1947-02-21

Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: I rise on a question of privilege in regard to a press report in today's issue of the Ottawa Citizen. This is the first time I have ever had to rise on a question of privilege with regard to a newspaper report. The Ottawa Citizen of today's issue reports that when I spoke last evening to the Canadian Weekly Newspapers Association I stated in part as follow's:
Canadian citizenship knows only one language and one loyalty.	.
That portion of the report is incorrect in its entirety; for never was the matter discussed by me or anything said that could be subject to such an interpretation, and much less is the alleged quotation justified. Six members from this side of the house, as well as the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Cote) and the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Bertrand), were present on the occasion, and I know that they will bear me out that such a statement was not made by me, nor did I use certain of the other words ascribed to me in the following paragraph:
All that now remains is for us to remember in our hearts the need for equality of rights, a realization of our responsibilities and equality before the law to assure the preservation of the principles of democracy, without regard to the influence of any race, tongue or creed.
The words "without regard to the influence of" or "tongue" or words to that effect were not used by me. What I stated was that all of us must realize our responsibilities as Canadians and that democracy can only be preserved under equality under law and equality of rights for all Canadians without regard to race or creed.
Inquiries oj the Ministry



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (for the Prime Minister) moved:
That, on and after Monday, the 24th of February. and every sitting day thereafter, until Monday, the 3rd day of March, government orders may be introduced and considered notwithstanding the resolution passed on the 30th of January, and the further resolution passed on February 6, in relation to the precedence given to the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
He said: The terms of this resolution were agreed upon by the leaders of the various parties and groups in the house.
Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I think I can say for those who sit around me that we are entirely agreeable to this proposal. May I ask the minister whether questions will be answered again on Monday?


Mr. MACKENZIE:: Exactly as they have been in the past two weeks.


Mr. COLDWELL:: And motions for production of papers will be taken?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: Yesterday I promised to answer a question asked by the member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) and also by the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker), who spoke to me privately with reference to the closing of a vocational school in Prince Albert. I directed my officials to get in direct telephone communication with them, but there is some difference in time as between Prince Albert and Ottawa and though I was hopeful of having a reply by three o'clock I have not yet received it. I shall endeavour to give it on Monday or by telephone tomorrow if I get a reply in the meantime.



SUGAR BEETS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of- the day:
Mr. WILLIAM BRYCE (Selkirk):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Finance? I have given him notice of it. Has the minister received further representations from

the sugar beet growers and can he make a statement as to what the government will do in this matter?


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):: I am advised that no further
representations have been received.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Can the minister say why it is that air express shipments from South America to Montreal are in many instances not released by the customs authorities in Montreal for from seven to eleven days, and whether it is possible to have customs clearance speeded up? To clear customs at the present time it takes as long as it does to fly the air express from Rio de Janeiro.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hon. J. J. McCANN (Minister of National Revenue):: I had not received notice of the
question but I will look into the matter and give an answer as soon as possible.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I hope the Minister of
Trade and Commerce will also take note of the question, because it costs a good deal to ship air express and present conditions are holding up foreign trade.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Write him a letter.



PRICE CONTROL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: I wish to ask the Minister
of Finance a question. Is he in a position to confirm or comment on a report credited to a government financial expert that every dollar spent on price control has saved the consumer at least $55?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know who the government financial expert is, and I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the figure of $55, but I can say that I am sure the money spent on price control has saved the Canadian consumer very substantial sums.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why not keep it up?


Major James William Coldwell: Yes. why not continue
it?

Inquiries oj the Ministry



BOOK OF REMEMBRANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. E. LENNARD (Wentworth):: Is the ministry now in a position to answer a question asked by me on February 6, which was in respect to a book of remembrance being created for those who fell in world war II? If the question cannot be answered today, perhaps I may have an answer at the next sitting.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. RONALD MOORE (Churchill):: Could the Minister of Fisheries advise the house whether or not the government has decided to set up a fisheries board under the Prices Support Act of 1944 to deal with inland fisheries? If so, will Manitoba and Saskatchewan have representation on that board?


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I would suggest to the hon. member that he put the question on the order paper. I do not think it is of sufficient urgency to be asked now.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I protest. This is a matter of great urgency. There are many tons of fish in the inland fisheries which will spoil unless some action is taken forthwith, and the question has a bearing on the situation. I believe that if you understood this situation you would allow the question.


James Horace King: As Speaker I must point out to hon. members that questions of this sort should be placed upon the order paper, and any question that is urgent should be brief and to the point. The Speaker is pleased at all times to permit such questions.


Major James William Coldwell: May I respectfully
suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the question was brief and to the point and is of great urgency.


Hon. H. F. G. BRIDGES (Minister of Fisheries):: May I refer the hon. member for Churchill to my reply to. a similar question asked by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), which appears on page 605 of Hansard of yesterday. In reply to the second question, I would point out that section 3, subsection 1 of the act provides for the appointment "of not more than five members including a chairman and a vice-chairman." The hon. member may rest assured that the dominion government will, when the board is set up. endeavour within the limitations of
the act to give appropriate representation on the board to the different sections of the fishing industry in Canada. I cannot say more than that.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply? Will the government continue the subsidies and subventions now in effect to operating coal companies in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick whose mines are out of production because of stoppage of work in the provinces mentioned?


Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: My hon. friend mentions subventions. They are payments for the movement of coal beyond certain boundary points. Of course if there were no production of coal then automatically there would be no subventions. As to production subsidies for mines other than the Dominion Coal Company, production subsidies in the maritime provinces are based on production per ton of coal. They would1 automatically cease when the mines closed. As far as the Dominion Coal Company is concerned, there is a contract covering production subsidies for that company. That contract operates until March 21 next. Notice has been given that the contract in its present form will terminate on that date. The administration of production subsidies was taken out of the Department of Reconstruction and Supply when coal control was terminated and has been transferred to the Department of Finance under the wartime prices and trade board. I am not sure that action will be taken regarding the contract with the Dominion Coal Company. It is a continuing contract and unless it can be altered it binds the government to pay the loss of the company up to March 31 next.



REQUEST FOR COPIES OF DRAFT BILL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the further full page article in the Financial Post on the draft labour bill, will the minister reconsider the matter of letting members of parliament have copies of that draft?


Humphrey Mitchell: Unlike my friend, I do not read the Financial Post. I always thought that was left for the moguls, as they call them.
Labour Conditions


Stanley Howard Knowles: Apparently they hare the bill.


Humphrey Mitchell: If they have it, they should not have it. Governments have often been criticized in this country for not consulting with the parties interested. In the drafting of the code I consulted with the labour organizations and the employer organizations; in connection with these draft suggestions I followed the same procedure. As I said to the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith), I cannot help it if some people are dishonest; and that is what it means.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is all right. My hon. friend says, "Oh, oh".


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: I did not say anything.


Humphrey Mitchell: I did not pick on the hon. member; he is too likeable a person for that. I think when that was sent out under confidential cover, and I directed that it should be so sent out, I am not responsible if some people possibly-and I say "possibly"-broke my confidence. As I have said before, and I think I said it to the leader of the opposition, the government itself has not seen these draft suggestions. It is merely an exchange of opinion between myself, the ministers of labour in the various provinces and other people in the dominion covering what you might call half a continent. In Great Britain one could do it in twenty-four hours, but as my hon. friend knows, it is impossible to do it in that time in a country as vast as Canada.
Yesterday I met the railroad brotherhoods to discuss the ideas contained in that memorandum. As my hon. friend knows, when the bill is introduced into the house, when it is given the approval of the government, every member of the house will have ample opportunity of examining it. If you follow the thing to its logical conclusion, eveiy member of the house has a right to see every letter addressed by a minister of the crown under confidential cover to any individual. We cannot do business in that way; that is all.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Will the minister allow a supplementary question?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


Angus MacInnis: Will you table a list of the names of the persons and organizations to whom a copy of this bill has been sent?


Humphrey Mitchell: I shall be very glad to do that for my hon. friend.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, February 20, consideration in committee of Bill No. 17, respecting supplemental payments on mail contracts-Mr. Bertrand (Laurier)-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: Last night the minister said that he would have officials of his department with him today and would be able to answer questions and perhaps tell us the basis for these war-time and operational bonuses.


Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (Postmaster General):: I have here a statement with regard to five contractors, and this will pretty well explain how the bonuses were granted.
The first is Douro No. 1. It is six trips per week. The distance is 13-8 miles. The contract rate is $475. The bonus granted was $50, and in this case the rate per mile with the bonus became $38.04. In this case $50 was asked for and it was granted because it was very reasonable in the circumstances, making the rate per mile $38.04.
For Ennismore No. 2, and this is in July, 1945, there were six trips per week; the distance was 17[DOT] 3 miles; the contract rate was $560. We gave a bonus of $140, making the rate per mile with bonus $40.46. There is a slight difference in the per mile rate here. The route is longer than the Douro route, and the contractor asked for an increase of $140, which we thought was reasonable. In order to see what should be granted we compared the rate per mile with the other rates per mile in the vicinity and compared the difficulties of the road and so on, and a rate of $40.46 per mile was granted.
In July, 1943, Keene No. 2: six trips per week; distance, 22-9 miles; contract rate $575; bonus granted, $275, making a rate per mile with bonus of $37.12. In this case the contractor asked for a specific amount of $275, which we granted, because we thought it was reasonable. Hon. members can see by comparing it with the rates in the vicinity that it was about the same, and it surely was not too high. I will admit that.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It was not high enough.


Ernest Bertrand: In December 1946, Peterborough No. 1, six trips per week, 47-8 miles; the contract rate, $1,300. The contractor asked for a specific amount of $360, making a per mile rate of $34.73. Of

Postal Service
course we granted it. The rate was reasonable at the time it was granted but, without bonus, the contractor would not have been able to carry on his work.
In March, 1945, Peterborough No. 4, again six trips per week, 34-4 miles, contract rate, $1,200; we granted a bonus of S200, making a per mile rate of $40.70. In view of the many factors to be considered, such as frequency, mileage, equipment, hours of service, character of terrain, severity of winters, the condition of the roads and so forth, no formula equitable to all has been devised or can be devised. Each case is dealt with on its merits.
I might remind the house that a short route of eight or nine miles should justify a higher mileage rate than a route of say thirty miles. The reason is that service over a short route requires only a short period of time but the hours of service might be such as to interfere with the contractor's prospects of securing other remunerative work. But on long routes the contractors have the prospect of adding to their income by carrying passengers, freight, and so forth. This fact is generally reflected in the tenders received and increases the difficulty of devising a formula which would be fair in all cases.
In order to determine whether we should grant a bonus we take the tenders that have been asked for over the same route and we sometimes find, as we did in one of these contracts, that the amount of the lowest tender was exactly the amount which the contractor was asking as a bonus, and which according to our experience would have been a fair and reasonable amount for the contract.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Does the minister not feel that that average rate per mile of $40.46 is extremely low for a route of that kind? These roads are pretty tough going.


Ernest Bertrand: We have
granted the bonus only where it was necessary and we felt that the contractor was not able to carry on without the bonus on account of the difficulties in abnormal times. But as a rule we are limited by the tenders. We have to accept the lowest tender when the tenderer is able to fulfil his contract. We cannot be blamed if contractors set a -lowr price in their tenders. But it would have been worse if we had kept them to the price of their tenders, because it would have meant that a lot of routes would have had to be abandoned or new tenders called.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Suppose a rural mail contractor comes to the department and asks for a bonus on account of the extremely high cost of living-and despite what the statistical department says about the cost of living having
gone up about 26 per cent it has actually gone up 70 per cent or more-what do you do in that case? Is an inspector sent to check on the roads, or what procedure is followed?


Ernest Bertrand: First of all we would compare the price paid with prices paid in the vicinity, and we would send an inspector to verify what the contractor has told us about the road, and so forth. If we think that the bonus asked for is too high, we tell the contractor: If you want to quit we will call for new tenders. Then we make a temporary arrangement. We call for tenders, and often we find that in these days the new tenders are higher than the bonus that has been asked for. That is why we are asking for this legislation, which is to be of a temporary character because in a year from now we shall have to ask for new tenders when the time comes to renew the contracts. The bonus was granted to help these contractors. If we were to ask for new tenders, the prices would be much higher because a new contractor would have to get the necessary equipment.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Does not the minister feel that a number of these contractors hesitate to ask for a bonus for fear the contract might be taken away from them?


Ernest Bertrand: No. When they ask for a bonus we either grant it or we do not. But no resentment is held against them at all. We are very glad when the circumstances enable us to give the bonus. I would not be introducing this legislation if it were to be permanent legislation. My officials, as a matter of fact, thought that we should have asked for this power two years ago. But I said no, and it is now being asked for one year only.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Let me give just one case to show the low rate that these men are getting. This contractor has to cover twenty-two miles six times a week, and the contract rate is $862.57. There is no bonus paid. That figures out at about $2.68 for a trip of 22 miles. That is a pretty low rate. A man cannot do it and pay for tires and gasoline at their present high prices.


Ernest Bertrand: It is pretty difficult for me to answer without knowing all the details, which I have not here. We would have to know when the contract was granted, because conditions were very different before the war.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: This contract was evidently renewed.
Postal Service


Ernest Bertrand: If it was renewed the contractor must have been satisfied. The Postmaster General's department is not a department which is running after people to give them a bonus. We give the bonus only when we are satisfied that it is justified.


Mr. REID:: Since this bill first came before the house I have had occasions to look over the picture so far as rural routes in Canada are concerned, and I feel that if many of the members had looked over the rural route situation apart from their own constituencies, many of the statements which have been made would not have been made.
First of all I think that every hon. member is agreed that the granting of the bonus was a splendid thing. I have never heard a word of complaint about it. I was one of those who advocated that the bonus should be given because, as is well known, many contractors had tendered at far too low a rate. The bonus was granted to every rural mail carrier in my constituency.


An hon. MEMBER:: Some do not get it.


Thomas Reid: I will tell you in a moment why some do not get it. It may surprise some members to learn that in the constituency of New Westminster there are more householders receiving rural mail than in the whole of Saskatchewan, and the number is equal to the number receiving rural mail in the whole of Manitoba. I was surprised also to learn that on some of the rural routes there are as few as eleven people receiving rural mail, whilst in the constituency of New Westminster there are rural mail routes serving 651 people. Does any hon. member realize the difference between serving eleven persons and serving 651 in one day? The man who serves the 651 householders has to be at his job two or three hours ahead of time in order to sort out the mail. As a matter of fact the postmaster in New Westminster has often to supply help, and I have known of instances in which the mail has been so heavy for the 651 householders that two trips per day had to be made.
Looking over the whole list one finds that some rural mail carriers make one trip per week while others make two trips, others three, four or five. Hon. members talk about putting this on an equal basis throughout the country, but taking the entire picture as presented by the Post Office department-I dug it up the other day-one is at a loss to understand the statements of certain hon. members of the opposition.

I believe we all have at heart the interests of the mail carriers, but I suggest that the prices which are being paid now show a new trend in the submission of contract prices. The latest in my district averages $81.54 a mile. If one considers it only from the standpoint of mileage, or of roads-whether they be gravel or otherwise-and overlooks the number of householders, he is not dealing with the question in its entirety. Hon. members have not touched upon the number of householders served or the number of trips made.
I thought I would draw the attention of hon. members to these facts so that we might deal with the matter as a whole and see the whole picture. I cannot see the justice in placing a man who calls on only eleven persons once a week on the same footing and paying him the same price as the rural mail carrier who travels six days each week, serving 651 householders each day. I have risen particularly to support the government in the granting of these bonuses, although I can see some difficulty in giving bonuses to everyone. Why should a bonus be given to a man who serves only eleven householders? But in British Columbia nearly everyone who has applied, so far as I know, has received the wartime bonus, and with that I am in hearty accord.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Is the rural mail contractor who serves 651 householders operating on foot or by automobile?


Thomas Reid: He operates by motor car. He could never carry on his back the mail for 651 householders.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: How could he possibly
make that many stops in a day?


Thomas Reid: I don't know, but you had
better take a lesson from him; because they do it out there, and they don't kick about it.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Not at the price they are
getting.


Thomas Reid: Yes, they are content with
the price.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They get more than the
people in Ontario.


Thomas Reid: And so they should. How
many householders have you? Have you anything like 651?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Here they get only $38.


Thomas Reid: Produce the figures.


Mr. TUSTIN:: Speaking to the resolution
I asked the minister to tell us on what basis he was paying this war-time bonus. I have

Postal Service
been listening intently ever since, but the nearest I could get to an answer was the minister's statement last night that some of these men come in and ask for small amounts. If they ask for small amounts, they get small amounts.


Mr. BERTR  AND@Laurier: No, they get
the small amount if in order to carry their contract with success they require it. We do not give a small amount simply because a man asks for it. He gets it only if it is justified.


George James Tustin: I am just repeating the
minister's words. I listened to the explanation given to the hon. member for Peterborough West. In this connection I should like to place on record three specific cases, all running out of the same post office, and numbered as routes one, two and three. There is only about half a mile difference in the distance of these three routes, and a difference of only five m the number of boxes served by the three.
The price for the first of these is $385 a year, six trips per week. This man asked for a war-time bonus, and was given one of $100. That brings his price today up to $485, or $34.40 per mile. The man running on the next route had a contract price of S482 and, upon request, received a bonus of $118.


Ernest Bertrand: What is the
mileage?


George James Tustin: The mileage varies only
half a mile in these three routes, and there is a difference of only five in the number of boxes.


Ernest Bertrand: We would
not be able to give an answer unless we had the number of the route, and the post office.


George James Tustin: I can give it. How does
the department arrive at the amount of the war-time bonus? The $118 paid to the last mentioned man gave him a total cheque of $600 per year, or $41.38 per mile. The third man-and this is the route which is a half mile longer than the other two-is operating on a tender of $324. Upon request he was given a bonus of $116.20, bringing him to a total of $440.20 per year, or a mileage rate of $29.34.
These three routes are almost identical in distance, and all run out of the same post office. They cover the same kind of roads, and as I have pointed out there is a variation of only five in the number of boxes. Yet the mileage rate varies from $29.34 to $41.38.


Ernest Bertrand: What is the name of the distributing office?


George James Tustin: I shall give that to the minister later.


Ernest Bertrand: I can answer only generally, because I would have to go into the details and look at the files. We cannot have these details in the memoranda before us.


George James Tustin: Before the minister answers let me assure him that I am not finding fault, nor am I criticizing those who are receiving bonuses. What I am trying to find out is how t'he minister's department arrives at the bonus given to these men.


Ernest Bertrand: I am sure that in these cases the amounts granted were those asked. There was a difference in the initial price, and that initial price was not fixed by the post office department, but rather by the gentlemen who tendered. When a bonus was asked we had only one thought in mind, and that was to give a bonus which was not more than it should have been. If a contractor asked for a bonus of $118 over and above what he was receiving, and if we found that that amount was reasonable for him, we would give him the $118, but we would not tell him that we could give him $216. Because, after all, we have to be careful with the taxpayers' money. The initial price is not fixed by us; it is fixed by the contractor who gets the contract because he has tendered at a certain price.


George James Tustin: It all reverts to what I said at the beginning. If these men bid a small amount, they get a small amount. The minister has mentioned' t'he initial contract and I should like to ask him this:	When a
rural mail route is put up for tender and several tenders come in. why is it that occasionally a tender is not accepted but the route is put up again? I know the minister will say that that is done because the department feels the tenders were too high, but I know of one case where there was a difference of only $55. The carrier who had been doing the job for several years tendered at the same rate he was getting, including the bonus, and the contract was sent back the second time for tenders and was finally given to another man who tendered a few dollars less. That man was given to understand by the person who 'had the patronage for the constituency that he would receive the war-time bonus.


Ernest Bertrand: Nobody had any authority to do that, and I must tell the hon. gentleman that no bonus has been given
Postal Service

unless the contract has been in effect for nearly a year. I cannot give an answer now to his question about the calling of new tenders, but if the hon. gentleman will give me t'he name I shall have t'he files looked up and give him a reply.


George James Tustin: I can give the minister the reason. It was done because the department felt that there were not enough people who knew about it when it was put up for tender. The strange thing is that there were three tenders the first time and three tenders the second time. In my opinion it all simmers down to this:	There is a great deal of discriminatory action in paying these fees. No doubt the men are given exactly what they ask for, but I do not think it is fair for any department of government to take an attitude that one man will be paid $29 per mile while another man is paid $42 per mile driving over the same roads, the difference being made up by the war-time bonus. If they go in and tender and there is no bonus, then I have no argument. If the government is trying to satisfy these people, I do not think they are doing a very good job of it when they permit such discriminations as I have described. It would seem to be a horse-trading policy where you are trying to get all you can for the least possible amount of money, and if John Jones will do the work all right.


Ernest Bertrand: It is not the least possible amount of money; it is a reasonable amount of money. I admit that with all these rural mail contracts there are many requests for this and that. We try to be fair.
I should not be surprised if on looking through 14,000 mail contracts you found here and there things that should have been done another way. I admit that this may happen as long as we cannot have a yardstick which would be applicable. Certain contracts must be given under the tender system. This system is acceptable by all governments as being the best way of granting contracts. Otherwise we would again have the patronage flag, if you want to call it that, which would, be much worse.


George James Tustin: We should have some yardstick for the war-time bonus.


Ernest Bertrand: An effort to obtain it has been made, not only by the Liberal government but by the Conservative government. A few years ago a gentleman by the name of MacKinnon tried to form an organization of rural mail contractors. He lobbied hon. members under the Borden and Meighen governments and under the Liberal 
government. Efforts have been made to find a yardstick for these contracts. We are granting a bonus in the Post Office Department for the best design for new stamps, and we will gladly pay one for a yardstick system which would be above criticism. It would be grand if the department could have one, but up to this time I do not know of any; neither do my officials.


William Scottie Bryce: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that you ask the minister to come down to one of these vacant seats in the centre of the chamber where we can hear this whispering campaign that is going on at the Speaker's end of the chamber.


Mr. BOUCHER:: The Postmaster General has referred to the difficulty of obtaining a proper yardstick, but it seems to me that the department has some sort of yardstick to decide whether tenders are too high. We know of cases where all the tenders have been refused and the contracts advertised again. Then they also seem to have a yardstick by which they decide that a rural mail service *will be given only when there are so many people per mile. In view of those two instances I think the minister diould go back to his department and have them make a more valiant attempt to get a proper yardstick for the granting of these bonuses as well as for the acceptance of tenders for mail contracts.
I think all of us realize that the situation in connection with the tender system is an unfortunate one, both to the people served bv the rural mail service and to some of the rural mail carriers. I do not think this problem is impossible of solution. As the hon. member for New Westminster has said, mileage is not the only thing to be considered, nor is the number of people per mile. Climatic and road conditions and other factors enter into the picture. If rural mail carriers have been foolish enough, if you want to use that language, to tender on a contract at a price below that at which they can give economic service and because of which they are sacrificing their own interests as well as the interests of the people they serve, then I think we should make a more determined effort to cure this situation and provide a better postal service.
In dealing with this matter of rural mail delivery we have to realize that the people being served are suffering when there is poor mail service. We do not feel that the tender system is conducive to a good and efficient rural mail service. This is the second year after the war, and the minister tells us he is going to continue the bonus policy for another

Postal Service
year. We know also that rural mail carriers who have submitted tenders within the last three or four years will have an opportunity to revise their tenders within the next one or two years. Therefore there is no need to have this bonus at this particular time. If a rural mail carrier has made too low a tender, in a very short time he will have the opportunity of making a new tender and curing his uneconomic position. If the tender system is to be adhered to I see very little to be gained by continuing the power of the minister to grant bonuses, because he has not used it during the past year. If we do not continue the tender system we should get a better one. It simply resolves itself into that-


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Will the hon. member permit a question? What suggestion has he to make?


George Russell Boucher: I shall answer that very quickly. Put this party in power and you will have it solved.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Come over and give us a hand.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I had not intended taking part in this discussion but I think so much of the plight of the rural mail carriers that I say God help them if they have to wait until the other party gets into power to get any help from that quarter.


John George Diefenbaker: The granting of these wide powers to the minister is a subject he does not like to hear about, but as I see the situation we are going to place in his possession a great big patronage melon which he will be able to slice up in whatever way he sees fit and distribute without any right of control by parliament. In an effort to find out just how large this melon will be I should like to ask the minister a simple question. To how many contracts will the power apply? In how many cases will he have the power to grant supplementary allowances outside of contracts where there are bonuses? Can he give us a list by provinces or by postal districts across Canada of the number of contracts in respect of which he would have the power to grant supplementary allowances? That is a simple question, and it will start something.


Ernest Bertrand: It would be impossible to answer the question exactly.


John George Diefenbaker: Within one hundred contracts.


Ernest Bertrand: We have
already given bonuses to 4,000 contracts. On at least 1,500 or 2,000 contracts we would
not need to give bonuses, and I would not be able to give any because they have not yet run for a year; the law would not allow me to give a bonus in these cases. There may be people who could apply, and some would have a chance of obtaining a bonus, but others would surely not, because I must tell the hon. member that quite a large number have been refused bonuses.


John George Diefenbaker: At the moment I am not interested in the number who have been refused; I am interested in the number who have qualified.


Ernest Bertrand: The 4,000 who received their contracts through tenders did not ask for a bonus. They could not ask because they received their contracts at a time when they should have known about the high cost of living.


John George Diefenbaker: That is a fine
answer, but it does not give any particulars. We are back to this, that in general figures, even on the minister's own statement, he is going to be able to play around with the awarding of supplementary payments in some six thousand contracts.


Mr. STIRLING:: Eight thousand.


Mr. HAZEN:: It is 8,500.


John George Diefenbaker: I was understating it, sir. There are approximately 8,500 contracts under which parliament is to empower the minister, in his discretion and without control, to award these bonuses, which I see run from $140 to $275, $360, $200, and so on.


Ernest Bertrand: And $50 and $30.


John George Diefenbaker: There are not very many of these. I have a list in my hand from one constituency which shows that there were five awards, and of these five the smallest was $140, except for one at $50.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Does the hon. member object to that?


John George Diefenbaker: There is one for $140 and others for $275, $200 and $360. That indicates, sir, the danger of the procedure that we are asked to approve. It gives the minister the right to expend a great deal more than I had thought we were being asked. It will run as high as $800,000, or certainly not far removed from that amount, which will be in the control of the minister to dispense with whatever bounty he chooses. I cannot understand why we cannot get the records province by province.


Ernest Bertrand: You will
get it.
Postal Service


John George Diefenbaker: When?


Ernest Bertrand: We cannot give it today, but I told the hon. member that we could answer any question and give the total with details of all the bonuses which have been given.


John George Diefenbaker: There is nothing in the public accounts dealing with these bonuses. Nobody knows who got them, when they were awarded, or the amounts. I have gone through the records of the public accounts for 1945-46, and if the minister can point out where these records are shown I shall be glad to have the information.
According to the estimate I made the other night the minister has so far awarded approximately $800,000 at his own discretion under the order in council. If one thing more than another is necessary to ensure care in expenditures by the ministers it is publicity as to the amounts and particulars. I repeat that nowhere in the public accounts is there anything to indicate what awards have been made, in what provinces, or the particulars of the awards. I ask the minister to furnish the committee with these records. We should like a record of the number of contracts, province by province, or by postal districts, to which bonuses have been granted, the total amounts of such bonuses in each year since 1944, and the date.
The minister would lead the committee to believe that he has been extremely careful in awarding supplementary bonuses. He says he has turned them down in some cases. Will he give the committee the numbers which have been turned down?-because that is contrary to what he told us last night.


Ernest Bertrand: Not at all. I am sorry, it is not contrary to what I said before. When we were discussing the question yesterday we were talking about the contracts where bonuses wrere granted, not the contracts where they were not granted.


John George Diefenbaker: As I understood the minister last night the principle followed was, to him who asks shall be granted. I believe that epitomizes the method of awarding these supplementary grants. If a man did not ask for a bonus he did not get it.


Ernest Bertrand: That is not what hon. members sitting around the hon. gentleman understood, because most of them claimed that we were parsimonious in handing out bonuses.


John George Diefenbaker: We are not talking now about the question of parsimony. All of us agree to the necessity of war bonuses being granted, but we are anxious to know that the

minister shall not have the control over several hundreds of thousands of dollars to spend as he pleases, to dispose of as he sees fit, to award to friends whom he picks out for his beneficence, at the expense of the people of Canada. That is what we object to, and that is why we ask for information, full and detailed, in regard to the matter.
When this bill is passed will it empower the minister to grant bonuses or supplementary awards under air mail contracts? I am quite interested in asking that, because originally it started out as an award for the mail carriers.


Ernest Bertrand: I may say at once that these mail contracts are awarded in virtue of order in council. There is an order in council for every one of them.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the minister say this applies only to contracts that are let by tender?


Ernest Bertrand: Yes, let by tender-all mail contracts let by tender. Of course, mail contracts under $200 do not come under this.


John George Diefenbaker: This measure doe3 not grant power to the minister to increase the amount of any air mail contracts with any of the air companies who are today engaged in the carrying of mail. That is perfectly clear?


Ernest Bertrand: Yes, it is.


John George Diefenbaker: Before we go further. I wonder if we could get a general statement of the amount of bonuses paid each year, the number of applicants who apply, and the numbers turned down, so that we shall have a full understanding of the power the minister is asking for. Surely the house is not to be asked to confer a power like this when the minister cannot himself tell the house how extensive that power will be, or the amount of money which is to be put in his hand for expenditure.


Mr. WYLIE:: I have to disagree with the
member for Lake Centre, because I cannot exactly blame the minister for everything that has happened. My experience has been that it is the inspector in the area in which we live. In my particular case, it is the inspector in Calgary. Any correspondence that I have had wth the Postmaster General has always been referred to the inspector in Calgary. I have sometimes thought that if we could get by that inspector we might get somewhere, but it is impossible to get by him. I often wish we could take matters up with the Postmaster General, instead of having to go to the inspector. I know that

Postal Service
in my area there are many who have mail contracts and I am sure they have been unaware of any bonus being paid by the department which the Postmaster General administers. If they had known of that bonus I am sure they would have made application.
1 want to be able to hear what the Postmaster General says in the house or in committee. To those of us who are sitting in this corner the debate sounds like a private conversation between the minister and members directly opposite. I agree with the member for Selkirk that the minister should move up a few seats so as to enable us all to hear him. I do not like to sit here all the time and hear nothing that is going on. I want to know what the minister is saying because we in this corner are just as much entitled to hear what is going on as anyone else, but we do not know what is going on when we sit here and hear nothing but a murmur between the Postmaster General and the members directly across from him. I suggest very earnestly that he move up a few seats so that we can all hear him.


Mr. McIVOR:: What our rural mail carriers need and what they want is security and a living wage, and I do not think that any man who has been carrying the mails for over ten or twelve years should have to submit a tender in order to obtain security. I do not think that a postman or a postmistress who has been in office for ten years should be required to submit a tender. In my opinion it is not fair. However, I pay my tribute to the officials of the department who are always willing to listen to what members have to say about their own constituencies. My representations have been properly received, but I have always rebelled against the idea that a man who has been carrying mail for ten years or more should be required to submit a tender. I know one man in my constituency who has a right to security because he has a wife and twelve children, not born in the province of Quebec either. I say that man should be secure and should not have to submit a tender.


Mr. CHURCH:: I think there should be
some new and better method, in a public utility such as the post office, of fixing the actual out of pocket expenses of those affected by this bill. No large department store would conduct its bonus business in this way. The post office is a great public utility for which the people have considerable respect, but the conditions rural, urban and suburban of its rank and file have not been what they should be. I would point out to the minister what I regard as a defect in this method of doing
business from the commercial aspect, but before I do so I wish to compliment him in one respect. We are considering this matter on the sixteenth and seventeenth days of the session whereas last year it was brought up on August 6, the ninety-sixth day of the session. So the minister has made some progress in that direction.
We all realize that the cost of living has gone up, the cost of cars, gasoline, tires, parts, labour, and so on, but I suggest that the British postal service would not conduct their business in this way. What is being done? You have a surplus in the Post Office department, and a very large one, because according to the records there were receipts last year of $68 million odd and expenditures amounting to roughly $57 million. There was a surplus of some $10,905,000 for the last year of record. In 1945, the year before, there was a surplus of $11,442,503; in 1944, $12,585,910. What I am complaining about is that the department, instead of having taken this out of the war bonus, is starving some of the other services in order to pay this bonus to some. Only about fifty per cent are getting it; the other fifty per cent do not. In the first place, as this is a great, useful public utility, it is the desire of the taxpayers who contribute to the post office that they should have the benefit of these useful services at cost. But this is not being done in connection with this work.
Take the post office in Toronto, for example. It contributes $13,807,000 a year, whereas the Montreal post office contributes only $10,321,000. There is a surplus in favour of Toronto over Montreal of $3,500,000. What are you doing to pay this supplementary bonus for the rural mail delivery where it is no doubt badly needed? You have no system run from the commercial aspect. You are starving the city service for it. Business districts that are contributing $11,600,000 are cut down to one delivery a day. In war and since, residential districts were cut down to one delivery a day, and postmen had to cover two or three times the area. That should not be necessary. If you want to run this department on a commercial basis, well and good; pay the proper war bonus to all on the basis of out of pocket expenses.
Some of these people are on contract and some are not on contract. Some of the contracts have elapsed and some of the contractors do not want to carry on. There should not be a system of robbing Peter to pay Paul, taking the large surplus of three and a half million contributed by our city and starving for it the other services. We should long ago have had a revision of the whole schedule of supplementary rates. Let us have
Postal Service

a business administration in the department. 1 know it is a hard thing to handle. They are continuing now a five per cent bonus, and in some cases at a rate of $50 a mile. With improved roads, and deliveries in the suburban districts like summer resort districts and that kind of thing, there should be some other way of handling out these supplemental appropriations to pay all, not just some of these mail contracts.
We hope, Mr. Chairman, that the various departmental officials who are travelling around a good deal and the ministers who travel abroad will come back with some new ideas in relation to this question. Some further investigation of it should be made, because the present post office system is carrying only about fifty per cent of the functions, rural, urban and suburban, carried by the British post office. We should have some further investigation in connection with this work.
Every rural mail deliverer, whether or not he has a contract, should have been notified of this particular act. An advertisement in the Canada Gazette is not enough. He should also have a chance to file a return or a report showing what his actual out of pocket expenses were from the commercial aspect. Every department store has the same trouble as the post office has had herein in connection with increased costs in war, and, after it, increased costs of supplies, labour and equipment. In the construction of the. Queen Elizabeth highway, such rural postal services on the Dundas highway and Queen street you now pass are in some cases obsolete. What I should like to see the minister do is this.
I am quite in favour of paying them' all a fair, just rate as a public utility, a public utility which has all along had impossible labour conditions. I wish to see some of the labour conditions which I have seen in the Toronto post office and others throughout the country greatly improved. They are intolerable labour conditions for people working in a utility which reaches every home in Canada, and relates to every retail man and wholesale man.
On the efficiency of the post office depend the trade and commerce of this country. During the recess of the house, we should make some further investigation into this supplementary bonus. I should like to see it carried on in the way it is done in the United States. I believe we can learn a great deal over there. We can also learn a great deal in rural administration from the British post office. Surely the surplus, which is getting larger all the time, should be handed back to the consumer in lessened cost and to labour, or some of it at least to the men, women and

children working in the various branches of the post office. I have seen some of these contracts. I have received a great many letters from all over Canada about the rural mail delivery. The minister should notify all these people that they may get actual out of pocket expenses, whether they have a contract or whether it has expired. It should be automatic and include all.
In my opinion, this is one department where there is more politics than in any other department I ever saw in my life. I visited some post offices and saw the difficulty returned soldiers have in getting on at Christmas time on temporary work and other things like that which have been going on for some years. I have yet to see any improvement made in the case of the returned men who are coming home. I believe the country would support the government in having a proper method, from the commercial aspect, of handing out these bonuses for the actual out of pocket expenses. Whether Grit, Tory or C.C.F., the people have rights as citizens of the country. No other public utility could handle labour in this way. A great public utility such as a light, heat and power utility could not do it. There woud be a strike if they conducted proceedings in the way adopted by the post office, with patronage and all that kind of thing in connection with it.
I do not say that the present government is any worse than preceding ones. I have been complaining about the low pay and labour conditions in the post office for many years. There should be some different system in a great, national public utility such as this, one similar to the system adopted by other large public utilities in this country where they improve the lot of the workers, sub-officials, give them larger pay, better working conditions, pensions, five days a week for some of them, holidays of two weeks and all that kind of thing. I should like to see that principle carried into the post office for the sake of the hardworking people, rural, urban and suburban, in it. While I sympathize with the minister in what he is doing, I believe there should be some improvement made by giving all their actual out of pocket expenses, from the commercial aspect.


Mr. BAKER:: I am not going to discuss
the merits or demerits of the tender system at any great length, other than to say that being a practical man, and having been brought up in a rural constituency, I cannot see any other practical alternative at the present time. Some hon. members have spoken of standardization of equipment. I do not see how you can standardize equip-

Postal Service
ment any more than you can standardize the different types of clothes men wear to perform different jobs, because you have to have a vehicle or the other type of equipment that you are to use to do the job. You may have to go over rough roads. You may have to go over paved roads. Aou may have to use a dog sleigh. You may have to use a boat. How are you to standardize your equipment? I maintain that the tender system as it now exists is the only practical system we can employ at the present time.
The main thing we are considering in this bill is supplemental payments on mail contracts. I must confess that I was worried some months ago as to what would happen, after the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act expired, regarding the bonuses that had been paid as a war-time measure; and I was very happy when I saw this bill introduced because I know it is necessary. We must all realize that it is merely an expedient to take care of a temporary situation. I think if we looked that fact in the face we should not have such great worries regarding entrusting the minister with a few hundred thousand dollars which he may need to tide us over in these times. After all, ministers are responsible for much larger sums than that, and I cannot see the great danger that we are worrying about.
This bill is obviously just an expedient. Many of these rural mail carriers need the supplement. They are not interested in how many words we put on Hansard; they are interested in getting money, and so I say, let us get on with the bill.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am going to obey the instructions I got from the last speaker and get on with the bill. It seems to me that everyone in this house is agreed on one thing and that is that our postal service employees working on a regular job are not properly paid. What we are quarreling about, it seems to me, is largely a matter of method.
I have a letter from the secretary of the rural mail couriers' association. I am not suggesting that I am very important on that account because I am sure that all hon. members got the same letter. They are suggesting a mileage basis, and they say that ninety-nine per cent of the replies they have had from Vancouver to Halifax are in favour of that basis. They appreciate the difficulties that would arise on the odd route but they think something might be done to overcome that.
I hope I understood the minister correctly, that this is a temporary measure. May we
infer from what he has said that there is to be a general revision of this whole rate structure?	_
I am going to give the committee something else which came to my attention just before I came down here. In the Post Office Department and in the Department of Mines and Resources-and I am sure it applies to all the departments-if an employee is dismissed foi misconduct not only does he lose all his pension rights but he loses his own money which he has paid in to the government during all his service. The hon. member for Broadview said a moment ago that the treatment of labour in this utility, as he calls the postal service, was not to our credit. The man I speak of has paid over two thousand dollars of his own money into the government pension fund. He stole $3 and was dismissed. I was very close to the defence, and the situation was this. After all this length of service, and service in two wars, this man took three SI bills which were placed in decoy letters and addressed to a radio preacher broadcast. As a matter of fact, if anybody wants to get really rich in this world, the best way I know of doing it is to secure a broadcast hour and to go into that business, because it is the most lucrative I know of, as Father Coughlin and Gerald Smith have proven. These letters were decoys addressed to a particular religious broadcast called the "Sunrise Gospel Hour''


An hon. MEMBER:: We shall never hear it then.


Arthur Leroy Smith: An hon. member suggests that that is too early for him, but may I say that it is never too late for a sinner who repents. I mention this case to the Postmaster General and to the committee for this reason. I am in entire agreement with what the hon. member for Broadview said as to the rigidity, the stinginess, if you like, with which we treat not only our postmen but our whole public service. Someone may say that there are many applicants for civil service jobs. There are. They want these jobs why? Because, while they will have to work for less than they might earn elsewhere, they are told that there is security at the end of the road. Security? Well, bread and butter-that is all there is at the end of the road. But people who are capable of earning more money elsewhere take these positions through fear, through the desire for security.
I accept, by implication if necessary, the statement made by the Postmaster General last evening that he has in mind a complete revamping of this whole position. It is not good enough just to say that the tender method which we now use, where a couple of
Postal Service

neighbours are competing against one another, should not be up for renewal year after year; I trust that there will be a complete review of the whole position. So I leave the letter of the rural mail couriers' association before the Postmaster General. I also suggest that not only in this department but in all other departments we eliminate this rule whereby a man who is dismissed for misconduct, even though it be his first mistake in twenty-five years of service, loses not only the pension benefits he would have got from the government but also his own money which he has paid in on a percentage salary deduction basis to the government. I am sorry that the Minister of Mines and Resources is not here at the moment because he knows of a similar case that I took up with him, in which complete restitution was made and yet the man comes out a convict and with not a thing to go on with, although this government has several thousand dollars of his money.


Mr. SINNOTT:: I agree with many hon. members that there is room for improvement in the Post Office Department. I live in an urban and rural constituency, and I hold in my hand a list of places where there is plenty of room for improvement, and much improvement. I will speak first of the post office in the town in which I live, Beausejour, Manitoba. The postmaster there gets $210 a year and the revenue from that post office is over $7,000 a year. He has to keep his car in a garage at a cost of seventy-five cents a day, so that he is more or less out of pocket. He has complained to me several times. The contract has been advertised twice, but there have been no other applicants because this postmaster has held the position for practically twenty-five years and the people of the town think he has done a good job. His services have been satisfactory and he is entitled to fair pay. Surely we are not going to ask government employees to render service for nothing. We do not want them to put in their time for nothing.
I agree with some hon. gentlemen who have suggested that we should set up a yardstick by which the value of the service they render could be measured. It has been pointed out this afternoon that the routes vary widely, that on two routes covering the same distance, one man serves 600 houses and another man eleven. I do not think it would be an impossible task for a committee to map out the various routes and set rates which would be equitable all along the line.
I, too, have a bone to pick with the Postmaster General about war bonuses. I wrote the Post Office Department, stating that, if a

man were entitled to a bonus in one place, he should be entitled to it in the other. But in the way it has been carried out, the wheel that squeaked the most got the most grease. That should not be so.
There are many mail contractors who carried out their service faithfully, but who did not get the bonus, simply because they had too much pride to ask for more money, although they were entitled to it, just the same as the man who had the gall to ask for it. If we are to help these mail contractors we must set a fair schedule all the way through. Treat them all alike; give them a fair day's pay for a fair day's work.


The CHAIRMAN:: May I remind the committee that we are considering Bill No. 17, respecting supplemental payments on mail contracts. The debate at this stage should not be on the administration of the post office, generally, or on postal employees, but should be strictly relevant to the bill. In fact, in my opinion it should be relevant only to the section under consideration.
I am not going to be too strict in this respect because, when I suggested last night that we should discuss the sections as they are called, it was decided by the committee that there should be more latitude allowed in the discussion. At this time, however, I must remind the committee that we are dealing with supplemental payments on mail contracts.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Was consideration given to giving increases to rural mail carriers on the same basis as that used in connection with the cost of living bonus? I believe hon. members will agree that, if discretionary powers had been left to each cabinet minister to decide just how much should be given to each individual employee, the provisions with respect to cost of living bonus would have brought about a chaotic state of affairs in the past few years. If a rural mail contractor takes a contract to deliver mail for so much a year and then, through no fault of his own, prices of gasoline and tires go up by ten or fifteen per cent, he has a legitimate claim to accept additional compensation.
Could the Postmaster General give us some indication as to how much it would cost to have a straight percentage increase right across the board, and if even at this stage he might agree to introduce this principle for the remainder of the period, as was suggested by the hon. member for Lake Centre? I understood the hon. member to say that about 14,000 contracts are involved, of which bonuses have been given to something over 4,000, and that 3,000 or 4,000 are not eligible because of

Postal Service
the recent date of their contracts. But we have about 7.000 disgruntled persons in Canada who have a legitimate grievance.


Ernest Bertrand: They are not all disgruntled.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: They will be after they read this debate. I think everyone in that category will have a real grievance. Did the Postmaster General or his department consider giving the bonus to everyone, and would he give the committee an estimate as to how much it would cost if the grant were made on a cost of living basis to everyone involved?


Ernest Bertrand: It would be impossible to arrive at that calculation at this time, and also impossible of application. These contracts are being renewed. A considerable number are renewed each month, and tenders are still being called in some cases. For instance, if a contractor dies, we must ask for tenders, and when those tenders are filed they are filed in the light of living conditions today. The tenderer knows the cost of gasoline and tires at this time; he knows what it will cost to buy an automobile and will calculate his tender accordingly.
Mr. BRADSHAW; What is the largest amount of bonus that has been paid in any one instance?


Ernest Bertrand: I promised the hon. member for Lake Centre that I would file a document showing the details in respect of all bonuses. If there are reasons set out in the files, we shall give those reasons.


Mr. BRADSHAW:: I am not opposing the bill, but I know of an instance in my own constituency where a bonus of $400 is being paid on a contract of $600. That seems out of proportion.


Ernest Bertrand: If the hon. member wants to give us the circumstances and the number of the contract we shall give him the reason.


John George Diefenbaker: We want the information from the minister.


Ernest Bertrand: How can any minister have all that information in his mind concerning 14,000 contracts?


John George Diefenbaker: That is exactly the position here. The minister comes and asks for a blanket authority to spend more than $800,000. We ask him for details, and he tells us he has not those details but that he will bring them next Monday, or some time next week when the committee has ceased to sit. He has an official before him now, but no
documents in regard to this matter. I say we have a right to this information, and until we get it we are in no position to decide one way or another as to the merits of one part of the bill.
Surely the minister does not come here and say, "If you know of a case where we allowed a bonus of $400 on a $600 contract, tell us about it, and we will answer it." Surely he will not say that, when the simple question asked by the hon. member was as to the amount of the largest bonus. To that question the answer given by a responsible minister is, "I don't know; do you think I would have that information?" Surely he has some records.


Ernest Bertrand: I have information, but I do not have it in my mind.


John George Diefenbaker: And the minister does not appear to have it anywhere else, and does not want to produce it. That seems to be the attitude. We asked for it last night.


An hon. MEMBER:: Shame.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, that, type of interruption does not bother me at all. But it does show that I am dealing with something which some hon. members believe should not be brought to the attention of the committee. That is why they take the attitude they do. All we want is information, but the only information we get from the minister is a lengthy disquisition in respect of generalities, instead of answers to the questions asked. We want to know now, from him, about this power which is placed in him.
I come back to the public accounts for 1946, and I find in them not one suggestion of any such payments being made. It sets out these:
Mail Service by Ordinary Land Conveyance, Including Rural Mail Delivery
Estimates	 $9,050,000
Allotments	 8,903,500
Expenditures	 8,904,984
Not a word is mentioned about the amount of awards given by the minister under an order in council passed pursuant to the War Measures Act. Then on the next page, Q-16, is set forth the amounts expended in each of the districts for rural mail routes, side services, stage services and city services. But there is not a word to indicate the amount of the original contracts, or how much was added by way of bonus or supplementary grant. It is simply general information on which no one can come to any conclusion. Yet last night when I said that this was placing tremendous pow'er in the minister's hands, he said I was overstating the case.
Postal Service

The minister says that today there are about 8,000 contracts that he will be able to play around with. If this is to be an election year we know' the sort of playing around that will be done with the money of the Canadian people if it is left under the control of the minister, and that is why we want the information.
Every one of us is in favour of the bonus; we did not vote against the principle of the bill, but we want information as to what is to be done with the money being handed to the minister in the form of a blank cheque. Past experience has not shown that the minister has always acted in. accordance with propriety in the matter of recommendations. I suggest that we are entitled to this information. We are going to have this information; the minister can simply get in touch with his department and let us have it and then it will be all over. But he adopts the attitude of postponement and procrastination; he says that next week, next Monday, next Tuesday or some other day he will be in position to lay the information on the table of the house. He should give it to us now and then we can get through with this matter.


Ernest Bertrand: I would gladly give it to the hon. gentleman, but it would be impossible to pick one contract out of so many.


John George Diefenbaker: That is true.


Ernest Bertrand: I am sorry I cannot do it because I should like to do it.


Albert James Bradshaw: I did not ask for any particular contract; I asked for the highest bonus that has been paid.


Mr. BERTR  AND@Laurier: In order to give that information, I would have to go through the contracts. The hon. member mentioned $400 and I am sure there are some contracts where that amount has been paid. If he is talking about $1,000 I do not think there are any as high as that, with the exception of certain city services where fleets of trucks are involved, and I am not sure of the particular ones.


Mr. BROOKS:: There are probably as many rural mail routes in my constituency as anywhere else in the country. I consider it most unfair that certain rural mail carriers have been paid bonuses, wrhile others who did not know that a bonus was available have not received anything. I think that is one of the great instances of unfairness in connection with this matter. It seems to me that the government, of all organizations, should pay for services rendered.

I agree with the hon. member for Lake Centre when he says that there should be some basis upon which this bonus is paid. It does not seem to me to be good business simply to permit the Postmaster General to pay out money to these rural mail carriers without there being some basis of payment. The information we have asked for is germane and I do not think our request should be ignored by the minister. Information given after the bill is passed will be of no use to us in considering the bill.
When a mail route is lengthened, that is, where a man has bid on a route of ten or fifteen miles and later on the route is extended, is that extension paid for on a mileage basis, or is a new tender asked for?


Ernest Bertrand: It is on a pro rata basis.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: During the war many applications were made in my constituency either for the extension of rural mail routes or for the setting up of new routes. The answer was always that this could not be done during the war. According to the hon. member for Lake Centre, it is proposed to pay out something like $800,000 in bonuses. Is it the policy of the government to extend present rural mail routes and set up new ones? The argument before w'as that there was not suflicient money.


Ernest Bertrand: During the war we were not short of money because we spent quite a lot, but we were short of equipment and man-power. At the present time we are extending mail routes but, in doing so, we follow a certain rule. For example, there must be four households in every mile of the proposed extension. There may be a route of five miles and new houses have been built along another two miles of the route. If there are eight households in those two miles we would extend the route, even though it was necessary for the mail carrier to retrace his route.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Are changes in routes made on the recommendation of the inspector or on requests being received from the people in the district? I have in mind, a case where a change is being made to which the people are opposed. I believe the inspector has recommended it and the department is carrying it out.


Ernest Bertrand: It is generally done at the request of the people. At other times new routes are offered to the people, in which cases they have to buy the standard boxes and instal them.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I do not want the committee to be misled by the statement I made

Postal Service
a little while ago as to the postmaster getting $210. That was not his total remuneration; that was what he receives for carrying mail from the station to the post office. His contract was for $200 and he received an operational bonus of $10. which totaled $210. He does not receive any war-time bonus. He must keep his car in a garage in order to meet the train both night and morning. Sometimes there are as many as ten or fifteen heavy bags of mail, and during the rush times I have seen him make two or three trips. I should like to have the Postmaster General adjust this matter as soon as possible.


Mr. CHARLTON:: I want it to be quite clear that I am not against the principle of this bill; it is just the manner in which these bonuses are paid. I understand t'he difficulties with which the Postmaster General is faced. He said yesterday that the operational bonus of five per cent was paid on all routes. In our own case he said it was not true.


Ernest Bertrand: I said that the first bonus given in 1941 was a five per cent increase; it was an increase on the general cost.


John Alpheus Charlton: It was not paid to all contract holders.


Ernest Bertrand: Yes, it was. I said that it was paid on all contracts, the rates of which were determined on or before the 21st day of April, 1941. April 21 was the date on which there was an increase in the price of gasoline; therefore we could not pay in cases where the rate was determined after that date.


John Alpheus Charlton: I will accept that. I note that the war-time bonus ranges all the way from 124 per cent to 100 per cent; that is giving the mileage rate anywhere from thirty-six miles to a high of fifty-four miles. I agree with the fact that probably some of the routes could be handled and more money saved actually on the thirty-six mile basis than on other routes of a fifty-four mile basis. I understand that. The hon. member for New Westminster said that on one of his routes there were 651 box holders. I should like to suggest to the Postmaster General that, if he would permit some of these boxes to be placed at one stop, it would allow for the servicing of three or four boxes at one time at one stop, which would make it easier to handle the route.


Thomas Reid: They do that.


John Alpheus Charlton: That is good. In our districts they will not allow them to do it.


Thomas Reid: There are as many as ten at some corners.


Ernest Bertrand: Does the hon. gentleman say that we do not allow people along the route to group their boxes together?


John Alpheus Charlton: Not close enough near one stop to permit the courier to handle two boxes at the one time.


Ernest Bertrand: If a man is satisfied to put his box at the door of a neighbour where the contractor may serve it in one movement, deposit the mail in these two boxes at the same time, we have no objection at all. The contrary is rather the truth. When some farmers are living on a small route where the contractor would have to retrace his route in order to come back on the main road we ask them to put their boxes together and sometimes we have difficulty to get them to agree. .


John Alpheus Charlton: As I said before, it probably would be much easier for a man to handle a route of ten or twelve miles with 651 box holders than it would be to handle a route of thirty-five miles with only eleven box holders. Will the hon. member for New Westminster state the number of miles on the route to which he refers? It is also possible that a route of only eleven miles with 651 box holders may be worth no more money than a route of thirty-five miles with eleven box holders, depending on the road conditions.
I should like to know the basis upon which these bonuses were given, because in some cases where a man has received only $36 a mile he has not received a bonus; in other cases where a man gets $54 a mile he has not received a bonus, but in still other cases where the mileage rate received is over $45 or $50 he has received a bonus. I do not understand why a yardstick could not be found. There is nothing impossible in it if you go about it in the right way. Why would it not be possible to adopt the suggestion in the letter of the rural mail carriers which I suppose every hon. member received, and which suggested that some $50 a mile basis be used. Would it not be possible to arrive at some basis along that line without giving the Postmaster General a blank cheque? Generally we limit the amount of money that can be spent in that way. Why would it not be possible to limit the bonus and bring all the contracts up to the basis of $50 a mile on all mail contracts signed before January 1, 1947? There would be no point in giving a bonus to * man who signed
Postal Service

a contract since that date. It should be possible to arrive at a figure on that basis and put a limit on the powers that the minister would have.
I do not think it would be impossible to group several routes and make one man responsible for two routes. In the minister's statement this afternoon,*he said that the short routes demanded a higher mileage rate. That is quite true because the man on the short route would probably lose half a day. He could not make a living on that short route; he would need to have some other means of livelihood, and yet it would take him a large part of the day to handle the route. That only makes the position much stronger when I say that I do not see why it could not be arranged to have two routes out of one post office handled by one man. Set a rate on it and have the courier pass a civil service examination as the mail couriers in the urban districts do. Put him under the civil service commission. I do not see why that is not possible. I am not suggesting that it be done in all cases, but it is a matter that should be considered.
I wish to refer to the extension policy of the government. I am told by the Post Office Department that extensions cannot be made where there are fewer than two people in a half mile. Since I have been told that, I know of several cases where the mail courier is travelling nine-tenths of a mile, seven-tenths of a mile, six-tenths of a mile going from a place close to another man's route. When there are three box holders and five families trying to get their mail within one-third of a mile of a corner I do not see why they should be asked to walk one-third of a mile, when a man would go half a mile for two. To me it seems absurd. I know the department has rules and they must be lived up to. I know of other cases where the couriers are going in from the other end of the concession and doing two and a half miles when they could go one-third of a mile and take care of five people. Will the minister answer that question?


Ernest Bertrand: The first suggestion of a minimum of $50 a mile would amount to a tremendous sum. I explained yesterday or perhaps earlier this afternoon that routes are different when you take everything into consideration. If we had a minimum it would have to be not only a minimum which would be reasonable for the one who has the easiest of all the routes but also a minimum which would be acceptable to a large number of routes. Then we would have many tenders at the minimum amount because the tenderers would know thev could make
[Mr. Charlton. 1
a lot of money by having the average minimum, and the fear of patronage, as hon. members suggested, would be worse than it is today with the tender system.
As regards the merging of routes, we have done that in certain places and are considering doing it wherever possible, but it does not always give satisfaction to the patrons because some of them receive their mail after the others. If we had four routes, let us say, in a village somewhere, which would provide a full day's work, from the postal point of view it would be a good thing to have one man doing the job and to pay him as a civil servant. But there would be a good deal of difficulty because people at the north end of the village, let us say, might be the last to receive their mail and of course they would protest. However, we are looking into the situation to see if there are any places where mail can be delivered the year round by automobile, and we might come to this conclusion.
With regard to the half-mile extension, we have always counted these routes and calculated the service by households, including sometimes one family, sometimes two or three. But if there are three or four families in one house-


John Alpheus Charlton: I did not say three or
four families in a house, but three boxholders and five families receiving mail in those boxes within a third of a mile from the corner.


Ernest Bertrand: We could
arrange to look into that.


Mr. WARREN:: I did not intend to enter into this discussion at all because, in my opinion, the Post Office Department has been doing a good job with a bad situation. They did a wonderful job during the war years handling mail in this country and keeping things going, and now our hon. friends across the way claim that the Postmaster General ought to be more generous and pay more money, while at the same time they grumble about the amount of money that is being spent and object to allowing the measure to go through. The hon. member for Lake Centre makes a great noise on that angle of the situation. Naturally the Postmaster General cannot do this work himself and I presume he does not pretend to. It must form part of the work of the officials in the department.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: We want to see them all
treated fairly.


Ralph Melville Warren: Very well. Now that the hon. member mentions that, I will discuss that aspect right now. Someone asked what was the highest amount that had been paid

Postal Service
anywhere. I at once recalled a case that came to my notice shortly after I got into office as member of parliament for Renfrew North in the early spring of 1937. This particular man had not had a chance to recover from the condition of desperate poverty into which he had got himself as a result of the government of my hon. friends who sit opposite. His situation was so desperate that he clamoured for a mail contract at the price of 8400. Well, he got it by tender and carried on for a time but under Liberal rule he became dissatisfied and he tendered again when his contract expired and got his contract raised to $600 and finally to $800, or double what he had received at first. When times became greatly improved he was still not satisfied with the $800 and wanted to quit the job. The Post Office Department is generous in that regard, is always willing to allow a man to quit, provided that he can find someone else to take over the contract. This man was able to get someone to take it over and the new contractor carried on for a time, but he, too, began to clamour for help and relief. According to the most recent information I have, he was offered an increase of $100, bringing the contract up to $900, and still he was grumbling. I do not know whether he accepted it.
What suggestion have my hon. friends to offer? It is difficult to keep men on these jobs, and here we have a solution proposed for one year to make it possible for the Post Office Department at least to try to keep the men at work and have the mail delivered. The department is asking for an extension of the privilege for one year, and in all the criticism that has been made I have not heard anyone suggest an alternative. If my hon. friends will not allow the measure to go through, what is their alternative? If the Post Office Department cannot be allowed to handle these cases as individual cases, as they arise, then what method would my hon. friends opposite suggest? As I see it, we have been getting along fairly well and the mail service has been kept going. I think we ought to pass this measure and get on with the work.


Mr. McMASTER:: I really intended to speak on a section of the proposed bill, but I suggest part of my remarks can be made now so that I shall give two five-minute speeches instead of one ten-minute speech and perhaps the committee will enjoy that better. I always enjoy a five-minute speech myself. I am speaking now because of something the hon. member for Lake Centre said with regard to the secrecy that has surrounded all these war bonuses, because that is 83166-43
actually the name-war bonuses-as I found out a little while ago. That is the reason why a great many of the mail carriers did not make application in time, and what the last speaker has said proves that fact. There was one man in particular who got two or three increases, while some did not get any.


Ralph Melville Warren: The hon. member misunderstood me. This man got an increase from S400 by tendering, and when 'his contract expired he was raised to $600. When that contract was completed, by tendering he got another raise to $800, and the man following him got $100 more.


William Alexander McMaster: Last night it was suggested that anyone who wished to have information in regard to these matters could find it in the Canada Gazette, that being a publication which nearly everyone reads. Well, this morning I looked through the Canada Gazette and I could not find any information in this regard. I looked through the index; I looked at the dates of the orders in council, but I could not find out anything in that way. I tried then to get the orders in council because we had their numbers. I have not yet got a copy of P.C. 8490. But that does not make very much difference because what that order provided was like a gift from Santa Claus, coming in free as it did after the last day of October, 1941, and was, I believe, general in its application. It was, as somebody has said, a five per cent bonus. After that, there were several other orders in council, and I happen to have them in my hand. I do not think they were ever printed1, because this is what they call a mimeographed form. P.C. 2311, after a great many "whereases" at the beginning, has at the bottom, one enacting clause. Incidentally, this is dated March 24, 1942. I think I mentioned that a prior one was dated October 31, 1941. After the "whereases" it said:
Therefore, His Excellency the governor general in council, is pleased to empower and doth hereby empower the Postmaster General to make temporary arrangements for the conveyance of His Majesty's mails when in his opinion no other course of action is possible or no more favourable arrangements could be made through the invitation of public tenders.
I made inquiries to find out how this order in council went out to the people. It was not in the Canada Gazette, but there is in the public library here a bound copy of these orders in council. With the help of the librarian, I went through them and could find order in council numbered-about No. 2000- and this order in council is No. 2311-and then there was a jump to No. 2400. There was nothing published. You could not find n even if you went to the book that was issued

Postal Service

containing orders in council. This order in council was not quite satisfactory to someone, and on the following July 7, 1942, following some more "whereases", there was another enacting clause. And here is where the auditor general comes in. I am surprised that the auditor general, who has made certain pungent remarks about other matters in his reports each year, has never in any one of his reports to parliament mentioned the fact that there was a war bonus for rural mail carriers. I went back to 1942 or 1943, and followed each yearly report to parliament. Never in one case was it mentioned, as the hon. member for Lake Centre has stated, in the public accounts. I only mention the fact because the auditor general apparently had interpreted order in council PC. 2311 of March 24, 1942, as limiting the actions of the Postmaster General under that order in council to contracts which had expired1 or were about to expire. Then this new P.C. 5833 goes on to say that, whether they have expired or not, they give him the power to include the cancellation of any such contract; and that is apparently what was done in the case to which the hon. member for Renfrew North just referred.


An hon. MEMBER:: He saw it in the Gazette.


William Alexander McMaster: The order in council reads:
... it is hereby extended to include the cancellation of any such contract on the written request of the contractor, and the entering into of temporary arrangements at an equitable rate, any such temporary arrangements-
I want hon. members to watch this.
-to cover the period up to the termination of the War Measures Act-
And that, remember, is going to end on March 31 of this year.
-at which time public tenders would be invited to place the contract arrangements on a regular basis.
This also was not sufficient because it was necessary to have another order in council, P.C. 4960. It is a good thing the minister mentioned the numbers of these orders in council, because I do not think anyone else in -the world knew where to find them. It was for that reason I was able to get this mimeographed copy, which contains more "whereases."


Mr. MacNICOL:: How many this time?


William Alexander McMaster: There are six this time. The last "whereas" clause reads:
That, after careful study, it is considered that >t would be decidedly advantageous to classify

any increases granted under this authority as in the nature of war-time bonus, retain the original contracts in operation, and revert to the actual contract terms upon termination of the War Measures Act.
So that now we have something different. All these bonuses which have been given are to end on March 31. That is, they were only given and could only be given under the order in council until the termination of the War Measures Act. Then we come to the small enacting clause which reads:
Therefore, His Excellency the governor general in council, on the recommendation of the Postmaster General, is pleased to order and doth hereby order that wherever possible the contracts which have been dealt with or which may be dealt with be retained in full force and effect and that any increases granted under authority of said orders in council P.C. 2341 or P.C. 5833 be discontinued when the War Measures Act is rescinded.
I heard it said that there were about 7,500 of these contracts which were not renewed in some way by tender. All these contracts will expire on March 31 next. We do not get very much help, as I have said, from the public accounts, but we do find this; and remember, I am not opposed to the giving of some increase to these rural mail men; I am only opposed to the way in which it is being given and the manner in which the amount is to be arrived at.
In the fiscal year ended March 31, 1942, the rural mail men received compensation to the extent of $3,029,000; in 1943 the amount went up slightly to $3,187,000; 1944, $3,464,000. The bonus perhaps was working and very soon perhaps the war bonus was also. In 1945, the amount was $3,735,000 and, in 1946, $3,897,000

not a great deal of increase as compared with the increase for the whole Post Office Department in so far as it affects land and air, because air came into the picture about that time. So far as the increase to the rural mail men was concerned there was only a thirty per cent increase. For the carrying of the mails by land and air the total increase was seventy-two per cent. It went up from $11,000,000 to $19,000,000. But there are, of course, other people interested besides the rural mail carriers. There are these side services and the stage services. The increases in these were slightly more than those to the rural mail carriers.
Then in the same column, or under the same heading are the city services, which I do not understand. Perhaps the city services are the services mentioned by the hon. member for New Westminster, because certainly if there were on any mail route the number of people mentioned by him, they were in the very suburbs of the city. I can well imagine

Postal Service
that to be the case because while I do not know the number of families that each carrier in the city of Toronto serves, I have had occasion to use the mails in this door-to-door householder delivery, so that some of the people would get some good) literature by reading my speeches. Quite often it is only a part of a mail route that was used, but I know that on at least one of them there were over four hundred households to which mail was delivered by the man who went off carrying the mail in his arms in Toronto. I know that around that city the population is so dense outside of the district where the mail carriers go from door to door, that in the adjacent rural routes, there may be seven hundred mail boxes. As the hon. member from Vancouver has said is the case in his city, there may be ten, twelve, fourteen or sixteen boxes at one place. This makes many suburban routes not very different from the routes which the city mail carrier covers.
I now wish to read something from the same author quoted by the hon. member for Lake Centre last night, because there has been a great deal of secrecy about the promulgation of these orders in council. The book is "The principles and practice of the system of control over parliamentary grants," by Durell. I would suggest that every member of the government read this book and find out what the proper constitutional usage is. The writer states on page 6:
This can only be achieved by the full publication of authentic accounts and the influence of public opinion, direct or indirect. Secrecy breeds prodigality, oppression, and, if not injustice, at least a sense of injustice. Publicity is the safeguard of popular liberties, and secures control over the accounts.
I suggest that every mail courier who did not know about the orders in council giving authority for a bonus must feel a sense of injustice because of the secrecy there was about it. On the same page the author says:
Real responsibility cannot be attached to the acts of the executive without publicity, and can only be ensured if, after the executive has performed its part, the way in which that part has been performed is ascertained by independent officers, and the result made known to parliament.
The value of the publicity of the accounts-
There was no publicity about this war bonus, -is in direct proportion to their completeness and detailed information. However valuable a summarized statement may be in affording prima facie evidence that the provision made by parliament has been followed, it cannot in itself furnish that full information which parliament is entitled to have and which alone will enable it to follow up the expenditure.
I reserve anything further I have to say until section 3 is reached.
83166-43J


Mr. STEPHENSON:: It has come out in this discussion that there were about 14,000 mail contracts and that in 1941 or 1942 representations were made to the government by some of the contractors that they could not carry out their duties efficiently without some kind of bonus, and so the government passed an order in council giving authority to pay the bonus. The Minister of Labour apparently has been trying to promote harmonious labour relations in this country, and we find another department of government taking authority to pay a bonus to the rural mail drivers and yet not advising them that they were going to pay such a bonus. I cannot imagine any company deciding to give an increase to its employees and then hiding that fact so that only those who heard about it and came forward to claim the increase would get it. The government should set an example in good labour relations, and when they realized that more money should be paid to the rural mail drivers, was it not only right that they should have informed the rural mail drivers that a bonus was to be paid? Then pay the bonus to all alike. Apparently 4,000 of these rural mail drivers received the bonus. What about the other fellows who did not know about the bonus and did not get it? Is it too late to do anything for them? Are they just out of the picture entirely? They have given faithful service and they have got nothing by way of bonus. Surely to goodness, if we are striving for good labour relations in this country, the first one to set an example should be the government itself in treating its employees fairly. I cannot understand why a notice was not sent out to all the mail drivers that the government was going to pay a bonus. What is to be done about those who did not get it?


Ernest Bertrand: They will get something in the future if the circumstances justify the granting of a bonus in their particular cases. There is no proof whatsoever that some contractors who deserved the bonus did not get it because they were not aware of its existence. When 4,000 got the bonus, people generally hear about these matters.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: But does it not seem reasonable that all the mail drivers should have been notified? It is the principle I am talking about. I think it would have been only fair to notify all the mail drivers that a bonus would be paid. The Postmaster General says that a bonus is to be paid in the future if the circumstances justify it. I should like to know if any consideration will be given in the way of extra payment to those rural mail drivers who, owing to bad weather in the winter and to muddy roads in the
Postal Service

spring, cannot cover their route by the ordinary road but go a certain distance and then have to retrace their steps and complete their round by another road. Is there to be any extra pay for that extra driving?


Ernest Bertrand: In cases of that kind we pay an honorarium after we have ascertained all the facts, and found that the drivers have to do quite a lot of work which they did not contemplate when the contract was signed.
Mr. fjTEITIENSON: Again I ask, have the mail drivers been notified that they will be paid this extra amount for extra driving during bad weather and road conditions, or is this just another case where only those who know about it and apply will get the extra money?


Ernest Bertrand: We pay them when they make a claim, if it is justified. They come to learn their business, like everybody else.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: Yes, much to their own sorrow. I am talking of the principle and saying that all the mail drivers should be informed of what is intended so that we shall not have the poor fellows who do not know anything about it not getting any extra pay. It is only reasonable, if they do this extra work, that they should be paid extra for it, and they should be notified accordingly. Have they been notified to that effect?


Ernest Bertrand: No.


Mr. PEARKES:: As one general to another, I have a feeling for the Postmaster General. I must say that I admire his courage in his desire to have this large amount of money put in his hands to spend at his own discretion. I never had any such grand opportunities when I carried that title myself.
I am a little bit concerned regarding some of these rural mail couriers being given a war bonus while others are not given that war bonus. I think the issue has been somewhat confused this afternoon by a technical term referred to as a yardstick. It has been asked, could we not find a yardstick by which these rural mail couriers could be paid on the same basis? I am going to suggest to the Postmaster General that he adopt the military term of a point system and allow a certain number of points for various considerations which would entitle a courier to get an increase in his war bonus. Very successfully the point system was devised to bring the troops back from overseas, and I suggest that it is a no more difficult problem to draw up a point system for the rural mail couriers than one to bring hundreds of thousands of troops back from overseas.

Everyone who has spoken has emphasized the fact that these couriers deserve the war bonus; and if this bill is not passed between now and March 31 I understand that those who are in receipt of the war bonus will lose it. I hope the bill will pass between now and that time. And I suggest that there is plenty of time between now and March 31 for the Postmaster General to produce the information he has been asked to produce.
I asked one question last night, and I do not know whether the Postmaster General is now in a position to answer it. When a contract expires, does the Post Office Department always advertise for new tenders, or does it consider that it is not necessary to put out tenders, provided that the original contractor is satisfied with the contract he has been receiving up to date, either with or without a war bonus, or does the department always advertise when a contract expires?


Ernest Bertrand: When a contract expires, if the contractor is giving good service and is satisfied to keep on at the price, whether such price includes the bonus or not, we do not advertise for tenders. Otherwise we advertise.


Mr. FERGUSON:: Will the Postmaster
General give us the assurance that contractors who are writing in now will receive every consideration so that conditions such as those to which I shall refer may not be permitted to continue. In my section of the country I know of an old gentleman on contract who is receiving less than a dollar a day for six hours work each day. He has been carrying the mail for many years, but was reluctant to ask for an increase in his contract price, because he thought he might lose his contract. He and his wife had been trying to eke out an existence through carrying the mail for this amount of less than a dollar a day.
I know of other cases in my constituency where contractors who have appealed to the Postmaster General have been allowed increases in their contracts. I hope the minister will give every consideration to cases similar to the one I first mentioned, where the contractor is receiving as little as a dollar a day for six hours work.


Ernest Bertrand: I am sure the representations of the gentleman mentioned would receive a favourable reception. This bill is to meet that sort of condition.


Mr. DANIEL:: The discussion in this debate has ranged pretty well from Prince Edward Island to Vancouver island and back again, several times, with stops in between. I believe there is but little one could add at

Postal Service
this late hour in the debate. However, I wish to assure the committee that the majority in the house are in favour of the payment of this extra wartime bonus to the mail carriers of Canada.
It is a well known fact that they are one class of public servants in Canada who for many years have been underpaid. As an instance, I should like to record an experience I had a number of years ago when 1 was only a public citizen, and perhaps as such held more prestige in the community than I do at the present time. A friend of mine approached me and asked if I would give him a letter of recommendation. He told me he was tendering for a mail contract running out of the town in which we lived. This was not a door-to-door proposition, but rather one running from town to town. The work on this route necessitated his driving sixteen miles in the morning to a neighbouring town, picking up the mail, driving back to meet a train at 6.12 o'clock in the morning, driving a distance of forty miles, waiting at that point until 3 o'clock in the afternoon and then driving home again, at the conclusion of which his day's work was done-for that day. In performing it he covered about a hundred miles each day. I said to him, "What are you going to get out of this contract?" While I cannot state definitely, I know the price paid was something less than $2,000. I said to this man, "I think you need your head examined more than you need this mail contract."
This only serves to show the type of cutthroat tender system which has been in existence for many years. I cannot suggest a remedy to the minister, because I know of no other way of doing it. But under that system John Jones hears that Bill Smith has a contract for $800, and he thinks that if Bill Smith can do it for $S00 he, John Jones, can do it for $775. He tenders for that amount and gets the contract.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: But that is private enterprise. That is what you want, is it not?


Kenneth Roy Daniel: I know the minister wants to do everything he can for the mail carriers. After some of us have completed our jobs in parliament, we might find at some stage in the future that we would have to tender for mail contracts. W'hether it be the present Postmaster General or the hon. member for Calgary West who at that time might be minister, I should hope that under either circumstances each would give every consideration to the mail carriers of Canada.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister said that this had nothing to do with air mail contracts; is that correct?


Ernest Bertrand: Yes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Then I suggest that the title of the bill should be changed, because it does not say that air mail contracts are not included. I suggest that the title should be "The Rural and Land Mail Delivery Contracts Supplemental Payment Act". I would suggest that title.


Ernest Bertrand: We can make that change when we are considering the title.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: We are on that section now -"Short title".


Ernest Bertrand: I have no objection to accepting the hon. member's suggestion.


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding) :: I would ask the hon. member to put his amendment in writing.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman,
while the amendment is being prepared, may I point out again that none on this side of the house is adopting an attitude in opposition to the necessity for the bonus being given to these employees. We are all in agreement. What we are opposed to is the discriminatory power resting in the hands of the minister. We are also opposed to the attitude taken by the minister in, as yet, not being in a position to furnish us with information for which we have asked.
We do not want to hold up the passage of this bill, but we are going to get this information. The minister may choose to do it in his own way. We believe we are talcing a stand on behalf of a principle which must be maintained in parliament, namely, that the government must account fully for what it does with the people's money, and that no minister shall have placed under his exclusive control the right to discriminate between individuals.
Why should one person receive a bonus of $1,000; another, $400, and another, $200. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox referred to three contracts let under similar circumstances but concerning which a variety of bonuses were paid. According to the hon. member-and what he said was not denied- the circumstances in the three cases were similar. One received several hundred dollars; the other received-


Ernest Bertrand: They were
not similar. The contracts had been granted by tender. One gentleman came and asked for an increase of $50 and the other asked for
Postal Service

an increase of $140. They did not come together; they came at different times. We found that the respective requests were reasonable.


John George Diefenbaker: That shows the
haphazardness of it; whatever they asked for they got. One asked for S50, and he got $50. The minister determined whether or not that was right. The hon. member for High Park made a strong case when he showed conclusively that nowhere in the estimates or elsewhere is there anything to show the amount that has been disbursed in this manner. I searched the public accounts and I do not know whether I missed this item. The item runs to hundreds of thousands of dollars and there is not one line or one record to be found anywhere in the public accounts. Today when we ask a simple question:	How many
of these are there; how many by provinces; what are the amounts? the answer is, "Well, we cannot furnish you that now, but later on we will." There are enough employees available to furnish that bit of information. It is simple information we are asking for. As a matter of fact the minister could not be in position to make a return to parliament without having that information.


Ernest Bertrand: We will give it to you, but it cannot be done on five minutes' notice.


John George Diefenbaker: You have had ever since yesterday, and we referred to it on Februaiy 12.


Ernest Bertrand: What was the question on February 12? The hon. gentleman has Hansard in his hand; what was the question that was asked?


John George Diefenbaker: The minister was
asked quite a number of questions and he gave the same answer that he is giving now.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is the question the minister was asked to answer?


John George Diefenbaker: He was asked
numerous questions.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, the
statement has been made that the Postmaster General gave some answer on February 12. We on this side are asking what the specific question was that was asked of the minister on that day. I think my hon. friend owes it to the committee to give us that information.


John George Diefenbaker: The general situation in regard to these allowances, the general set-up, the circumstances connected with

them; full information. We are in the same position today as we were then. We indicated our line at that time.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Would my hon. friend be good enough to read us the questions asked on February 12?


John George Diefenbaker: I cannot read
from page 351 to page 366. We were asking a series of questions in regard to this matter.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Will my hon. friend
give us one specific question that was asked which deals with what he said about five minutes ago about not obtaining information from the Postmaster General?


John George Diefenbaker: The minister can
look that up himself.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Apparently hon.
members on the other side are not interested in this parliamentary principle. They are not interested in the need of the government accounting for the moneys they receive from parliament.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We want to see that
these men get their bonuses in time. They have been held up all day with useless obstruction.


John George Diefenbaker: It is the same old
story whenever the government is faced with a question in regard to the expenditure of money.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What was the question?


John George Diefenbaker: Apparently my hon. friend was not here this afternoon or he would know.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am here more than any other hon. gentleman. I do more good than my hon. friend-
Mr, DIEFENBAKER: I am not going to enter into-	^


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: -mainly by keeping quiet, I might say.


John George Diefenbaker: I think my hon. friend does his best work when he is quiet.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend does his worst work when he talks a lot of nonsense.


John George Diefenbaker: We are asking-


An hon. MEMBER:: What is the question?


John George Diefenbaker: -for information and that information we are going to get. We are going to find out about it from the minister.

Postal Service


Ernest Bertrand: I say that you are going to get it; I intend to give it to you.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Also the information asked for in the specific question on February 12 which the hon. member will not give to the committee.


William Henry Golding: I should like to explain to the committee that the hon. member for Peterborough West will make his amendment on the title and not on the short title.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Mail contracts defined.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
William Alexander McMaster: Section 2 of the bill states:
"Mail contract" means a contract relating to the conveyance of mails entered into . . .
In the public accounts four types of mail contracts are listed. There is the rural route contract, the stage contract, the side service and then the city service. Does this bill include these four different types of contracts? If so, what is the city service?


Ernest Bertrand: It does
include the four contracts.


William Alexander McMaster: What is the city service?


Ernest Bertrand: The city service is the contract where the contractor is using multiple equipment.


William Alexander McMaster: He uses an automobile in the summer and something else in the winter, or the automobile the year round?


Ernest Bertrand: A city contract is a contract where the contractor has a good many pieces of equipment, many trucks; some of them have as many as fifteen which are operated in the city.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3

Authorized supplemental payments on mail contracts.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Subsection 2 of section 3 reads:
Payments under a mail contract shall not he supplemented under this section unless the person entitled to payment under the contract makes a written application . . .
Have supplemental payments been made to any contract holders without a written application?


Ernest Bertrand: The answer is no.


John Ritchie MacNicol: How is it determined?


Ernest Bertrand: I did not understand the question.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I asked the minister whether any mail contractors had their remuneration supplemented without a written application.


Ernest Bertrand: I would say that without a request none of them received it, but I do not know if it was always a written request-practically all of them, I suppose.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Why is it that under this section the request must be written? Perhaps I have not made myself clear. Having in mind what the minister said on a previous occasion, namely, that those who made application for increases in remuneration received it after consideration by the department but that those who did not make application did not receive anything, my question is, did any mail contractors receive increases in remuneration without asking for it?


Ernest Bertrand: The answer is in the negative.


Mr. IRVINE:: "Ask and ye shall receive."


Angus MacInnis: Subsection 3 of section 3 provides that a bonus or a supplement will not be paid on a new contract until one year after the contract has come into force. I think that is correct.


Ernest Bertrand: Yes.


Angus MacInnis: If a supplement is then asked for and granted does it begin at the time it is asked for and granted, or is it retroactive to an earlier time of the contract?


Ernest Bertrand: It would start from the first of the month following the application; it is not retroactive.


Angus MacInnis: Are any of the supplements given now retroactive, or do they begin in the same way?


Ernest Bertrand: In the same way.


Douglas King Hazen: What is the estimate of the cost of these supplementary accounts?


Ernest Bertrand: The hon.
gentleman was not here this afternoon.


Douglas King Hazen: I was here part of the time.
Postal Service


Ernest Bertrand: There were many questions on this matter and there are still many pending. We are asking for the passage of this bill in order to help the contractors if anything happens which is of the order of what happened during the war when conditions were not stable and when things changed so fast that contractors could not foresee what was going to take place. We do not intend to give any bonuses unless the conditions at the time the bonuses are asked for justify us in coming to the help of these people. I cannot foresee any depression-I hope we shall not have any-but things that I cannot imagine might well come about which would render the carrying out of these contracts by the contractors difficult, I am asking for this measure for one year. Things may happen and we shall have a certain discretion to do this. It -was done during the war and very few people complained about it. It was done as efficiently as it was humanly possible to do it. We intend to do the same thing for one more year. We have received a lot of correspondence from contractors stating that they were glad we were going to do this. They did not want to take the contract without the bonus. They did not like to tender in case they would lose the contract to some other tenderer. If we do not do it there is only one thing we can say. On April 1 we could say, now, you have to take your contract without a bonus or we shall ask for tenders. All the mail contractors have asked us to do this. We are not doing it for patronage purposes or for any other reasons.


Douglas King Hazen: Is the minister not going to provide an amount in the estimates to cover this sum; otherwise how is he to get the money ?


Ernest Bertrand: We are going to have a certain amount in the estimates; we have to; otherwise we shall not be able to pay the bonus. I may say that we have not yet reached that point, but we may have $1,000,000 or $800,000. I am not yet sure of the amount it will be. I am told that we have enough in the estimates to cover it.


Douglas King Hazen: What is the amount?


Ernest Bertrand: We have a progressive amount every month. Today I cannot segregate the bonus from the capital which will have to be paid.


Mr. WINTERS:: Subsection 2 of section 3 of the bill states that no contractor can become eligible for this supplemental payment unless he makes an application. Is the department
	I
going to take any steps to notify these contractors of this provision, or will they have to find out about it themselves?


Ernest Bertrand: The law is going to be published. I do not think it would be very" good business for a minister to call on the people to whom he should pay something and have them ask for it. I have not yet made up my mind about the matter.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The carriers in my constituency knew nothing about these bonuses being paid, nor did I as a member of parliament. Will it be made retroactive to any who apply now, having heard for the first time about this Christmas baby bonus?


Ernest Bertrand: No.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Then I shall have something more to say about this. I think it is most unfair, because the carriers of British Columbia knew nothing about it and I as a member of parliament was unaware of it. British Columbia may be a long way off but it is still the leading province. I repeat, it is unfair that any carrier who knew nothing about it and consequently failed to make formal application should be penalized while others received it, and any carrier who now puts in his application should receive it retroactively; otherwise it should not be paid at all.


John Alpheus Charlton: What is the basis upon which refusal to grant the bonus will be made? There must be some yardstick by which the minister refuses to give it to a man who asks for it. What will the minister regard as reasonable or unreasonable in the circumstances?


Ernest Bertrand: We do not need a yardstick for that. It was explained at length that we had no yardstick either for refusing to grant it or for granting it. God has endowed the officials of this department perhaps with more brains than the ordinary man on the street, or at least with just as much; and, with the experience that the officials have had, surely they will know whether an application is reasonable or not, and the word "reasonable" still exists. If it is not reasonable to grant it we shall simply tell the man who asks for it that it cannot be given. Suppose a man carries mail from the station to the post office a distance of a mile and a half or half a mile and carries it either in a wheelbarrow or on his back; we shall not grant the bonus.


John Alpheus Charlton: That is just the point. A line must be drawn somewhere; otherwise how could you determine the matter. Sometimes a second tender is called, for the reason

Postal Service
that the first tender was too high. Where is your line? What basis will you go on? I know one case of 1,180 yards where the trip is made twenty-four times a week and the man received a bonus of 100 per cent. Had he asked for 200 per cent or 150 per cent, would he have received it?


Ernest Bertrand: Those are questions to which generally we do not reply.


John George Diefenbaker: That is true.


Ernest Bertrand: It is the same as if I asked the hon. gentleman whether he wanted to buy a house and how much he would pay for it, and asked him, if the gentleman who had the house for sale wanted 100 per cent more for it, would he pay it or would he not? The hon. gentleman would use the bright intellect that Providence has given him and make a reasonable decision. The same applies to our officials.


John Alpheus Charlton: It might make a difference whether I was using my own money or that of somebody else.


Ernest Bertrand: Anyone who uses money that is entrusted to him is obliged to use his judgment, just as much as if he were spending his own money.


George Alexander Cruickshank: May I ask the minister this question. Were the members notified about the possibility of carriers applying for the bonus?


Ernest Bertrand: From now on they will be notified.


George Alexander Cruickshank: But were they last year?


Ernest Bertrand: They were notified through the publication of the order in council, which was done legally.


George Alexander Cruickshank: But there are fifty thousand orders in council and I cannot read them all. I would not have time. Apparently the members were not notified that carriers could apply. May I ask a second question? What procedure must the carrier follow in order to make application for this bonus? Can a member make application on behalf of any carrier in his riding?


Ernest Bertrand: Certainly.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Then I am making application right now for every carrier in my riding.


Mr. FULTON:: We are now getting some insight into the basis on which these things are being done. It would appear that the 83166-44
Postmaster General is inclined to throw up his hands and sit back and leave it to Providence. From the information we have been able to get in the house tonight one might be justified in assuming that Providence would make a better job of it than the Postmaster General has done.


Ernest Bertrand: No doubt about it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But unfortunately Providence does not reveal its workings to all of us. I suggest that we need some information from the Postmaster General, assuming that he is master of his own actions. In answer to a question by the hon. member for St. John-Albert, he began to say that there is in the estimates a fund to provide for payment of bonuses. He did not complete his answer but said something about 8800,000 and something to the effect that we have a progressive system. Will he please tell us what arrangements have been made to provide for this money and whether it will be included in the estimates?


Ernest Bertrand: I do not know whether this is the right place to discuss it, but there is in the estimates a progressive amount which is so much a month'. It is around $10 million in all and we draw on that amount. We always have at the end of the year a little more than we need. In our estimates we have foreseen, that we would have a certain amount of bonuses to pay and it is included in that amount.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Postmaster General speaks of having always a little more money than is needed. These bonuses have been payable, I understand, only since 1942. What disposition is made of the surplus?


Ernest Bertrand: The surplus remains in the hands of the Receiver General of Canada. We do not draw it; that is all.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That seems to be a fairly catch-as-catch-can method of accounting.


Ernest Bertrand: Oh, no. It has been the method of accounting ever since 1867 at any rate, whether we were in power or some other party.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not having been here since 1867, I cannot contradict the Postmaster General on that point, but I very much doubt whether that has been the generally accepted method of accounting, and that may be one reason why the auditor general himself does not appear to have been able to find this item and call attention to it in the public accounts.

Postal Service

But there are certain other questions which I think we might put to the Postmaster General in order to see if we cannot arrive at a formula basis on which to put this fund and on which to administer it. It would surely be desirable to arrive at a percentage basis for this bonus. On the assumption that the contracts, when first awarded, were fair and that the department took into consideration the mileage, the number of boxes, the difficulty of the route and so on when receiving tenders, and that the amount which was first authorized was a fair payment for that route, what would be the objection to saying that, now that the cost of servicing the route has increased, we should simply arrive at a percentage of the cost increase, or a percentage represented by that increase, and apply that percentage all across the board? Would there be any objection to that?


Ernest Bertrand: I should very much like to do it in that way; it would be very simple; but unfortunately we have to take realities into consideration, and they do not allow of its being done in that way.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What are the realities?


Ernest Bertrand: If we have to value a contract, for example, which is being operated in the peninsula of Essex where all roads are beautiful and, where there is no snow, there are very few factors to increase the value of the contract. But if we have to value a contract which is being operated in a district where the roads are bad in winter and summer, especially during a winter like the one we are having, surely the cost to the contractor in those parts where the snow is deep would be much more than it would be during a winter like the one we had last year.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, bute-


Ernest Bertrand: I am sorry, but I am not through. In addition to that, there are many other factors which I cannot give to the hon. member offhand. Labour is getting scarce. I hope that labour will not continue to be as scarce as it is now. Automobiles are perhaps costing more than they should; they are difficult to get, and so forth. All these factors have to be taken into consideration in valuing the bonus. The hon. member is surely able to visualize them just as well as anyone else.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What I wish to point out is that the government, particularly when answering criticism from the official opposition, do not hesitate to give us a hard and fast figure or percentage of the increase in the cost of living. If they can give it as readily as that

on those occasions. I can see no reason why they cannot assess it on this occasion. To deal specifically with the point raised by the Postmaster General, he spoke of the different circumstances governing different routes which would tend to make the increase in, cost different again for the different routes. Surely the different circumstances were all taken into consideration in awarding the first contract, or when the tenderer submitted his first tender.


Ernest Bertrand: The cost consideration was not taken into acount when we asked for tenders; It must have been taken into consideration by the man who was putting in his tender.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is admitted. But
the point I am trying to make is that these factors were taken into consideration and one could say therefore, or should be able to say that the contracts or tenders as originally agreed to represented a fair price for the carrying of the mail over that particular route. If you do not accept that principle, then you say the whole thing is on an unsound basis. So, accepting that principle for the moment, one goes on to argue in this way, that the cost of living and the other factors which make up the increased cost of the delivery of mail are the same over the whole country. The increase in the cost is what I am talking about: the increase in the price of tires, the increase in the price of cars and perhaps in the price of gasoline, and various other things which the carrier needs. The proportion of this increase is the same over the whole country. The original differences were taken into account when the contract was first let. So I suggest that, if one wished, one could say the percentage increase is perhaps thirty per cent; one could fix that and then say, "We will increase our contract by thirty per cent". If it was a contract for 81,000, and that was a contract which took into consideration the difficulty of the route, the depth of the snow and all those factors which the Postmaster General referred to, the contract would be increased by thirty per cent; and a smaller contract for an easier route would be increased by the same percentage. So you would still be carrying forward the difference which governed you in arriving at the different contracts, and the situation would be fair across the whole country. I suggest that system would be so much better than leaving it arbitrarily to the Postmaster General that I would ask him to give a further explanation as to why some such system cannot be adopted.

Postal Service


Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: I wish to say a few words supplemental to what the hon. member for Kamloops has said. We do not want to go on asking questions unendingly and just for the sake of being a nuisance. However, I suspect-though I am not very familiar with the minister's background in detail-that he must have once been a sportsman because I think he is quietly trying to tire us out. It seems to me that this proposition, when one comes to consider it, is most astounding. As far as I know, it does not enter into any of our business dealings in any other way. It seems to me that the proposal made by the hon. member for Lake Centre last night was, on the face of it, most reasonable. After saying that there was no excuse for parliament to grant this power, he was asked by the hon. member for Mackenzie, "What do you suggest as an alternative?" This is what he said in reply:
This is a very proper question. I suggest that, if the present rates are too low-and I believe in most cases they are-then, grant the bonus to all, and place all in the same position.
I take the same ground as that taken by the hon. member for Kamloops. If you are going to inquire into 8,000 contracts and try to consider whether or not the man was compos mentis when he made his tender, surely that is a most astonishing undertaking for the minister to step into. It seems to me to be quite contrary to common sense. Also, as has been well pointed out by the hon. member for Lake Centre, it is contrary to all the sound precedents for government expenditure. It seems to me that the minister has not answered the question of the hon. member for Kamloops and he has not answered what the hon. member for Lake Centre said last night, that these people should be treated the same all across the board. I cannot for the life of me see why that should not be done, and I think, if the minister wants to carry this bill quickly, he might take some pains to explain that to us. I do not think he has done so.


Ernest Bertrand: We have been discussing this matter for quite a long time, and I thought I had explained it. Of these contracts, there are a certain number of contractors who are not asking for anything. They do not need anything; they have not asked for anything, and I am sure they will not ask.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Ernest Bertrand: Well, that is the fact. I will give the details for which the hon. member asked. There is to be a list of people who did not ask for anything, people 83106-44J
who do not live very far away, people who live in a district where they receive a newspaper and things like that, and they have not asked. We want to help these gentlemen. There are two ways. We have made provision that on March 31, if these contractors do not want to renew their contracts at the pre-war price or rather at the old price without the bonus, because there is no bonus in these cases, we are going to ask for tenders and they may tender any amount they wish. If they are the lowest tenderer, they will get the contract, provided that this contract is at a reasonable price, because we have the same right as any party asking for a tender. We are not bound to take the lowest tender, unless the tenderer is competent and his rate is reasonable. We know that conditions have been unsettled for some time and that some contractors are losing money. If they come to us and show that they are losing money we shall give them a bonus. The bonus varies. It may run from S50 to S400 in some cases. It all depends upon the contract. Where there is a long mileage and difficult roads to cover we sometimes give a larger bonus. If the committee does not want us to give this bonus we can strike out this clause, but this question has been studied for years and years in this department and we know that, to be absolutely fair, there cannot be any other yardstick than the amount of the tender. The man who is tendering must know something about the conditions before he tenders. He must know the route and the difficulties, the temperatures likely to be experienced the year round, and base his tender accordingly. Some tender for a small price because they carry passengers and merchandise.


Grote Stirling: That is the point.


Ernest Bertrand: Yes. That is done principally on the long routes in British Columbia. When an application is made for a bonus we have to make inquiries and consider all these factors.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: You are not paying a bonus; you are renegotiating 8,000 contracts; is that it?


Ernest Bertrand: We are not going to renegotiate 8,000 contracts unless we are approached.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: But if any of the 8,000 come to you, you will renegotiate?


Ernest Bertrand: Why does the hon. member say that we will renegotiate? We will study the question and renegotiate if
Postal Service

it seems reasonable to do so, and we can only do that for one year. All that is done in accordance with the principle of this bill.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The length of time during which this debate over what appeared to be an unimportant bill has dragged on since last night would suggest that members in all sections of the house are dissatisfied with this policy.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The hon. member for Eraser Valley offered strong objection and so did the hon. member for Springfield this afternoon.


Ernest Bertrand: Quite a number among your own people are satisfied.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I think it is unreasonable to expect the men who are hauling the mails to know of the existence of orders in councils which have been passed at the rate of from twenty-five to thirty a day. During the present session, my desk mate the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked questions about orders in council which the ministers of the departments concerned apparently did not know had been passed. I think we are certain to find that these 8,000 mail couriers in Canada will have a just complaint. Let me remind the committee of the language of section 3 of this bill:
Notwithstanding the Post Office Act but subject to this act, when in his opinion the public interest will be promoted thereby, the Postmaster General may authorize payments required to be made under a mail contract to be supplemented for the duration of the contract, out of moneys provided by parliament, by such amount as the Postmaster General may determine but not exceeding the amount required to increase the payments under such mail contract . . .
We are being asked to vote upwards of one million dollars to be handed over to the Postmaster General to be spent on these terms. Personally I have the greatest respect for the Postmaster General and for his judgment, but I think it is unfair to ask parliament to vote one million dollars to be spent on these terms. I think the proposals made by the hon. member for Kamloops and the hon. member for Lake Centre are reasonable. Of course we want to vote the one million dollars, but let us spend it on a mileage basis or on the basis of the number of boxes serv ed or on a percentage basis, so that all of the 14.000 will receive some benefit from this one million dollar melon which is to be sliced. Unless the Postmaster General can give us some more satisfactory answers, I think we shall be here for a long time yet.
IMr. E. Bertrand.]


Ernest Bertrand: Hon. members have spoken of a certain amount that is to be spent at the discretion of the minister. There is in the budget of every minister a certain amount of money which he has the right to spend at his discretion. A minister, for example, may let a contract for less than $5,000 without having to call for tenders, and few of these bonuses would reach that amount. Last year, when my estimates were before the house I said that I intended to ask for an amendment to the Post Office Act which would give the minister the right to award contracts for the amount of S500 without having to ask for tenders. The amount now fixed in the law is $200, and that dates back to 1867, but $200 in 1867 was probably worth more money than $500 is today. I was reproached by the hon. member for Peel on February 12 for having said that and not then bringing down legislation accordingly. The truth is that I intended to bring in a bill, but upon reflection I thought that if I were to increase the amount to $500 there would be unfortunate reactions in the house, and so I did not present the bill. I do not want to be reproached on both accounts, for spending too much and for not asking for sufficient money.


Mr. HACKETT:: Last evening I asked the minister in how many cases the lowest or any tender had not been accepted.


Ernest Bertrand: I can get that information.


John Thomas Hackett: That was the purpose of my question last night.


Ernest Bertrand: Nobody can foresee all the questions that bright brains like those I see before me may ask.


John Thomas Hackett: That is why I put my question on Hansard last night.


Ernest Bertrand: But I can easily find that out. I would say it would run about two dozen, according to the information I received from my officials.


John Thomas Hackett: I have always felt that my constituency was distinguished because we seem to have got a fair share of this particular kind of attention in Stanstead. There the department has called for tenders not once but several times and the contracts have not been let.


Ernest Bertrand: I remember an occasion when we called three times. That shows the amount of care we take with the taxpayers' money.

Postal Service


John Thomas Hackett: How soon will the department arrive at the conclusion that, where there are a number of tenders and the lowest figure is not accepted, there must be something wrong with the appraisal of the tenders.


Ernest Bertrand: Not necessarily. I shall give an example. There is a rural route in the county of Labelle, represented by my hon. friend who sits near me. They asked for an amount to which we could not agree. We did not want to renew and give the bonus that was asked, because it was too high. We have asked for tenders twice and the bids have been so 'high we have refused. The route is without a delivery system at the present time. However, we expect to find someone who will take it at a reasonable amount. The amount was more than double, so we refused it.


John Thomas Hackett: I am not going to insist further, but I hope the minister will have a little time over the week-end to look after these unfortunate people in Stanstead who are receiving such indifferent service, owing to the difficulty with respect to tenders.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I wish to ask one brief and simple question, which does not require study. I am referring to the answer given by the minister to the question asked by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario. I understood the minister to say that if a mail carrier carried passengers or freight, this was taken into consideration, and that there was a reduction in his contract for carrying mail. Did I understand the minister correctly?


Ernest Bertrand: I meant to say that if he comes for a bonus, saying that he is losing money, he will certainly be questioned as to whether or not he is transporting passengers, and the amount that he is making from that.
For example, I have before me one contract respecting Kamloops and Merritt, British Columbia, where there are six trips a week, seventy-three miles each way at a cost of $1,475 a year. That is a stage service. As hon. members know, the stage service is carried on in coaches, and passengers are carried as well.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I notice that the minister and. his assistant had a little difficulty with that question, so that they will understand my difficulty in getting this in my mind with clarity. But I wish to know-


Ernest Bertrand: The hon.
member is abusing the fact that I did not read the figures properly the first time.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Let me
apologize at once for whatever I did-and I do not know what it was. But in order to keep the record straight, what I am trying to find out is this: I gathered.-


Mr. GRANT:: Read it again.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I did not hear that, either.


Angus MacInnis: It does not matter.


Arthur Leroy Smith: This is not like the mule and the man, one kicking the other. However, I will consider where that came from.
But what I have in my mind is this: Did I correctly gather the statement made by the minister when I understand that if a person carrying mail cared to improve his position by carrying passengers, freight or parcels, this would be taken into consideration in fixing the amount of his mail contract?


An hon. MEMBER:: He makes a tender.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Perhaps I had better finish what I am saying. It may be that I am getting deaf at my age. But if that be the principle, then it is a wrong one, because it penalizes a man who tries to improve himself by his work.


Ernest Bertrand: No; there is one factor the hon. member is forgetting. The man who has the contract has fixed his price by tender. He knew someone else was going to tender. He would realize that somebody else was supposed to tender from the fact that we were asking for a contract, to be let by tender. He.must have known he would carry a certain number of passengers, for which he would be paid, and that would-most certainly have affected the amount of his tender.
When he comes for an increase we have his price on which he has operated for some time; we have also the rate of the other tenders which were submitted, and generally we know whether or not they are transporting, passengers. It would be quite unfair to treat them as if they were not making money from carrying passengers, and to give them the bonus which they would not deserve, because they had received money, which was reflected in their tenders in place of that bonus when they were operating before.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Then the minister frankly admits that, irrespective of increasing costs, if a man is sufficiently ambitious to add. to his business by carrying passengers, or running a saw, or something of that kind, the minister pays no attention to the increased costs when such a man applies for a bonus. Is that a fair inference?
Postal Service


Ernest Bertrand: If a man who has a contract has found that it would pay by contracting for a thousand dollars, with the knowledge that he will earn money in some other way, we are not going to say to him, "You should not do anything else." We take the contract as it is. The man has fixed thp price himself. Then we see if the circumstances which have arisen in these abnormal times would justify our giving a little help.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Well, you do take into consideration, then-


Ernest Bertrand: Certainly we do.


Arthur Leroy Smith: How do you know you do, when you have not yet heard my question?


Ernest Bertrand: I take it that you were going to repeat what you have already said.


Arthur Leroy Smith: We have a law in this country whereby, if a gypsy sets up shop down on Sparks street and attempts to predict the future, we put him in jail. I think the minister had better join the gypsies' show. But I was going to say this, with the greatest respect to the minister: Do you take into consideration-


Thomas Vincent Grant: You look like a gypsy.


Arthur Leroy Smith: One of these days something is going to happen over there and I will not predict what it will be. I am being respectful to you, sir, and may I suggest that the members of this cheering section give you the same respect. In fixing these bonuses,, do you take into consideration the fact that a man with ambition may have bettered his position aside from hauling the mail? Is that a fair inference to draw from what you have said?


Ernest Bertrand: That is not a question to which I can give the answer the hon. gentleman wants. We do not take into consideration the fact that a man can improve his contract by doing something else, such as canying parcels and other things. When that man asks us for so much for his contract he took that into consideration or he did not. We have the contract as it is and we say that if, by doing something else, he makes a little more money', that is all right.


Arthur Leroy Smith: When you accept the contract do you take cognizance of the fact that the man has other income and that therefore the contract is not based on the service he renders the post office? That is the ultimate; that is where we come to.


John Alpheus Charlton: I have worked on a certain supposition and I know most mail carriers have done the same. Most of the mail carriers in my locality believe that it is against the law to carry passengers or anything else. What is the answer to that?


Ernest Bertrand: There is no objection to their carrying passengers but they must not have access to the mails.


John Alpheus Charlton: I was told by a mail carrier no later than last Saturday that if he picked me up on the road within half a mile of my place he would be liable to lose his contract.


Ernest Bertrand: I do not understand why he told the hon. member that.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: He must have been a Liberal contractor.


John Alpheus Charlton: I am sure the man did not think it up himself. He must have read it in the rules or something that had been sent to him.


Ernest Bertrand: I am informed that there is no such rule. The mails must be carried without undue delay.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am interested in this point because only a few months ago I received a copy of a letter written by the Post Office Department stating that there would be a change in the conditions of carrying certain mail on Vancouver island and the change rvas that the carrier would not be allowed to carry passengers in future.


Ernest Bertrand: If the contractor carries the mail so that the passengers have no access to the mail he will not be at fault. But he must not unduly delay the mails by carrying passengers. There must have been some explanation like that for the letter.


George Randolph Pearkes: But it is possible that such a letter was written by officials of the minister's department. I have seen the letter in which the carrier was told that in the future he must not cariy passengers.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I may be repeating a question that has already been asked. If hon. members had the courage to insist that amplifiers be installed in the house, despite editorials in the Ottawa Journal or anywhere else, I might be saved from repeating what has already been said. I cannot hear the minister's delightful little whispered conversations.

Postal Service
Two mail carriers in my riding were informed that their contracts would be cancelled if they continued to do any business other than straight rural mail carrying. 1 want a decision on that from the minister. Is that or is that not the law?


Ernest Bertrand: We are far from the subject matter of the bill. I am quite sure that the Post Office Department would not cancel the contract. Sometimes buses are not allowed to carry mail. In order to answer the hon. gentleman, I would have to have the particulars so as to be able to look up the file and tell him why those letters were written.


George Alexander Cruickshank: This was not a bus; it was a private contractor who tendered for a rural mail route in Fraser valley in British Columbia.


Ernest Bertrand: The weight of mail carried might have something to do with the matter.


George Alexander Cruickshank: If it were in Kamloops or some other riding there might be more Hansards, but I do not send out my speeches. This was an ordinary rural route and the carrier made a practice of taking along other articles in his car in order to supplement his income. He was informed by the department that he must stop taking those other articles. He was told that he was not to take groceries or anything else along or his contract would be cancelled. Is that correct?


Edmund Davie Fulton: While the minister is thinking of his answer, may I say that I have often wondered how the hon. member for Fraser Valley got elected. Now I understand it is because his constituents are not allowed to see what he says in the house.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I want an answer to my question.


Ernest Bertrand: In certain places, public utilities boards and other authorities forbid these things being done. We have no objection to a contractor carrying passengers as long as they have no access to the mails. We allow the contractors to carry bread and medicine and a few other, things, but we do not allow them to carry all kinds of parcels because then they would be competing with the Post Office Department.


William Alexander McMaster: This afternoon I suggested that the orders in council under which these war bonuses have been paid would expire on March 31 and that you would then have to act under this bill; is that correct?


Ernest Bertrand: We have to have the power to do this. If the orders in council expire on March 31 and the bill is not passed we would not be able to give one cent more than the amount of the contract.


William Alexander McMaster: If you get power under this bill do you intend to reinstate the payment of bonuses to the people who now enjoy them?


Ernest Bertrand: That is one
of the first subsections of section 3.


William Alexander McMaster: The answer is yes?


Ernest Bertrand: We want to
include these bonuses in the contract as has been done with the wage bonus, which is incorporated in salaries.


William Alexander McMaster: There has been quite
a bit of curiosity in the chamber tonight as to the amount which will have to be paid if this bill is passed, and I have not yet heard a satisfactory or definite amount given, although there was a certain amount of guesswork. I would suggest that the minister read P.C. 1796 of which I was unaware until half an hour ago. I got it from his own department, and it might throw some light on the picture. It is dated March 16, 1945, and it refers to the bonuses which have been given. The very last paragraph has this statement in it, that the payment of the cost of operations bonuses to such contractors amounted in 1941-42 to $992; in 1942-43, to $1,504, and in 1944, to $1,337. It does not cover all the bonuses but just those to certain contractors. At that time apparently they knew the amount of bonus that was to be given. Has the minister not some definite idea of the amount that he is to ask for, because I understand the estimates are almost ready to be tabled?


Ernest Bertrand: We have
estimates of about S10 million, and we expect that they will cover anything that we need; but if the hon. gentleman wants to know I may tell him that from March 1, 1943, to December 31, 1916, there were 4,034 contractors with bonuses and the new rate of these contracts was $3,282,000. At the old rate it would have been $2,411,992.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am coming back to the question I asked the minister previously. If I remember aright the minister said that he was virtually going to renegotiate these 8,000 contracts, and he will have the 8,000 if we all do our duty as well as the hon. member for Fraser Valley
Postal Service

who has already applied for his postmasters. I assume that the rest of us should do the same.
The minister said that he was going to go into the costs and other matters where there is an application and consider whether the man should receive something more or not. I submit that that is an almost impossible task and that it is entirely contrary to the intention of the wording of section 3 of the bill. Let me read the last part of the wording of that section:
. . . by such amount as the Postmaster General may determine, but not exceeding the amount required to increase the payments under such mail contract to the amount payable under other mail contracts for comparable service.
I am not overlooking the fact that that is merely a ceiling, but I submit that the clear intention is that there is to be a change across the board, and that entirely negatives the idea the minister had in mind when he suggested that he intends to examine each one and try to arrive at a conclusion. How he is ever going to do it I do not know. He said that he was going to try to come to a conclusion in each case as to how the amount should be awarded. I think that is entirely contrary to the spirit of section 3.


Ernest Bertrand: There are
in existence today contracts with bonuses which will give us a fair idea of what we should pay.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have a question to ask
arising out of a question I asked some time ago, at which time the minister replied that the department has a fund of approximately $10 million out of which they can take the amount necessary to pay these amounts.


Ernest Bertrand: Not only that, but all the contracts.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have checked up the estimates for last year, and the amounts shown for mail service which includes the rural mail deliveries amounts to $9,050,000. I take it that this was the fund which was used during the fiscal year to pay these bonuses.


Ernest Bertrand: Depending on which column it is in.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is in the 1945-46 column.


Ernest Bertrand: That was the estimate, then.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes. I wish to suggest to the minister that in preparing his estimate for this year he break it down by showing the amount which will be paid on the contracts and the amount which will be paid by reason of the bonuses. Admittedly, that will be only an

estimate but it would give the committee a clear understanding of how this matter was being administered, and it also would give hon. members the opportunity-which, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Fraser Valley, was denied to them in that they did not know until the present discussion came up that these bonuses could be received by the rural mail carriers until they had applied for them-a clearer understanding of the way in which this particular part of the financing was carried on. Will the minister now say that he will do that in his estimates this year?


Ernest Bertrand: I shall try to do so, yes, in round figures.


George James Tustin: On several occasions I have asked the minister to give us some idea of how he arrives at these war-time bonuses. I should like to ask him that question again.


Ernest Bertrand: I do not think it is fair to ask the question again because I have answered it several times.


George James Tustin: There has been no answer to it yet.


Ernest Bertrand: The hon.
gentleman thinks there has been no answer, but I believe we have given the only answer we could.


George James Tustin: Then there is a difference of opinion. As I understood the minister a few moments ago, he said that when this bill passes it was the intention to make the combined war-time bonus and the present contract price the real contract price. Am I correct in that?


Ernest Bertrand: Yes.


George James Tustin: That takes me back to those who make application for the war-time bonus. How do they make the application? Do they actually make application in writing? Where does the minister get his recommendations as to giving the bonus? Does the courier write direct to the minister?


Ernest Bertrand: No.


George James Tustin: Does he write direct to the department?


Ernest Bertrand: The hon. member knows that any letters addressed to the Postmaster General are opened by the different officials of the different branches to which these letters should go. I take my advice from the officials who are good officials and have been there for a long time and know much more than I do myself.

Postal Service


George James Tustin: That may be correct in the broad sense of the term; but the point is these couriers make application somewhere, and the bonuses are not granted without some investigation being made. What I wish to know is, where do these recommendations come from? They do not come just from the officials in the department at Ottawa. Does someone cover the territory, the inspector, or are the local postmasters asked to make recommendations?


Ernest Bertrand: All the departmental officials make recommendations, and that includes the inspector, the superintendent of the district and the postmaster who may say something. We ask questions of the postmaster.


George James Tustin: I am anxious to get this information because of the great discrimination in the war-time bonus. For instance, I have before me information which shows that one courier who has been on the job for several years and is doing a good job-I am not finding fault with the bonus that he is getting-tendered more than once, and his tender price for his route is $585.50. The department is now paying him $414.50 in a war-time bonus, giving him a total of $1,000 for that route, whereas all during the years he has tendered for it at $585.50. I do not think he is getting too much money at $1,000, and I am perfectly satisfied; but I should like to know how that amount is arrived at because I might tell the minister that that works out at $39.35 a mile.


Ernest Bertrand: That is a fair amount for him when one considers the prices that we are paying today. If he was receiving $585.50 he was not receiving enough.


George James Tustin: That is true, but when I turn over the next sheet I find that there is a courier who has a route which is ten miles longer and who tendered at $682. That gentleman is given a bonus of $317.39 and his mileage price is $28.41. Surely there should be greater equality in these bonuses than there is at the present time in view of these lists, for the simple reason that you cannot go back to the man who is getting a bonus of $414 and say that he has bad roads. He has a paved road for the greater part of his route; the other gentleman has a good deal of dirt road. I do not think either gets too much money but I wish to know how the bonus is arrived at.


Ernest Bertrand: I explained that yesterday.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


An hon. MEMBER:: Let the poor fellows get their bonus.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad to hear these sounds of approval. What I desire to find out from the minister, in the spirit of congeniality that is now prevailing, is when I am going to get an answer to the question regarding the four thousand odd who received the war bonus or the operational bonus of five per cent. Will that be provided before the bill is given third reading? I want to be in a position to know, if possible by examination of the accounts, the basis upon which these bonuses are granted.
I have one list of rural mail delivery routes which indicates that if there is not discrimination there is certainly a wide exercise of discretion in the awarding of bonuses. On one contract of $560, a war-time bonus is allowed of $140; in another of $1,200, the bonus is $200; in another, where the contract rate was $150, a $100 bonus was allowed; in another part of the same one, where the contract rate was $268, a bonus of $178 was allowed. This indicates that many of these contracts have been increased by the bonus by seventy per cent, by sixty percent, and by more than that in certain cases. In other cases the increase is only a matter of twenty per cent. Our purpose in bringing this matter to the attention of the committee is simply to make sure that all mail carriers in Canada shall receive equal treatment in the award of the bonus; in other words, that under similar circumstances there shall not be those who will be the haves while others are the have-nots. The order in council in respect of this matter has been kept from public view. It has been kept from the knowledge of members not only on this side of the house but on the other side.


Hugues Lapointe: It never has been. If you do not know what your own riding is supposed to get, do not blame others. Every rural member knows about these bonuses.


John George Diefenbaker: Being parliamentary assistant in one department should be enough for the hon. gentleman.


Hugues Lapointe: Nevertheless I am a member and I know about rural contracts.


John George Diefenbaker: That illustrates that a parliamentary assistant gets information that other members do not.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, no.
Postal Service


Hugues Lapointe: If you do not know, it is your own fault. Go and ask for a bonus and you will see many members from the other side of the house asking for them too. I have.


John George Diefenbaker: We are endeavouring to ensure that all mail carriers shall get justice and not the few.


Hugues Lapointe: They do.


John George Diefenbaker: As a matter of fact, these interruptions do not disturb me a bit. I shall have my say in the matter. There is no way in which, by an examination of the estimates, any member can ascertain how much was paid for the operational bonus in any of the last four years, because there is no estimate in that regard. There is no way, from an examination of the public accounts, whereby any member can ascertain that any moneys were paid out for war-time bonus or for operational bonus, and that shows a serious disregard of the responsibility of the cabinet to account to parliament and the country. I have before me the accounts for 1945-46 set out in detail, showing the amounts for each district; and in no case, from Halifax to Vancouver, is there anything to indicate that the bonus was awarded, nor is the1"' any section dealing therewith; and these accounts have been audited by the auditor general. Will the minister give the committee an assurance, that before the bill comes up for third reading, the list of names of the four thousand odd who received the bonus, set out in detail in the postal districts in which they operate, and also the amounts received by each, will be placed on the table for the information of the committee'.


Ernest Bertrand: I am going to put employees on this work on Monday and will table the report as soon as I have it, and I hope to have it soon.


John George Diefenbaker: Before third reading?


Ernest Bertrand: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
William Ross Macdonald: There is an amendment to the long title on the front page, moved by the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser), reading:
An act respecting supplementary payments on rural and land mail contracts.
Shall the amendment carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Title as amended agreed to.
Bill reported.
lMr. Diefenbaker.]


[Stage Direction]
Hon. COLIN GIBSON (Secretary of State for the Prime Minister) moved the second reading of Bill No. 18, to readjust representation in the House of Commons.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), in introducing this bill, indicated that it was intended to refer it, after it had received second reading, to a special committee to be set up to consider and recommend the boundaries of the constituencies to be adopted. Owing to the amendments to the British North America Act which have been brought in since the last time redistribution took place in this country, I think I should place on the record a list of the changes which have taken place before we go into the matter of redistribution again this year.
As hon. members will realize, this is the eighth occasion on which a redistribution bill has been introduced since the formation of our confederation. As hon. members are well aware, the provisions of the British North America Act provides that, on the completion of each decennial census, the representation of the provinces in the House of Commons shall be readjusted.
Hon. members will recall that in July, 1943, owing to the fact that this country was at war, a humble address was presented to His Majesty the King praying that a measure be laid before the parliament of the United Kingdom to provide that, notwithstanding the provisions of the British North America Act 1867 to 1940, it should not be necessary to readjust the representation of the provinces in the House of Commons in consequence of the completion of the decennial census taken in 1941, until the first session of parliament commencing after the cessation of hostilities between Canada, Germany, Japan and Italy. That amendment to the British North America Act was passed by the parliament of the United Kingdom on July 22, 1943.
Again in May, 1946, this house approved a further humble address being presented to His Majesty the King, praying that a measure be laid before the parliament of the United Kingdom to provide for the readjustment of representation in the House of Commons on the basis of the population of Canada. This measure was passed by the parliament of the

Redistribution
United Kingdom on July 26, 1946, and by it section 51 of the British North America Act, 1867, was repealed, and a new section 51 substituted. The new section provided that the number of members of the House of Commons shall be 255 and that the representation of the provinces thereafter should be determined upon a proportionate basis in accordance with the rules contained in the amended section.
I should also like to refer to an act which was passed at the last session of parliament, known as "An act to amend the Quebec Boundaries Extension Act, 1912''. As the then Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) pointed out at the time, in 1912 parliament passed several acts to extend northwards the boundaries of Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba. In the bill dealing with the extension northward of the boundaries of Quebec, it was provided that the population of the added territory would not be counted in the population to be divided by sixty-five to find the unit of representation on redistribution of the membership of this house. In view of the fact that the population of Quebec is no longer a determining factor in fixing that representation, it was considered that the restrictions which had been inserted
The bill, as passed by parliament on June 24, 1946, provided that the act should not come into force until proclaimed, and should not be proclaimed unless and until there is concurrent legislation of the legislature of Quebec. I am informed that such concurrent legislation has not yet been passed, and consequently, in considering the population of Quebec for the purpose of redistribution, it is necessary to omit from our calculations the population of the area added to northern Quebec, numbering 3,067. However, as the Minister of Justice pointed out at that time, this number is so small in relation to the total population of Canada that it does not effect in any material way the unit of representation.
Dealing with the provisions of this bill, I may say that it is introduced in the form that has been adopted since 1903. In this form, redistribution bills have been introduced by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Sir Robert Borden, our present Prime Minister, and Mr. Bennett. The bill is, of course, not identical with the previous bills, owing to the fact that the number of constituencies is now fixed, and not subject to change.
Section 7 of the bill is new. providing for the preparation of maps as soon as possible after the passing of the act. Previously maps were required but no authority existed for their preparation.
Section 8, while it provides that the act will take effect only upon the dissolution of the present parliament, makes provision for the immediate appointment of such returning officers as may be required, pursuant to section 8 of the Dominion Elections Act, 1938.
In the Representation Act of 1933, no provision was made for the appointment of returning officers, and it was necessary to pass an amending act in 1934 to provide for their appointment, prior to the dissolution of parliament. In previous years, before 1925, returning officers had not been appointed on a permanent basis and were appointed only for the conduct of a single election.
The new section 51 of the British North America Act 1867 to 1946 is printed in the explanatory notes of this bill, and for purposes of record I would ask leave to have this section included in the record of this debate.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: Section 51 follows:
51. (1) The number of members of the House of Commons shall be two hundred and fifty-five and the representation of the provinces therein shall forthwith upon the coming into force of this section and thereafter on the completion of each decennial census be readjusted by such authority, in such manner, and from such time as the parliament of Canada from time to time provides, subject and according to the following rules:
1.	Subject as hereinafter provided, there shall be assigned to each of the provinces a number of members computed by dividing the total population of the provinces by two hundred and fifty-four and by dividing the population of each province by the quotient so obtained, disregarding. except as hereinafter in this section provided, the remainder, if any, after the said process of division.
2.	If the total number of members assigned to all the provinces pursuant to rule one is less than two hundred and fifty-four, additional members shall be assigned to the provinces (one to a province) having remainders in the computation under rule one commencing with the province having the largest remainder and continuing with the other provinces in the order of the magnitude of their respective remainders until the total number of members assigned is two hundred and fifty-four.
3.	Notwithstanding anything in this section, if upon completion of a computation under rules one and two, the number of members to be assigned to a province is less than the number of senators representing the said province, rules one and two shall cease to apply in respect of the said province, and there shall be assigned to the said province a number of members equal to the said number of senators.
4.	In the event that rules one and two cease to apply in respect ot a province then, for the purpose of computing the number of members to be assigned to the provinces in respect of which rules one and two contin le to apply, the
Redistribution

total population of the provinces shall be reduced by the number of the population of the province in respect of which rules one and two have ceased to apply and the number two hundred and fifty-four shall be reduced by the number of members assigned to such province pursuant to rule three.
5.	Such readjustment shall not take effect until the termination of the then existing parliament.
(2) The Yukon Territory as constituted by chapter forty-one of the statues of Canada, 1901, together with any part of Canada not comprised within a province which may from time to time be included therein by the parliament of Canada for the purposes of representation in parliament, shall be entitled to one member.
Under rule 3 of section 51 (1), it is provided that a province shall 'have a number of members at least equal to the number of senators representing that province, and if the number of members provided under rules 1 and 2 is less than that number, rules 1 and 2 shall cease to apply with respect to that province.
Section 51 (2) provides that the Yukon territory, together with any part of Canada not comprised within a province, which may be added thereto for purposes of representation, shall have one member. This bill provides that the Mackenzie district of the northwest territories be added to the Yukon electoral district.
Prince Edward Island comes within the provisions of rule 3, and is entitled to four members. By deducting the four members from Prince Edward Island and one from Yukon from the 255, we have left 250 members for the remaining provinces. Consequently the unit of representation for the remaining eight provinces is established by dividing the total population of these eight provinces by 250, as provided by rule 4.
The total population of . the eight provinces based on the 1941 census amounts to 11,391,599, which, when divided by 250, gives a quotient of 45,566, which becomes the unit of representation.
I have here a table, which with the consent of the house I shall place on Hansard, showing the populations of the different provinces, the numbers of members to which they become entitled under the provisions of the new section 51, and the numbers of members to which they are entitled at present.
It will be seen from this table that with the increased membership provided for in the next parliament, and determined on a proportionate basis in accordance with the figures of the 1941 census, Ontario becomes entitled to one additional member, Quebec to eight additional members, Nova Scotia to one, and 
British Columbia to two, while Manitoba and
Saskatchewan lose	one each.	The	tabl
follows:			
			Preset
		Mem-	Mem-
Province	Population	bers	bersOntario 	3,787,655	83	82Quebec	3,328,815	73	65Nova Scotia	577,962	13	12New Brunswick	457,401	10	10Prince Edward Island	95,047	4	4Manitoba 	729,744	16	17British Columbia . ..	817,861	18	16Saskatchewan 	895,992	20	21Alberta 	796,169	17	17Yukon and Mackenzie	river 	4,914	1	1255	245
I have already stated that this bill is in the form that has been presented for the past forty-four years, it being left to the house to determine the boundaries of the constituencies, rather than to have a bill introduced containing proposed boundaries for the constituencies.
The advantages of this procedure were fully dealt with by our Prime Minister when he introduced a similar bill in 1923, and I do not think any good purpose will be served by repeating the statements he made at that time.
I might perhaps quote Mr. Bennett when, in 1932, in introducing the bill of that year, he stated:
The old contest in the House of Commons over the boundaries of constituencies which represented the views of the government of the day, has not taken place since 1903.
When the bill has been read a second time it is proposed to move that it be referred to a special committee, composed of representatives of all parties and groups in this house. This committee will be charged with the responsibility of delineating the boundaries of each electoral constituency. Subject to the right of the committee of the whole, or of the house, to make such amendments as may appear desirable, the schedule is incorporated in the bill and, upon its final approval, forms part of it.
In the past, several guiding principles have been followed by similar committees. As far as possible, county and municipal organizations have been followed in defining the boundaries of constituencies. In addition, it has been the uniform practice for many years to provide that the unit of representation in large cities should be larger than in rural constituencies. In other words, the population of an urban constituency should be considerably greater than for a rural one.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What about a semi-rural riding?

Redistribution


Colin William George Gibson: That is
left for the committee to determine. The reason for this was so well expressed in the debate on the redistribution bill in 1933 by our Prime Minister, then leader of the opposition, that I can do no better than quote his words on the second reading of the bill, as reported in Hansard, page 1590:
If it were not so, with the country as sparsely settled as it is in some parts, the rural constituencies would be difficult to control for purposes of administration. But there is a further and more important reason, and that is that as far as the urban constituencies are concerned, they have a means of voicing public opinion which x-ural constituencies have not. I need not mention the various organizations which exist in the urban centres, the large number of bodies such as boards of trade and commercial, industrial and social organizations, all of which play a part in forming and expressing public opinion. But I would refer particularly to the effect of the press. The daily press of the country is for the most part, if not exclusively, to be found only in urban centres. The rural press is, generally speaking, weekly, semi-weekly or bimonthly, and the press from the cities finds its way into the country districts to a very great extent, whereas the same cannot be said to be true of the press of the rural parts. As hon. members will know there is no other single factor that so largely goes to influence public opinion as the press. What is done in that way is reflected again by what is said here'on the part of hon. members.
He continued:
There is a further reason also, which I think will be apparent and which will appeal to hon. members. It not infrequently happens that rural constituencies are represented in the House of Commons by gentlemen who reside in cities and urban municipalities, but the reverse, except in very rare instances, is not the case. It seldom happens that an urban constituency is represented by someone who resides the year round in a rural constituency, but there are in the house at the present time and have been in all previous parliaments, many hon. members who have represented rural constituencies but who are more familiar with the life of the cities and the large towns than with the life and needs of the rural communities. The principle of a larger unit for urban representation has been accepted practically ever since confederation by committees which have dealt with this matter, and I hope and assume full recognition of it will be given by the committee to which this bill will be referred.
I mention these principles because it cannot be expected that redistribution can or should be carried out with mathematical accuracy.
Finally, 1 may say, again referring back to past history, that since the new method has been adopted of referring the question of delineating the constituencies to a special committee of the house, agreement has usually been arrived at, owing to the fact that a real effort was made by all members of the committees to be fair, just and reasonable. I have
every confidence that the same spirit of justice and fair play will be displayed by those who form the committee this year.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Before the minister sits
down, perhaps he would permit a question. He referred to the fact that the unit has been based on the total population. Is the same basis followed in any other part of the British empire?


Colin William George Gibson: They have different systems in different parts of the empire. In England an interval of thirty years took place once between redistributions.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. The minister said that our unit is based on population, by dividing the population of Canada by 250.


Colin William George Gibson: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is that method followed in any other part of the British empire?


Colin William George Gibson: I cannot say whether that exact system' is followed elsewhere.


Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, as the minister who has moved the second reading of the bill has said, this bill stands in the name of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). It was introduced and given its first reading on his motion. I am sure I voice the sentiments of all hon. members when I say I regret the illness of the Prime Minister and hope that his recovery will be speedy, and that 'he will soon be restored to health and strength to take his place as leader of the house, where he is so much missed.
Because of the Prime Minister's illness, I have not had an opportunity of discussing one phase of the bill with him. I doubt if he understood what the effect of the wording of part of the bill would mean to the electors in one section of Canada, and I doubt very much if he would want that part of the measure to become law. As it now stands, if it is enacted in its present form it creates an impossible constituency. It is impractical; it is inappropriate; it is improper; it is unfair to the people it effects, and I am sure it is disappointing to the people of the Mackenzie district which the bill seeks to add to the constituency of Yukon.
Let us look into the conditions in the Yukon and Mackenzie districts. Section 2 of the bill sets out the number of members each province shall have, and then it goes on to say that there shall be one for the Yukon territory. If it were allowed to stand at that it would be all right; but these words are added:
. . . including the Mackenzie district of the Northwest Territories.
Redistribution

What does that mean? I venture to say that very few members of the house realize the enormity of those words. At the 1941 census Yukon had a population of 3,174 whites, while the Mackenzie district had a population of only 2,113. It is now estimated that the Yukon territory and the Mackenzie district each have a population of about 5,000 whites. I think that is overestimated. I do not believe either has that many.
What about the area? The area of the Yukon territory is 207,076 square miles, while that of the Mackenzie district is 527,490 square miles. In effect this bill creates a constituency 734,560 square miles in size. Does anyone think one member can properly represent a constituency of that size? It is an impossibility. Great Britain, from John o'Groats to Land's End is only 88,745 square miles. The constituency now sought to be created is eight times the size of Great Britain; yet Great Britain sends over 600 members to its parliament. Here we have one constituency, eight times the size of Great Britain, to be represented by one member. I ask hon. members if that is not ridiculous. I say it cannot be done. I am afraid the minister sponsoring the bill does not greatly care whether it can be done or not.
The Yukon territory and the Mackenzie district are separated by a range of mountains; they have nothing in common, and there is no communication between those two sections of Canada. The only way to travel from one to the other is by plane. Think of the expense of conducting an election campaign by plane. The returning officer would have to have a plane, and his deputy returning officers as well as the candidates would have to have planes. A candidate would have to charter a plane: and one would not be enough, if he were to carry on a proper campaign in a constituency of that size. I know what it costs in a comparatively small area, because in Yukon it cost me nearly $1,500 to charter a plane in the last election. That would be only a drop in	the	bucket	to what	it would cost	tocampaign [DOT] this constituency. The population in the Yukon territory and in the Mackenzie district is entitled to representation in the House of Commons. In its wisdom, away back in 1901 or 1902 the government decided it would be wise to give Yukon representation in	the	house.	Millions	upon millions	of
dollars worth of gold were beginning to pour out of that territory. The output in gold has now reached the enormous sum of $300,000,000.
A ukon has been a splendid market for millions upon millions of dollars worth of Canadian produce. We import everything we use: machinery, clothing and food. All those 
things are sold there. The government of that day showed its wisdom when it gave Yukon representation in the house, so that it might have a member here, regardless of political affiliation, who would be familiar with conditions in that far country and could be of assistance to the government. I believe every member Yukon has had, regardless of political affiliations, has been of assistance to ministers whose duty it has been to administer the government of that area.
Dawson City is the centre of the gold district, and at that point is found the oldest producing placer gold camp in the world. The one big company operating there, and still mining placer gold, has its campaign worked out for the next twenty-five years; and in each of those years they will take out millions of dollars, even if nothing new is found. Those large sums can still be taken from the old workings.
I say Yukon is entitled to better treatment from the government than it is getting in this bill. If the government wished to give the Mackenzie district, with its area of 527,490 square miles, representation in the House of Commons, it would have been more appropriate to have extended north the boundaries of some of the most northerly constituencies in the prairie provinces. That would have been a natural extension.
In British Columbia, for instance, the constituency of Cariboo could have been extended to the north. In Alberta, either Peace River or Afchabaska could have gone farther north, as a natural growth, just as the minister said tonight that the provinces of Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec were extended, to the north.
In Saskatchewan, the constituencies of North Battleford, Prince Albert, Melfort and Mackenzie border on the Mackenzie district, and could be extended north; give them a slice of it, if it is not desired to tie it all on to one of them. But even if that were done, it would be more appropriate than to attempt to tie it on to the Yukon territory.
What is the Mackenzie district? What gives it its importance? Why has it not had representation before? The reason is that a few years ago gold was found at Yellowknife, and a stampede wTas started. Thousands of people went in there and staked thousands of wildcat claims. So far as I am aware, out of all those claims that were staked there are only two producing mines. It has proven a bonanza for the mining brokers of the city of Toronto who have deluged everyone, including hon. members of this house, with their literature

Redistribution
advising them to buy these wildcat mining stocks. That is no reason why the Mackenzie should be hooked on to Yukon.
How did this come about? Last summer the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Glen) and some of his staff made a trip by plane, the only way they could make it, into the Yellowknife. The people of the Yellowknife have been asking for representation in parliament, and -what is the result? They are sloughing them off on Yukon. If you want to give them representation in parliament, tie them on to some appropriate constituency. You could not get a more inappropriate arrangement than to tie them on to Yukon.
The minister made that trip at public expense, which is quite proper for a minister of the government. If he had had to go at his own expense he would realize what an election will cost there. In 1930, a similar bill was introduced. By Bill No. 13 of seventeen years ago it was proposed to add to Yukon constituency, not only the Mackenzie district but all of the northwest territories, those three large districts. That would have meant that the constituency would extend from Alaska on the west, to the Atlantic ocean on the east and to the north pole on the north. That was a wonderful piece of legislation, and this one is not much better, by only a few thousand miles. They realized the difficulties when Bill No. 13 was introduced in 1930 because they provided:
If, in the opinion of the chief electoral officer, the day fixed for the poll at a general election is such that resort by the returning officer to such means of transportation as must be resorted to for the proper conduct of an election in the electoral district of the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories would involve undue risk, he may, notwithstanding anything in the Dominion Elections Act, fix a subsequent day for the poll in the said electoral district and a day for the close of nominations shall be determined accordingly.
The anticipated trouble then, and the weather is not any better today, seventeen years later. Let us look at the explanatory note to that bill. It reads:
The purpose of this bill is to combine in a single electoral district the Yukon Territories and the Northwest Territories, the latter not now being included in any electoral district. Sections 1, 2 and 4 of the bill are self-explanatory. Section 3 is necessary owing to the difficulty of communications between the basins of the Mackenzie and the Yukon rivers.
The Yukon drains all the northwest section of this continent and flows into the Bering sea opposite Siberia, while the Mackenzie drains the centre of the continent of North America. The explanatory notes continue:
In whatever part of the electoral district the returning officer has his headquarters he can conduct the election only by flying from one part of it to the other. His presence in each from time to time will be essential to give opportunity for the making of nominations, and the ballots will, as things now stand, require to be printed at Dawson and transported by air to such polls in the Northwest Territories as it is found possible to provide for in the fourteen days which intervene between the close of nominations and the holding of the poll. At certain times of the year, particularly when the ice is forming or breaking up, flying becomes impossible, and without making some provision such as that contained in section 3 the inclusion of the whole of the area in a single electoral district might be entirely illusory.
It is just as illusory tonight as it was seventeen years ago. I shall be disappointed if the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), who sponsored this bill, is still willing to put this upon these people when he understands the conditions. It is not his nature to be unfair; it is his nature to be just. All I ask is a fair deal for these people. I hope the committee to which the bill is to be referred will understand the situation and be fair. When the bill comes back to the committee of the whole I hope that a reasonable and proper amendment will be accepted.
I cannot better describe the section of the bill to which I have referred than to say that it is outrageous legislation, the iniquity of which could not be overstated. That portion of the bill seeking to form one constituency out of Yukon and the Mackenzie district is a legislative abortion. I warn the minister that, although it is a legislative abortion, so far as I am concerned it will not be still-born.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I say just a word in support of the grievance the previous speaker has presented to the house. When this matter was up for discussion at the time we had before us the resolution to Westminster asking for an amendment of the British North America Act, hon. members of this group pointed out at that time how unfair it was to make one constituency across the whole of the North American continent, as the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black) has just described it. However, my purpose in rising was to speak on one phase of the matter that is before us.
The Secretary of State (Mr. Gibson) pointed out, rather commendably I would say, the whole story of the amendment of the British North America Act and the principles that now govern redistribution among the provinces. But during the course of his remarks, not only did he tell us that it was intended to refer the bill to a special com-
Redistribution

mittee of the house, but he seemed to take it for granted that that procedure would not be questioned. The Secretary of State quoted the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) when he spoke in 1923 to the effect that the method of referring this matter to a committee had proved to be satisfactory and was even commendable. I would remind the Secretary of State and hon. members on the opposite side of the house that more recently the Prime Minister has indicated his belief that some day we must get away from this outworn method which we have followed these many years. A few weeks ago the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) asked the Prime Minister where he stood on the matter, and he replied that it was still his opinion that it would be better to refer the matter to a judicial or independent commission than to a committee of the house. He stated that the reason he was not following his own judgment in the matter was that he felt it was the wish of the majority of the house to continue the old practice. He went on to say, and I quote from Hansard:
I hope, however, the day will come when the House of Commons of Canada will see the wisdom of allowing its redistribution to be made by some impartial tribunal and not by the members of the house themselves dealing with the matter in committee as it has been dealt with in former years.
These words of the Prime Minister were spoken in the house on February 3 of this year as recorded at page 68 of Hansard.
The Secretary of State referred not only to the previous position of the Prime Minister back in 1923, but also quoted from Mr. Bennett who was prime minister at the time of the last distribution who used words to the effect that in his view at that time it was perfectly satisfactory to refer the matter to a committee of the house. I was not here at the time and do not know what went on in the special committee or in the house after the report was brought in, but I cannot help but notice the strange results of the work of that committee, especially in terms of the wide variation in population in different constituencies. In my own province, for example-and I shall refer to the population figures of 1931, although I have the figures for 1941 before me, because the redistribution last made was on the basis of the 1931 population figures-the rural constituencies-I will not complicate the matter by making any comparisons with urban constituencies like my own-varied all the way from Souris with a population of 25,000 to Selkirk with a population of 52,000. Similarly in Ontario the variation in rural constituencies ran all the

way from 18,000 for the constituency of Glengarry to 88,000 for the constituency of Nipis-sing.
I have also found it very interesting to notice that a number of constituencies which seemed to have been traditionally Tory, at the time of the last redistribution, were carved out in such a way as to include a rather small population. My genial friend who sits near me, the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser), represents a constituency the population of which in 1931 was only 37,000. The constituency of Hastings-Peter-borough had a population of only 27,000. On the other hand, if we go into the Niagara peninsula where at that time the tradition was a little more on the other side of the fence, we find a constituency like Welland with a population at that time of 82,000.
One might also say that if we picked up a map of Ontario and looked at its provincial constituencies-and remember, when the last provincial redistribution was made the Liberal party was in power-we w'ould find-


Colin William George Gibson: No, it
was not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I stand to be corrected,
but it is very interesting to discover that in many of these areas the situation is the very reverse. The point about it is that I could not follow the Secretary of State's easy acceptance of a committee of the House of Commons as being a sure way of getting an impartial, objective division of the provinces into the number of seats which are prescribed to each one by the rules laid down in the British North America Act. Rather, Mr. Speaker, I follow in this instance the words of the Prime Minister of February 3 when he suggested that he hoped the day would come when this House of Commons would see the wisdom of referring this matter to an independent tribunal rather than to a committee of the house. It does seem to me that this question is one which ought not to be regarded as a government measure. It is a matter relating to the House of Commons. When we ask questions such as the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) does about the acoustics of this chamber and having microphones and loud speakers installed we are told not to address our questions to the government; that it is a matter which is the concern of the House of Commons. I hope my hon. friend can hear me now. So it is with other matters which we are told are not the concern of the government, but come directly under the House of Commons itself. I suggest that this is an even more important matter than seme of these tech-

Redistribution
liical matters of procedure around the house, and that it should be regarded as a function of the House of Commons as a whole to decide what method is to be followed.
I believe it would be a good idea to test the view of the house as to whether we want to continue the outworn method of referring the carving up of the provinces to a committee of the house or whether we want to see the wisdom to use the Prime Minister's words, of referring it to an independent tribunal. Therefore I propose to move to the motion that is now before the house an amendment which will give the house a chance to decide what it wants. In that connection I urge that it be considered as a free vote. I would judge that if the Prime Minister were here-and I join with the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black) in expressing sympathy for the Prime Minister in his illness and in the hope that he will soon be back with us-in view of what he said on the 3rd day of February he would vote personally for my proposal that the matter be referred to an independent tribunal, and that he would leave the matter to the judgment of the house as a whole. He expressed the view that he thought the majority wanted to follow the old method. Well, here is an opportunity to find out whether this house wants to carry on with old, wornout method, or see the wisdom of referring the matter to an independent tribunal.
There really is not much more that I need to say; but, before moving my amendment, in view of the experience that some of us sometimes have in moving amendments, I should like to give the authority for moving an amendment of this kind and to make it clear to Y'our Honour how perfectly in order it is. I suggest to Y'our Honour that you refer to Beauchesne's third edition, page 228-[DOT]


William Ross Macdonald: It is not the function of the Speaker to give a ruling on a point of order which has not been raised, and there can be no point of order at the present time before the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I know the point has not been raised, but I want to lay down the authority before presenting the amendment that I am going to make.


William Ross Macdonald: Let me also remind the hon. member that I have not even seen the amendment; therefore I cannot give any opinion.


Colin William George Gibson: There has been no motion put yet.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am quite convinced that when Your Honour sees the amendment you will accept it. I suggest that the basis for it is in citation 657 on page 228 of Beauchesne's Rules and Forms, third edition. Also it will be noted that on page 337 there is a form for this kind of amendment. On the basis of the authority in the citation I have given, and in keeping with the form prescribed on page 337 I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson):
That all the words after the word "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"this bill be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house the readjustment of the representation in the House of Commons should be referred to an independent commission to be appointed for that purpose."
I present this amendment to the motion which the Secretary of State moved for second reading of the bill and would suggest that it gives the house an opportunity to decide that it is time to have done with the outworn method of referring this matter to a committee and to move on to the appointment of a special independent tribunal to deal with it for us.
(Translation):


Mr. REAL CAOUETTE (Pontiac):: Mr. Speaker, the principle of the bill under consideration is fully in accord with the views and policies of the Union of Electors. We feel that it finally gives Quebec its due, because after the next general election it will give the province eight additional constituencies or eight additional members. I can well understand that some hon. members may, for political or other reasons, look upon redistribution with some misgivings. Speaking for myself, as representative of one of Canada's largest constituencies, that of Pontiac, I can unhesitatingly state before all the hon. members of this house that I shall be glad to learn what redistribution will mean in my own constituency, for it will surely be divided up- perhaps in three constituencies. The suggestion is even being advanced that the government will attempt to use its power and influence to obtain a redistribution favouring the Liberal party.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


David Réal Caouette: As far as the Union of Electors is concerned, Mr. Speaker, we know that some Liberals are trying to arrange matters to the advantage of their own party. However, we have no fear on that score, as the Union of Electors is operating in the ranks of the Liberals and the Conservatives as well as among the Social Credit supporters.
Redistribution

The present bill is in accord with our views, with the views of the Union of Electors. To those who fear redistribution-and there will be some people who will not like the carving of new constituencies in the province of Quebec-I say that it is a simple act of justice towards the country. I congratulate the government for having, at last, been fair to the province of Quebec.
As for the amendment of the hon. member who spoke before me (Mr. Knowles), I grant him the right to his own views. Once again I repeat that I do not, in the least, fear the manner in which the government, or the committee which is to be appointed, will proceed to the redistribution of electoral constituencies. However, the hon. members whose constituencies will be affected should be invited to state their case. I imagine the committee will invite all those concerned, those hon. members to come and see how that committee works, how redistribution is done in their respective constituencies.
Mr. Speaker, it may be that we should add one small constituency which, I suggest, might be located in the moon for the parliamentary correspondent of the newspaper Le Canada.
This bill will certainly give rise to much criticism. We feel that the bill is eminently fair, and that it is in the interests of the people of Canada. I am sure it is a measure that will be admired and find approval in the province of Quebec.
(Text):


Hon. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):: I rise to say a word with respect to this amendment, largely because on a former occasion I was instrumental in introducing, on the part of the government of the day, a resolution calling for the setting up of a committee, one of the duties of which would be to study:
. . . methods used to effect a redistribution of electoral districts in Canada and in other countries and to make suggestions to the house in connection therewith.
I refer the house to Hansard of March 13, 1939, at page 1807.
In introducing that resolution, I urged that up to that time redistribution committees had been remarkable rather for the lack of harmony which had resulted from their deliberations than for any just appreciation of the work of the committee. As 'has been said by the minister who introduced the bill, up to 1903, I believe it was, the government of the day simply came before the house and introduced a bill in which the constituencies in Canada were laid down. In 1903, there were parliamentary committees on which were members from all sides of the house. My recollection is that in 1924 the committee

brought down a report to which very little objection was raised. Members who were in this house in 1934 will remember that the committee pretty well ended up in what might have been called an unseemly turmoil, with the result that in 1939 the government of the day thought some study andi exploration might be made into some system whereby we would get away from this eternal wrangling and where perhaps the interest of the electors themselves rather than of interested members of parliament might prevail.
In introducing that resolution, I pointed out that it would be advisable at some time or another to introduce a bill to provide for the appointment of a redistribution commission. The committee of that year made a thorough study of methods of redistribution and instructed Mr. Harry Butcher, the committee counsel, to report to them as to the methods in effect in other countries to bring about a fair and equitable redistribution of the constituencies in those countries. I need not say to any hon. members who know Mr. Butcher that he is a man of the highest personal integrity and was recognized by members on all sides of the house as being perfectly impartial in his view. The committee, after having heard Mr. Butcher's statement, reported as follows; as will be found at page 3810 of Hansard of May 10, 1939:
Your committee gave consideration to the methods in use in Great Britain, Australia. New Zealand, the Union of South Africa and in the United States, together with suggestions-made by the counsel as to how redistribution could be effected in Canada.
Your committee, however, concluded that there are many important questions, including that of the relation of urban to rural population, as it may be affected by the next decennial census, that should receive detailed study before a definite decision is made.
Your committee there submits, without further comment, a statement of the methods employed in other countries, and the suggestions made, for the consideration of the house.
I am sorry to say that I have no clear recollection of the discussions which took place, but evidently this report appealed to the government of the day because I have in my hand-and I found it in an old file in my possession-a bill entitled, "An Act to provide for the appointment of a redistribution commission". The first reading was to be in May, 1940, and it was to have been introduced by myself as postmaster general. This bill provided that a commission should be set up. May I say in passing that I do not think the bill was ever introduced. Members of the house will remember that in May, 1940, the phony war ended and we had other things to think of than looking after our own particular

Redistribution
internal quarrels. The bill provided for the setting up of a commission to consist of three commissioners, the chairman to be a judge of a superior court and two assistant commissioners to be appointed in each province. Apparently those commissioners were to sit only in the province from which they came. The commission was to travel all over the country, was to hear witnesses in the different localities, and then was to report to the secretary, of state. May I immediately point out some of the difficulties that will arise should we appoint such a commission, difficulties which were not quite so apparent at the time this bill was drafted and at the time it was intended to bring it before the house as a government measure. One of the difficulties of which we took some .account at the time was in connection with the kind of instructions which would be given to this commission.
I notice that certain instructions were given under the duties of the commissioners, in section 9 of this bill:
In the preparation of a bill for the redistribution of a province into electoral districts the commission shall give due consideration to:
(a)	The physical features;
(b)	Means of communication;
(c)	Existing boundaries of electoral districts, both provincial and federal;
(d)	Boundaries of administrative areas;
(e)	Such other pertinent factors as may occur to it or to which its attention may be drawn.
One of these pertinent factors, not to mention them all, was what proportion in the way of population there should be-or disproportion, I should perhaps say-as between rural and urban areas. Ever since confederation, it has been generally conceded on all sides and by all political parties that the rural member should represent a somewhat smaller number of population than the city member. The reasons are fairly obvious. They existed to a greater extent in the old days when the means of communication were not so easy; but they still exist even today, because the opinion in a small congested area is very much more easily ascertainable than that in a very large area. The bill was to have been sent to a committee.
It was then considered that in all probability consideration should be given by the commissioners to such things, for instance, as homogeneity of interest in any given constituency ; homogeneity of occupational interest, let us say. If a certain section of a city or town were largely populated by those who were engaged in manual labour, in all probability some consideration should be given to a constituency allowed to elect someone who would perhaps more truly represent the views of labour than a person who came from a constituency in which there were large numbers
who owned residences in a higher bracket. There was, and there always has been- although it does not exist to the same extent in certain of the older provinces-consideration of the ethnic or, to put it more crudely, the racial situation. My hon. friend the member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) knows that in the eastern townships for many years, on all sides it was considered advisable to have smaller constituencies in order that the English-speaking population might have a greater chance to be represented. That was due in large degree to the generosity of our French-Canadian compatriots, but all political groups were in agreement that it should be done. I see my hon. friend the member for Argenteuil (Mr. Heon) in his place. He knows that Argenteuil was at one time the smallest rural constituency in Canada. They have a population, if I remember rightly, of something like nineteen thousand. It was kept as a small constituency for the purpose of giving representation to the English-speaking population of that district.
Mr. HEON; Which was 39-5 per cent, according to the latest figures.
Mr. POWER; Yes. In Ontario in certain sections, I believe, similar considerations weighed with the leaders of poltical parties when redistribution was being made.


John Thomas Hackett: Glengarry, for instance.


Charles Gavan Power: In all probability.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Or Neepawa.


Charles Gavan Power: I have some recollection that at one time there was some difficulty with respect to the representation in eastern Ontario, but I could not say offhand whether the difficulty arose from an endeavour to get representation for those speaking the French language in certain sections of eastern Ontario, or whether it arose from an endeavour to get representation for people speaking the English language in the same section. All these matters can be, and sometimes are, taken into consideration by members of the house. But I have very much doubt-though I am free to admit that I was particularly anxious to have this bill which I mentioned go through- whether we could in cold blood write into the statute that such considerations should weigh with a tribunal, whether it be a judicial tribunal or not; and here again I say I may have modified my views, from recent experience, as to the value of judicial commissioners.
Another difficulty-and this was perhaps the most serious one-that confronted us was this: What should we do with the report when we received it? Would this report of
Redistribution

an impartial judicial tribunal be a final report that would be accepted? That is to say, would we as members of a free parliament permit people from outside to come in and divide up and allocate the seats in a redistribution? In Australia, I understand that they met this difficulty-I am speaking only from memory- by providing that if the house of representatives were not satisfied with the report it was sent back to the commission. In most of these redistribution wrangles, perhaps twenty-five per cent of the membership of the house is dissatisfied and, if one member's difficulty is settled by giving him a slice or taking away a slice of some other territory, very often that disturbs fifteen or twenty constituencies in the same province. So that when a report from the commission came before parliament I would think, without having inquired into the matter from anyone, that parliament would be loath to give to any commission or any committee the right simply to bring in an electoral map for the whole of Canada which would have to be accepted willy-nilly by the members of the house. I do not believe that any democratic house would so abandon its rights and privileges as to allow itself to become only a rubber-stamp for any commission.
Given that, I fear that the report of a commission would take a considerable time in its preparation and a considerable number of years before it would be adopted. We had all these things in mind, and we had one other thing in mind. We believed that there would be time enough before another election to unscramble and level off any difficulties. That was the position in 1940. The election took place in March, 1940, and it was proposed to introduce a redistribution bill in May, 1940. At that time one political party had a majority of from sixty to seventy seats and there was no prospect of an election for another five years. I do not know that there is the immediate prospect of an election now, but certainly there is a risk of it if too many members want to go to a movie or miss a train. We are not in quite the same situation today with respect to the distance from an election that we were in in 1940.
If the amendment of my hon. friend carries the first thing to be done would be to build up a bill of some kind, I presume along the lines of the bill to which I have referred. Second, I think there would be considerable discussion in the house, even in its most amiable mood, as to just what instructions should be given to that commission. Third, I know there are a large number of members of the house who are not prepared to say to such a commission before it is set up: We will accept your rulings as to the boundaries of

the constituencies which we wish to have on the electoral map of Canada. I respectfully submit to my hon. friend that those should be considerations in his mind before he presses his amendment. There is no limit to the ingenuity of man, and there is a possibility of an excellent piece of legislation being worked out, but I would point out to him that it is doubtful whether it would be worked out by a commission within the next year or so, because a commission such as I have indicated would have to sit in different parts of the country. If it took the same care in preparing its report as the coal commission did, :t would certainly take some time, and when the report was ready it 'would have to come back to this house. In the meantime, a large number of people in this country would like to see redistribution go through as soon as possible. So far as I am concerned and in spite of the fact that I am not at all enamoured of the present situation, I suggest that the present method is the only one we can carry on with if we want to make reasonable expedition in getting a redistribution.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I listened with attention to what the minister said in introducing this bill. What I am worrying about is that the bill has not sufficient in it. Had the minister gone farther in his remarks as to what the redistribution committee should consider as rules or principles as guides to follow in determining the boundaries of the various seats, as did the minister in Australia and the minister in England in their last redistributions, the committee would have had more to guide them. The minister laid down only two rules or principles for the guidance of the committee. One of them was that municipal and county boundaries should be considered, and I presume he meant also ward boundaries within the cities.
The minister's second rule or principle was that some attention should be given to the difference between rural and urban populations. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said something about the last redistribution bill and, in doing so, I would judge he was speaking about Ontario. I shall not have any comment to make on the schedules sent in from any other province, but I can tell the hon. member that the Ontario schedule went through unanimously. There was some little discussion in the beginning, as the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) has said, about eastern Ontario. But when that was unravelled, all the other schedules went through unanimously. I was chairman of that committee, and I will say that when the late Hon. John Elliott, who was opposition chairman, and I sat down together to set up the rules and principles to be fol-

Business of the House
lowed, we got along most amicably. I cannot speak in too high terms of the cooperation of the late Mr. Elliott, who was a member of a former Liberal government.
We followed those principles as closely as possible, and perhaps I might mention them here, so that they might serve as a guide. Of course we could not control other provincial committees. The Quebec committees at that time were somewhat contentious, as were the committees for Saskatchewan.
But for Ontario I can say that in the end the schedule from that province went through unanimously. Some of the constituencies were small, and some large; but I will say now that one of the small constituencies approved last time by the Ontario committee was referred to tonight by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I shall not suggest any change in that constituency this time. It is represented by the Prime Minister, and I am one who takes the stand that, in any redistribution, at least the constituency of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) should be left more or less as is. I am on the committee again this time, and I presume I shall be chairman of the Progressive Conservative group. As such, so far as I am concerned I will not advance any change with respect to the constituency of Glengarry, owing to the fact that it is represented by the Prime Minister.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are only 18,000 people in it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I know that. The constituency of the city of London, in London, England, contains only 2,000 people. But they are big enough over there not to molest that one riding, although it is small. Surely we can have one in Canada, particularly when it is the Prime Minister's riding, which can be left free from disturbance. That is my stand, anyway; and someone will have to overrule it, if it is changed.
On motion of Mr. MacNicol the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie the house adjourned at 10.50 p.m.
Monday, February 24, 1947