision been taken with regard to the appointment of a postmaster at Iberville.


Arthur Sauvé: Not yet.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: I suppose it is still under consideration?


Arthur Sauvé: Yes.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: I see an item of $6,545 for the post office at St. John. Would the hon. minister explain it?


Arthur Sauvé: For the building?


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: No, for the post office at St. John.


Arthur Sauvé: For the employees' salaries then?


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: What is the postmaster's salary?


Arthur Sauvé: $2,200, or
exactly $2,040.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: Could the hon. minister tell me how much the cleaning cost last fall?


Arthur Sauvé: That is under the minister of Public Works.


Mr. BOUCHARD (Translation):: May I ask the hon. minister to quit his laconism for a while and give us some details or try to justify what I consider to be an injustice which he has committed when he dismissed Hector Hudon as mail carrier in St. Pascal? After an investigation, he kept him in his position, and if I am well informed, it was during his trip to Egypt-I wouldn't call it 'his flight to Egypt-that the matter was settled to the detriment of Mr. Hudon. Upon his return I saw the hon. minister, I explained to him the facts the best I could and I was very astonished to hear, last December, that without a word of warning on his part, the contract had been taken away from Mr. Hudon, after an investigation which proved absolutely nothing. If the hon. minister would refer to his files, I think he would find a letter from Father Langlais, parish priest of St. Pascal, strongly protesting against the stand taken by the department.

Supply-Trade and Commerce
I understand that it would rather be for the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) to answer this question, because he was acting minister when the hon. minister was visiting Egypt. At any rate if the minister would give some explanation, I would be very glad, because I cannot see anything fair in this dismissal.


Arthur Sauvé: That is a
matter of opinion. Everything has its bright and its dark side. Some held that it was fair to leave this contract to Mr. Hudon, while others thought it was unfair. There were representations from both sides, from Mr. Hudon s friends and from his opponents. The latter were complaining about his conduct, and after having weighed the evidence, I came to the conclusion which has just been referred to by the hon member for Kamouraska (Mr. Bouchard). It is true that I received a letter from the parish priest expressing certain opinions; other people expressed different views. I Tespected them all, but finally had to make a decision myself.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Mr. Chairman, I am very glad to see the hon. solicitor general in his seat. Perhaps he remembers this case which I consider extremely unfair. The minister hesitated a long time and he states that there were reasons pro and con. I would like tc know what may have been the reasons to justify this dismissal. There are many against it, but I do not see any for which they should have dismissed Hector Hudon, a mail carrier who was doing his work quite well. They have never been able to prove anything against him in the performance of his duties. Outside of his duties he had, it is true, an automobile accident, but that has nothing to do with his contracts with the government. I even believe that the mail carriers may, outside of their work, mix in politics, without being liable to be dismissed.
This man had secured a contract for the carrying of mail and he fulfilled it very well. Absolutely nothing was proved against him, but they deprived him of a position upon which he relied for a living. He was fulfilling his task admirably. It is not a case of political partisanship. He has the support of all the citizens including the parish priest and barring none. The first time the case was brought up, I know that the hon. minister thought that the circumstances were in favour of Mr. Hudon, since he maintained him in his position. But I repeat that in the absence of the Postmaster General the acting Postmaster General who is the hon. Solicitor General
thought that he could do better, I suppose, than the Postmaster General and he ordered a new investigation. Afterwards he asked for new tenders and virtually proclaimed the dismissal of Mr. Hudon. The case was left in abeyance until the return of the Postmaster General, who, after having recovered from the fatigue of his long trip, was able to take the matter under consideration, and, finally, in December, without a word of warning and without giving anybody a chanc.e to weigh the circumstances, Hudon was dismissed. I consider that it is absolutely unfair and I challenge the minister to deny the facts at any time, on any public platform, or elsewhere. I even invite the Solicitor General, who is well known in our district, to come to St. Pascal and discuss this case before the people. I believe he will realize that never so great an injustice has been done in a county by the Post Office Department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mail subsidies and steamship subventions- Atlantic ocean, Pacific ocean, local services, $2,312,258.26.
Mr. ELLIOTT:: I was going to ask the minister if he would mind allowing this item to stand for the present. I think perhaps time would be saved by deferring some of tihe discussion in regard to it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I shall be very glad to allow the item to stand.
Item stands.
British and foreign news service, $15,000.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Can the minister give us some particulars with regard to the service that is rendered for this amount?


Richard Burpee Hanson: This is Reuter's news service, which has been in the estimates, under contract, for many years. The item has been reduced in recent years from S25,000 or $30,000 to the present figure of $15,000. The vote is the amount of a contract under the terms of the present agreement with Reuter's Limited, dated May 31, 1933, for a period of three years. The contractors agree to transmit from Canada, by cable, for distribution in the United Kingdom an average of 7,000 words monthly, or a proportionate number if the cable rates change, of Canadian news calculated to promote and maintain interest in Canada and Canadian activities; and in addition to maintain its present cable service, and to furnish a service of mail news calculated to promote and maintain interest in Canada and Canadian activi-

Supply-Trade and Commerce
ties, suoh news to be distributed by mail throughout the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, the West Indies and England. For the purpose of carrying out this service the company will maintain in Canada a special representative who will devote his whole time to the preparation and editing of such news articles, and so forth. It is a very old established service, and it is reported to me that they have sent out a good deal of information under this agreement.


Mr. JACOBS:: Not tainted with politics, I hope?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I hope not.


Samuel William Jacobs: The minister has not been there long enough to say whether it is or not?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do know that that was a criticism levelled at the service at one time, but how far it was justified I cannot say.


Samuel William Jacobs: May I ask who the person is who is disseminating this news?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does my hon. friend mean the person in Ottawa?


Samuel William Jacobs: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Since the death of Mr. Grange, his brother in law, Mr. McDougall, has carried on this service.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Commercial intelligence service, including miscellaneous expenditure in connection with Canada's trade, $696,251.
Henry Elvins Spencer: Is this the item under which a large amount of advertising was done a year or two ago?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, I think
not.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dominion Bureau of Statistics, $380,428.
Mr. MOTHERWELL:: This item is generally allowed to stand until all the matters in connection with grain have come before the house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think my hon. friend is referring to item 276 dealing with the Canada Grain Act. We are not taking up the Canada Grain Act item to-night. The vote now under consideration is for the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Might I ask the reason for the decrease in this vote?


Olof Hanson: The principal reason is the reduction in the staff of
(Mr. R. B. Hanson.]
the census bureau. The services of a large number of those engaged for the 1931 census are no longer required.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Exhibitions and fairs, $195,000.
Mr. BOTHWEDL:: Will the minister tell us the reason for the increase?


Richard Burpee Hanson: The principal reason is the increase in service at different points. The high commissioner has recommended that an increased service be given to the fairs in the United Kingdom. The amount required for that .particular item is $92,000.


Thomas Reid: Are the displays conducted
all over the old country or are they conducted only at one particular point?


Richard Burpee Hanson: They are distributed around different points as the opportunity arises. It is not always known in advance just where a display may be made; this depends upon what the requisition may be.


Charles Edward Bothwell: This applies only to fairs outside of Canada?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
International customs tariffs bureau, $3,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: Would the minister explain this item?


Richard Burpee Hanson: This
amount is required to provide for Canada's yearly contribution to the international customs tariffs bureau. We make a great deal of use of that bureau. It is located at Brussels and was founded as a result of a convention signed there in 1890 by thirty-nine countries, including Canada. The bureau distributes to the various states supporting it the amendments which may be enacted from time to time. In order to maintain this bureau the countries are assessed according to their respective volume of trade. At the outset Canada was placed in the third class trade position and the average contribution was 3,106 gold francs, or about S600. In 1929 Canada was advanced to the first class and her contribution was raised to 6,833 gold francs, or about $1,319. The amount is increased by ten per cent to provide for the superannuation of the bureau employees.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Trade and Commerce
Motion picture bureau, $40,090.
Angus MacInnis: Would the minister kindly explain the functions of this bureau?


Richard Burpee Hanson: This
bureau was organized in 1917 and operates as a branch of this department. One of its functions is to circulate throughout the world motion pictures and photographic material designed to disseminate information about Canada's natural resources, industries, et cetera, and through this means encourage the development of trade. The bureau acts as a central organization for the production of technical and instructional advertising in the form of films and pictorial matter. The bureau cooperates with the provincial governments, the national railways and steamship lines and other agencies for the production of pictorial matter in connection with the dominion's welfare and progress. The bureau cooperates with the motion picture industry in matters pertaiing to the welfare and progress of the dominion.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National Research Council, $400,000.
William Richard Motherwell: I noticed an item
in the press about a month ago to the effect that Doctor Tory's period of employment by the department was about to expire. Has the government come to any decision as to the retention of his services for a further period?


Richard Burpee Hanson: The matter has not even been considered. I think it should be explained that Doctor Tory was employed under a contract for a stated period of years at a stated salary. He is not like any other civil servant; he is there under a special arrangement as the hon. gentleman well knows.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Would the minister give us the reason for the increase?


Richard Burpee Hanson: 
Henry Elvins Spencer: I am not criticizing the
increase; I wish it could be a good deal more. The research council is doing splendid work. Is anything being done in connection with the establishing of a standards board such as they have in the United States?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am
afraid I shall have to make inquiry as to that and let the hon. gentleman know. I am not very familiar with the technique of the department.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Could the minister give
us an idea as to some of the worth while things this council has done during the last year or so?


Richard Burpee Hanson: An elaborate report is made every year. I have not a copy under my hand at the moment but I shall be glad to see that one is sent to the hon. gentleman. I am sure he will find it to be very interesting reading.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Weights and measures inspection service, including the international bureau of weights and measures, $314,396.
Mr. GARDINER:: I direct the attention of the minister to a prevalent complaint in Alberta with regard to the weighing of coal. I understand that the coal is not weighed at the pit mouth but on the cars by the railway companies, and there is complaint of shortage of weight with regard to almost every car. Inasmuch as this comes under the jurisdiction of the minister's department I should like to have him investigate the matter in order to see that the railway companies weigh the coal properly, because we are satisfied that proper precautions cannot be taken to weigh the cars and then take off the tare to determine the actual amount of coal in the car. By this method a shortage occurs, with the result that the companies who retail the coal have to sell to consumers less coal than they should. They sell a short ton instead of giving full weight in order to make up the deficiency. I am informed that the railway companies do not stop the cars on the scale but run them over the scale slowly, and this is responsible for the shortage. Will the minister take action in this regard, because the complaint is prevalent.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am glad to assure the hon. gentleman that his remarks will be fully noted1 and a proper check-up made. The department itself checks the scales, but the method of operating the scales is quite another matter. However, his remarks will be referred to the director of weights and measures and proper action taken in so far as we have jurisdiction. With respect to the modus operandi of the railways, I shall also be glad to have their attention directed to the hon. gentleman's remarks. That is as far as I can go in that respect.
Mr. GARBINEiR: I do not think that will be far enough. Three or -four years ago I brought the matter to the attention of the minister's predecessor but no effective action was taken. 1m view of the fact that this complaint is widespread in Alberta 1 think that the minister should look not only into the matter of testing the scales but also into the method of their operation to see that the scales are managed in such a way that those who buy coal will get their full weight.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I will
undertake that the full jurisdiction of the act shall be enforced; that is as far as we can go.


Charles Edward Bothwell: It has been rumoured in the press that certain recommendations will be made by the price spreads commission in connection with weights and measures. Might it not be advisable to have this item stand?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Certainly, if it is the wish of the committee. I may say to the hon. gentleman that the department itself, in view of what h-as appeared in the press and what has taken place in the committee and the royal commission, has been investigating the desirability of tightening up the whole act. I have had it under my personal review and am of the opinion that the act, which has been in force many years under all governments and neither revised, consolidated nor brought up to date for a considerable time, should be revised in certain specific respects. The whole position is being kept very much in view.
Item stands.
International bureau of exhibitions, $2,300.


William Richard Motherwell: This is a new vote. Will the minister give a short explanation?


Richard Burpee Hanson: This is a new item and the amount is required to provide for Canada's contribution to the International Bureau of Exhibitions in accordance 
with an order in council, P.C. 787, dated April 18, 1034. Perhaps I had better read the order in council:
The committee of the privy council have had before -them a report, dated 23rd March, 1934, from the Secretary of State for External Affaire, representing, in concurrence with the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of National Revenue, as follows:
1.	The convention relating to international exhibitions, and the protocol of signature, signed at Paris on the 22nd November, 1928, on behalf of the government of Canada by the plenipotentiary named therein, were approved by the House of Commons and the Senate of Canada on the 6th and 8th March, 1933, respectively;
2. It is provided by article 33 that "the present convention shall be subject to ratification";
3.	It is now deemed advisable to proceed to the ratification of the convention and of the protocol of signature in respect of the government of Canada.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs therefore, in concurrence with the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of National Revenue, recommends that the Secretary of -State for External Affairs take appropriate steps to ratify the convention and the protocol of signature in respect of the government of Canada,
The committee concur in the foregoing recommendation and submit the same for approval.
Perhaps I should also read a letter which was addressed to the Canadian minister in France, the Hon. Philippe Roy, by the president of the Bureau International des Expositions. This letter is dated Paris, December 29, 1934, and reads:
Sir,-I have the honour to send you herewith, five copies of the report of the sixth session of the Bureau International d'es Expositions held at the end of October in Paris.
As your excellency may see in the preliminary note-page 9 of the brochure-the order of the day comprised, among various questions, those regarding:	the universal exhibition of
Brussels 1935, the aviation exhibition of Stockholm in 1936, the exhibition of technical arts in modern life, of Paris, 1937, and the exhibition of popular -arts of Berne, planned for 1939.
The council had moreover to attend to the election of its president, and of a vice-president and to choose the countries represented on the classification commission. Lastly, the budget for the next fiscal year, 1st of April, 193531st March, 1936, has been approved, as well as the amount of subscription for the adhering states. From the list on page 54 of the brochure, it appears that the contribution for your country, for the said fiscal year, amounts to: 421 francs x 35 - 14.735 francs.
I take the liberty of drawing you-r attention to the fact that Canada has not yet paid its dues of 13.834 francs for the present fiscal year 1934-35.
I -would be very grateful to you if you would forward to your government the enclosed copies of the report, with the request that they be communicated to the proper organizations that might be interested in the exhibitions.

Minimum Wage Draft Convention
This is our contribution under the convention which was entered into in 1928 and ratified by the house in 1933. The obligation is to pay Canada's share. This is our share.


William Richard Motherwell: Is this an annual amount?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I suppose it is as long as we remain a party to the convention.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Sir George Perley the house adjourned at 10.35 p.m.
Friday, March 15, 1935