Mr. BOUCHARD (Translation):

I should like to be informed by the hon. Postmaster General why Mrs. Cote was dismissed at St. Pascal. The reason given, according to the evidence on file, was her age, I would, therefore, like to be informed whether the Postmaster General is aware of the age of the person who replaced her.

Mr. RHEAUME (Translation):

A lady's age is never mentioned.

Mr. SAUVE (Translation):

Mrs. Cote was dismissed on the report of the administrator, at Quebec, because of her age. I am informed that the person who replaced her is younger than her.

Mr. BOUCHARD (Translation):

Could the hon. Postmaster General inform the house, exactly, how many years younger?

Mr. SAUVE (Translation):

No, not exactly.

Mr. GAGNON (Translation):

Will the hon. member allow me to ask him a question?

Mr. BOUCHARD (Translation):

Certainly.

Mr. GAGNON (Translation):

I understand that the hon. member has the complete file before him in connection with the dismissal of the postmistress of St. Pascal?

Mr. BOUCHARD (Translation):

Yes.

Mr. GAGNON (Translation):

Could the

hon. member quote one single letter from the Solicitor General requesting the dismissal of Mrs. Cote?

Mr. POULIOT (Translation):

The Solicitor General does not write himself, his secretaries do the writing. That is why he has secretaries.

Mr. BOUCHARD (Translation):

In answer to the hon, member for Dorchester, I cannot state that I have a letter from the Solicitor General, however, I am aware that urgent representations were made and I base my contentions on the coincidence with the visit of the Solicitor General and the dismissal. The date of the dismissal closely coincides with that of the election.

I am putting the question to the hon. Postmaster General who is certainly better informed than I am. He can tell me whether I am wrong or right in my suppositions. Note that I have nothing to say against this dismissal. What grieves me, however, is that they have dismissed a widow who was greatly in need of the income derived from that office. I simply say that the dismissal coincides with the visit-

Mr. POULIOT (Translation):

-the visit ol a cruel man.

Mr. BOUCHARD (Translation):

-the visit of the Solicitor General.

I do not wish to protract the discussion on that matter, but I do want to ask the minister if he really thinks that there were sufficient reasons to dismiss the postmaster of ICa-mouraska, Mr. Edouard Guy. If he does, then what are these reasons? I am also wondering whether it were wise on the part of the Postmaster general to appoint a man who had previously been dismissed for other reasons than partisanship. It was not on account of partisanship that the predecessor of Mr. Guy, whom he later succeeded, was dismissed. Would the hon. Postmaster General give me some information about that?

Mr. SAUVE (Translation):

The hon.

member wants to know why the postmaster of Kamouraska was dismissed?

Mr. BOUCHARD (Translation):

Yes, in

the first place; then whether it is wise to appoint a former employee who has been dismissed. Mr. Langlais was dismissed after an investigation held at my request. The investigation showed clearly that, during the election of Hon. Mr. Stein, now Justice Stein, Langlais had distributed libellous pamphlets, a copy of which must be in the department's files. Langlais had sent these circulars through

Supply-Post Office

the mail, and without any stamps. He was dismissed for mismanagement, not for partisanship. The investigation showed it very clearly. Then Mr. Guy took his place. After the investigation held about Mr. Guy, the Postmaster General appointed again to that position the man who had been dismissed, five or six years previously, for the reasons that I have just mentioned.

Mr. SAUVE (Translation):

Mr. Chairman, I was unaware of the fact just mentioned by the hon. member. I am going to inquire about it. I frankly admit that no such case has ever been submitted to me, either for Kamouraska, or other counties.

As to the reasons for dismissing Mr. Edouard Guy, postmaster of Kamouraska, here they are:

The postmaster has openly expressed his political opinion-that is the report of the commissioner-has attended political meetings and mingled with groups of people carried by truck to one of these meetings.

He admits that he had discussed polities with friends and that he went to the camp of the men who *were working at a wharf, there to "preach" his political faith. At a meeting in Kamouraska. he asked a man named Danjou to throw down the Conservative paper, Le Journal, and trample over it, that nobody would touch it. When he heard a drunken man yell at the Kamouraska meeting, he remarked to those W'ho were near him: "That is the kind of men who are for the Conservatives." He stated to one Pelletier that "his people knew how to give contracts and that it would not be any better if the d . . . Conservatives came to power."

I think that postmaster was acting contrary to the law.

Mr. FAFARD (Translation):

He would have been better, had he been deaf and dumb.

Mr. BOUCHARD (Translation):

What

surprises me about that investigation, is the fact that one of the principal witnesses was Colonel Beaubien, who spends the summer in Kamouraska, as a tourist. I would not like to say anything that might deprive our beautiful shores of their tourists, but Colonel Beaubien, if my information is correct, works in the Customs department and spends his time talking politics. Throughout the election he was busy recruiting votes and he was one of the principal witnesses at that inquiry. Is the law that applies to the post office department the same as that which obtains in the case of the Department of National Revenue? That is the first point that I would like to clear up.

Mr. SAUVE (Translation):

I have to deal with the law that rules the Post Office department.