Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:

That the name of Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) be substituted for that _ of Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw) on the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization; and

That the name of Mr. Thorson be substituted for that of Mr. Beaubien on the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization.

1. What was the total value of the goods seized by custom officials in Canada during 1935?

2. What are the classifications or nature of goods so seized?

3. What was the valuation of seized goods sold, and what amount was realized?

4. What was the valuation and nature of goods destroyed?

Mr. ILSLEY:

I would ask my hon. friend if he would not withdraw this question in view of the fact that it would take so much labour to compile the answers. If he insists I will ask that the question stand as an order for return, but it may not be brought down this session.

Mr. HEAPS:

I have no desire to put the department to all the labour entailed in answering the question. If it involves too much work, as the minister suggests, I will drop the question, but I do think that if the department were properly organized it would be a very simple matter to have at the end of each year a complete tabulation of the information asked for in my question.

Question dropped.

1. Did the Radio Refineries Limited, located at or near Winnipeg, bring into Canada, during the period from 1930 to October, 1935, large quantities of gasoline without paying the duty thereon?

2. If so, why was the duty not collected?

3. If the government discovered that smuggling had occurred, when did such discovery take place and what action did the government take?

4. Did the government lay a criminal charge against the officers and directors of the said company, and, if not, was any reason assigned?

5. Did the government sue the Radio Oil Refineries Limited, in the Court of King's Bench in Manitoba for a large sum of money?

6. If so, how was settlement effected, and for how much?

7. What was the amount for which the government sued the Radio Oil Refineries Limited?

8. Does the present government propose to take action in the matter, and, if so, what action?

Mr. ILSLEY:

Part 8 of this question relates to a matter of government policy and it has not been the custom of the government to answer such questions. Apart from that, the question is answered:

1. No-Importations were described as crude petroleum in its natural state but the department held it was not in its natural state.

2. Due to fact that entries were made under wrong tariff classification.

3. The goods were not smuggled. Following investigation it was definitely established to the satisfaction of the department early in 1934 that duty was being evaded and in May, 1934, charges were preferred.

4. No. A claim under the Customs Act for duties short paid and penalties was preferred against the company. It was believed that better results would be obtained in this way than by criminal procedure.

5. Yes.

6. Settlement was effected for $10,000, through an agent appointed by the Department of Justice.

Salary Deduction Act

7. It was charged by the department that duty and taxes short paid amounted to $19,712.35 but amount claimed in suit including penalties and forfeitures was $178,942.70 and costs.

1. How many federal civil servants in each department in each of the several provinces, except Quebec, speak and write only French?

2. How many federal civil servants in each department in the province of Quebec speak only English?

Mr. RINFRET:

In reply to this question, I may say that no records are kept from which we can supply the hon. member with the desired information.

1. Is George Wilson, barrister and solicitor of Kinistino, Saskatchewan, in the employ of the federal government?

2. If not so employed now, has he been in the employ of the government at any time, and in what position, and when were his services dispensed with?

3. If in the employ of the government during the years 1930 to 1935, what amounts of money did he receive?