1929-04-16

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. Parent.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Health):: In regard to a return moved for by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Hubbs) as reported in votes and proceedings, No. 1, page (i):
For a return showing the names and present addresses of all officers of the Canadian Expeditionary Force who have had their pensions reduced under section 14, subsection 1 of the Pensions Act, which reads:
Pensions shall be paid to, and in respect of a member of the forces in accordance with the rank or acting rank, for which he was being



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 132 for the relief of Myrtle Virginia Maulson.-Mir. Spence.
Bill No. 133 for the relief of Claude Le Cheminaut.-Mr. Spence.
Bill No. 134 for the relief of Dora Taylor. -Mr. Hepburn.
Bill No. 135 for the relief of Alice Gladys Barkey.-Mr. Spence.
Bill No. 136 for the relief of Helen Awrey. -Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 137 for the relief of James Lynham. -Mr. Gearv.
Bill No. 138, for the relief of Harry Freeman Switzer.-Mr. Young (Toronto).
Bill No. 139 for the relief of Bessie Stephen Lee.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 140 for the relief of Nanette Coffey. -Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 141 for the relief of James Graham McCreadie.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 142 foT the relief of Stephen Dymon.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 143 for the relief of Irene Sagar. -Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 144 for the relief of Clifford Wilson. -Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 145 for the relief of James Clayton Powell.

Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 146 for the relief of Mina Thompson.-Mr. Thompson.
Bill No. 147 for the relief of Clare Doutre Walters Bertram.-Mr. McPhee.
Bill No. 148 for the relief of Margaret Duffield.-Mr. McPhee.
Motions for first readings agreed to on division.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the

Civil Service-Technical Officials
house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to provide that the Canadian National Railway Company may construct and complete terminal stations and facilities and other railway works and improvements at or in the vicinity of the city of Montreal, and the governor in council may guarantee the principal and interest of securities to be issued for these purposes by the company to an amount not exceeding $50,000,000, and the proceeds of any sale, pledge or disposition of the securities shall lie deposited to the credit of the Minister of Finance in trust for the company, and released from time to time to the comapny by the said minister to be applied to expenditures made or indebtedness incurred in connection with the said works.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. II. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre): Might I ask the Minister of Finance whether the government are yet ready to announce the names of certain distinguished gentlemen who, they indicated a few days ago, would be asked to counsel with them regarding the duties, rates of salaries and so forth in connection with technical employees in the service?
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: I anticipated that this question might be asked, because my hon. friend had asked it before. As hon. members know, it has been represented that the remuneration provided in the government service is no longer attractive to persons of superior technical and professional training. The report made last year by the Civil Service Commission recommends a graduated flat increase of from $240 to $420 per annum. This would apply to 1,936 persons, and involves $690,000 to one class and $60,000 to another, or a total of $750,000.
While there may be those who feel that, generally speaking, the civil servants of Canada are as well provided for in the way of salaries as are their fellow citizens who furnish the revenues to pay for the services, it is felt that in the public interest a fair comparison of salaries within and without the service should be available. The government,
therefore, invited Mr. E. W. Beatty, president and chairman of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, Sir George Garneau, of Garneau Limitee, Quebec city, and Doctor Murray, president of the university of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, to inquire into and report on these phases, thereby providing the government with information permitting a readjustment fair to all interested.
May I add that the government feel that this house will agree the country is fortunate in being able to secure the services of men of such wide experience.



GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY COMPANY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition) :: I desire to ask the Minister of Justice whether or not the reports appearing in the public press as to the granting of a fiat to the first and second preference shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway Company empowering them to enter an action with respect to their claims, has been granted by the minister.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: I saw that report in the press. It is wholly erroneous. The matter is still engaging the consideration of the Department of Justice.



CANADIAN REPARATIONS ASSOCIATION OF TORONTO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. E. MacLEAN (Prince):: Can the Secretary of State give the house any information regarding an organization known as the Canadian Reparations Association of Toronto, which is writing to different claimants telling them that if they turn over their claims to this association, it will see that they are adjusted, and that five per cent commission will be charged for the work.


Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State):: Although I have no specific knowledge of that association, its existence has been brought to my attention, as well as similar proposals made to the claimants for a certain consideration to further their claims. I would not like to appear to be denying to any claimants any means of making their claims good, nor would I like to impute any motive to any association, but I do desire to say very clearly that I fail to see the least usefulness on the part of any of these claimants in going on with their claims after their claims have been investigated by Commissioner Friel and a report has been made by
Marine and Fisheries

the commissioner in regard to every one of them. It is now a question not of dealing with individual claims, but rather as to what policy shall be adopted as regards the claimants as a whole. That question is now before the house, and the government has a resolution covering the matter. Further, it wishes to take parliament into its confidence in order that a definite solution might be found for this rather involved problem. I do think, however, that claimants should guard well against entering into any such agreement with any outside association, and rely rather on the sense of justice of the government and of parliament in this matter.



MARINE AND FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. ERNST (Queens-Lunenburg):: I desire to draw the attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardan) to the fact that early in the session two bills, Nos. 25 and 26, relating to the fisheries of the Dominior, received a second reading in this house and were referred to the committee on marine and fisheries. They have been considered indirectly at one meeting of that committee which was held a considerable time before the Easter recess, but nothing has been done with respect to them since, nor has the committee since been convened. I should like to ask what is the intention of the department and of the government with respect to them.


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: My hon. friend certainly
understands that I am not the master of the committee of marine and fisheries. These two bills were referred to that committee with a view to giving all parties interested the opportunity to make their representations before the committee. I am sure that the committee will devote the proper amount of time to a consideration of the proposals contained in these bills, and I have no doubt that it will be in a position to report to the house before very long so that we shall have an opportunity of proceeding to adopt these bills.
PROPOSED CHIGNECTO CANAL On the orders of the day:


Mr. R. K. SMITH (Cumberland):: I would like to ask the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Dunning) when his department will commence their investigation and surveys in connection with the proposed canal across the isthmus of Chignecto.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals):	My hon. friend
was kind enough to give me notice of his 
question. I have to make the very frank confession that I have not had time to go further into the matter since it was the subject of discussion in this house. My hon. friend will remember that I have rather a large volume of work before the house which occupies a great deal of my time, but I can assure him that this matter is not being lost sight of.



SUPPLY-RURAL MAIL CONTRACTS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
['We will stop at any place\nbetween Toronto and Windsor that will give us a proper landing.\nProgress reported.']
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington) :: Mr. Speaker, as I understand that it
is the intention of the government when the house goes into supply to enter upon a discussion of the estimates of the post office department, I thought that this might be an appropriate time to enter upon a brief discussion of the question of rural mail contracts as they now exist in the Dominion of Canada. When I heard at noon to-day that this matter was coming up, I notified the secretary of the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) that I proposed to discuss this matter, and I intend before I resume my seat to move an amendment.


Ernest Lapointe: It is rather late, without notice.


Hugh Guthrie: I gave notice. The
amendment which I propose to move is one which I believe will bring on a general discussion of the matter and in the end lead to action by the government. It is not a subject which is in any way new to the House of Commons or to the present Postmaster General or to the government, because on three or four occasions in the past five or six years this matter has been fairly well discussed.


Mr. MACKENZIE ICING:: We have not
a copy of the amendment.


Hugh Guthrie: I will give my right hon. friend a copy. So the matter which I intend to lay before the house on this occasion cannot in any way be considered as a new one. The truth is that a condition exists in regard to rural mail couriers in Canada to-day which is nothing less than a public scandal. It was about twenty years ago when we in Canada decided to establish a system of rural mail delivery throughout all the better settled portions of rural Canada. A system had been established prior to that time in the United States, and the experience in that country in regard to the delivery of rural mails throughout a very extended territory had been

Rural Mail Contracts-Mr. Guthrie
pretty satisfactory. We launched the experiment in Canada with some trepidation, I remember, but gradually we have extended the system through the better settled portions of rural Canada until to-day we have in operation, as I understand, some 4,007 rural mail routes which are of great benefit and convenience to our rural population.
The system which was adopted in the first instance in regard to these rural mail routes was one based on tender and contract. Certain routes were publicly advertised, tenders were called, and as a rule a fairly large number of tenderers responded to the advertisement in the hope of securing occupation as mail carriers in the rural parts of Canada. I suppose that lack of experience had something to do with the unsatisfactory conditions which attended the first tenders and the first contracts, but. as time has gone on,, conditions instead of improving have gradually become worse until to-day we find a system established throughout practically the whole length and breadth of this country under which certain men who are practically employees of this government and of this country, for the purpose of carrying His Majesty's mails, are not receiving an adequate return for the services they perform. Indeed, so inadequate is the return to our rural mail couriers that the matter has become nothing less than a public scandal. Year after year this matter has 'been brought to the attention of this government and of the present Postmaster General during the discussion of the Post Office estimates. Year after year the rural letter carriers have requested that their claims be considered and that they be treated on some fairer basis and on some higher standard than anything they have enjoyed hitherto.
Now, the situation I will briefly describe as follows. The figures which I give, it must be understood, will be only average figures; I cannot go into particular cases; but I find that in the report of the Postmaster General for the year ending March 31, 1928, the total cost to the Dominion for the " conveyance of mails by ordinary land" is $6,291,180.52. I have been informed by officials in the Post Office department that this item includes the cost of all the rural mail routes, of all the stage routes, and all the routes known as station-to-post office routes; these are all referred to under one item as " conveyance of mails by ordinary land." Just what part of that single item is devoted to the delivery of rural mail I am unable to say with precision; I can only form an estimate, but information has 'been given to me that the number of established routes to-day is 4,007, and it has been represented that the average
route in Canada at the present time is one of twenty miles. Some routes are a little more than this, some a little less, but as an average twenty miles is supposed to be about right. The average pay for a courier who travels that route of twenty miles is, according to my informant in the department, about $800, although according to a statement which I have received from the Letter Carriers Association the average amount which each carrier receives is only $720. I am taking the higher figure of $800 for a twenty-mile route, which would be payment to the courier at the rate of $40 per mile over a period of a year.
Now, what is he supposed to do for that money? In the first place, he has to maintain the service and in most, if not all, cases the service has to be daily; he has to perform his trip in all kinds and conditions of weather, winter and summer, with few, if any, holidays-I believe there are one or two holidays specified now; he has to maintain a sufficient horse and conveyance to cover his route, and he has to maintain himself and his family, all out of that average sum of $800 which he receives as a total annual remuneration.
One has only to state these facts to demonstrate that a service based upon such unfair conditions can only result in one thing -a public scandal. No man can perform^ the service1 satisfactorily under such conditions. The maintenance of the horse and equipment takes more than half of the remuneration which he receives. Officials in the Post Office department tell me that in order to ensure proper service on a twenty-mile route, two horses are necessary. I know of routes upon which only one horse is maintained. But take it, if you will, at only one horse, the first question is: what does it cost to keep a horse in Canada to-day ? I have made inquiries from men who ought to know-some men in this house, some outside-and I find that for the maintenance of one horse there is annually required:
140 bushels of oats	at 70 cents.. ..	$ 98
3 tons of hay at $13	 39
Bran	 90
Horshoeing	
Depreciation and repairs-horse and
conveyance	 *9
A total of	 $222
Or $440 on any route that requires two horses-and the majority of them do. _ I submit these figures to the house as the minimum figures which I have been able to obtain. The figures supplied by the Letter Carriers Association are far in advance of these figures. They tell me that three tons of hay is far too
1614	COMMONS
Rural Mail Contracts-Mr. Guthrie
little to maintain a horse for a year, and that $13 a ton is too low a price; that $20 is too little for horseshoeing, and that $40 is too little for depreciation and repairs of the equipment. But I am taking these as minimum figures which show that a mail carrier will have an actual outlay, if he employs two horses, of $440 for maintenance. This will leave him only $360 for the support of himself, and of his family.
There is no man in this country who can support himself and his family on $360; it cannot be done. Is not that a very strong reason why there is such vigorous and persistent complaint in regard to this matter? These men are underpaid while performing a very important service. Their net remuneration is but $360. Why, the figures supplied to this house by the Department of Labour show that the minimum requirement for a family of five in January of the present year was $1,122.60, for the mere necessaries of life. And yet under present conditions as operating throughout this Dominion the Post Office department we are asking these couriers of His Majesty's mail in the rural districts to do their work for $360 a year. Mr. Speaker, I repeat it cannot be done. The men are losing money. They are suffering grave hardship. Surely it is beneath the dignity of such a country as Canada, it is beneath the dignity of any government, to allow a system of that kind to continue.
Now, what will the result be? Loss to the contractors? Certainly. Inefficiency in the service? Certainly. Dishonesty will probably follow. Indeed there are some parts of Ontario where the matter has become a real scandal. There have been prosecutions before magistrates by humane societies at various points because these contractors for the conveyance of His Majesty's mails have not had money enough to feed t'heir horses. The magistrates have taken a lenient view of these cases and have dismissed them, but the matter has become an outstanding scandal.
What is the real difficulty? The tender system, I submit, is a wrong system in regard to this matter. When it was first introduced some twenty years ago it was experimental. We had had no experience at that time. But why continue it when we know year in and year out that the system is not satisfactory and is causing grave hardship? Why allow the matter to remain as it is year after year when it has been pointed out in this house, on every occasion on which post office estimates are discussed, that the system is unfair, that it is a gross hardship, and that it must be altered and improved? Why does the government delay action in this matter?

What is the system which has been adopted in the United States, for instance? There they began with a system of tender and contract for specified routes. They found it unworkable, just as we have found it unworkable and unsatisfactory in Canada. But in the United States they promptly changed it; they put it on the mileage basis. There they have established certain definite routes, the mileage is calculated, and a man is appointed as letter carrier on a route with the definite understanding that he shall receive so much per mile. I believe there is some variation allowed in prices by reason of physical difficulties which may arise in the country over which the courier has to travel. In the United States at the present time the courier receives in the majority of cases $75 per mile travelled. This is not an unreasonable amount; it is, I submit, fair and reasonable. It may be that the United States rate at the present time would be too high in a country such as Canada where distances may be greater and population sparser. But $40 a mile which is the average they are receiving now, is absurd. Something must be done to increase the amount, and steps must be taken to make these men permanent. Forty dollars a mile is the average in Canada and $75 in the United States. Moreover, our system lacks the permanence which attaches to the system in the United States. When a mail contract is let, and when the local community start tendering one against another, they cut the figure down and down to rock bottom, and the contract is given for four years to the lowest man provided the contractor can furnish the necessary security for the carrying out of the contract. But at the end of the four years he finds that he cannot make money. Indeed, a good many of them are willing to give it up, but unfortunately they have their horses and their equipment and do not know what to do in the matter. If they do not renew the contract at practically the same amount there is another advertisement for tenders, with another group of tenderers. Other people know what the former contractor got and they try to cut a little bit under him. And they do so. The result is that the figures have been going down and down and down, while the cost of living has been going up or has been maintained at a very high standard; and so the system has been positively disastrous to many men.
Now what we ask by this motion and what we have asked for the last three or four sessions in this house, is that a new system be adopted forthwith. The mileage system should be adopted in place of the tender system and the positions should be made permanent, just as permanent as are letter

Rural Mail Contracts-Mr. Guthrie
carriers in the city districts. An amount should be fixed as remuneration having regard to the	cost of living in this
country and the duties and responsibilities of the courier. I do not suggest the rate which they now pay in the United States, but I do suggest S70 or at any rate $60 a mile as a reasonable sum in this country. Now, assuming that the present contractors do average $800 a year each, and assuming that there are 4,000 rural mail routes, this involves an annual expenditure to-day of $3,200,000 or thereabouts of the $6,000,000 item which is in the Postmaster General's report. That is on the basis	of $40	a mile. What
would be the effect of increasing the rate to S60 a mile-a 50 per cent increase? You would raise the total amount by $1,600,000. Would not that be fair? Instead of $3,200,000, which I assume it is now approximately-I cannot give the figures definitely-it would increase to $4,800,000 a year; and if you deemed proper to make it $70 a mile, which I submit would be reasonable, you would need to add another 25 per cent to the last figure I have given.
I submit that under present conditions in Canada it is not beyond this Dominion to grant $70 a mile, and I also submit that the tender system should be abolished at once. In imy opinion the position of rural mail courier should be made permanent immediately, and a definite satisfactory amount should be fixed as remuneration upon the mileage basis. This is not a new proposal in this house, nor is it in the country. The public conscience has been aroused throughout the Dominion in regard to this matter. The press of the country, without distinction politically, has discussed the matter editorially, and as briefly as possible I am going to put on Hansard with my remarks some press comments to show that there is no political bias in the matter to it, to show also that the men now engaged as rural mail carriers in Canada have a real and substantial grievance. And I ask again why this government has not remedied this grievance before now. Listen to what the Toronto Globe says. I read from a Globe editorial of September 10, 1928:
The annual meeting of the Canadian Mail Contractors' Association, held in Toronto the other day. brought once more to the attention of the public the, unfortunate conditions under which the rural mail contractor carries on his work. Chief among the resolutions passed by the carriers was that requesting the government to abolish the present _ contract plan under which mail is delivered in the country, and to bring about the introduction of the salary system on the basis of $70 per mile per year for rural contractors. The request made by these men is reasonable. What they
are asking from the government is simply a living wage and to be placed on a similar footing to the postal carriers in the cities of the Dominion.	_	.
The contract system has outlived its usefulness, and should be discarded without delay. Tt was given up long ago by the United States government, and the rural mail men placed on the same basis as other employees of the postal department. The contract system in vogue in Canada has little to commend it, except that it is cheap. The man who submits the lowest tender may get the job. Too often it may happen that he will also perform the worst service. The rural mail carriers have protested for long against the present plan, and have petitioned the government repeatedly to have it changed. Surely the time has come when their plea should be heeded.
That from the Toronto Globe. The Ottawa Citizen has also spoken editorially, and its views are as follows:
A convincing ease has been made out for better treatment at the hands of the Department at Ottawa by the Rural Mail Contractors' Association in the memorandum they recently sent to members of both houses of parliament. As most persons are aware, rural mail deliveries are carried out under a contract system whereby the contractor undertakes to deliver mail along a given route for four years. The average length of a mail contract route is 20 miles and the average yearly contract price paid by the government is $732. Besides furnishing wholly inadequate remuneration for the character of the work and duties entailed, this system possesses inherent defects which only its abolition can remove. The rural mail men point out that the average upkeep of a contractor's horses and rigs during the last five years has been $1,058.
That is more than twice the figure I gave.
This means an average loss of $326 yearly, in addition to which the mail contractor has given his time and assumed responsibilities free of charge.
The London Advertiser has a long article very much to the same effect which I need not quote. The Toronto Star contains a very strong article against the present system, calling on the government to change it at once. The Montreal Herald too carries a strong article, and comments appear in the Telegraph-Journal of St. John, the Hamilton Herald, the Canadian Countryman, the St. Thomas Times and Journal, the Farmers' Sun, the Hamilton Spectator, the Stratford Beacon-Herald-in fact one may say all the leading newspapers of Canada have brought this matter to the attention of the Postmaster General and the government, yet year after year nothing has been done. There is a way, however, by which I hope to bring the question pointedly to the notice of the Postmaster General and by which I propose to ask the house to deal with it. I am moving a motion on going into supply this afternoon which, as the house knows, is always in the
1616	COMMONS
Rural Mail Contracts-Mr. Kaiser
nature of a motion of want of confidence. I have taken that course in order to test out this matter in this House of Commons. In years past many hon. members in various quarters of the house have discussed this matter very forcibly; they have laid before us the case of the rural mail couriers with great effect, and I sincerely hope that upon this occasion they will implement the speeches they made in this house in previous years. I hope that as a result of this vote these rural mail couriers who have been complaining for years and who have been suffering gross injustice for years, will have their injuries remedied as they should have been remedied by this government long ago.
This afternoon I have briefly stated the case to the house as I believe it to exist, and I have drawn up a resolution expressing as weli as I can what is in my mind. I may say in connection with this resolution, however- and I say this in the presence of my leader- that it embodies the policy of the Conservative party on this question, and if the Conservative party is returned to power this policy as outlined in this amendment will be carried out without further delay.
Wiith these remarks, Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens):
That all the words after the word "that" in the motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"in the opinion of this house the present system of awarding contracts for the delivery of rural mail by tender has proved unfair, burdensome and unsatisfactory, and that such rural mail carriers should be appointed by the Civil Service Commission upon a permanent basis with a definite rate of pay, based upon mileage and the physical conditions of the territory involved, having regard to the amount paid to the other servants of the government for similar employment."


Mr. T. E. KAISER (Ontario):: 
Mr. POWER:: Does the hon. member suggest that the present rural mail carriers should be brought into the civil service without further examination?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did not say that.


Charles Gavan Power: That is the question I am
asking the hon. member.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: I suggest that you ask the
Postmaster General.


Charles Gavan Power: I am asking the hon. member for his suggestion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The motion speaks for
itself.


Ernest Lapointe: He is obstructive, not
constructive.


Mr. H. A. STEWART (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, the member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) has drawn the attention of the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) and of this house to a long standing grievance on the part of a large body of faithful and efficient public servants against whom there has been what might well be termed an unfair discrimination, in that, although discharging duties which are as important to the public as those performed by other servants who are on the permanent list and receive regular salaries, they are not similarly treated. Representations have been made from year to year on behalf of these mail carriers and facts have been cited which should long ago have brought about a remedy of this grievance. In fact, one wonders why there has been this continued neglect, this refusal on the part of the Postmaster General to consider the requests of this large body of public servants and to find a remedy. He has shown in some instances activity and keen interest on behalf of other employees of the department. In fact, he has taken pains to point out to the house that in some cases the Civil Service Commission have not met his views with respect to increases of salaries.
We all know the character of the duties of a rural mail carrier. They are exacting; they demand punctuality. He must be faithful; he must be on the job every day of the year, Sundays excepted, rain or shine, no matter whether the travelling is good or bad. He must furnish ample security for the discharge of his duties. He is under supervision, and in every respect his position is a difficult and an exacting one. I am sure the Postmaster General must recall the fact that from time to time members of parliament have to interview his deputy and those in charge of this service on behalf of unfortunates who have tendered for it only to find out that they have signed a contract binding them for a period of years, and that the proposition has been a losing one for them. In some cases they have had to ask to be relieved and have been replaced by others. Sometimes persons are found without knowledge of the situation who are willing to take over the contracts, but these unfortunate individuals soon find themselves in trouble. I know personally of contracts that have had to be transferred three or four times, in each case to the disadvantage and loss of the party who took it over.
We do not ask for tenders for similar services on the part of mail clerks or those
1618	COMMONS
Rural Mail Contracts-Mr. Stewart (Leeds)
in the postal service, and I think the time is long past when we should continue this method. These ought to be considered permanent employees and there ought to be a reasonable, fixed compensation for them. Not knowing that the matter was going to come up in the house, I took the liberty some time ago to write to the postal department in Washington to find out how they dealt with the matter there, and under date of March 29, 1929, I received from the fourth assistant postmaster general a letter which I desire to put on Hansard. The letter reads:
My Dear Mr. Stewart:
Reference is made to your letter of March 23, requesting information as to the rate of pay of rural mail carriers in the United States, and as to particulars of the equipment and vehicles which they or the department provide for the service.
The salaries which rural carriers shall receive are fixed by law, being based on the length of the route served and the frequency of the deliveries, routes being served either daily except Sunday or three times a week. For serving a rural route of twenty-four miles six days in the week, the salary is $1,800 per annum; on routes twenty-two miles and less than twenty-four miles, $1,728; on routes twenty miles and less than twenty-two miles, $1,620; on routes eighteen miles, and less than twenty miles, $1,440; on routes sixteen miles and less than eighteen miles, $1,260; on routes fourteen miles and less than sixteen miles, $1,080; on routes twelve miles and less than fourteen miles, $1,008; on routes ten miles and less than twelve miles, $936; on routes eight miles and less than ten miles, $864; on routes six miles and less than eight miles, $792; on routes four miles and less than six miles, $720. Each rural carrier assigned to a route on which daily service is performed receives $30 per mile per annum for each mile of his route in excess of twenty-four miles or major fraction thereof, based on actual mileage, and each rural carrier assigned to a route on which triweekly service is performed receives $15 per mile for each mile of said route in excess of forty-eight miles or major fraction thereof, based on actual mileage.
A rural carrier who serves one tri-weekly route is paid a salary and equipment maintenance allowance on the basis of a route one-half of the length of the route served by him. A rural carrier serving two tri-weeldy routes is paid a salary and equipment maintenance allowance on the basis of a route one-half of the combined length of the two routes.
In addition to the salary' each carrier is paid an equipment maintenance in the sum of 4 cents per mile per day for each mile or major fraction of a mile scheduled.
Rural carriers are required to provide and to maintain suitable vehicles with which to perform the service.
It will foe seen that this is a very much more generous compensation than we allow for this service. I do not suggest that the situation requires that we should pay as much as they are paying in the United States, and it has occurred to me that I might make

these suggestions which might be helpful to the Postmaster General: That there should be a survey of all these routes, and they should be divided into perhaps three or four classes: A, B, C and D, the classification being made on the length of the route, the time required for the service, the hours of the day at which the sendee has to be carried out, the physical conditions and any other consideration that might properly be taken into account in the classification of these routes. Then a mileage rate should be fixed for each of these different classes. A similar classification is made of post offices, and I can see no reason why the principle should not be applied to rural mail routes.
The mover of the resolution has so fully dealt with it that I cannot add much to what he has said, but I want to impress upon the Postmaster General that this class of public servant is suffering; that they need relief; that they have from time to time made representations that are sound and sane, and that are based on fact. Their representations are not imaginary, unreasonable or unjust. The Dominion of Canada cannot afford to have in its service any considerable body of faithful servants such as these who are underpaid, who are carrying on under a sense of discrimination and a feeling they are being unjustly dealt with.
I wish also to call to the minister's attention the compensation that is in some cases paid to the collector of mail from city or town boxes. This also is done by tender.
I have in mind the case of an unfortunate man who is travelling around ten or twelve miles a day seven days in the week, and receiving the handsome sum of about $520 per annum.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: Who set the
price?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: He set it himself, but surely that is no answer. If you were to apply that all round you might easily get some person to act as Postmaster General-


James Alexander Robb: Or member of parliament.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Or prime minister.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Would the
hon. member have all the members appointed by the Civil Service Commission?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No.


Charles Gavan Power: Most of them would not
get the job in that case.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: 
Alexander MacGillivray Young: Do you object
as a general rule to the principle of tendering, or only in the case of this particular service?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I object to any public servant being asked to tender for services of this kind. I think it is a vicious principle-


Mr. STEVENS:: "A thoroughly vicious
principle."


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think it is
unsound, and I can see no reason why it should be applied to this particular class of public servants. I hope that the Postmastef General will give consideration to the representations of the rural mail couriers. I think he feels himself that an injustice is being done to them, and I hope he will find some way of giving them redress.


Mr. R. K. ANDERSON (Halton):: I wish to make a few remarks in support of the resolution introduced by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). This question has been before the house on many occasions; it has come up almost every session for a great many years. In anything I have to say I am in no way criticising the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) because the system that prevails has been in existence for a number of years. We know that the rural mail delivery service is very efficient, and that the farmers of this country would not wish to do without it. It is a great improvement over the system prevailing before, when the people in the country had to drive many miles into the nearest village or town to get their mail. The rural mail couriers to-day not only carry the ordinary mail and registered mail, but also deliver small supplies to the farmers, and collect their mail for delivery to the post office.
I wish to direct the attention of the Postmaster General to a comparison between the remuneration paid to the rural mail couriers and that of the mail carriers in the cities. In my county there is a rural mail route of fifteen miles, for which the courier is paid $750 a year. That amounts to about $2.40 per trip. This man is compelled to keep two horses and a vehicle. He has to provide equipment throughout the year, meet the cost of all repairs and maintenance, and keep his family, all on $750 a year. His work on the route occupies the whole of his time, because the roads are bad and it takes him almost a whole day to make the trip. It costs him more than half of that $750 to maintain his horses and rig. He is on the road every day, six days in the week, and
has only six holidays throughout the year. In the performance of his duties he is out in all kinds of weather, rain or shine, cold or hot, and over all kinds of roads. I think the minister was not listening when I said that all this man received for his services on this route of fifteen miles was $750 a year, or about $2.40 a trip, and he has to supply the whole equipment. The government supplies nothing. His brother delivering mail in the city receives a minimum of about $1,080 a year, with the chance of advancing each year until he reaches a maximum of $1,500. In addition, he is provided with at least one suit of clothes, if not two, per year, and I think also his boots, and he has no equipment expenses of any kind. Of course he has his family to keep, but the man in the country has his family as well. There is no comparison between the amounts paid by way of remuneration for these two services, and I do not see how the Postmaster General can refuse to take into consideration the conditions under which the rural mail couriers work. Of course we know that they tender for the route and that generally the price is set by the man himself-but not always, because the system of tender is such that the tenderer is compelled to put in the lowest figure at which he thinks he can get the work. I know of cases where the inspector who opens the tenders has peddled them around amongst the different tenderers to see if he could not get a lower bid. That has been done more than once in the section from which I come.


Mr. VENIOT:: That has been changed.
All the tenders are now sent to my department.


Robert King Anderson: I am glad that change has been made, because I know that the practice prevailed some years ago. I hope the minister will take into consideration the comparison I have made between the remuneration of the mail carrier in the city and that of rural mail courier, and that the latter will receive better remuneration for the work they perform.
There is another point. At the end of four years, if these rural mail couriers wish to retain the route, they have to put in a new tender. If they do not carry on with the work they have their team and rig on their hands, and frequently they have no further use for them; consequently in many cases they put in a lower bid than they otherwise would have done. The average equipment, if it is anything like decent equipment, costs between two and four hundred dollars; in fact it is only very poor equipment that you can
1620	COMMONS
Rural Mailjjjpontracts-Mr. Power
get for $200. If they lose the contract at the end of the term they are left with that equipment on their hands; consequently they will sometimes tender at a lower rate for the second contract if they think there is any possibility of another man getting the route. These things should foe taken into consideration by the minister, and I hope he will lend a sympathetic ear to the representations that are being made on behalf of these rural mail couriers. I hope the discussion to-day will assist the minister in doing justice to these men.


Charles Gavan Power: I
think, Mr. Speaker, in the ten minutes that are left before six o'clock I can conclude the few remarks I have to make. I must congratulate the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) on bringing this matter before the house. I have a keen appreciation of any political manoeuvre, and I think the motion of the hon. member for South Wellington is good political manoeuvring. He and his party wish to be able to say to the rural mail carriers throughout the country:	We
have been endeavouring to give you greater remuneration, but the government, which spends thousands of dollars elsewhere, won't give it to you. I would have been more pleased with my hon. friend had he told us how he proposes to go about this thing, whether he intends to include other classes with the rural mail carriers. I have no rural mail carriers in my constituency, but I have a man who drives the mails from the railway station to the post office, and another man who furnishes the horses and equipment for collecting the mail from the city mail boxes. Now, if it is an utterly vicious system, as has been remarked by my hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Stewart)-


An hon. MEMBER:: Principle.


Charles Gavan Power: If it is an utterly vicious
principle to call for tenders for the delivery of the rural mails, it is an equally vicious principle to call for tenders for the collection of mail from the city mail boxes. So we would be handing somebody in the city $30,000 or $40,000 annually, absolutely without tender. The principle involved is exactly the same. I know of some cases where men have actually lost money on the contract for collecting mail from the city mail boxes. The same principle would apply no doubt to the men who collect the mail at the railway stations and deliver it to the post offices

a matter of probably five, six or ten thousand dollars in some of the large cities. That is one fault which I wish to point out in the

suggestion of the hon. member for South Wellington, and which I think if he is sincere he will find means of correcting.
There is this other fault. When the hon. member goes before these rural mail carriers and tells them that he wished to increase the pay that they are getting, I wonder if he will tell them that under his proposal perhaps 75 to 80 per cent, possibly 90 per cent of them would be under the jurisdiction of the commission, unless they are blanketed in at so much a month, something which I think we are not permitted to do under the present regulations, and something which I am sure would meet with serious opposition from hon. gentlemen opposite. I am quite sure that if the Postmaster General were to propose that all the rural mail carriers be blanketed in at so much a month there would be a howl from the other side of the house. Then if those men are to comply with the rules and regulations of the Civil Service Commission, I would call the attention of the hon. gentleman to the fact that applications will be called for, notices will be put up in the post offices that on a certain date candidates for the position of rural mail carrier from such a point to such a point must appear before the commissioner's examiner. If in our district they would have to present themselves at McGill university, because on the last occasion when the commission wanted cleaners for the public buildings in Montreal they called for an examination at that university. In any case the rural mail carriers would have to be between the ages of eighteen and thirty-five, and many an old, respectable and honest mail carrier has been carrying on his work for forty or fifty years, loyally to the department and to the country; such a man would not be allowed to sit for examination. Then they would be questioned on all subjects under the sun, such as, What is the capital of Patagonia? Who was the last king before Herod built the pyramids? What is the depth of water at Anticosti island? And so on and so forth, in short, whatever ingenious questions any intelligent gentleman in the Civil Service Commission may conceive of. That is what would be involved by this proposition if it goes through.
Then it has been suggested to me that there is something else. Altogether apart from the qualifications of the man who drives the mail conveyance, will we not have to set up- taking him probably from the department of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) -an examiner of horses? A civil service commission which examines into the qualifications of charwomen and labourers surely can give some decision on horses.

Procedure Respecting Divorce


Richard Bedford Bennett: That would mean another trip to Europe to inspect.


Charles Gavan Power: I have no dou'bt the hon. member might have to go to Europe if this thing passed. We will have all these factors, which must be considered before giving a vote on the proposition before the house.
I submit, sir, that in view of the fact that my hon. friend from South Wellington has not explained just how he expects to enforce the scheme which he asks the Postmaster General to accept, and as it is purely a political manoeuvre in that it is a vote of want of confidence in the government, he himself can hardly expect it to be accepted by this side of the house. I submit, further, when those whom he pretends to benefit by this suggestion realize what it does mean, that in 75 to SO per cent of the cases the present incumbents will not be benefited, he will lose a great deal of the sympathy with which this proposition must have been received in the country.
There is one other point I wish to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that if these men work hard all the year, if they are obliged to carry on their duties in all weathers, they do it by choice. They tender to do the work at a certain price. They know just what the distance of the route is, generally they live in the locality, and in a large number of cases the same men carry on the work year after year. Having entered into a contract with the department it is their duty to abide by it. I have every sympathy for them; I think possibly they should ask for higher rates, but if in their own interests they do not feel justified in doing so, I see no reason why we should increase the expense of this service.


Mr. W. E. ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Chairman, had it not been for the speech of my hon. friend who has just resumed his seat (Mr. Power) I should not attempt to discuss the motion of my hon. friend from South Wellington.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. E. LAWSON (West York) moved the second reading of Bill No. 89, for the relief of Naomi Pauline Wilson.
Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, after the discussion which took place yesterday there is perhaps not much 78594-103
to be added to the comments upon this or any other bill for divorce, but I feel it is only fair that we should dignify the bill with a vote of the house to see how hon. members regard it.


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: There is precisely here a point which exemplifies the system. As I told the house last night, in the recess between six and eight o'clock I had to go through some sixty records of evidence, classifying them in alphabetical order, then taking the list of bills before the house and trying to ascertain which of the records of evidence corresponded with each bill. There is no indication whatever. These records are sent to us in groups without any indication of their relation each to the particular bill called when such legislation is before the house. This evening I happened to have an advantage over most other members in that I took a little time between six and eight to look into the records and I succeeded in marking about one half of them with letters corresponding to the bills to which they relate. Then, in the expectation that these bills would be called in their order, I began reading the evidence respecting the first bills likely to be taken up.
We were told last evening, and I think quite properly, by such hon. gentlemen-to mention only two-as the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) and the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan)- two hon. gentlemen who, I think I may say without exaggeration, are shining lights in parliament and in Canada with regard to judicial and legal matters-that in respect of the question now before us we in this house are acting as the highest court of justice in the land. These hon. gentlemen have told us that, parliament having seen fit to establish no jurisdiction respecting divorce in either the province of Ontario or the province of Quebec, parliament itself acts as the highest court of justice in Canada, and that therefore it is the duty of every hon. member of this house to take with respect to these bills the attitude of a judge or of a juror. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, whose personal views I well know and to whose sense of duty as well as his dignity I can testify, regarding him both as a public man and as a friend, compared our position to that of judges in his own native province of Nova Scotia, where courts of divorce have been established and have exercised jurisdiction for many years. As he said, there are in these courts Roman Catholic or perhaps Anglican judges whose religious beliefs are entirely antagonistic to the principle and practice of divorce, but who nevertheless consider that, having to exercise their jurisdiction, they



Procedure Respecting Divorce
must take cognizance of every case which is brought before them in order to apply the law according to the facts, and irrespective of their personal views; they must invoke the principle of law applicable to such cases. If such is our position it seems to me impossible for us to pass any judgment, or rather to adjudicate upon any of these cases, conscientiously and intelligently without knowing all the circumstances of each case as it comes before us.
It has been said that in this matter we act as a court of appeal; that by common consent and usage a committee of parliament performs-rather, I should say, now, committees perform-the duty of a court of inquiry; they find the facts and, it is said, all that we have to do is to ratify, so to speak, their judgment. But I do not think it has been suggested by anyone, either by the leader of the opposition or by any of the other legal members of this house, that we can pass final judgment in the matter, conscientiously and with intelligence, without at least knowing the evidence. One hon. member on the other side of the house has made the statement that it takes a very short time to read the evidence, that in about fifteen minutes any one of these records can be read. He went further and said that in the committee of the senate it took about twenty-five minutes for that court of inquiry to hear the witnesses, to hear the pleas of lawyers and to render their judgment. In other words, in twenty-five minutes a committee of one of the branches of this highest court of justice in the land declares that a marriage is null. That is the position and we as a court of review, a court of appeal or, if you prefer it, as a ratifying body passing final judgment upon the findings of a committee of the senate, come here to decide upon these cases. A bill is called and it stands; another bill is called and it stands, a third bill is called and stands and so we come to the fifth or the sixth on the list. Who has the time to read the records and the evidence in the six bills which may be called within two minutes? We are told that it is our duty to place our stamp of ratification on the findings of the court of inquiry, the divorce committee of the other branch of parliament. I appeal seriously to the other members of this house; whatever title we give ourselves, whether we call ourselves a parliament, whether we call ourselves one-half of that so-called high tribunal, or whether we style ourselves a court of review which revises and passes final judgment upon the findings of the other branch, can we do so without knowing upon what we must adjudicate? Here is a bill called; I have not read the evidence, al-

though I read the records of the three previous bills. By the way what bill has been , called, may I ask?
An hon. MEMBER; Bill No. 89.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I have not read the
evidence in that case and I am not prepared to adjudicate upon this bill, leaving aside entirely the question of principle which was discussed at length, and not without benefit, last night. I cannot say whether or not this bill is proper; I know from what little time I was able to give to these records yesterday and to-day that in many instances cases have been made by the evidence of the party asking for the divorce, the evidence of one policeman especially hired to make the case, and by the lawyer acting for the appellant, who sometimes turns himself into a witness to complete the evidence. I found two such cases this evening in the eight or ten records through which I glanced; the lawyer requested permission to take off his gown in order to turn himself into a witness. I ask the shining legal lights of this house whether there is any court of justice in this country which would admit such evidence upon which to render judgment even in the most trivial case, civil or criminal. In these cases we have the testimony of one party, who of course is interested in getting judgment; we have the evidence of a policeman or detective hired to make the case for that party, and we have the evidence of the lawyer hired to win the case. In all fairness and coolness I ask, and I appeal to the sense of justice and social order of every member of the house:	Is this the way in which justice is
to be dispensed by the highest court of the land? I think that aspect is worthy of consideration before we proceed.
I did not want to refer to this particular bill at any greater length, but once more 1 enter my protest against this system and I am prepared to vote against the second reading of this and all similar bills.


Mr. J. E. LAWSON (West York):: Although I do not desire to close the debate perhaps I might be permitted a word of explanation.


Mr. SPEAKER:: If the hon. gentleman
speaks now he will preclude any other member from speaking. Is it the pleasure of the house that the hon. gentleman have leave to speak?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Is it not possible
for us to have an explanation from the promoter of the bill without necessarily closing the debate?

Procedure Respecting Divorce


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman has
already spoken, but by leave of the house he may proceed.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think it might
help a great deal if the sponsor of the bill could give us an explanation, however short.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Hewitt Bostock: I did not catch what the hon. gentleman said.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think it would
help if we could have some explanation from the hon. member, even though it be short.


Hewitt Bostock: It is the pleasure of the house that the hon. gentleman should make an explanation, notwithstanding the rule? By unanimous consent the hon. member may speak on the bill without closing the debate.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


James Earl Lawson: In view of the remarks
of the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) I deem it advisable to offer a word of explanation with respect to this bill. The committee duly constituted under the rules of parliament has passed upon the evidence brought before it; in this case it has recommended a bill of divorce upon the only ground on which such a bill will be recommended by that committee.
Without going into details of the evidence, may I say for the information of hon. gentlemen that from fifteen years' experience in practising before the courts I look upon this as a case in which it has been most conclusively proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the respondent to this petition has been guilty of the act of adultery. That has been proven by calling the female party to the act; it has been proven by the evidence of a witness who happened into the place where the act was committed. Any reasonable man reading the evidence in this case must perforce come to the conclusion that an act of adultery was committed.


Mr. JOHNSTONE (Cape Breton):: If it is in order I would like to suggest that a committee of this House of Commons meet with the senate committee on these divorce bills.


Hewitt Bostock: The private bills committee of the House of Commons considers these divorce cases; it is a custom of the house to refer divorce bills to that committee. In addition, some of the members of that committee are appointed to attend the meetings of the senate divorce committee, and I understand that the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) is one of the members appointed for that purpose.
78594-103J


Mr. TUMMON:: If my memory serves me aright, six members of the private bills committee were appointed for that service this year, in view of the fact that two senate committees were sitting.


Mr. G. R. GEARY (South Toronto):: Once more I have been fortunate enough to listen to a speech delivered by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), and while listening to it I was struck with the lack of point in it; I could not make out to what the hon. member addressed his remarks. I suppose he intends the house to gather from his words that we must stop considering all divorce petitions; otherwise his remarks lead us nowhere. To some extent he finds fault with the deliberations of the senate committee, and he says one case took up only about twenty-five minutes.	I can quite understand
a case in which there is no contradictory evidence being conclusively proved in twenty-five minutes or even less. As mentioned by the hon. member for West York (Mr. Lawson), I can well imagine a case being called where there was no argument or presentation by counsel, only two witnesses being heard, and the whole case being closed up in fifteen minutes. But hon. members must not think that the hearing of every petition takes only twenty-five minutes. I have heard of contested cases which have lasted the better part of a week.
I do not agree that this is a court of appeal, or a court which is to judge whether or not a petition is well founded. This function has been delegated to a committee, which committee is chosen from the senate because of some supposed judicial capacity. The Hon. Senator Willoughby, who was the chairman of that committee last year, is a lawyer of very wide experience and is well qualified to sift out the evidence. The proceedings are carried on in a very formal manner, much more formally than in many courts of higher jurisdiction. The lawyers must gown and the rules of evidence are strictly enforced That committee has the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses. When you to go to a court to appeal from the findings of a trial judge without a jury, you find that that court will almost invariably accept the findings of fact which have been made by the trial judge. Why? Because he has had the opportunity of seeing the witnesses and judging from their demeanor and the manner in which they presented their evidence whether or not this or that side is to be believed. His function is to sift the evidence where there is contradiction, and to frame his judgment accordingly.

Procedure Respecting Divorce
If the hon. member finds himself in difficulty, I would suggest that he read the evidence as it comes to him. A good deal of the evidence is quite formal and can be skimmed over quickly in order to obtain a knowledge of the facts. If he finds a case in respect to which he considers insufficient proof has been offered, let him make a note of that case and bring it up here for discussion. I do not think the hon. gentleman will find very many cases in which he feels that he, as a member of parliament, should intervene and cast doubt upon the finding of the trial court -the senate committee-which has been set up. If the hon. gentleman would adopt some such plan I believe he would find that the few cases in which he desired to intervene would not ocupy much of his time in the house. He can attend the committee to which this bill will be sent if it is passed on, and have witnesses called and the whole case reviewed.


William Irvine: Does the hon. member wish to convey to the house his belief that the present method of dealing with divorce bills is adequate, or does he suggest that it is practical for every member to give that attention to these bills which might be expected of one who was going to sit in judgment upon the case?


George Reginald Geary: I certainly do. That is
part of the business of the houses of parliament; that is part of the duties which we have sworn to perform. If it takes a long time, so much the worse. Who is to say that a divorce petition, any more than a petition for the incorporation of a company, is beneath the attention of this house? It is the duty of the members to acquaint themselves with the facts, and if it takes a long time, that cannot be helped. We have been vested with this jurisdiction, and we should not shirk our responsibility.


James Shaver Woodsworth: With reference to the case mentioned by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), does the hon. member consider it proper that the barrister who appeared as counsel for the petitioner, and who afterwards disclosed himself to be a brother-in-law of one of the parties involved, should appear as a witness in the case?


George Reginald Geary: I see no reason for saying
that he is not competent; whether or not his evidence would oarry any weight is a question for the court.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: We are the court.


James Shaver Woodsworth: In this instance
there were apparently only tiwo witnesses, the brother-in-law who was acting as counsel, and

the lady in the case who was accused of having improper relations.


George Reginald Geary: She admitted that.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, but that is
only one case.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I venture to intrude in this debate merely to remind the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) that the evidence in the case is not before the House of Commons on the second reading of this bill. We have been discussing this case as though the evidence were involved in the discussion. In fact it has nothing to do with the second reading of this bill. That evidence is available when the bill goes to the committee, and if the committee does not desire to utilize that evidence it may call witnesses and have the case proven there. We have been treating this matter as though the evidence had something to do with it. This senate record really should not be in our hands until after the bill goes to the committee, and the real difficulty has arisen because we have taken the evidence and attempted to deal with it before that time. On the second reading of this bill all we do is refer the bill to the committee which is to decide whether or not the petitioner is entitled to a divorce. As the law now stands that is a constitutional principle. There being no delegation of the powers of parliament to a court, therefore this parliament considers the matter. I urge my hon. friend to reconsider his position in the light of what I am sure anyone will tell him is correct; that the second reading of this bill merely affirms that constitutional principle, and that only, and it is wholly out of order to discuss the evidence which was given before the senate committee. That evidence can be discussed when the bill has been given its second reading and sent to the committee. Some member of our committee will move that the senate committee shall be taken as the evidence in the case, because it is given under oath. If a sufficient number of the members of the committee desire that the case should be proved again, witnesses may be called.
With all due deference, it does seem to me that this discussion as to what the evidence discloses is wholly out of order until such time as the bill has gone to the committee. The evidence taken before the senate committee is not properly before the commons until the bill has been referred to a committee of the commons, and that committee may take its own action to determine what shall be done with respect to the bill, either by approving the evidence taken before the senate committee or by asking that evidence be taken de novo.

Procedure Respecting Divorce


Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the position taken by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), he is arguing that we should not discuss the merits of this particular bill at this stage; that that should be done when the report comes from the private bills committee. What we are discussing now is the principle of divorce. I attempted to convey to the house yesterday the terrible extent to which the evil of divorce had been scattered throughout the Dominion, not only by the action of the provincial legislatures which created divorce courts, but by the actions of this parliament as well. But that is only a part of the harm which is being done. There are a number of people -who do not dare to face public opinion in Canada by coming to parliament or to the provincial courts in order to obtain divorce, but who go beyond our borders and secure divorce elsewhere. I have under my hand the official statistics furnished by the Department of Trade and Commerce, Dominion Bureau of Statistics, and I wish to read the following paragraph showing the extent to which divorce has spread in Canada. Last year 785 divorces were granted in Canada by the courts and the Dominion parliament. This is what the Dominion Bureau of Statistics says:
Divorces granted in the United States to persons married in Canada.
A fact which throws considerable new light on the divorce situation in Canada is found in the Marriage and Divorce Bulletin of the United States Bureau of the Census. The statistics of this publication indicate the surprisingly large extent to which divorces are granted in that country to persons married in Canada. Thus, in 1922, no fewer than 1,368 divorce decrees were granted to couples married in Canada, a number more than two and one-half times as large as the total number granted in Canada in the same year. This number also formed 36.2 per cent of the number of divorces granted in United States during the year to couples married in foreign countries, while, at the same time the percentage of the Canadian-born population to the total foreign-born amounted to only 8.1 per cent. The Bulletin goes on to say; "It is possible that many Canadians acquire a residence in the United States for the sole purpose of obtaining divorce because, in general, divorce laws are more liberal in the United States than in Canada." Of the 1,368 divorces granted in 1922 to couples who had been married in Canada, no fewer than 462 were granted by the courts of the state of Michigan, while 135 were granted by the courts of the state of Washington and 128 in California. No later figures than the above have been published in connection with the dissolution of marriages contracted outside the United States.
Those who read the Montreal papers may have noticed last week o-r the week before that a judge held that Canadians married in Canada cannot obtain a divorce in the United
States and then come back to this country and imagine that their divorce is valid here. According to the findings of that judge people who are married in Canada can have their marriage annulled only in Canada if they intend to remain citizens of this country. We find ourselves in the position of having hundreds and, perhaps before long, thousands of Canadians who, not wishing to go through the very unpleasant ordeal of bringing up their cases before the senate or the provincial courts, go into a foreign country, secure a divorce there and return to Canada. The number of marriages being dissolved is such a serious matter that, to use a French expression, malgre nous, in spite of ourselves, we are obliged to deal with the problem of divorce. I hope the time will come when the public in Canada will realize the deplorable state of affairs and take some action in the matter. I have conscientious objections to divorce, but I hope the day is fast coming when members elected by the public will realize that the present state of affairs is beyond common sense and that means must be found to end it.
It has been said that the fathers of confederation did not impose divorce either on Ontario or on Quebec. There were originally four provinces in the confederation. Divorce existed in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick prior to confederation and, that being the case, they had to provide in the constitution for that condition. They put it under federal jurisdiction on the ground that the federal parliament would be more difficult of access and the procedure more costly, the result, being that divorce would be discouraged. They were right at the time, because in the first ten years after confederation only seven divorces were granted, whereas we have reached 293 during the present session. Of course public opinion in Canada has somewhat changed in regard to this question. The official bulletin ascribes that to the war and the consequences of the war.' That may be true, or it may not; but what is happening in Canada is happening unfortunately in all countries, and, while not wanting to make any criticism, I can only repeat and urge that the position we now occupy is a false one, because the hearing of these witnesses occurs in the senate, whereas the House of Commons as represented by its private bills committee does not see the witnesses or hear the evidence. There are now on the order paper forty-one divorce bills which stand for second reading and seventeen that have been read the first time at this sitting. Is this the way the parliament of Canada is going to act-

Procedure Respecting Divorce
to dissolve seventy or seventy-five marriages in perhaps a few minutes, throw the children out on the street and give to the guilty party the same privilege that we give to the innocent party? Our sympathies naturally go with the innocent party, but by the second clause which we insert in the divorce bill we give the guilty party the right to marry again; the result of our judgment is inevitable.
Nobody objects to a judicial separation provided that it is properly carried out. That is the law we have in the province of Quebec under clause 185 of the code, and separations take place daily. Alimony is provided for the wife and proper care is taken of the children. But in this case nothing of the kind happens; we simply break the marriage tie and put the guilty party on the same footing as the innocent party. If we were to remove the Second clause from these bills, that is the clause authorizing the people to re-marry, I do not think you would have ten per cent of the applications you have at the present time.
Therefore I can only repeat what I said yesterday, namely, that I am conscientiously opposed to divorce; I am opposed to it for the stronger reason now that it has become the greatest problem we have to deal with in this country. What will it be in five or ten years from now unless some means are devised to stop it? The only way we can stop it is to make it as difficult as possible to obtain divorce and, when it is granted, it should be granted in an equitable manner so that the innocent party will be treated differently from the guilty.
Mr. H. E. SPENCER, (Battle River): I will take up only a moment of the time of the house in order to correct a statement made yesterday during a similar debate. The hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) was referring to the time of the house being taken up on these matters and stated that two members in this corner of the house, the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine), and myself, were members of the private bills committee. I denied the statement at the time, as I am not a member of that committee; but the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), seeing my name on the votes and proceedings, said that I was. The Hansard reporter did not catch my second denial, and so I take this opportunity of saying that, although my name appears in the votes and proceedings through a clerical error, it was intended to be that of the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence). I am not a member of the private bills committee and therefore I have a perfect right to raise

my voice in protest against or in support of any of these bills that come up in the house. I draw the attention of the house to that fact because, according to Hansard, page 1592, it looks very much as if I were a member of that committee.


Mr. BALDWIN:: I voted for the bill in
error, Mr. Speaker, vote.	I desire to withdraw my


Hewitt Bostock: not be withdrawn.	A vote once given can-
Mr. J. E. LAWSON (West York) moved	
that the bill be referred to the select stand-	
ing committee on miscellaneous private bills. Motion agreed to.	
SUPPLY-RURAL	MAIL CONTRACTS
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Hon. J. A. Robb (Minister of Finance) that the house go into committee of supply and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Guthrie.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, I doubt if there is any more exacting responsibility in the public service of this Dominion than is involved in the carrying of His Majesty's mail, and I also doubt whether that responsibility is discharged under any greater handicap than obtains in the rural districts. As the mover of the amendment (Mr. Guthrie) has stated, the change proposed has to do not with a theory but with a recognized condition. The hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) has suggested that the amendment is prompted merely by political expediency. I submit, sir, it is quite apparent that the government of the day, while opposing the change now, will as a matter of political opportunism incorporate it in their preelection budget next session.
It does seem to me that throughout the various provinces it is recognized that this change should be made. It has been sponsored by those who sit to your left, Mr. Speaker, and it should be adopted by those
who sit to your right. Everyone familiar with rural conditions realizes the handicap under which the rural mail carriers serve the department. Those of us who travel the highways and byways of the Dominion recognize that the average rural mail carrier is not a very good advertisement for the Postmaster General's department. The rattle of his dilapidated buggy and the stagger of his poor lame and blind horse are familiar intimations that approaching you is the rural mail carrier, one of the servants of the Postmaster General.
I have had some experience in feeding cheap horses and also in feeding horses cheaply, and I am in a position to state that even for the figures quoted by the hon. member for South Wellington a horse cannot be maintained in reasonably fit condition for the mail carrying service. To show that the figures I am about to give the house are reasonable, I ask the indulgence of hon. members while I go into details. It has been admitted that a mail carrier needs two horses. I submit that $100 is a reasonable price per horse. That represents $200, the interest on which would be $12, at 6 per cent. The cost of feed, hay and oats at present prices, at the country point, would be $150 each, or $300 per annum. And then there is the depreciation in regard to each horse, because I submit that no horse can stand a rural mail service on rough country roads for a longer period than five years, so that depreciation can safely and sanely be estimated at S20 per horse, or $40 per annum for the two. As regards horse shoeing-and many times the horse would have to go unshod-I would estimate $25 each, or $50 per annum for the pair. Then interest, depreciation and repairs in connection with the vehicle, together with blankets and general equipment, would represent another $30. This brings the total to $432, as the minimum expenditure which the rural mail carrier in Canada must incur. Now if the first estimate which has been given of the amount the mail carrier receives-$720 -is correct, it would leave him $290 or less than a dollar a day; while if the second estimate is correct-$800-he is left with $370 per annum or $1.25 per day. Perhaps those with large families receive the second rate, $800. I wish to point out that this is a ridiculous state of affairs in the public service of this Dominion. We have been told that the messengers in this house, who merely stand at attention and wait for someone to tell them what to do, receive $4 a day. Yet here are men who are obliged to drive up and down this country in all sorts of weather, on stormy days, every day of the week but Sunday,
1628	COMMONS
Rural Mail Contracts-Mr. Veniot
travelling frequently through blizzards, over snowdrifts and through muddy roads. And this is the remuneration they get for loyal service to an important branch of the public service.
Not only are the rural mail carriers expecting relief in this matter, but they are entitled to it, and it seems to me that the people of Canada would approve of this increased expenditure especially in view of the fact that this government, though it preaches economy, is spending money to beautify this city and at the same time is increasing the salaries of deputy ministers, securing new automobiles-some members of the government take their cars with them wherever they go-and expending money in other directions. These are the apostles of economy, the friends of the poor man; yet they cannot pay a reasonable remuneration to men who are engaged in this important work and who are rendering just as loyal service as any other employees in the government. Surely it is high time that these rural mail carriers were given some consideration. It is not a joke or a gesture, as the hon. member for Quebec South has suggested. We are faced here with a very real problem. These men find themselves in a situation where it is impossible for them to keep their wives and families on the wages paid by the Postmaster General's department. For these reasons I submit that the motion proposed by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) is fully warranted, and I appeal to the government to consider the matter favourably and to give to the rural carriers their just recompense for the splendid service they are rendering the whole Dominion.


Peter John Veniot: In rising to speak to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) I wish to refer to the first remark he made. He said that I had been notified of his intention to move this amendment. I received word of his intention at a quarter to three this afternoon, and in conversation with my assistant secretary, who got the word, I was told-I think that this perhaps was a misunderstanding-that the hon. member would deal with the question of railway mail clerks. Receiving that word at a quarter to three I immediately undertook to obtain all the information possible touching the situation and the salaries of railway mail clerks. I do not wish to offer as an excuse the short notice given with respect to this amendment; but I think that when an amendment of this importance is to come up, an amendment which involves if adopted

an additional expenditure from the treasury of this Dominion of some $7,000,000 a year, a little more time by way of notice should be given to the person who has charge of the department which has to make the expenditure.
However, I have had an opportunity of listening to the speeches which have been made here this afternoon and evening, and while I am not going to say that our rural mail carriers are paid sufficient and might not be paid more, at the same time I wish to point out that the hon. member in proposing the amendment chose to deal only with rural mail deliverers, so to speak, because he directed his argument entirely to the 4.007 rural mail routes in Canada. He forgot altogether to deal with the six or seven thousand other mail carriers who do not deliver mail at rural boxes. If my hon. friend wanted to be fair-or whoever coached him and gave him the information on which he based his argument-he would not have overlooked that other class of hard working mail deliverers in Canada amounting to some 6,000.


William Earl Rowe: Who are they?


Peter John Veniot: Exactly; I thought the
question would be asked, and it shows that my hon. friend opposite does not know what he is talking about. There are 4,007 persons employed delivering mail on rural mail routes where there are boxes in which they can place the mail addressed to residents of those districts; and there are about 6,000 other mail contractors who use what we call the stage coach for delivery from post office to post office.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who told you that?


Peter John Veniot: My hon. friends opposite have not posted themselves on the subject, and undoubtedly they have ignored these people. Let me point out that these people draw from the treasury of the Dominion the nice little sum of $1,550,000 for that service. They are pretty well paid, and if the hon. gentleman who moved the amendment had added that sum to the amount that we paid to those who deliver mail in the boxes on the rural routes he would not have arrived at the average he gave in making his comparison with the amount paid by the United States government. He would have obtained a much higher average; he would have found that with this addition we are not so far behind the United States in this regard.
Let me give some figures in this connection. Rural mail delivery is the delivery of mail to boxes along the mail routes established throughout the Dominion of Canada. Of

Rural Mail Contracts-Mr. Veniot
these there are now 4,007, which number is increasing every year; I think 182 routes were added during the past year, and this service costs $2,825,317. If we were to pay a rate of $70 per mile, which hon. gentlemen say is the average paid under the monthly or yearly salaries in the United States, that would cost us $4,977,905. Stage services cost $1,550,000; under this new system which has been advocated they would cost $3,153,430. City services are on the same basis and include the delivery of mails from stations to post offices.


Mr. ARTHURS:: That is done by your own department.


Peter John Veniot: That is not done by the department; it is done under contract. That shows that the hon. gentleman does not know what he is talking about. We ask for tenders and contracts are given under those tenders. That service costs us $720,000; if it were carried on under the monthly salary advocated by hon. gentlemen opposite the cost would jump to $2,160,000. Then we have our side services from the railway stations to the post offices throughout the entire Dominion of Canada, and those services cost $1,050,000. If they were placed on the basis of a monthly or yearly salary that cost would increase to $3,150,000. In other words, under the basis advocated by hon. gentlemen opposite the cost for the services rendered in Canada would be $13,441,335 as against the present cost of $6,145,317, or a total increase of $7,296,018. These figures cannot be contradicted; they have been worked out to a nicety. Last year I made a similar statement with regard to the difference in cost, but at that time I did not give these details.
Then there is another feature in connection with this agitation; I think that word correctly describes it, although I do not wish to apply it to hon. gentlemen opposite. This agitation was started by a certain person in Canada who is making a living by going around and advocating the adoption in this country of the United States system. Now he is advocating that if this system be adopted it be made retroactive to 1917, and to show the folly of that argument let me point out that such action would mean an expenditure of $87,522,216. That is all that gentleman wants. This man is not even a mail carrier; he calls himself secretary of the mail contractors' or mail carriers' association of Canada. Everyone has heard him plead his case and everyone knows he is urging the mail carriers throughout Canada to carry on this agitation.
Let me point out that I have been considering this question since it was first brought to my attention, which I think was in the winter of 1928. Looking over the whole system as it exists in Canada to-day, Mr. Speaker, I believe hon. gentlemen will believe me when I say that this system cannot be reviewed in one or even two years. It will take time to attempt to work out something which will better these conditions, if they can be bettered, but let me say that Canada never can adopt the system in force in the United States, because of our sparsely settled districts. The United States, with the population much more concentrated, can do that which we could not undertake in Canada on the same basis. Let me go further:	In
attempting to make that review, at one time I did think it might be a good thing to try to arrange what might be called a minimum tender, after looking over the whole situation and getting all the information required. That would not do away with the tender system but it would provide that no tender below the minimum would be considered by the department. It may be said that now we can refuse a tender if we consider it to be too low, -but that is not the case under the postal act, which provides that we must accept the lowest tender offered. Therefore, after reviewing the whole situation in order to see if a better system might be evolved, it may become necessary to ask for an amendment to the postal act, but I fear that if I should ask for that amendment immediately hon. gentlemen opposite would say that I wanted to play politics and handle the contracts for mail service as I saw fit. However, let me say to hon. gentlemen that if I am convinced that that is the proper method, no criticism from the opposition will deter me from doing what I think is right.


An hon. MEMBER:: Whether right or
wrong.


Peter John Veniot: Certainly I would have
very poor judgment if I could not distinguish right from wrong as well as my hon. friend. We are told that these men are not receiving an adequate return for their services, and we have been asked to compare what it costs these men to provide these services. A twenty-mile route has been taken as an example, with an average rate of $700. There are some routes in Canada twenty miles in length for which we pay as much as $1,000 a year.


An hon. MEMBER:: Surely not.


Peter John Veniot: There are several of those routes.
*630	COMMONS
Rural Mail Contracts-Mr. Veniot


Mr. SPENCER:: For how many deliveries each week?


Peter John Veniot: Six times a week.


An hon. MEMBER:: Where are those
routes?


Peter John Veniot: I could not give them from memory, but if the hon. gentleman would like the information I will secure it. There are other routes forty-five miles one way and forty-five miles the other, for which we pay as much as 35,000 a year.


An hon. MEMBER:: Too much money.


Peter John Veniot: Now we are coming down to what we might call brass tacks. These contracts are let under tender; and in addition there are rural routes which are only travelled three times a week. There are mail routes which handle the mail between railway stations and post offices two, three or four miles distant. Those are daily routes, and the carrier receives as high as 3400 to 1450 for the service. There are other routes of ten or fifteen miles, for which the carrier receives from 8350 to $500. It takes only from three to four hours to cover that route, and the remainder of the time can be used as the carrier sees fit. The hon. gentleman should not forget that the mail contractors have the right to carry passengers and be paid for that transportation,. This is the one fault I find with the system; many tenderers will tender low because they feel that they will be able to obtain a certain number of passengers during the year, and in that way they sometimes shut out what may be a more legitimate tender. The mail carriers are also permitted to carry parcels the same as an express company, and they are paid for that service. Provided they carry packages weighing more than fifteen pounds they do noit infringe upon the regulations of the post office department, and they make considerable money from that service.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is not a lot.


Mr. GRIMMER:: Does that apply to the province of New Brunswick too?


Peter John Veniot: It does.


Robert Watson Grimmer: Can you give me an instance?


Peter John Veniot: It is general all over Canada. The bus lines tender for the carriage of mail from post office to post office along their routes, and some of them carry from sixteen to eighteen passengers on the same trip with the mail.


Hugh Guthrie: This motion does not involve that class of people; it is only the 4,007 rural mail carriers.


Peter John Veniot: Why did you not include them? According to you, those poor fellows are receiving only starvation wages.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We will deal with them later.


Peter John Veniot: If the hon. gentleman had thought of it he certainly would have included that class.


Hugh Guthrie: Oh, no.


Peter John Veniot: I have enlightened the hon. member and he is going to go one step farther. I welcome that other step. At least I have opened the eyes of our friends of the opposition.


An hon. MEMBER:: No, no.


Peter John Veniot: When the hon. gentleman compared the remuneration here with what is paid in the United States he forgot to deduct from the American figures the cost of the rigs and uniforms which those men must have according to the regulations. He forgot to deduct the amount of money which has to be paid each year into the insurance fund, and he forgot to say that the maintenance of the vehicles is much higher in the districts where the population is concentrated than it is in the country districts of the Dominion of Canada. We have heard a lot about the cost and upkeep of the horses and rigs, and the fact that the outfit is of no use when the contract is not renewed, but I would tell the hon. gentleman that ninety per cent of the rural mail contractors are farmers. The rigs that they use are farm rigs, and if they lose their contract at the end of four years those rigs go back to the farm and do the work they are ordinarily called upon to do in that connection.
The hon. gentleman says that there is general dissatisfaction among the mail contractors of the Dominion. Last year out of 494 mail contracts renewed without calling for tenders, only 4 per cent advised that they did not wish to continue with the contract because they considered the price was too low. Mr. GUTHRIE: They are living in hope.


Peter John Veniot: It seems very significant to me that our friends opposite have awakened all at once to the duty they owe the mail contractors of the Dominion of Canada.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We have been pleading with you for three years.


Peter John Veniot: They were in power from 1912 to 1921 but they did not discover that

Rural Mail Contracts-Mr. Maloney
the contractors for the mail routes in the Dominion of Canada were being so poorly paid. Now that they are in opposition, now that they feel it necessary to cater to this element, they are prepared to lay down a policy. That policy was not laid down at Winnipeg; I do not find it in the Winnipeg platform, and I am not as yet satisfied that the hon. leader of the opposition has consented to the statement made by his desk-mate the hon. member for South Wellington.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You need have no doubt about that.


Peter John Veniot: The policy of a party is generally laid down by the leader of the party and not by one of his lieutenants.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman need not have any doubt about that.


Peter John Veniot: I see the hon. leader of the opposition is awakening now to the necessity of a new plank in the platform, and is supporting the policy put forth this afternoon by his first lieutenant.
I do not intend to devote any more time to this question, beyong stating


An hon. MEMBER:: It is not worth it.


Peter John Veniot: It may not be worth it from the standpoint of the hon. member, but apparently it is worth it from the standpoint of the hon. leader of the opposition, in order that there may be a new plank in the platform.


An hon. MEMBER:: There is going to be an election.


Peter John Veniot: That is why you are putting in this plank, so you may be able to use it at the next election.


Mr. GARDINER:: Is the hon. minister
stating that there are 4,007 rural mail contractors receiving $2,825,317?


Peter John Veniot: Yes.


Robert Gardiner: Can the minister give the mileage covered by those contractors in the course of a year?


Peter John Veniot: Surely the hon. member would not expect me to have that now.


Robert Gardiner: I presume that is in the contract.


Peter John Veniot: I could get that information for the hon. member.


Hugh Guthrie: The average is 20 miles.


Peter John Veniot: There is nothing in the department pertaining to post office matters which cannot be obtained.


William Gordon Ernst: By a friend.


Peter John Veniot: If the hon. member desires me to do so, I will have the contracts gone over and I will produce the information this week.
I do not intend to deal with this matter at any greater length, beyond repeating what I said at the beginning. My attention was called to it in a casual way in 1928, and later on my attention was more closely drawn to it, I think towards the end of 1928. But from the spring of 1928 to the present time, some attention has been paid to the existing system, and we are reviewing the situation to see whether or not a more equitable system can be put into practice.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the hon. member means 1927, because he will remember that in 1928 we discussed the matter.


Peter John Veniot: Yes; it was in 1927 that
my attention was first drawn to it. I thank the hon. member for the correction. I feel that I have enough information now to warrant my saying that the application of the United States system in Canada is an impossibility. But I do not say that a better system than the one we have cannot be put into practice and it is with that end in view we are at present reviewing the situation.


Mr. M. J. MALONEY (South Renfrew):: In addition to the matter covered by the amendment of the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), which points out that the policy of the Post Office department under the present government is to grind down the contractors who are the mail carriers on the rural mail delivery routes, there is the question of the present uncertainty of the length of their service. I have good reasons for repeating a statement I made a year ago in connection with this matter. We had in the county of Renfrew a mail contractor who, prior to the election of 1926, had a contract with three and a half years to run. That contractor happened to be wise enough to support me in the election, and what was the result? Immediately afterwards a few of the Liberal supporters in that county brought the matter to the attention of the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) and the result was that a questionnaire was sent out to every house on the route asking if they had any complaints to make with regard to the contractor. The answers came back without one objection; they were entirely satisfied with the contractor; they said that he was giving excellent service, and they hoped that he might be permitted to continue in his contract. But within two weeks of the
1632	COMMONS
Rural Mail Contracts-Mr. Maloney
report going in, the contract was cancelled and the service was again put up for tender. This is the case of a solemn contract entered into between a responsible minister of this government and a citizen of the land being openly violated, for what reason? Because the man happened to vote for a Conservative candidate in the election. Has it come to this in Canada, that in addition to these mail contractors being ground down as regards the rate of pay they receive, they are obliged to vote Liberal if they are to be allowed to continue in the service of the country? That is hardly fair to the mail carrier. I do not blame the Postmaster General for all this; there are others who are responsible in addition to him. He is not a bad man in many ways; but when he starts to explain to the house the tremendous expense involved in increasing the salaries of the rural mail carriers to the extent proposed by the hon. member for South Wellington, let me point this out to him:	In the first place he advertises the
Post Office department from one end of the country to the other as " service, not cost." This is a department looking for service, not for profit. When he tells us that at the present time the rural mail carriers are drawing from the government $2,800,000 odd and that an increase in accordance with the resolution moved by the hon. member for South Wellington would mean $4,977,000 odd; if he is anxious to make up the difference, let him not be afraid. All he has to do is to intercede with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to abandon his foolish project of pulling down the best part of the city of Ottawa and, instead, to hand the money over to the rural mail contractors.


Peter John Veniot: Will the hon. member give me the name of the contractor?


Martin James Maloney: Does the minister want
it now?


Peter John Veniot: Yes, or at any other time.


Martin James Maloney: The man's name is
Bernard Hartney and the rural route is No. 4, Eganville.


Peter John Veniot: There are always two sides to a story and I will endeavour to tell the other one.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: No doubt the question before the house is quite an important one, and no doubt also it is quite ingenious on the part of the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) to make this motion at the present time. We cannot, however, help noticing that the amendment he has moved is rather contradictory, because in one breath he moves to cut out all further

proposals in the estimates and to do away with all appropriations, and in the next he calls for an additional expenditure by the government of some one or two million dollars. No one knows better than the hon. member himself that this cannot be done. No one knows better than the hon. member that by moving his resolution, he cannot bring any relief to the rural mail carriers of Canada. I will deal with his resolution later.
There is a great deal of merit in what he has stated regarding the pay that the rural mail carriers are receiving, and I do not think he has overstated the case. In many cases the rural mail carriers are underpaid, and I am glad to hear from the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) that he has been giving the matter consideration and that he intends to endeavour to arrive at some rate or some minimum salary that will meet the situation in some w-ay. But at the present time he is prevented under the act from doing so, and as we all know, the contracts can be renewed to the present carriers only at the existing rate of pay. It is also quite true that when tenders are invited, a large number of tenders are sent in and in many cases the present carriers ask that their contracts be renewed at the same rate and that the route be not put up for tender. I cannot quite agree with the argument that is sometimes advanced that this shows that the men are satisfied. On the contrary, I think it is quite true they are afraid that if they do not accept the contract at existing rates, they will lose the contract and that it will go to someone else. Therefore, rather than lose it, they are willing to enter into a new one at the same rate of pay. In the notice that is sent out there is a provision which reads:
In this connection, I might remind you that while the Post Office Act empowers the Postmaster General to renew existing contracts for further terms, such renewals can be executed only on existing terms and conditions.
Until the act is amended it is impossible for the Postmaster General to enter into any sort of arrangement other than is provided for in the act.
The hon. member for South Wellington said this afternoon that the amounts of the tenders are gradually going down, that the rate of pay to the mail couriers is constantly decreasing.
I do not know whether or not the facts bear out that statement. My own information is that in a great many cases, and I think this is generally true, the drivers on these routes are receiving a higher rate of pay at the present time than formerly, and that so far from the average rate of pay getting lower, it is yearly becoming a little better.

Rural Mail Contracts-Mr. MacLean (Prince)
The hon. member for South Wellington also jaid that the whole tender system is wrong, and he advocated that we adopt a new system and put the whole rural mail service under the Civil Service Commission. As has been pointed out by some other speakers, this would not do away altogether with competition. Under the Civil Service Commission at the present time there is competition, not in respect of price but in respect of qualifications.
I think the point brought out by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) this afternoon in that connection is very important. He pointed out that if this proposed change was adopted it would not mean that all the present couriers throughout the Dominion would be blanketed into the service under the Civil Service Commission and retain their positions. I know that our friends opposite would be only too glad to demand that every mail courier throughout this Dominion immediately throw up his job, and that all these positions be advertised by the Civil Service Commission. We know what the result would be. We know that competitive examinations would be held and a great many of the present couriers would lose their jobs, which would go to people now outside the service, and so the relief which my hon. friend seeks to bring to the mail couriers could not be given under the change he proposes.
I would point out that the mail couriers are not the only ones in the government employ who, to my mind, are not receiving adequate pay. We have lighthouse keepers throughout this Dominion. Their positions are under the Civil Service Commission. Now if there is any class of people in the government service throughout this Dominion who serve long hours in very lonely out-of-the-way parts of the country, it is the lighthouse keepers, but in a great many cases they receive very small remuneration. I have a letter here which I would like to put on Hansard with reference to the salary of a lighthouse keeper, and I am quoting this to make a comparison with the remuneration of the mail couriers. The letter is as follows::
I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 28th ultimo with respect to the salary paid for the keepership of the North Point light, Tignish.


Mr. SHORT:: I object to the hon. gentleman bringing the lighthouse service into this discussion on the rural mail delivery service. He can bring up the lighthouse service when the estimates of the Marine and Fisheries department are under consideration. What has the lighthouse service to do with the rural mail service?


Mr. McLEAN (Prince):: My hon. friend is not living up to his name. His name is Short,
but on interruptions he is long. I am speaking to the amendment which has been moved to the motion to go into supply, and it is quite relevant to the question before the house to make a comparison of the salaries paid in different branches of the public service. But if my hon. friend wants to make another speech, I will give him the floor.


Harry Bernard Short: I have not spoken on this
matter as yet. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if it is in order for the hon. member to bring in the lighthouse service when the question before us is the rural mail delivery service.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The hon. gentleman's remarks should be relevant to the subject matter of the motion before the house.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I bow to your
ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I think a comparison of salaries is quite relevant to the motion before the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But not the letter.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I can state the case without reading the letter, if the hon. leader of the opposition objects to that. The salary this lighthouse keeper receives is $4S0, for a yearly service. There are a great many cases where these positions are advertised, and when a vacancy is advertised there is always a large number of applications. I have in mind a case where a position was advertised at Summerside in my province. The man was acting as temporary lightkeeper and was giving splendid service; he was quite able to carry out his duties. But the position was advertised by the Civil Service Commission, and he had to step out and someone else came in. A returned soldier got the preference. We have no objection to that, of course. I am simply pointing out what would happen if all the positions in the rural mail delivery service were advertised by the Civil Service Commission.
I know our friends opposite wish to make some political capital out of this question. I do not blame them for that because that is their privilege. But the hon. member who moved the amendment knows perfectly well that he can bring no relief to the mail couriers under his motion. He knows that the motion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) for the house to go into committee of supply was made in order that we might discuss and vote on the appropriations of moneys that are required for carrying on the public service of the country, and he knows perfectly well that his amendment to that motion is simply holding up the house from going into supply and voting the money that is required
1634	COMMONS
Rural Mail Contracts-Mr. MacLean (Prince)
to carry on the country's business. It is a want of confidence motion, and I do not propose to be put in the position of not explaining my position clearly on this matter.
In our province we have in our rural service as fine a class of drivers as can be found anywhere in this Dominion, and they give us splendid service. It may be a surprise to my hon. friends to know that right in my home district where I have lived the best part of my life one of the first rural mail routes in the whole Dominion was established, and now the system has spread throughout the whole province so that to-day there is not one part of the province that is not served by rural mail delivery. We have a splendid service and as fine a class of men as can be found anywhere, and we would be only too glad to see them get an increase in salary if that is possible. But I shall be compelled to vote against tlhe amendment-for what reason? Because it is a want of confidence motion, and it cannot bring the relief which my hon. friend from South Wellington would like to lead the country to believe he desires to bring to the mail couriers under his motion. I therefore propose to vote against his amendment and to support the motion of the Minister of Finance that the house go into committee of supply and vote the money to carry on the public services of this country.


Mr. GEORGE SPOTTON (North Huron):: I was not in the house when the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) made his address this afternoon, but after listening to the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) I have sent over for the amendment, and I think the Postmaster General has not stuck to the text. The amendment reads:
In the opinion of this house the present system of awarding contracts for the delivery of rural mail by tender has proved unfair, burdensome and unsatisfactory, and that such rural mail carriers should be appointed by the Civil Service Commission upon a permanent basis with a definite rate of pay, based upon mileage and the physical conditions of the territory involved, having regard to the amount paid to the other servants of the government for similar employment.
Now, I can scarcely be accused of being a recent convert to this proposed change, because the first time that I addressed this house I did what I could to bring to the attention of hon. members the unfair condition under which the rural mail carriers were working and the inadequate remuneration they were receiving. I think the Postmaster General is evading the question in asking why did not the previous government take care of this matter between 1911 and 1921. The Post-

master General was no doubt in this country during that time, and he must not forget that the war was followed by a very trying period of reorganization and rehabilitation. I do not think any unfair advantage was taken of him, because he had been having interviews from time to time with the Rural Mail Carriers Association. And, Mr. Speaker, I see no reason why the rural mail carriers of this country should not be free to band together in an association as well as any other class of people in this Dominion. I know not why the Postmaster General spoke so unkindly of this association last session. It is a real association; it is not like the Consumers League in which the word "consumer's" should be spelled with possessive singular. Simply because the preceding government did not remedy this unsatisfactory condition of affairs is no reason why we on this side of the house should not advocate remedial action on the part of the government. The preceding government was tried by the electorate and in their opinion, found wanting, and discarded. In the very near future this government is going to be tried by the electorate, and already we can hear a "sound of going" in the tops of the mulberry trees. I suppose the Postmaster General might have his chauffeur drive him out into the country in his $8,000 Stutz car to meet the mail carriers and tell them they are prosperous.
I was very much impressed by the remarks of the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe). I am a little hard of hearing, but as I drive about the country I can always distinguish the rattle of the mail carrier's buggy. I see no reason why the rural mail carriers should be the only men in the service of the Post Office department to be stood up every four years and shot at. I believe the Deputy Postmaster General has had his salary raised by two thousand dollars during the past year, and yet when we ask for a modest increase and a permanency of employment with a few holidays for these men who go over the country roads in all weathers the Postmaster General turns a deaf ear to our request. But I am glad to see he is in a little more conciliatory mood this year than last. Perhaps he has been advised that the time is coming when the Prime Minister will be again reforming the senate and lowering the cost of living and the price of farm implements, and on that occasion no doubt the Postmaster General will be holding out to these mail carriers the bait of fair remuneration.
I should like the Postmaster General to make this clear. I understood' him to say that at the expiration of their contract letters

Rural Mail Contracts-Mr. Spotton
are sent to all rural mail carriers asking if they are prepared to carry on for another four years at the same rate. If that is not correct will he kindly state with what particular ones does he communicate?


An hon. MEMBER:: The favoured few.


George Spotton: Are letters written to all
of them or only to certain ones?


Peter John Veniot: We generally like to renew the contracts of those against whom there are no complaints and whose official records show they are giving good service.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Political considerations
govern.


Peter John Veniot: No. If political considerations governed I would have had to deal with Conservatives, because until the last four or five years nearly every mail contractor was a Conservative.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was before 1921.


George Spotton: I am not yet clear as to
the number and type of rural mail carriers to whom the Postmaster General writes asking if they are prepared to carry on.


Peter John Veniot: I cannot help you then.


George Spotton: I accept the Postmaster
General's word for the moment that only those against whom there has been no complaint as to their service-not their politics-are asked if they wish to carry on. I can name him a mail carrier in my riding with fifteen years' public service, against whom there was not a breath of complaint, but who was put up, his route advertised, and when the old and faithful servant and a new man tendered at the same figure, the Postmaster General's department wrote the defeated Liberal candidate asking who should get this contract, the old faithful servant or the new man. I think the Postmaster General has in mind the route in question.


Peter John Veniot: Yes, I know the circumstances and will deal with the case when the time comes.


George Spotton: Now, Mr. Speaker, I do
not want to labour this question, having dealt with it rather fully last session. I feel that the rural mail carrier is entitled to a fair wage, to some guarantee of permanency of position, to holidays like any other civil servant, and to be treated as a human being. It seems to me that this is the only branch of his department where the Postmaster General can take a good fling at political patronage and declare "to the victor belongs the spoils." It has become an obsession with him, a plaything, and it would be unkind to deny him the little pleasure that this activity affords him.
As a basis of comparison let me take the letter carriers of the city of Toronto-and they are not overpaid. They get SI ,440, or thereabouts, a year delivering mail from house to house; their position is permanent; they are cared for if they lose their health in the service, and presumably they are entitled to a retiring allowance. At any rate, these men, with no more intelligence, no more capability and no better type of citizens than the rural mail carriers, get $1,440 a year to walk for a few hours twice a day over their routes, and then they are free to go back home; whereas the poor rural mail carrier has to cover up to 32 miles over the snow banks in the winter and through the mud roads in the spring and fall, keep up two horses-all for $590 a year on an average. Taking the Postmaster General's own figures, the average is even lower-only $500 a year.
I fail to understand why he should attempt to draw a red herring across the track by talking about bus and stage coach service. This amendment has to do definitely and clearly with the rural mail carrier. It may be, as the Postmaster General would say if he were speaking in another province, that this is another of "those fanatics from Ontario" who object to "G.R." being taken off the mail wagons. It is most unfair to say that the rural mail carrier makes any money carrying passengers. In my constituency I do not think there is a single rural mail carrier who makes $5 a year in this way. The average rural mail carrier goes down the concession and back, and he will give any man a free ride, even though this government has hiim working at a starvation wage. Let me give the Postmaster General an instance. And remember I have a great deal of appreciation for the Postmaster General in many respects. He has shown a broad sympathy and human kindness in many little matters in my constituency which I have brought to his notice. But I think he can hardly be cognizant of this. In the village of Auburn the post office was moved down the street 39 rods, which shortened the mail carrier's route by twice 39 rods, and the Postmaster General sent down a high paid inspector, getting perhaps $10 a day with travelling expenses, to measure that distance of 30 rods, and he docked that rural mail carrier $10.48 per annum for the rest of his term. That surely is proving that he is a friend of the working man in this country.
1636	COMMONS
Rural Mail Contracts-Mr. Spotton
To give consideration to this question at this late date is not offering much consolation to those men who are doing the hardest work in the Postmaster General's department and getting the least pay. The Postmaster General will say, "Why, it is let by contract". Well, you know, a man gets settled down in one walk of life and he is afraid to get out of that groove lest he may not make a success of anything else; and if the Postmaster General's position were advertised to-night he would take a few thousands less in order to retain it.


Peter John Veniot: I think it is worth a great deal more when I have to listen to such criticism as that.


George Spotton: Perhaps the truth hurts But let me tell the Postmaster General that he will continue to hear about it until this wrong is righted. So long as the poorest paid men do the hardest work in his department, receiving the least consideration, he is going to hear about the matter, and we are going to try to have him place the situation fairly before the house and not sidestep it by quoting bus line and stage coaches when he should be sticking to the plain rural mail carriers. The Postmaster General has not said that he would not accept his position at a few thousands less. Now a man has a rural mail contract and he is growing old He gave up his farm-and there are very few farmers in my constituency, not one out of ten, who carry mail. These rural mail carriers work steadily day by day. There is little else they can turn their hands to. And when their four years are up they may not be the ones to whom a letter is written-they may be of the wrong political stripe-asking them if they will carry on. The complaint has been registered that they voted U.F.O. in the last election and therefore they are put up at auction. The mail carrier is afraid he will lose his job. He has his horses and his rig and therefore he says, "I will tender a little less". If he is still able to exist, when the next four years expire he will tender again a little less. So that, as the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross) said last year, the Postmaster Genera! will soon be getting this work done for practically nothing.
I would ask the Postmaster General to give one sane reason why these men in his service should be the only men who are made political toys of. Is there any reason? I have aeard the Postmaster General say that Canada has not lost one dollar through rural mail carriers, that they are honest, that they are efficient. [DOT] And it is the only branch of his

department of which he can so speak. Yet this is the way he proposes to reward honesty and efficiency. I know he has a particular grudge against a gentleman who went about striving to organize the rural mail carriers, a gentleman named McKinnon. The Postmaster General did not like it. He apparently thinks that the rural mail carriers did not know they were working too cheaply until Mr. McKinnon got a soap box and started a riot.
I wish once more to appeal to the Postmaster General to consider sane legislation in this matter, and to have the thoughts which he has in mind crystallized into legislation at least by next session so that these gentlemen can receive a fair wage according to the work that they are doing, instead of having ignominy cast upon them. Do not let the Postmaster General say to them, "You are the only gentlemen in my service who are not to receive the same treatment as others." I invite the Postmaster General now to come up to my constituency in his private car and send ahead his eight thousand dollar Stutz car, with chauffeur, and tell the people of that constituency that rural mail carriers or anybody else there are prosperous.
In closing I wish to say this. I feel that it is a blot on the fair name of Canada that we should meet many of the men carrying His Majesty's mail with the outfit they have. Last year I read in this house an account of a case in the city of Stratford where a rural mail carrier was taken before the court by the humane society for driving a horse which should not be driven. When Magistrate Makins learned that the Postmaster General was giving this man 81.75 a day to support that horse and rig and to maintain a family of five he dismissed the action. The same thing has occurred also in the vicinity of London.


Mr. YENIOT:: Was not the party brought before the court, Fred Sitwell?


George Spotton: I do not know the name of the mail contractor. I read about the case in the Daily Beacon and I wrote to the magistrate to find out whether the newspaper clipping was correct and he sent me a letter enclosing the clipping and saying, "yes, it was absolutely correct."


Clarence Joseph Veniot: The man brought before the court was not the mail contractor but the brother of the mail contractor who sold the contract to him at 8100 less than what he was getting from the government.

Rural Mail Contracts-Mr. Jenkins


George Spotton: Does the Postmaster General mean to tell this house that these contracts are sold from one man to another?


Peter John Veniot: Yes, we discovered that this man was doing it.


George Spotton: And the Postmaster General is telling the house that he permits a mail contractor-


Peter John Veniot: No, I did not say that.


George Spotton: -to sell a contract-


Peter John Veniot: Not at all. When we discovered it we cancelled the contract.


George Spotton: And I suppose the Postmaster General discovered it when it was brought to his attention in this house; therefore that is one reason he does not like to listen to matters of this kind. Now I am not suggesting that the Postmaster General should put into effect what the mail carriers' association ask; I am not suggesting that he could put into legislation that which obtains on the other side. The rural mail carriers' association may be asking too much. But I want the rural mail carriers in my riding to know that the Postmaster General treats this matter in a very light vein-and it is no joke to those who are not properly provided for.


Peter John Veniot: I am amused at the statement you made.


George Spotton: I am not suggesting that he can put into effect what is now the law in the United States; I am not suggesting that he can give at once what the rural mail carriers' association are asking. It may be too much for the present. But I plead with him to grant some relief, to give some financial assistance to these men, and to make their positions secure. Their positions then will become permanent, and they will be able to give better service to the country. I wish the Postmaster General would take a look at the little covered wagon used by a rural mail carrier and then tell me what use could be made of it on a farm, unless the farmer has a milk route of about fifteen or twenty customers.


Mr. R. H. JENKINS (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to add a few words to this discussion. In the first place let me say that I am entirely in sympathy with the great majority of the rural mail carriers throughout Canada who are asking for an improvement in their conditions, but I do not intend to be led astray by this plan of the hon. member 78594-104
for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), which is designed to embarrass me as well as many other supporters of the government.
If, as the hon. member suggests, these appointments should be under the Civil Service Commission, I must remember that a large number of the men at present employed in this work in my constituency would be out of a job. I understand that the age limit for applicants for civil service positions is thirty-five years, and this would shut out many of my friends.


Hugh Guthrie: Why could we not change that section of the Civil Service Act? That could be done in five minutes.


Robert Harold Jenkins: It would be some job. Then, as the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) has so well stated in his inimitable way, perhaps many of them would noit be able to answer satisfactorily the exacting questions which might be put by the examiners. A number of men possibly not so well qualified as others in an educational way would be quite capable of giving good service in this particular work. Other qualifications also are taken into account, and some older men who perhaps were not physically fit to serve in the war would be shut out.
Jso well-defined plan has been outlined by hon. gentlemen opposite for looking after the present incumbents of these positions, and therefore I think this proposed amendment is only an effort to embarrass the governm'ent. As I have already stated, these rural mail carriers give excellent service for small remuneration. Not long ago a large number of these men and women, because in our province I think some women carry on this work, met at, Charlottetown and placed their case before me. I promised to lay their representations before the government, and my colleague (Mr. Sinclair, Queens), the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacLean) and myself have stated the case to the Postmaster General. It deserves serious consideration, and I am of the opinion that the government will be well advised to endeavour in some way to alleviate the difficulties under which many of these men labour. But, Mr. Speaker, to vote this government out of office and replace it with another in order to attain this end is, in my opinion, no solution of the difficulty.
I will tell my hon. friends and my supporters in the constituency which I have the honour to represent that I will support any reasonable measure intended to better the conditions of the rural mail carriers in Canada, but I prefer to have that matter attended to by the party to which I belong rather than by hon. gentlemen opposite.

1638	COMMONS
Rural Mail Contracts-Mr. Church


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest) :: Mr. Speaker, the post office is a
public utility, and no public utility in Canada should use its employees in the way the government uses these rural mail camera Where is the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan); what has he to say about this? According to a table appearing on page 12 of the report of the Post Office department this service was operated at a loss from 1868 to 1901; from then on, with the exception of a few years, it has shown a surplus. Last year the net revenue amounted to $30,529,154.76; the expenditure was $32,379,195.65, leaving a deficit of $1,850,040.89. Let us see how the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) uses some of the big fellows in this country; the present government hand the newspaper industry of this country a straight cash subsidy of about $8,000,000 a year. That is computed as the difference between the actual cost to the Post Office department of carrying the newspapers and what they receive for this work.
It is not creditable to the government to use the low-paid employees of this department in this way. Twenty-five years ago the section men on the railway were similarly treated; they were not permitted to join a union, but finally the railways had to give in. The railway men have just as much right to form themselves into a railway union as bon. members of this house have to form themselves into a lawyers' union or a doctors' union. The Bell Telephone Company could not treat its employees in this way; the employees of the Department of Agriculture could not be treated in this way; the HydroElectric people could not treat their men like this, so Why should the government do so? While all this is going on the Minister of Labour is going up and down the country saying that this government is a friend of labour. I think we should have a committee to inquire into the Post Office department and change the system from top to bottom. I believe if there were a redistribution of the rates on package mail and on goods sent from the large mail order houses, who could well afford to pay a higher rate, the additional revenue would enable the government to pay these rural mail carriers a larger wage.
I take issue with the hon. member for North Huron (Mr. Spotton) when he speaks of the city of Toronto. That city pays about $7,000,000, or a quarter of the total cash revenue obtained by the Post Office department, but we cannot get a new post office there. In many places throughout Canada where the revenue is only $100, $200, $400, $1,000 or $2,000, new post offices are built 	I
costing $8,000 or $10,000; no doubt this is a good way to provide work for the boys m the rural constituencies. I think the time has come when this great public utility should be placed on a real business basis with an injection of a little of the human element. The low-paid men in the department are not receiving very much more now than they received in 1780 and 1790. Cowper's Task in that part called the Winter Evening, alludes to the low pay of rural mail delivery men in 1780 and 1790 when they received ten cents a day, and conditions have not improved much even in Canada since that time. The contract system has been weighed in the balance and found wanting. There is a lack of efficiency about it, and the maintenance of such a system in the future would not be in the interests of the country. These men should be put on the same 'basis as the employees of the Canadian National Railway.
The post office is one of the most important government services we have in Canada, and the postal workers deserve better treatment than they are receiving at the present time. I was surprised to hear the Postmaster General who is generally a good friend to many of the branches of the department, referring to the rural mail carriers as "that element". I believe that all services should be on an equal basis and whether a man is sweeping the street, driving a tramcar or delivering rural mail, he is performing a service which is just as important as being the Prime Minister or the Postmaster General of this country. The other night the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) referred to the gentlemen who sit on the back rows of benches as the "back-benchers". It seems to be popular to coin catch phrases, but let me say that the branch of the public service which has been referred to as "that element" is doing as efficient a public service as is the Postmaster General and his deputy.
The large cities of Canada are contributing the most of the revenue to the Post Office department, but they receive very little of the returns. The postal workers in t'he city of Toronto are very poorly paid. The postmaster of that city, in which the post office has a yeally turnover of almost $7,000,000, only receives $5,000 per year. There should be a committee of the house appointed to go into these matters to see if we could not find a policy, as suggested by the amendment of the hon. member for South Wellington, whidh would bring about an improvement in the most important public service in Canada.

Rural Mail Contracts-Division


Mr. GOTT:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Kent, Ont., (Mr. Rutherford). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. BELL (St. Antoine):: I was paired
with the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Raymond). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.

Rural Mail Contracts-Pairs


Mr. CANNON:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Hyaeinthe-Rouville (Mr. Morin). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I was paired with the
hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


William Earl Rowe: I was paired with the hon.
member for Beauee (Mr. Lacroix). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. ANDERSON (Toronto):: I was paired with the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Peter John Veniot: I was paired with the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. MACDONALD (Richmond):: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. KAY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Wilson). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


James Earl Lawson: I was paired with the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Gray). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. HEENAN:: I was paired with the
hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Black). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I was paired with the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGibbon). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. BOIVIN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Hocken). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.
Motion (Mr. Robb) agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
[Stage Direction]
Salaries and allowances	$17,295,464 40
Mail service including mail service by air	 16)305,000 00
Miscellaneous, including Lucien Pacaud, Secretary of the High Commissioner's office, as the representative of the Canadian government on the Pacific Cable Board, at $1,500; and $5,000 for the payment of compassionate allowances to employees injured while in the performance of their duties, or to dependents of employees killed while on duty, such payments to be made only on the specific authority of the governor in council	 1,176,175 00
Yukon Territory	 150,000 00
Hugh Alexander Stewart: Would the Postmaster General give the committee a general statement as to the air mail service?


Peter John Veniot: Does the hon. gentleman wish the statement for the whole of Canada?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes.


Peter John Veniot: Last year we had an air
mail service between Rimouski and Montreal. Montreal and Ottawa, and Ottawa and Toronto. That was twice a week to meet the incoming and outgoing British mail steamers. That continued during the season of navigation. During the winter time, after the close of navigation, we had an air mail service between Mai Bay, Seven Islands and Anticosti island:	That is a weekly service. After the
close of navigation we also had an air mail service between Moncton and the Magdalen islands. That service was begun a little later last winter than the winter before, but we carried it on until the opening of navigation or until sudh time as landing on the ice at the Magdalens became dangerous. I think we made seven or eight weekly trips. For a time we had an air mail service between Moncton and Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island. The ferry boat had been laid up on account of an accident and we could not get the mails in on the regular time, so the service was put on during that period. We also had a temporary mail service lasting about seven weeks between Ottawa and Montreal, Montreal and St. John, and St. John and Halifax. This was tried out with the object of establishing later on a regular route between Montreal and the maritime provinces. We also had an air mail service for ten days before Christmas and up to New Years between the principal points in the three western provinces, with Winnipeg

Supply-Post Office
as the starting point. That was done with the object of ascertaining the feasibility of establishing this year an air mail service route in the three western provinces.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was no air mail
service from the east to Winnipeg?


Peter John Veniot: No. Hon. gentlemen will
see that there is in the estimates an amount of $880,000. We intend establishing an air mail route from Toronto to Buffalo, connecting up at Windsor with the American lines and following those lines until we get to a point where we can join in again with our system at Winnipeg, and from Winnipeg continue the service over the three prairie provinces. The actual routes in the three prairie provinces have not yet been definitely determined, but one thing we are prepared to say, and that is that we will accommodate the larger cities and towns in those three provinces.
So far as an air mail service to the coast is concerned, I do not contemplate establishing any route this year because the surveys which the National Defence department have in hand for us have not yet been completed. When we intimate that we desire to establish an air mail service, the Department of National Defence undertake to have the route surveyed by their experts and to report to us on its feasibility. Part of that survey has been completed, and the remainder I hope will be done this year, so that we shall then be in a position to say when and how we may reach the Pacific coast.
We had other air mail services during the winter. We had a service from the head of steel out of Edmonton about 432 miles, up the Mackenzie river for some 700 miles. The people along that route used to receive their mail once during the winter, but with the service we gave them they received their mail pretty nearly once a week. We also had a service to the Flin-Flon area, to Cold lake. To-day our mail contractors in the Yukon have permission to use aeroplanes for the purpose of carrying out their contracts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is there an air mail
service to the Yukon?


Peter John Veniot: The contractors in the
Yukon have permission to use aeroplanes ii they so desire. We have other air mail services, but not directly under the control of the department. For instance, a company developing some part of the country will ask permission to carry mail, and we give them permission to use what is called the sticker system; that is, they would carry the mail, protecting it by the sticker system, and they
could charge to those who wished to send their mail in that way a certain fee. We regulated the fee. In some cases it was 10 cents per ounce, and the highest charge was 20 cents per ounce. That, Mr. Chairman, is a rough outline of what we are doing and what we are hoping to do this year in the air mail service.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I notice in the
press that in all probability the air mail service between Montreal and Toronto will be discontinued. Is the department considering that?


Peter John Veniot: Not "in all probability." I
made the statement myself that if the business men and commercial houses and those engaged in industry did not sufficiently appreciate what the department was doing as a convenience to them and as an extension of our mail system to patronize the service as it should be patronized, I did not intend to run it for the health of the department. I felt that cities like Toronto and Montreal having that service should appreciate it to the extent that we would at least meet expenses. The matter rests there.


Mr. HEAPS:: In this vote, Mr. Chairman,
there are four separate items, and I suggest that each item be taken up separately because each is a separate item in itself. The first deals with salaries and allowances, and I suggest that this be taken up so that we may consider the salaries of the postal employees.


Peter John Veniot: I have no objection.


John Frederick Johnston: The first item reads:
Salaries and allowances, $17,295,464.40.


Mr. RYERSON:: With reference to the
proposed air mail route between Toronto and Windsor, is it the intention to make intermediate stops between those two cities?


Peter John Veniot: I forgot to mention this
point in connection with the air mail service. We are being asked daily if we will stop at this or that point, at this town or that. The main point to be considered in flying is the starting and landing places, and we will not stop at any place that will not provide a landing. The department is not providing landings. We cannot take chances of giving communication by air mail to places that will not provide a safe landing. We do not judge that for ourselves; it is done by the experts of the national defence department, but I may say that there are places between Toronto and Windsor that have good landing places and where we certainly will stop.
1(542
Supply-Post Office


Robert Edwy Ryerson: In the event of some of the cities between Windsor and Toronto pro-vid'ing proper landing places, will they be stopping places for the air mail service?


Peter John Veniot: Yes.


Robert Edwy Ryerson: Would they stop at Bradford?


Peter John Veniot: We will stop at any place
between Toronto and Windsor that will give us a proper landing.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, April 17, 1929