Mr. BENNETT:

If I may speak again wfith the consent of the house, may I observe that that has not been the rule. Indeed, this house on a previous occasion went so far as to sustain the judgment of those responsible, that even names should not be brought before the chamber; because the theory of the law is the exact opposite of that. If it is thought desirable that information of this kind should be given, and a notice is put on the order

paper, I am content that the matter should be debated, and that the fullest opportunity be given the house to determine what action shall be taken. But this would certainly involve a principle which I would appose-the production of names. If the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) will consider the matter, he will realize that even the mere giving of a name involves the question of adequacy of sentence, the sufficiency of reasons, and the bona tides of the action taken. I have heard them impugned in the days of my hon. friend and I have never lent assistance to such criticism because I have felt that it was one of those matters with respect to which, once you have introduced discussion in this house as to whether or not political or other considerations have had an influence in the action taken, you destroy )the whole foundation upon which the provisions of the statute were built. However, Mr. Speaker, I repeat that if this house desires that the matter be discussed I shall endeavour to afford every possible opportunity to those who may put the necessary notice on the order paper to have it debated.

Mr. RINFRET:

But in the meanwhile-

Mr. BENNETT:

In the meanwhile the practice that has heretofore prevailed will continue to be observed, and no information wil be given.

Mr. RINFRET:

In the meanwhile I would ask either the Solicitor General or the Prime Minister whether such information is available privately at the department.

Mr. BENNETT:

I will treat that as a question on the order paper and we will investigate and see what the practice has been. I know what the practice is in the Home Office, because there was a little volume issued last year in respect of the conduct of business there.

Mr. POWER:

You are Prime Minister of Canada.

Mr. BENNETT:

I am glad my hon. friend realizes it. He does so rather late in the day, but that is immaterial. However, the practice which has prevailed heretofore in this matter will, I repeat, be observed in this case.

Mr. RINFRET:

May I say further, with the consent of the house-

Order.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The government declines to answer the question as it stands on the order paper.

Question stands.

.1330

Questions

1. Is the Canadian National Railways operating a workshop at New Carlisle, Quebec, and if so, how many men are employed?

2. If Campbellton, New Brunswick, is made the terminus of the Gaspe railways, will the workshop at New Carlisle continue to exist?

Mr. MANION:

*

1. Yes, 14 men employed at present.

2. Yes.

Mr. VBNIOT:

How many wharfingers and lighthouse keepers were dismissed between the 7th of August, 1930, and the 27th April, 1931, and what were the reasons assigned for such dismissals?

Mr. DURANLEAU:

(a) Number of wharfingers dismissed-Reasons for dismissals

1, neglect of duty; 10, political partisanship; total, 11.

(b) Number of lightkeepers dismissed- Reasons for dismissals 8, neglect of duty; 1, in the public interest; 1, farming out duties; 36, political partisanship; total, 46.

1. How many sessional clerks are employed in the House of Commons?

2. What are their names, and what salary does each draw?

1. 13.

2. A. Aube, 84 per day; G. H. S. Campbell, $6 per day; W. A. Code, 84 per day; M. Cote, S4 per day; L. Coulombe, S4; C. Cour-eelle, S4 per day; E. Cvr, $4 per day; M. Diot-te, $4 per day; A. Drolet, 84 per day; E. Gourre, SI per day; T. L. Maloney, S4 per day; C. W. Meneilley, 84 per day; J. P. Rioux, S4 per day.