Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):

Mr. Speaker, I desire to lay on the table of the house parliamentary return, reference 218, in answer to a motion by Mr. Lafleche concerning the Canadian Merchant Marine. May I add that it is possible there may be supplementary information, because upon investigation I find the question is somewhat indefinite.

1. How many cases were argued on behalf

of the government by the Hon. Lucien Cannon while he was Solicitor General and in that capacity: (a) before the Supreme Court of

Canada; (b) before the Privy Council?

2. Same question for his successor in office?

1. (a) Supreme Court.

1. Reference re validity of section 17 of the Alberta Act. Hon. Lucien Cannon, K.C., and Mr. Eugene Lafleur, K.C., appeared for the dominion and took part in the argument. The factum and brief were prepared by Mr. Lafleur and approved by the Hon. Lucien Cannon.

2. The King v. Dominion Building Corporation, Limited, Hon. Lucien Cannon, K.C., and Mr. C. P. Plaxton, K.C., appeared for the crown and took part in the argument. The factum and brief were prepared by Mr. Plaxton and approved by Hon. Lucien Cannon.

3. Reference re persons (Senate). Hon.

Lucien Cannon, K.C., Mr. Eugene Lafleur, K.C., and Mr. C. P. Plaxton, K.C., appeared for the government. Mr. Cannon and Mr. Lafleur took part in the argument. Thefactum and brief were prepared by Mr. Plaxton and approved by Hon. Lucien Cannon and Mr. Lafleur.4. Reference re Troops. Hon. Lucien

Cannon, K.C., and Mr. Varcoe, K.C., appeared for the dominion and took part in the argument. The factum and brief were prepared by Mr. Plaxton and approved by Mr. Cannon.

5. Sun Life Assurance v. Superintendent of Insurance. Hon. Lucien Cannon, K.C., and Mr. F. P. Varcoe, K.C., appeared for the superintendent of insurance and took part in the argument. The factum was prepared by Mr. Varcoe and approved by Hon. Lucien Cannon.

6. Reference re Aerial Navigation. Hon. Lucien Cannon, K.C., Mr. Eugene Lafleur, K.C., and Mr. C. P. Plaxton, K.C., appeared for the dominion and took part in the argument. The factum and brief were prepared by Mr. Plaxton and approved by Hon. Lucien Cannon.

1. (b) Privy Council.

1. Reference re Hudson's Bay Co. (Precious Metals). Hon. Lucien Cannon, K.C., and Mr. Aime Geoffrion, K.C., appeared for the dominion and took part in the argument.

2. Reference re Manitoba Sale of Shares Legislation, December 10, 1928. Hon. Lucien Cannon, K.C., and Mr. Aime Geoffrion, K.C.,

appeared for the dominion and took part in the argument.

3. The King v. Dominion Building Corporation, Limited. Hon. Lucien Cannon, K.C., Mr. Aime Geoffrion, K.C., and Mr. C. P. Plaxton, K.C., appeared for the crown, Mr. Cannon and Mr. Geoffrion taking part in the argument. The factum and brief were prepared by Mr. Plaxton and approved by Hon. Lucien Cannon.

2. (a) Supreme Court, none; Ob) Privy Council, none.

1. Has the postmaster of St. Francois d'Assises, county of Bonaventure, Quebec, been dismissed, if so, for what reasons?

2. Has a temporary postmaster been appointed, if so, what is his name and on whose recommendation was the appointment made?

3. Has a permanent appointment been made in that office?

1. Yes. Commissioners' report found postmaster guilty of active political partisanship.

2. No.

3. Instructions issued for permanent appointment.

1. Has the postmaster of Hopetown, county of Bonaventure, Quebec, been dismissed, if so, for what reasons?

2. Has a temporary postmaster been appointed, if so, what is his name and on whose recommendation was the appointment made?

3. Has a permanent appointment been made in that office?

1. Yes. Commissioners' report found postmaster guilty of active political partisanship.

2. No.

3. Yes.

1. Did the Postmaster General, since August, 1930, order an inquiry in connection with charges of political partisanship lodged against the postmaster at Raudot, Quebec?

2. If so: (a) at whose written request was this inquiry granted; (b) was said written request accompanied by many affidavits; (c) if so, what is the date, and the name of the person whose signature is attached to each affidavit; (d) on what date was each affidavit

Questions

received by the Postmaster General; (e) on what date did the Postmaster General order the inquiry?

1. Yes.

2. (a) Mr. C. E. Duibe; (fo) and (c) written request was accompanied by sworn affidavit, dated July 29, 1931, signed by Alex. Lebel; (d) August 19, 1931; (e) instructions sent to commissioner September 1, 1931.

1. Did the Postmaster General, since August, 1930, order an inquiry in connection with charges of political partisanship lodged against the postmaster at Gironde?

2. If so: (a) a1 whose written request was this inquiry granted; (b) was said written request accompanied by many affidavits; (c) if so, what is the date, and the name of the person whose signature is attached to each affidavit; (d) on what date was each affidavit received by the Postmaster General; (e) on what date did the Postmaster General order the inquiry?

Mr. SAUVE;

1. Yes.

2. (a) Mr. C. E. Dube; (fo) and (c) written request was accompanied by sworn affidavit dated February ?5, 1931, signed by Octave Landry; (d) April 4, 1931; (e) instructions sent to commissioner April 28, 1931.