1947-02-12

DEFENCE COOPERATION


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to
make a statement on defence cooperation with the United States. This statement is also being made today by the government of the
Defence Cooperation

United States. It is regarding the results of discussions which have taken place in the permanent joint board on defence on the extent to which the wartime cooperation between the armed forces of the two countries should be maintained in this post-war period. In the interests of efficiency and economy, each government has decided that its national defence establishment shall, to the extent authorized by law, continue to collaborate for peacetime joint security purposes. The collaboration will necessarily be limited and will be based on the following principles:
(1)	Interchange of selected individuals so as to increase the familiarity of each country's defence establishment with that of the other country.
(2)	General cooperation and exchange of observers in connection with exercises and with the development and tests of material of common interest.
(3)	Encouragement of common designs and standards in arms, equipment, organization, methods of training and new developments. As certain United Kingdom standards have long been in use in Canada, no radical change is contemplated or practicable and the application of this principle will be gradual.
(4)	Mutual and reciprocal availability of military, naval and air facilities in each country; this principle to be applied as may be agreed in specific instances. Reciprocally each country will continue to provide, with a minimum of formality, for the transit through its territory and its territorial waters of military aircraft and public vessel of the other country.
(5)	As an underlying principle all cooperative arrangements will be without impairment of the control of either country over all activities in its territory.
While in this, as in many other matters of mutual concern, there is an identity of view and interest between the two countries, the decision of each has been taken independently in continuation of the practice developed since the establishment of the permanent joint board on defence in 1940. No treaty, executive agreement or contractual obligation has been entered into. Each country will determine the extent of its practical collaboration in respect of each and all of the foregoing principles. Ei.ther country may at any time discontinue collaboration on any or all of them. Neither country will take any action inconsistent with the charter of the united nations. The charter remains the cornerstone of the foreign policy of each.
An important element in the decision of each government to authorize continued collaboration was the conviction on the part

of each that in this way their obligations under the charter of the united nations for the maintenance of international peace and security could be fulfilled more effectively. Both governments believe that this decision is a contribution to the stability of the world and to the establishment through the united nations of an effective system of world wide security. With this in mind each government has sent a copy of this statement to the secretary general 9f the united nations for circulation to all its members.
In August, 1940, when the creation of the board was jointly announced by the late President Roosevelt and by myself as Prime Minister of Canada, it was stated that the board "shall commence immediate studies relating to sea, land and air problems including personnel and material. It will consider in the broad sense the defence of the north half of the western hemisphere." In discharging this continuing responsibility the board's work led to the building up of a pattern of close defence cooperation. The principles announced today are in continuance of this cooperation. It has been the task of the governments to assure that the close security relationship between Canada and the United States in North America will in no way impair but on the contrary will strengthen the cooperation of each country within the broader framework of the united nations.
There are a number of comments I should like to make on the foregoing statement.
Cooperation between Canada and the United States in matters of defence has become increasingly effective in recent years. Among the first public statements to be made by the head of either government was the speech of the late President Roosevelt at Kingston, Ontario, 1938 when he said, "The Dominion of Canada is part of the sisterhood of the British empire. I give to you assurance that the people of the United States will not stand idly by if domination of Canadian soil is threatened by any other empire." Two days later at Woodbridge, Ontario, as Prime Minister of Canada I replied, "We, too, have our obligations as a good friendly neighbour, and one of these is to see that, at our own instance, our country is made as immune from attack or possible invasion as we can reasonably be expected1 to make it, and that, should the occasion ever arise, enemy forces should not be able to pursue their way, either by land, sea or air, to the United States across Canadian territory."
It was two years later, in August 1940, that the permanent joint board on defence was created and it has met regularly ever since to discuss common problems and to make

Defence Cooperation
recommendations to the governments which created it. The statement made today emphasizes the desirability of continuing the cooperation between Canada and the United States in matters of defence w'hich has developed through the years.
As the joint statement points out, the charter of the united nations is the cornerstone of the foreign policy of both governments. Certainly, the Canadian government holds that its obligations to the united nations are of overriding importance. In time, it is to be hoped that there will emerge-apart altogether from reduction and limitation of arms and elimination of weapons of mass destruction-a system of international security which will be adequate to preserve the peace of the world. The ultimate objective is not joint or regional defence, but collective international defence as the guarantee of national security.
It must be recognized, however, that much progress has still to be made before a system of international security becomes effective. Each nation must therefore consider what steps it should take in the meantime to defend itself against aggression, while bearing constantly in mind that these steps should contribute to the development of general security in accordance with the charter of the united nations. I should like to make it entirely clear that, so far as the Canadian government is concerned, and I am sure the United States government also, defence cooperation between Canada and the United States is intended to support and strengthen the united nations.
It will be noted that the principles of cooperation announced in the joint statement parallel closely the procedures which have long been applied between the nations of the British commonwealth. Without formal agreements between governments, we have had working arrangements with the United Kingdom and other commonwealth countries for the interchange of personnel, the exchange of observers, and so forth. The similar arrangements envisaged between Canada and the United States in no way interfere with or replace our commonwealth connections in matters of defence training and organization. Given the geographical position of Canada, it is important that measures of cooperation should be undertaken both with the United States and the United Kingdom.
In conclusion, I should like to comment briefly on problems of northern defence. The subject has naturally engaged the attention of many people both here and abroad and some quite unfounded suggestions have been put forward. There is a persistent rumour, for
example, that the United States government has asked for bases in the Canadian north. This is a rumour which 1 should like to deny emphatically. There has been talk of Maginot lines, of large-scale defence projects, all of which is unwarranted and much of it fantastic. What we are trying to do is to view the situation soberly, realistically, and undramatically.
It is apparent to anyone who has reflected even casually on the technological advances of recent years that new geographic factors have been brought into play. The polar regions assume new importance as the shortest routes between North America and the principal centres of population of the world. In consequence, we must think and learn more about those regions. When w'e think of the defence of Canada, we must, in addition to looking east and west as in the past, take the north into consideration as well. Our defence forces must, of course, have experience of conditions in these regions, but it is clear that most of the things that should be done are required apart altogether from considerations of defence We must know more about such fundamental facts as topography and weather. We must improve facilities for flying. We must develop better means of communication. The general economic development of the north will be greatly aided by tests and projects carried out , by both civilian and defence services. As the government views it, our primary objective should be to expand our knowledge of the north and of the conditions necessary for life and work there with the object of developing its resources.
Canada's northern programme is thus primarily a civilian one to which contributions are made by the armed forces. This has been the pattern for many years. Thus the army years ago installed and lias continued to maintain communication systems in the northwest territories. It is now responsible for administering the Alaska highway, now known as the northwest highway system, extending from Dawson Creek to the Alaska boundary. The Royal Canadian Air Force has been responsible for taking aerial photographs to be used in the production of maps and charts. It has also been given the responsibility of administering the airfields of the northwest staging route from Edmonton north which are used for civil aviation. More recently, a small winter experimental establishment was set up at Churchill where various tests on clothing, equipment, transport, and so on, are being conducted which will be of general benefit to all who live in the north. Since the United States, as well as Canada, recognizes the
Inquiries oj the Ministry

need for greater familiarity with northern conditions, we have arranged for its government to participate in the work of this establishment. It may be that other tests and projects will require to be undertaken on a joint basis, in order to extend with a maximum of economy and effectiveness, our knowledge of the north. Through such extension we will acquire the basic data that are needed to make more accessible the economic resources of this region and which will be more valuable for defence purposes as well.


Mr. PEARKES:: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the government of Newfoundland was represented in the discussions leading up to this agreement or had it been a party in any way to the agreement?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The permanent joint defence board is composed of representatives of Canada and of the United States. There are no representatives of the government of Newfoundland on the board.


Mr. GRAYDON:: Will this necessitate any extension in either the personnel or the functions of the permanent joint defence board?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot think of any extension at the moment. It may be that as time goes on, as in the past, the board may have to be enlarged for certain purposes.



DISPLACED PERSONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. A. TUCKER (Rosthern):: I wish to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has a situation said to exist in Salzburg camp, Austria, where 3,500 Ukrainians feel that steps are being taken which will lead to their possible deportation to the Soviet Union, been brought to the attention of the government, and if so will the government take steps to do what it properly can in the matter to help these unfortunate people?
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): I received a couple of hours ago a telegram from the Ukrainian Canadian committee about the screening of displaced persons in Salzburg camp, Austria, the contents of which seemed rather surprising, since the principle is that no one in a displaced camp will be forced to return to his country of origin unless it is conclusively shown to the satisfaction of the international commission that he has been guilty of war crimes or of collaboration. The information we have about the functioning of

these screening committees up to the present time has been such as to satisfy us that this principle was being properly and carefully applied. I have no specific information about the operation of this screening committee in the Salzburg camp in Austria. However, now that the question has been raised it will certainly be looked into. I can give the hon. member the assurance that up to the present time the provisions which had been made by the united nations have been properly applied and are giving satisfactory results.


Gordon Graydon: Have we any observers for Canada on that committee?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No. These commissions are set up by the UNRRA organization. We are represented in a general way in the UNRRA administration, but there is not a Canadian representative on each one of these commissions set up by UNRRA.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Are these commissions not already subject to direction from the military authorities in charge of the area?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Oh, yes.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: And therefore are the allied governments not in control of the area referred to?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The commissions are merely advisory in the reports they make to the occupying authorities.



WARTIME HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. N. J. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln):: I
wish to direct a question to the Minister of Reconstruction. Contradictory reports have appeared in the press, one of which I have sent to the minister and conflicting ideas prevail among veterans with regard to the provision of wartime housing. Can the minister make a statement, either now or in the near future, which will clear up the misconceptions that the veterans appear to have? I refer particularly to my own area around Niagara Falls and others where there has been a great deal of misunderstanding in this regard.


Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction):: I am able to make a statement at this time. General policy of the sale of Wartime Housing houses to tenants has been introduced'. It is contingent, however, in most cases, on the municipality concerned being prepared to negotiate a new agreement permitting this sale. When this renegotiation is

Inquiries of the Ministry
completed and the land surveyed, tenants are given the .opportunity of purchasing under conditions outlined hereunder, or, alternatively, they may remain as tenants. The conditions of sale are:
(a)	Sale is effected only to tenants.
(b)	Minimum down payment of fifteen per cent and monthly minimum payments at the normal rate they now pay in the form of rent. This will include insurance, taxes, interest and capital.
(c)	The tenant cannot acquire title to the property for a period of five years. The object of this restriction is to prevent resale and speculation.
(d)	On completion of the agreement of sale the normal tax rate of the municipality becomes applicable.
(e)	Every endeavour is made to ensure fair appraisal values when houses are sold to tenants.
It is to be noted that there is considerable work involved in completing the survey of the lots and in carrying out new negotiations with municipalities. However, this has been completed in three centres, namely, Sorel, Quebec; Valleyfield, Quebec, and Sarnia, Ontario. The sale of these units is now under way.



HALIFAX DOCKYARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, a copy of which I have sent to him. It arises out of a telegram received this morning from Halifax setting out that some 1,800 civilian personnel may be laid off at H.M.C. dockyard, Halifax. Can the minister give the house any assurance of continued operations at the dockyard in order to avoid a badly aggravated unemployment. problem in that city?


Hon. BROOKE CLAXTON (Minister of National Defence):: Since man}' hon. members are interested, I shall make a brief statement. As hon. members are aware, the repatriation, demobilization and rehabilitation of the armed forces has proceeded rapidly and is practically completed. The disposal of surplus war materials is also well advanced. This work and looking after the maintenance of the establishments and equipment of the armed forces has meant that a veiy considerable number of civilian personnel have had to be retained after civilians in other war work had transferred from wartime to peacetime jobs. The
work which required their continued employment is nearing an end1, a number of vessels are being put into reserve, and a considerable number of prevailing rate employees of the department and the three services will be progressively released. Among those to be released are considerable numbers of employees in the naval dockyards at Halifax, Esquimalt and elsewhere, as well as employees in the other two services. In releasing employees, consideration is given to service in the armed forces, seniority and employment qualifications and in every case there is close coordination with the employment service of the Department of Labour. The dockyards will, of course, continue in operation.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. This morning I saw a defence department vehicle with a 1943 Ontario licence plate and two others without provincial licence plates. Are motor vehicles of the defence department supposed to carry provincial licence plates, and are defence department vehicles in peace time supposed to comply with provincial and municipal traffic laws?


Mr. SPEAKER:: I suggest to the hon. member that he put his question on the order paper.



NAVAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. FULTON (Kamloops):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, notice of which I gave this morning. Has any cut been made in the number of civilian fire fighting personnel at naval establishments, and if so, what will be the effect on the hours of work per week?


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to answer this question. I have received a number of inquiries from other hon. members with regard to the same topic as well as that referred to by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), particularly from the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Isnor).
With regard to the inquiry of the hon. member for Kamloops, I may say that the fire fighting staff at Kamloops is being reduced,
.550
Inquiries of the Ministry

and the questions of rates and conditions of work are being looked into. We are examining the situation in order to see that they receive fair remuneration and that the conditions of work are comparable with those in neighbouring localities and other parts of Canada.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. It arises out of a question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Irvine) yesterday, in which he took exception to a news item which appeared in yesterday's Globe and Mail regarding "confusion in Commons after Bracken motion forces first division." Having given his objection and put it upon the record, the hon. member concluded by saying:
In the third place, there was no confusion except in the mind of the writer of this report.
I have in my hand an air mail bulletin which came to me this morning; it is put out by the Canadian information service, Ottawa, Canada-and on that point I want to direct a subsequent question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. This is the news item which appears in the air mail bulletin published by a government department and carrying, I take it, the imprimatur of the government.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Horace King: I would ask the hon. member to state his question of privilege.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, already two hon. members of our party have been howled down by those who would) take the position of the Speaker away from him, and I do not intend to be howled down.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Horace King: I would say to the hon. member that the Speaker is not influenced' at all by the actions or reactions of members of the house, but the rules should and will be applied to all in the same way. The hon. gentleman knows that when an hon. member rises to a question of privilege, in stating that question he must be brief and to the point.


Gordon Graydon: Well, Mr. Speaker, I shall now come to the point. I had to lay my foundation, which was very difficult with all the noise from across the way. This is the item in the air mail bulletin:

The government was supported by a vote of 108 to 41 yesterday in the first division of the present session of parliament.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Graydon: My point of privilege is that apparently the government has taken the position, in its own publication, that a victory-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Gordon Graydon: I want a chance to finish this, please.


James Horace King: 
Gordon Graydon: The question of privilege is this. There should be a ruling by Your Honour or by this house that a vote upholding the Speaker's ruling does not necessarily mean a victory for the government. I think that is a very proper question of privilege, and I should like to raise it at this time.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether an offer has been made to continue federal jurisdiction over labour matters until May 15 in any province requesting that this be done. Will the minister make a statement to the house on this matter?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: I can answer my hon. friend's question, though I believe it should go on the order paper. I think I shall answer the question by reading a telegram:
Regarding wartime labour relations regulations it would appear that a satisfactory plan to follow will be to repeal schedule "A" to the regulations effective March 31 next. This will have the effect of bringing jurisdiction back to a peace-time position and place provinces in a position of being able to deal with provincial industries. I intend recommending the extension of regulations covering industries coming under dominion authority to May 15 next which will give time to review suggestions respecting tentative bill and give dominion parliament time to pass new legislation. When bill has been revised you will be furnished with copy of same. In respect to those provinces which have adopted the provisions of dominion regulations and. made them applicable to provincial industries if they wish, this situation can be continued until May 15, 1947, or to such earlier date decided upon by the provinces which would give the provinces time to pass new legislation which might follow the pattern of the dominion revised bill. In respect to administration there

Inquiries of the Ministry
are special arrangements by agreement in certain provinces and I would prefer that these arrangements be discontinued on March 31. However if the provinces desire the terms of the present agreement extended to May 15, 1947, 1 will so recommend. Of course in those provinces which have heretofore dealt with provincial industries under other provincial legislation the cancellation of schedule A to P.C. 1003 effective March 31, 1947, will involve very minor adjustments. May 'I have your expression of approval or otherwise to this general plan and if your province is one which has adopted the provisions of P.C. 1003 for provincial industries will you wire me the date you wish the arrangement cancelled respecting administration thereof in the province which date would be May 15, 1947, or an earlier date at your option.


Mr. MacINNIS:: If I may ask a supplementary question, to whom was that telegram sent, what was its date, and who sent it?


Humphrey Mitchell: I sent the telegram; the date is January 28, and it was sent to every province except Prince Edward Island.


Clarence Gillis: Have any of the provinces signified their intention of extending the date?


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not want to speak from memory-


Clarence Gillis: There was a news item this morning to the effect that Nova Scotia had done so.	'


Humphrey Mitchell: Just a minute; I know what my hon. friend wants, and I will give him an answer tomorrow, after I have seen any wires that may come in during the next twenty-four hours.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Make a full statement when you do.



CADET TRAINING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. DENTON MASSEY (Greenwood):: As the Minister of National Defence is aware, there is a great deal of confusion right across Canada in regard to the cadet situation


An hon. MEMBER:: Order.


Denton Massey: Order, nothing! I have the floor, and I am going to make use of it. The question I should like to ask the minister is this. Will he be prepared to make a statement within the next day or so in regard to the fate he has in mind for the sea, army and air cadets?


Brooke Claxton: I know of no confusion across Canada with regard to the cadet situation except that which has been created in
consequence of the questions put by my hon. friends opposite. It seems to me that the question of the cadets, reserves and active forces can properly be dealt with when the estimates are reached. I could deal with those matters, if the house wished, at some length on the orders of the day, but I do submit that would not be a proper use of the orders of the day.


George Randolph Pearkes: Is the minister prepared as yet to say whether a ceiling has been placed on the number of cadets to be trained in the various commands?


James Horace King: Order. I would suggest that the hon. member place his question on the order paper.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that I have asked this question twice, that the minister promised a reply, but that he has not given one as yet.



CANADIAN INFORMATION SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I
should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether or not the Canadian information service has been dispensed with as far as the Department of External Affairs is concerned.
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): I am afraid I do not fully understand the hon. member's question. I will have to read it before I venture to give an answer.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (Postmaster General) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to authorize the payment of moneys under a mail contract, supplemental to the amount agreed to be paid under the contract, and for the continuance of the payment of bonuses in respect of mail contracts, presently authorized by order in council, as supplemental payments under the proposed act.
Gordon Graydon: Either at this stage or in committee, whichever suits the minister, we should have some statement from him before the debate commences. Perhaps we could leave it in his hands as to when he would prefer to make that statement.
Postal Service


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: I should prefer to make it in committee. The statement is very short.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.


Ernest Bertrand: During the war some bonus was given to mail contractors by virtue of order in council P.C. 8490 dated October 31, 1941. A bonus of five per cent was given, as an increase, to cover the extra expenses occasioned by higher gasoline costs, and the like. This order in council was extended to March 24, 1942.
On the same day another bonus was given to mail contractors by virtue of orders in council 2311, 5833 and 4960. That was to recompense mail contractors who were operating under contracts which from their standpoint were not equitable in view of the changed conditions brought about by the war. It did work to the extent that $278,533 was given by way of bonus by virtue of the first order in council, namelv that of October 31, 1941.
In 1946 that amount had been reduced to $90,000 because when we gave the second bonus the first bonus was included, and there was left only a certain amount corresponding to an increase of $90,000 on the first lot of contracts which were increased by virtue of the first order in council.
These bonuses are about to expire on March 31, unless they are extended by virtue of any new law which might be passed. We think it would be unjust to limit these contracts to the price they carried at the time they were passed, and we wish to include the bonus in the extension of the contract after March 31.
A certain number of these contractors never asked for any increase, and have carried on in that way. Of course we are giving bonuses only to those who did ask-with the exception of the first, which was an increase of five per cent on all the contracts entered prior to April 29, 1941. We feel sure however that certain contractors should have asked for increases, or for supplementary payments, and we would like to be able to give them a supplement which would correspond reasonably with the amount that has been obtained by the others, and which we intend to continue to pay in the extension of the contract.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Would that be dated back? It would be retroactive?


Ernest Bertrand: No, it is not to be retroactive.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That would not be fair.


Ernest Bertrand: We cannot run after contractors who have not asked for a bonus and give them bonuses on the ground that they should have asked for them.
Between the period March 1, 1943 to December 31, 1946 bonuses were given on 4,034 contracts. The new contract rate per annum is $3,282,412, and the old contract rate per annum excluding bonus, was $2,411,992. The percentage increase is 36 T4. During the same period a number of contracts had expired, either through the death of a contractor or through abandonment of contracts. During the same period, against 4,034 in the first class, there were 4,164 contracts which were granted on tenders.
The tender rate per annum is a little over the tender rate for the contract with bonus; that is $3,333,455. But the percentage rate increase is 36-60. On mileage covered, the contracts which we gave through tenders gave a mileage much smaller than on the other plan -and of course at a higher price. The mileage on the tender contracts is $46.81 per mile while on the bonuses it is $40.84.
If we were abandoning all these contracts on bonus today, and were not incorporating the bonus, we would have altogether about 4,000 contracts we would have to ask for before March 31. It takes about sixty days to call for contracts by tenderers and to ascertain the lowest tenders. It must be admitted that very often today we have to refuse even the lowest tenders because they are too large. The tenderers do not know how their contract costs are going to run, where they will begin or where they will end, and they do not take any chances. Of course when we succeed in obtaining a contract at what we consider a reasonable amount we grant it.
By virtue of this measure I should like to be in a position to continue payment of bonuses in the contracts still in existence, and to give a corresponding amount, which we call a supplement, to those who have no bonuses, who have not already asked for it, but who are ready to continue their contracts if they are given the bonus the others have had up to this time, provided that the bonus applied for is justified.


Mr. CASE:: Does this mean that these contracts will not be put up for competition again?


Ernest Bertrand: It is the custom in the Post Office Department that if a contractor wants to keep his contract we give him a renewal. By that we save a considerable amount of money, because every time we enter into another contract the new contractor

Postal Service
has to obtain the necessary equipment, and in some fashion or other must pass the cost of it on to the Post Office Department. Our intention therefore is to continue the contracts of those who have contracts with bonuses and who want to renew those contracts with bonuses. It does not touch at all those who are not yet contracting with the department. They will have to tender, just like other people, and the lowest tenders will prevail.
This provision implies a certain discretion in the Postmaster General. We are therefore asking for the extension only to a time limit of sixty days after the beginning of the next session.


Gordon Graydon: I am sure the committee will wish to support any measure designed to alleviate a condition in the public service Which has existed far too long. But like many government measures this is what would be called in rural circles a ramshackle approach to the problem. The treatment given to the rural mail couriers has been a sore spot in the public service. Many of us in the house, both on this side and on the other side, have argued in vain on behalf of these people-and I hope not much longer, in vain, because patience sometimes reaches the point of exhaustion, and so far as the rural mail carriers are concerned, patience was exhausted some considerable time ago.


Mr. GRANT:: 1930.


Gordon Graydon: That may be so; and I suppose we could go bacji even farther, because the last time he said something about this in the house the Postmaster General referred1 to 1867-I happen to have his remarks ini Hansard. The hon. member and the Postmaster General had better go back to the age to which they belong.
. Many of us have asked for a square deal for the rural mail carrier. Those of us who for many years had our mail delivered by the rural mail carrier realize that he is something more than a driver of a coach or a wagon or a buggy or a car, carrying the mail to the farmers of Canada. He is part and parcel of the community. He is an institution in rural Canada. In addition to carrying the mail he gives service which perhaps need not be mentioned here but Which has been a great boon to farmers.
The present tender system, leads to economy, but it is a dangerous kind of economy; it is a false economy. It leads to more than that; it leads to an unjust economy. Why do others in the public service have a different standard of employment from that applicable to those who deliver His Majesty's mail 83166-23
throughout rural Canada? Is there any other member of the public service of Canada who must submit a tender every time he gets a job? Why single out the men who serve the farmers? I am told that a recent survey made by the rural mail carriers association shows that ninety-nine per cent of the rural mail carriers are opposed: to the present contract system. That in itself ought to be an indication that something is radically wrong.


Ernest Bertrand: I should like
to-


Gordon Graydon: I did not interrupt the minister. Last night he was very good at asking questions of the hon. member for Lake Centre, but he had better just stay where he is and he will have a chance after a while. I am going to deal with him a little more fully in a moment.
Those people believe that a basic mile rate ought to be instituted. Some of them have suggested a basic rate of $50 a mile, with special rates for the "out of the ordinary routes." I suggest to the minister that what is nothing less than farcical treatment of the rural mail carriers of Canada cannot be completely cured by a bill such as is proposed. You cannot cure this situation by applying a poultice when a surgical operation is necessary. The government ought to evolve a general policy with respect to rural mail carriers. It is not enough for the minister to come into the house with legislation of this kind, a half-baked piece of legislation, something that hardly touches the problem at all. We must have something better than that.
On August 6 last the minister was speaking in the house, as reported, on page 4390 of Hansard. He was referring to the fact that the Post Office Act permits the awarding of a contract for $200 or less without asking for tenders, and then he went on to say:
This provision goes back to 1867. If we had had time this session I would have brought in amendments to the Post Office Act to increase this amount from $200 to $500, because I admit that today $500 is worth no more than $200 was in 1867.
Is the minister still of the same frame of mind as he was on August 6? Are we to have a bona fide amendment to the Post Office Act to cover the rural mail carriers-yes, and the rural postmasters as well, who are also a forgotten class in Canada? Are we to have some general policy? Up to the .present time perhaps the government might have argued that they were so busy cleaning up the debris of war that they could not go into the problems of peace as they normally might wish to do. But surely it cannot be said that this is anything but a peace session.

Postal Service

We talk on a very high plane about doing things for people in other parts of the world, but we should not forget that there are some people on our own home front who deserve help. Having that in mind I want to make a constructive suggestion to the minister. Will he not this session appoint a special committee of this house for the purpose of hearing evidence and going into the whole question of the rural mail carriers and the rural postmasters, to the end that members of all parties working together may evolve something which will remove this sore spot from the public service of Canada and give these people that which they so justly deserve.


Mr. BRYCE:: Mr. Chairman, speaking on behalf of this group I wish to say that we welcome this resolution. As I understand it, what is being done today by order in council is to be done in the future by legislation. There will be quite a few matters we shall want to discuss when the bill is before us, but we will not waste the time of the committee at this stage.


Mr. LESAGE:: Mr. Chairman, I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Peel say what he did. After all, there are only two ways of dealing with this matter-by calling for tenders from the carriers, or by taking them into the civil service. Since the hon. member for Peel is a member of the Progressive Conservative party I was much surprised to hear him criticize a system which is based on free enterprise.


An hon. MEMBER:: Local competition.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: Yes, local competition.


Gordon Graydon: Is that the hon. member's conception of free enterprise?


Joseph Arthur Lesage: No, it is not.


Gordon Graydon: It is not mine, either.


The CHAIRMAN:: Order.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: I have also received a letter from the rural mail couriers' association. They favour a basic mileage rate which would assure every courier a reasonable wage for the amount of work done. The secretary of the association says:
We do agree with Postmaster General Bertrand that a fixed mileage rate would be impossible, but rural delivery is at all times under supervision and we believe a plan could be worked out to take care of "out of the ordinary" routes.
I do not think that we can classify some routes as ordinary and others as extraordinary. All routes are completely different. Many factors enter into a study of the cost in each case.

There are two objections to a flat rate: first it would mean a heavy cost to the country and to the taxpayers. The system was tried in the United States and it was an unhappy experience. The authorities still regret having adopted such a system.
Costs vary because of many factors. First there is the factor of weather. In my constituency, for instance, in the summer a courier delivers the mail with an automobile and in winter with a horse-drawn vehicle. It means that all- during the winter he has his car in the garage doing nothing and there is depreciation taking place all the year round although he uses it for only six months. During the- summer he must feed his horses. There is also depreciation on the horse and on the vehicle. It doubles the capital cost involved. This situation does not apply in the most southerly part of Ontario, and I believe the same can be said for the island) of Vancouver. There is also this factor: some routes are very hilly; others are not. Some- are paved; others are not. Some are muddy; others are not.
In the Vancouver district there are 112 routes, and the total number of box holders is 21,005. In the postal district of Edmonton the number of -routes is 165, and the total number of box holders is only 9,360; therefore -the situation is not the same at all. On one route you may have a box every quarter of a mile; on another route you may have one every 100 or 200 yards. Every route is different. With all due respect -to what has been said on this matter, and with' all diue -respect to the hon. member for Peel, I believe the best way out of the difficulty is to continue the tender system, and when a special situation arises, as it does here because of the higher cost of living, we must deal with it according to what is fair and just.


Mr. TUSTIN:: I d-o not think it is necessary to fight the cause of the rural mail couriers. Every hon. member knows the situation in which the mail courier is placed. Every hon. member who comes from a rural constituency knows what a fine job these men are doing. Many of them are not paid nearly enough to cover the expenses incurred- in the job which they have undertaken.
I should like to know how the department arrives at the wartime bonus. What is the operational bonus? No doubt the minister will take the stand that he is trying to bring these routes up to a certain number of dollars a mile. I should like to draw the attention of the committee to a case or two which I have before me, and I have many. In one county -where the routes run out on an angle,

Postal Service
one courier is getting $60 a mile and his neighbour is getting $28.41 a mile. Both these men are given a wartime bonus. I should think that when the bonus was applied for and the minister or the department saw fit to grant it. at least both these men should have been given a bonus which would bring them up to approximately the same amount per mile.
Let me mention another case. One courier has a route which is 43-2 miles long. The next door neighbour has a route of 29 miles. The difference in the pay of the two men is $125 a year. The minister should look into these cases and so arrange matters that the bonuses are not such as to bring about discrimination against some of these couriers.
I should like the minister to tell us how he arrives at the wartime bonus and the operational bonus, because some of these routes have been up for tender since the end of the war, and wartime bonuses are being paid on them at the present time.


Mr. REID:: On many occasions I have lis-tended to discussions about mail couriers, and I know that every hon. member, including myself, is in sympathy with the views expressed by the hon. member for Peel. I wrote to the mail couriers and propounded this question- and hon. members might just as well face it when we are dealing with this matter. I asked them this question: Will you give me some advice as to what stand I should take if a committee is set up to deal with the matter and the government proposes to place the rural mail carriers in so far as employment is concerned under the same conditions as the postmaster? What do you think will happen or what do you suggest should be done with the present mail couriers? That is a practical question. It is a problem that should be solved by the house. What will you do with that great group? Will you fire them and make appointments under the civil service commission, or will you take these men and some women, some of whom are seventy years of age, back into the service?
While I am not going to extol the tender system I believe it is the one and only system left in the government service at which no one can point a finger and say there is patronage there, either civil service patronage or any other; and on this I shall have something to say later in the session. One cannot point the finger of political patronage at the system, because it is done by tender. Mileage is only one aspect of the matter. In the constituency I have the honour to represent we have the largest number of box holders of any rural route in Canada. We had last year on one route as many as 750 box holders, whereas in 83166-23*
Ontario or Quebec 65 would be regarded as a good route. How are you going to deal with the man wrho has to take care of 780 box holders? He goes early in the morning and sorts his mail and is lucky if he gets home at five o'clock at night.
Before the matter is dealt with, I think a committee should study it, because there are many adjustments to be made. While there are rural postmasters who may be doing a good deal of work, there are many in the country who are doing very well. I know of rural postmasters who are receiving up to $1,500 a year, over fifty per cent of the cost of stamps, and when it comes to selling their business they have no sad story to tell because they hold out to the intending buyer to the end. I join with the member for Peel in pointing out that there are many aspects of the situation that have not yet been mentioned.


Mr. IRVINE:: I see no reason why I should oppose the resolution; so far as it goes it brings some benefit to people who are badly in need of attention. On the other hand, I find myself in substantial agreement with the point of view expressed by the member for Peel.
I do not think we should regard this resolution as adequately meeting the situation which confronts the rural mail carriers throughout the country. I appreciate, of course, the difficulties presented by the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet. He did open up the subject sufficiently for us to see how great the difficulties are in effecting improvements which will be fairly satisfactory throughout the dominion. But to say that just because difficulties exist we must accept a defeatist attitude and not try to do anything about it seems an unreasonable position to take. It is precisely because the difficulties are there that we should adopt some suggestion such as has been made by the member for Peel. I do not see any reason why, while carrying this resolution and proceeding with that slight improvement, the house should not appoint a special committee to make a complete investigation of the whole delivery system in the rural districts of Canada. And here the viewpoints of the men who drive the mails, and of the various rural postmasters, should be considered in the effort to find a solution.
Some hon. members today have spoken about hundreds of mail boxes, and so on. I can tell you of mail routes with hundreds of miles to a mail box, where the rural mail deliveries are tremendous tasks, where the man in charge may be away two or three days and
Postal Service

may not get back for a week sometimes because of snow drifts and other difficulties. If it were not that some of these routes are being carried on by men who have to drive them on occasions, whether they take the mail or not, the men could not possibly do the work for the remuneration paid.
I suggest therefore that the minister give serious consideration to the suggestion of the member for Peel. The matter should not be left here with the passing of this resolution or with the enacting of the legislation which may be brought in to implement it; further investigation should be made by this house for the purpose of finding at least a better solution. I do not suppose there is any perfect solution, but we should try to find a better one for the grievances which, as every one of us knows, are very real throughout the country.


Mr. BOUCHER:: I do not think we should look at this question entirely from the standpoint of the mail courier: If we compare the service that- Canadians receive in the urban areas with that given in the rural areas, we shall see that the problem is a bigger one than that. The compensation to the courier has a direct effect on the service to the community.
Rural mail delivery is, I think, one of the greatest social advantages enjoyed by people in the country, and it is one thing in these days of post-war reconstruction and rehabilitation which we as members of parliament should look into. In rural areas remote from city, town or village post office, the mail courier goes out only on fair days, it being impossible for him to operate on stormy days or in foul weather. In the remote country districts the courier comes within a mile or three-quarters of a mile or perhaps half a mile of the home and people have to walk that distance to get their mail. I suggest that the compensation to the mail courier has a direct bearing on the service to the community, and therefore the tender system, which takes into account the effect on the economy of the government, has little significance to the people who get their mail delivered to them in this way. Indeed, it has a detrimental effect.
I suggest that every member should support the minister in increasing the pay of the couriers, but we shall be disappointed in him if he does not go furtheor than the present resolution would indicate he is inclined to go.
Throughout the country there is a conflict between the services in mail delivery to urban residents and to rural residents. I do not think we in this house should do anything which would impede the service given the rural residents as compared with the service provided in urban areas. I do not think that

mileage is entirely the correct basis, and perhaps the number of box holders may not be even as efficient a standard as mileage. But there are more complicated questions to be tackled by this house, and we should not refuse to go the whole way and improve the situation, merely because there is some difficulty in calculating the index for compensation. If we are to be deterred by that difficulty, we are not competent to discharge our duty to those who sent us here.
Let us take the matter in our hands and decide to have a committee of the house select a much more efficient, if perhaps not a perfect, method of providing a better service to the rural areas and a greater measure of justice to the mail couriers. To this end I would urge the appointment of a select committee to go into the whole question and bring in recommendations to the house so that the matter may be dealt with as soon as possible.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: I
' had not intended to speak on this resolution- I thought it would receive the support of every hon. member-until I sat next to my colleague the hon. member for Montmagny-L'lslet and casually glanced at this excellent analysis of rural mail delivery statistics for Canada for March 31, 1946. In the seven years I have been a member of parliament I am sorry to say that I have been unable to get one single rural mail route established in my riding. There have been many parts of my riding which have demanded one, but every time the answer from the Postmaster General's department was to the effect that there were sufficient points of call in those rural areas of Sechelt, Robert's Creek and Powell River; I accepted that, and in blind faith passed that word back to my constituents. I now see a column here which certainly removes the hood from my eyes. I want to read to the committee the figures as to average number of boxes per route for districts across Canada. In the Calgary postal district the average number of boxes per route is 52; Moose Jaw, 35; Winnipeg, 59; North Bay, 50; Quebec, 54; Saint John, 41; Halifax, 47; Charlottetown, 52. In British Columbia- note this figure-there are 188. In other words we must have three times the number of boxes on a route before we can get it approved. The routes are all about the same length. They' average in length from twenty to thirty miles. So when the minister introduces the bill to be based on this resolution I think in fairness to all British Columbia members he should explain why there is this difference in standard, why the number of box holders required on a route in British Columbia is

Postal Service
three times that required in any other part of Canada. If he will do that I shall be able to go back to my people in my riding and explain it to them I hope to their satisfaction.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: Mr. Chairman, the questions are piling up and the minister is still silent, but possibly one or two further questions would not disturb him too much. I concur in all that the hon. member for Peel has said. Everyone believes that the rural mail carriers should receive the bonus or an amount equivalent to the bonus. The minister has stated that some 4,034 carriers were paid the bonus during the period of the war, and that a number of others, I think some two thousand, were not.


Ernest Bertrand: May I correct the hon. gentleman?. The 4,034 were those that asked for bonuses. The 4,164 were those who did not ask for them because their contracts were renewed, and at a time when these gentlemen knew what it would cost and therefore put on a higher figure.


John George Diefenbaker: So the situation is this, in so far as the last number mentioned by the minister is concerned: these carriers are actually receiving an amount which must have taken into consideration the bonus to which they would have been entitled. Under this resolution the minister will be entitled to determine the payment of bonuses-with which no one can disagree-and he is to be authorized by parliament to pay moneys under mail contracts supplemental to the amount agreed to be paid to the contractor.


Ernest Bertrand: We are now getting into the details of the bill.


John George Diefenbaker: No; I am discussing the resolution.


Ernest Bertrand: According to the bill, the Postmaster General will be allowed to pay a supplement to a contract which might be signed today, but only after the contract has been in operation for one year, and only when the contractor is able to furnish to the Postmaster General the reasons why he needs a bonus, which condition might arise in a year or so. He would have to furnish the Postmaster General with good and sufficient reason why he did not bid high enough when he put in his tender.


John George Diefenbaker: That is exactly the point, and I know the Postmaster General's experience in the past has been that sometimes a person can make mistakes in recommendations. The minister will be in the position of determining which of the carriers shall receive an additional amount and which shall
not. It is against the placing of such a power in the hands of the minister that I rise to protest. I accept the necessity of all who have contracts receiving an amount equivalent to the bonus, but I deny the right of any minister to determine who shall be the beneficiary of an additional amount to be decided by him.


Ernest Bertrand: It cannot be chosen by the minister.


John George Diefenbaker: The resolution says, "to authorize".


Ernest Bertrand: No.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister is not going to have that power, then?


Ernest Bertrand: If a supplement is granted to a new contractor. Suppose a contract is signed tomorrow or the day after this bill comes into force. In that case he cannot ask for a change in the amount of his contract until one full year has elapsed, and only then if he comes before the officials of the department and gives the reasons why he needs more. Those reasons must be sufficient to indicate that it would not be fair for the Postmaster General to continue the contract at the original price. Furthermore, anybody who has a contract with the Postmaster General may at any time cancel his contract on giving due notice.


Gordon Graydon: Is the minister not afraid that might become a pork barrel?


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member for New Westminster referred to the question of political interference in the civil service. I am not at the moment dealing with political interference, but my point is this. When one tender out of many is very low and this tenderer gets the contract for a year, the Postmaster General is placed in the position that that person, having so tendered, may receive the benefit of the Postmaster General's beneficence by being granted a changed amount.


Ernest Bertrand: Not at all.


John George Diefenbaker: Just a minute until I finish. I say that is unfair; it is a denial of the right of parliament to control expenditures voted' by parliament. I had no idea it went as far as that. The resolution in its present form seems innocuous, and one could support it because he realizes that these couriers should receive a fair and reasonable amount for the work they do. But for the minister to ask parliament not only to make provision for the payment of bonuses, to which we all agree -at least I have not heard any disagreement on that-but in addition, to place in his hand?
Postal Service

control of the expenditure of several hundreds of thousands of dollars based on such evidence as may be brought before him and1 his officials, is a course against which I protest. It is carrying into the days of peace the type of thing we objected to during the war. This is carrying into the days of peace the type of thing we objected to during the period of the war, namely placing the minister in a position of supremacy in the expenditure of money, regardless of contracts, regardless of parliament, and without control. I think the minister should gave consideration to extending the provisions of this resolution to cover all tenderers, so that they will all be treated alike, or, in any event, to doing away with this part of the provision. I should like to hear the Postmaster General, with his penchant for criticism, on this side of the house if anyone of us should ask for power to expend three or four hundred thousand dollars, uncontrolled by parliament. It is a dangerous principle and one which I am sure on consideration he will realize places too great power in the hands of any minister.
With everything the hon. member for Peel has said I am in complete agreement. The hon. member for Durham, who is not here today, has done much to bring before this house and the country the needs of the carriers. Surely in 1947 a minister is not going to ask for carte blanche in the expenditure of public money. Human nature being what is it, political considerations must inevitably enter into any evidence that may be brought before him; and I for one intend to protest against that portion of the resolution.


Mr. MARQUIS:: I want to add just a few words to the discussion on this resolution, because in my constituency I have many couriers who are carrying mail at very low rates. Some of them are carrying mail at the rate of $30 per mile per year, which I think is very low. After listening to the arguments advanced by those who have spoken this afternoon, we may conclude that everyone admits that the principle involved in the present resolution is just and fair. The only objection raised by hon. members of the opposition is that the justice offered is not sufficiently complete. It seldom happens that members of the opposition raise an objection of that kind.
The principle involved in this resolution is to adjust the bonuses and terms of payment under mail contracts. During the war many couriers asked for and were given bonuses amounting to ten per cent, fifteen per cent, twenty per cent. Others did not apply at all. Some applied and received five per cent. It

seems only just that today we should give to those who were given nothing, or very little, a bonus equivalent to that which was given those who received twenty-five per cent or twenty per cent.
I suggest that in the near future we should set a minimum rate to be paid these mail couriers. At the present time tenders are called for, and some people think that if they get a contract from the government they will live easily, with plenty of money. But when they send in a tender for a contract on the basis of $20 a mile I think it is unsound, unfair and impracticable, and it is impossible for those contractors to carry the mail and render the service they should.
For the time being, however, we have to take care of a situation which seems to me inappropriate and unjust. We have before us a resolution which takes care of that situation, and I do not see why we should object, because the principle seems to be supported by every hon. member in the house. As the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet said a few moments ago, we have to provide for different conditions in different parts of this great country; conditions of weather, conditions of distance, conditions of roads and so on. So it is impossible to fix an average rate for every contract, but perhaps it would be possible to fix a minimum rate and not accept any tender below perhaps $35 or $40 a mile. In this particular case, however, we are not attempting to provide for a situation that may arise in future; we have to take care of the present situation, and the only thing mentioned in the resolution is that we should make an adjustment in connection with the mail couriers whose prices are too low but who for five or six or seven years have rendered service to their country without receiving reasonable payment. As I said a few moments ago, this minimum rate should be allowed for the less costly routes, and those who have routes of the same kind in the same area should be paid equal rates.
In conclusion, I ask hon. members to look at the principle of the resolution and accept it. If, when the bill is brought in, some amendment must be made, perhaps all hon. members may concur in such amendment; but for the moment everyone seems to agree that the principle is just, and if the principle is just let us accept it.


Mr. WHITE (Middlesex East):: I wish to add just a word to what has been said by hon. members regarding the low pay these mail couriers have received. On August 6, 1946, I drew this matter to the attention of the Postmaster General. From time to time I have

Postal Service
spoken with various couriers, and I see the system in operation in our country. If this resolution is the best we can get, I think we must accept it in principle, with the expectation that, when the year is up, the department *will have had time to study this whole matter, so that some system may be worked out under which these people will receive proper pay. The hon. member for Vancouver North mentioned the difficulty of getting routes established. I have had difficulty in getting routes extended. Part of that opposition arises from the fact that the carrier does not want his route extended because it is costing him too much as it is.


Ernest Bertrand: Whenever a route is extended payment to the contractor is increased in proportion to the extension.


Harry Oliver White: The other day I had occasion to go to the Post Office Department to inquire as to the possibility of extending a route. The gentleman in charge said, "I am not in very good humour today", and he refused the extension. All I can say to the department in respect of that type of reception is that it is only another nail in the coffin of this administration.


Mr. HERRIDGE:: I rise to support the principle of the measure, not because I am entirely in agreement with it, but because in the meantime it does something for people who need help. I think however that we will have to go further than that in this respect. The hon. member for Cariboo expressed in clear language my thoughts on the measure, and the necessity for further action.
I must say I am happy to support the criticism of free enterprise by the hon. member for Peel, so far as rural mail deliveries are concerned. I believe I can say that I agreed with nearly all he said, and particularly with his suggestion that a committee of the house should be set up to deal with this matter. It was the hon. member for New Westminster who said that this question is larger than simply one of rural mail delivery, and suggested that it involves the whole rural mail system, including post offices.
I heartily agree -with that, and believe a committee should be set up to study not only rural mail delivery, but also the administration of rural post offices. I believe that in many respects the present administration of rural post offices is inefficient, and there is evidence of many inequalities and injustices. I know there are some who are not receiving the remuneration they should receive, while others are holding positions they should not hold, and receiving remuneration they should not receive.
I know of one instance where a veteran's application for a rural post office was refused. The position was given to another person-, with the result that the veteran is now operating the post office upon the condition of his paying the postmaster a percentage of the total income. The postmaster does not go to the post office at all. That is the sort of thing which should n-ot happen in, connection with rural post offices.
I know of other instances where postmasters are receiving $2,000 or $3,000 a year, andi not going near the post offices at all. They are paying some girls petty, pettifogging salaries to do their work. Those positions should be opened to veterans who need jobs. I could go on, at length, giving similar examples. I do think, however, that the suggestion by the hon. member for Peel in respect of the setting up of a committee is a sound one. We should have such a special committee to deal with the problem of rural mail delivery and the administration of rural post offices.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Did all those who applied for bonuses get them?


Ernest Bertrand: I would not be able to answer that without discussing the matter with my officials. I am sure if the couriers asked for bonuses which were not deserved, they would not receive them. I should be glad, however, to give the hon. member the actual number and the total amount.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: In my own riding I find there are thirty eight carriers, of whom only sixteen received bonuses. I do not know how the minister or his department can ascertain why one would deserve a bonus and another would not. Someone near me suggests that it depends upon how they vote; I hope that is not so.
In my list before me I find that one man makes a trip of 47-8 miles six times a week, for which he receives $923.41, plus bonus. The next man travels only 24-7 miles, and he receives $940. Travelling only about half the distance, he receives about the same payment. That condition is shown all the way through this list, and I know it obtains right across Canada. In the routes set out here the roads are good- all the year round, with the exception of times of heavy storms, such as those we have witnessed only recently. One gentleman points out that horses had- to be used in the winter time, and I know they have have been used on these routes within the last few days. However, those horses are rented, or taken off their own farms. I believe that there should be a set figure per mile for all these routes.
Postal Service


William Ross Macdonald: I have not interrupted other hon. members when they have referred to rural post offices. Strictly speaking, however, the discussion of rural post offices is not in order under this resolution.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I agree with what you have said, Mr. Chairman. I was going to mention only this, that many of these rural post offices cannot sell money orders or insure parcels, thus causing great inconvenience to some people when they have to travel ten or fifteen miles to buy money orders or to insure parcels.
I believe every rural office should be permitted to insure parcels. I hope the minister will accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Peel and set up a committee to look into the matter. This is of vital importance to the people of the country who get their mail because these rural carriers make it their business to see that, despite the weather, the mail goes through.


Mr. JAENICKE:: Will the proposed legislation cover contractors vsdio carry mail from the station to the post offices and back again?


Ernest Bertrand: Yes, it does.


Mr. HATFIELD:: In my constituency
twelve or fifteen routes have been discontinued because of tenders being too high. The people along those routes have not had mail delivery service for months. Post offices which have served people for seventy-five years have been closed. One postmistress in the community was operating a post office at thirty cents a day. Two other post offices were placed under her charge, but she was allowed no extra pay.
The rural mail system in my constituency has been a disgrace to the Post Office Department. I hope the minister will accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Peel, and set up a committee, so that a decent mail delivery service can be given the country.


Mr. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):: The minister has said in answer to a question that this legislation will cover delivery from railway stations to post offices. What is the yardstick used in arriving at a proper payment for this service? In rural mail delivery contracts the number of boxes served' gives some lead as to a basis on which to fix a price. But on this stage service one can consider only the actual distance travelled, with the possible further consideration of the quantity of mail carried.
If the minister will look at any list of contracts he will find that, so far as stage service contracts are concerned, the measure of pay-
TMr. Fraser.]
ment is not clear. To indicate what I mean, let me say I know of an instance where two different carriers meet the same Canadian Pacific train at approximately the same hour. The stations are only two miles apart. One man travels a distance of only four miles over a provincial highway which is kept in first-class condition, and he receives $1,050.


Ernest Bertrand: Once a day?


George Stanley White: No, he goes twice a day. The other man, who also goes twice a day, travels a distance of 6-5 miles and receives only $750, and the amount of mail carried is considerably greater than that carried by the man who receives $1,050. That is just an example of the differences that exist in this service. I would be interested if the minister would tell us what basis is used to arrive at these rates.


Ernest Bertrand: I would not be able to answer a question like that without knowing all the circumstances. Mail contracts differ considerably one from the other. I do not know whether hon. members realize it, but they vary from a dog-team route of 100 to 150 miles on the north shore of the St. Lawrence to the man who takes the mail from a station and carries it to a village less than a mile away. It is almost impossible to find a yardstick that would fit all the circumstances. Down below Quebec are mail contractors who must have snowmobiles, while others must have sleighs and automobiles and horses according to the season. Some of these men have to travel over mountains; others go along the south shore of the St. Lawrence down into the peninsula; some have good roads to travel on and others have not.
There is only one sure way of getting a fair price, that is by asking for tenders. All people who are interested have an opportunity to submit tenders because the notices are posted in the post offices, in the city halls, in the churches or in any place where the people might see them. Tenders are submitted, and we take the lowest tender provided that we are satisfied the man has the necessary equipment to carry out. his contract.
I do not think any member of this committee can say that the present Postmaster General has not given every possible attention to this question. Only a few postmasters have been dismissed, and some of them were of my own creed. I have no objection to having a committee consider this matter in an effort to improve the service. The service can be improved but it will cost more money. Rural mail routes are established according to certain rules. A route is not extended unless there are at least four families per mile. We would

Postal Service
not want a mail carrier to go three and four miles up a road, turn around and then retrace his steps. In that case the farmers place their boxes at the corner of the road.
As I say, I have no doubt that the service could be improved, and we are trying to improve it all the time. I hope the time will come when wre can deliver mail by means of helicopters to almost every village. If it were not for the conditions we must face today I am sure we would be able to improve the service. The hon. member for Lake Centre has said that this bill will give the Postmaster General more discretion, but I do not think it will. We cannot grant a bonus for a new contract to someone who has had the contract for less than a year and that only when an application is justified and in accordance with the rates paid in the vicinity. What the hon. member was saying might happen, possibly can happen, but I do not think it will. I shall be glad to give the answers to many of the questions that have been asked when the bill is before the house.


Mr. SHAW:: My colleagues and I are
prepared to support the principle of the resolution at present before us. We supported the payment of bonuses to rural mail carriers when that policy was inaugurated and we feel that to discontinue the payment of those bonuses as and from the 31st March would result in indescribable chaos. I know, as far as my own district is concerned, approximately four out of every five mail carriers would quit immediately if the bonuses were discontinued and there would be a noticeable reluctance on the part of people to bid should tenders be called for. However, we want to make it abundantly clear that we reserve the right to deal with the bill in whatever fashion we see fit.
I agree with the hon. member for Peel that a committee should be set up forthwith for the purpose of examining into post office matters.
I would not want this to be considered as a reflection upon any one. In discussing post office matters with the district director in my area-incidentally he is a very fine man and his officials are most cooperative-we constantly find that we are bumping our heads against policy. We can agree as far as certain things are concerned, and then we find ourselves up against the question of policy. The policy with respect to certain remote rural areas is entirely antiquated.
I have noticed more than once that there is reluctance to establish a service in isolated rural communities, even though those communities have been established for forty or 83166-24
fifty years, if it is thought the service will not pay its own way. I recognize the desirability of having each operation pay, but I feel that when a community which may have been settled for decades asks for a mail delivery service the officials should not be governed by one important factor, namely, will the operation pay its way? I would sooner see the Post Office Department, which has an annual profit of two, three or four million dollars a year, provide proper services for communities of this type, even though certain operations do not pay.
That is only one illustration of something which I should like to see discussed by the committee. I concur in the observations made with regard to our rural post offices, but I shall not go into that phase of the matter because I realize that it is not covered by this particular resolution.
I agree with the hon. member for Kootenay West that there have been some peculiar happenings with respect to the treatment accorded to veterans who have endeavoured to procure positions as postmasters. I know of one man who was wholly and completely established, who was given a position in preference to a young veteran who had given five or six years of exceptionally good service to his country. The veteran who did not receive the position was a capable young man; in fact he had had a certain amount of post office experience. I know' the Postmaster General would not condone actions of that kind if they were brought to his attention. I Hope yet to have an opportunity of bringing this case to his notice.
Let me conclude by saying that we support the continued payment of the bonus. We also support what, I believe, is a general request for the setting up of a special select committee for the purpose of doing that which we cannot possibly do when the estimates are under discussion.


Mr. McGARRY:: I approve the principle of the resolution and I intend to support it. On the other hand, I approve the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Peel in his advocacy of the establishment of a select committee to deal with this whole question. I also approve the note struck by the hon. member for Peel when he injected into this debate a matter which in one sense might be regarded as a little outside this resolution, namely, the matter of our rural patrons receiving adequate service. That is one matter which should be given careful consideration if. as and when this committee is established. I know every hon. member will regard any economies which departments can exercise as
Eirism rarronr
Postal Service

a commendable policy, but with regard to post office services I believe that certain policies of economies are being observed which are unwarranted. I know, in my constituency, there is a tendency to reduce daily mail routes to deliveries three times a week. In some places where this reduction has taken place there are threats that there will be other reductions. There are many people living along these routes, and in one instance patrons on the route are getting daily papers. Along a rural district, where in the course of the years the people have educated themselves and taken a keen interest in public affairs, I cannot conceive of anything that is more unpopular than to see a daily route which has obtained for the last seventy years, reduced to a service of three times a week. They can hardly realize why it is that in this dominion of ours where the people are supposed to be modernized they should have to put up with a condition which reduces them to the horse and buggy days. These are things that they cannot understand.
I also appreciate the remarks of the hon. member for Red Deer. I do not believe that the chief concern in granting the people a rural mail service is the fact that possibly the revenue from that post office is not commensurate with the cost of operation. When we cool off after the debates have taken place, which are sure to go on for some time to come, and set up a eommonsense select committee, that is one of the matters which should be dealt with fully this session.


Mr. McLURE:: Like all other hon. members who have spoken, I am in full sympathy with the principle of this resolution. Before very long we shall have the bill before us. I should like to suggest to the Postmaster General that after listening to the remarks made this afternoon if the bill is not ready to be brought down he should take time to revamp it because, judging from what we have heard today, the bill will have to be satisfactory to all before it will get very far in committee.


Mr. ISNOR:: I should like to support my colleague the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond in his plea with reference to the rural districts of Nova Scotia. If we are to keep our people on the farms and in the fishing villages we must give them the service which they deserve. We have had the odd service, which for many years was carried out as a daily service, reduced to a service of two or three times a week. That is a mistake, if we are to keep our people on the farms. There are now a great many persons in the industrial centres who would be serving their country

and themselves better on the farms than in the industrial centres. The Post Office Department would be well advised to give the constructive remarks of my colleague from Nova Scotia serious attention.
My experience with the Post Office Department and its officials is somewhat different from that which was expressed by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent. I have not yet approached! an official of the Post Office Department without receiving courteous treatment. I complain from time to time in an effort to get better service. If I have a good case they are prepared to listen, and I have not yet heal'd an expression used such as that referred to by the hon. member for Lambtonr-Kent to the effect that the official was in a bad humour and was not prepared to give consideration to -a suggestion for improved service.
It is only fair that we should speak in an honest and frank way in regard to officials of the post office or any other department. They are working under regulations of the Post Office Act which calls for'publicly advertised tenders. Their aim is to procure competitive tenders, and, they are bound, to accept the lowest tender.
I was surprised, to hear those who, like myself, support free enterprise say that1 they did not think the tender system is a good one. It brings about a large saving to the country at the present time. The tender system may not produce to, those who are tendering the returns which they would like, but it protects the country and the taxpayer. If there are four or five persons anxious to tender on a route, there is no other course open than to accept the lowest tender. As has been pointed out by some hon. members, it is difficult to set a stated figure such as $50 a mile. One hon. member said that in his constituency it was $30 or $35. Personally, I do not see how any contractor could cany on at that figure unless he had some other means of support. If a man works in the city while living in a rural district, and if he can combine his work with the mail service and thereby save the country $10 or $15 a mile a year, it is good business from the point of view of the department, and we should not be too critical of the action of the post office in accepting such a tender. I feel, however, that there are cases where in all fairness to the residents in the rural constituencies there should be taken, into consideration various factors such as road conditions, the number of boxholders and so on, and if it runs over $50 or $60 and, there are several tenderers-in one case I know of there were six or seven tenders, the lowest being $65 a mile-after having called for public

Postal Service
tenders and) having received that number, we should be in duty bound to accept the lowest tender if it is deemed that the district is entitled to rural mail service.
I would call the attention of the Postmaster General to the situation as it affects one contract at the present time, and so that I may not be indefinite, I would direct his attention to the correspondence in connection with the proposed rural route in the Armdale district through to Head of St. Margaret's Bay. It was estimated by the post office officials themselves in the district concerned that the service could not be carried on under a stated amount, and when the tenders were received the post office officials at this end considered that the figure was excessive. In my opinion-and I direct these remarks particularly to the Postmaster General-in that particular case consideration should be given to the number of boxholders who have to be served as well as to the distance involved.
On general principles, I am in accord with the resolution, as I believe all members are, because it brings up the price so as to meet present-day needs. For that reason, I propose to support it.


Mr. HENDERSON:: May I point out to
the last speaker, the member for Halifax (Mr. Isnor), that I am the member for Lambton-Ivent.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I beg the hon. member's
pardon. It was the hon. gentleman who spoke earlier in the afternoon to whom I referred.


Robert James Henderson: Like the hon. member, in any efforts I have made in connection with rural routes I have received splendid cooperation from the department. Among the rural mail carriers in my constituency there was one man who lost his farm and who was getting on in years and had to have something to do, and there was not much else to which he could turn his attention. The route was open for tender and he tendered less than the amount for which the work could be done. He did so simply to get the job and, after he had taken it, he was one of those who received the bonus, which brought his contract up to $40 a mile, so that he was very well satisfied.
Mail routes are a great blessing to the farmer. The farmers all take the daily papers now, and from now on they will be very much interested in the markets, which are subject to change without notice. Moreover, there is material on the feeding of hogs, cattle and so on and the daily paper is of interest to the farmer's wife as well. It is certainly a great boon and has a tendency to keep the 83166-241
farmer on the farm. He is isolated, and while it is true that he has the radio and the rural telephone, there are other avenues of information open in the daily paper. For instance, there is the serial that appears in the Daily Mail, and if the farmer's wife does not get her daily instalment of the story she is put out and is hard to live with.


Mr. BROWN:: What about the Advertiser Topic?


Robert James Henderson: That also is an excellent paper, but it is a weekly publication. It is next to Eaton's catalogue up there; it is practically the family bible. I am in great accord with the resolution. I believe there are many injustices but I do not see how you can get away from the tender system.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I wish to apologize to the member for Lambton-Kent. The hon. gentleman to whom I wished to refer was, as hon. members no doubt know, the member for Middlesex East.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have two criticisms and one suggestion to offer in connection with the resolution. The first criticism follows that made by the hon. member for Vancouver North, who pointed out that in British Columbia we have the highest average number of boxes per route in Canada. I had occasion recently to ask for the extension of a certain route, and I received a reply from the deputy postmaster general to the effect that the extension could not be authorized because there were only ten families in five miles, which would be only two boxes per mile.
I have been through the figures for one of the Ontario ridings and I find the following cases: 14 miles with 12 boxes, or less than one to the mile; 79 miles with only 84 boxes; 20-5 miles with 25 boxes; 18 miles with 23 boxes; 32 miles with 31 boxes; 14 miles writh 14 boxes.	*
Perhaps it may be suggested that this is because those responsible in our district are not as active in serving our interests as they are in other parts of Canada, but I feel that the reason is that we live a good deal farther from Ottawa than the people in central Canada and we cannot bring our case forward with the force of those next door to the scene of operations. That situation should be looked into and the cases in British Columbia adjusted and put on a favourable basis in comparison with other parts of Canada.
I am not sure that in any part of the country one should lay down a hard and fast number of boxes per mile before a route
Postal Service

can be authorized. In the particular case to which I have reference, the original application for the route was made by a resident who lives within the five miles to which they refused to extend the route. Had he not made application, there would not be a route there today, but because of the arbitrary figure that was set he still has to go fourteen miles to get his mail.
That is an illustration of the ridiculous situation which may arise if we adopt a hard and fast figure of four or two boxes a mile or any other number of boxes. So I would suggest to the Postmaster General that, while he has this matter under consideration, he should give some thought to providing that, in connection with the establishment of these routes, his officials take into consideration other factors besides the actual mileage.
The other criticism that I have to offer with regard to the present resolution is along the lines of that suggested by the hon. member for Lake Centre. I't is that this is a case where power is being given to a minister which is perhaps a great deal wider than it is safe to entrust to him. It takes away from parliament its control over the expenditures of the money of this country. I do not think anyone would suggest that the minister himself is personally anxious to get control of this money in his hands; but probably it is the case that this is the only method he sees of accomplishing that which he desires to accomplish, namely, to give adequate compensation to those people who are giving this mail service. I suggest that there is a method by which this can be done, and I shall make a suggestion as to the method in a moment or two, although it may not be practicable; there may be other considerations. But I am certain that a method could be found which would take the minister out of that situation and would make it unnecessary to give him the power to administer this money without the control of parliament.
It is the principle of the thing which I am considering at the moment, and I object to any bill which, under the guise of placing a power in statutory form, is actually merely seeking statutory authority for the exercise of the same ministerial power to which we have been objecting for the last two, three or four years; and that is what several of these bills which we have before us today are doing. Instead of limiting the power, which is what we are after, they are simply giving statutory authority to go on exercising the same power. That is the main objection which I have to the principle of this resolution; I consider that the power is far too wide and that it does

what the hon. member for Lake Centre outlined in terms which were more careful than any terms I can think of, so that I shall do no more than refer to the argument he put forward. It does open the door in these matters to political consideration and patronage which, so far, we have kept out reasonably w7ell in 'the actual awarding of mail contracts. The hon. member for Lake Centre I think put it in such a manner that the minister himself could not take exception or offence at his words, and I am going to leave it at that. I think the power is open to that abuse, and the committee should consider the matteT carefully before it passes the resolution or the bill. On those grounds I would oppose the present resolution.
The suggestion I have to make is that, in placing the mail route contracts, recompense be based on two factors: the actual mileage covered and the number of boxes per mile. You take the number of boxes per mile and multiply that by the number of miles in the route. It seems to me that would go a long way toward taking care of routes which are congested, short, and have heavy mail, as compared with routes with few boxes and which are long, dangerous and with very bad conditions in winter. That suggestion which I put forward' it seems to me would take care of both those factors and would avoid the danger of individual discretion, favouritism or patronage in the awarding of these routes. I think it would be one way out of the situation. I hope, before the bill is introduced, the minister will give consideration to this suggestion and that the objectionable features of this resolution will be removed.


Mr. STEPHENSON:: I do not want to hold the committee up, but I was called out of the house this afternoon and have not had a chance to hear the discussion that has gone on, so I may repeat some of the things which have already been said. My understanding with regard to these rural mail contracts is that they are let on a tender basis, and that the lowest tenderer gets the contract. The contracts were, as we know, very low in man3r cases. When the gasoline tax was increased in 1941, the department decided to give what they called a five per cent cost of operation bonus. There was also another bonus given where the mail driver applied to the superintendent stating that he could not operate under the contract price. It was entirely at the discretion of the superintendent that an increase wras given in the way of another bonus, which, I understand, was given on many occasions as a result of the mail drivers applying for it. Those who did not apply

Postal Service
received no bonus. That situation prevailed for some time, but last year a notice was sent out from the Toronto postal district office to the effect that this bonus would be discontinued altogether and asking the mail drivers whether they would continue their contract at the old price less the bonus. I made objection to this letter which was sent out to the rural mail drivers and to the way in which it read, because it seemed1 to me that there was an attempt to have the rural mail drivers indicate definitely whether they would do this or not. It had the tone of "sign it or else". The letter contained these words:
I would ask you to be good enough to reply to this communication immediately.
That put the mail driver in the position of having to indicate whether he would accept the contract at the old price or not. I took objection to this letter going out and brought it to the attention of the department; I also spoke to the Postmaster General. I do not know whether it was as a result of that or not, but the Postmaster General made a statement in the house on August 6 last, to the effect that, while these letters had been sent out, they could be disregarded by the mail drivers; and up to the present time the contracts stand as they were.
I am pleased' to see this resolution on the order paper because I believe that the rural mail drivers are not getting sufficient money to operate the mail routes efficiently, and in the way they should be operated. I know what generally happens. People applying for a mail route must have certain equipment, and one thing they must have is a car. In a good many cases the first thing they do is to go out and buy an old car. The result is that when they get out on their routes, into the mud and snow, they may take out a rear axle or a rear end, and spend most of the time having the car pulled back into the garage. Then the mail route suffers.
I believe that these rural mail drivers should receive sufficient remuneration to allow them to purchase good equipment, suitable for the job.
The average contracts are low; they would amount to about S15 a week in a good many cases. I think hon. members will all agree with me that a rural mail driver cannot operate a car, buy gasoline and the many other things he has to buy, maintain, a family and operate the route in the way it should be operated on that amount. I would suggest, if possible, that these country routes be laid out to cover a distance of about thirty-five
miles each. This would make a full-time job, for each driver, and not a piecemeal affair as it is at present.
I mentioned previously that in order to qualify for one of these contracts a man often buys an old car. We see him driving that old car, with a sign wired on the back, "Royal Mail", and that is our rural mail delivery. Of all the services rendered by the government, I think His Majesty's mail should rank very high; and if we want to sell Canada to the people of Canada and especially to those who are coming to this country as immigrants and settling throughout the rural districts, it would be a nice thing if we could have standard equipment in connection with mail delivery all over the country. I would suggest that these delivery cars be painted red, carrying the coat of arms, so the people may know that this is His Majesty's, royal mail. I believe we need to sell Canada even to our own Canadians today, as well as to newcomers whom we desire to make good Canadians of; and I believe this would be money well spent. It may be that money spent in other departments sometimes does not accomplish much, whereas I am sure any money we spent in this way would bring results. Even the bread trucks that are sent throughout the country are late models, nicely painted, carrying the name of the company; and they sell bread from door to door. So it might be an idea to have our rural mails delivered in cars or trucks of this kind; I believe it would be one way to sell Canada to the people.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Graydon: I did not intend to make a speech, but that is an invitation I do not like to refuse.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: We withdraw the invitation.


Gordon Graydon: Then I will not make a speech. Would the minister be a little clearer with respect to the disposition he is going to make of the suggestion I offered concerning a special committee of the house this year to consider rural postal problems?


Ernest Bertrand: I thought I had made it clear enough for everyone to understand. The suggestion has some value, if only to prove to every member of parliament that it is not necessary to use the big stick in this case. But I should like to discuss this matter with my colleagues and give an answer later.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, resolution read the second time and concurred in.
National Defence Act
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 17, respecting supplemental payments on mail contracts.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. BROOKE CLAXTON (Minister of National Defence) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Department of National Defence Act to provide for the appointment of not more than three associate deputy ministers of national defence and to give the governor in council power, by regulation, to administer the service estates of members of the forces who die on active service or while receiving hospital treatment or institutional care under the Department of Veterans Affairs on account of any disability suffered or incurred during their service as such members; to provide for the establishment of a defence research board charged with the duties of conducting and coordinating research and development for defence and of establishing scholarships and making grants in aid; and to provide further for salaries, remuneration and expenses of the board and of a pension or superannuation fund for the benefit of employees out of moneys appropriated by parliament.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, if this resolution is adopted by the house it would be the intention immediately to introduce a bill based upon it, containing only three sections. The first would provide for the appointment of a single deputy minister of defence and not more than three associate deputy ministers. That is designed to give further effect to the policy of the government to coordinate and consolidate the department and services. The second section would continue in peacetime the provisions we had during the war for the settlement of the service estates of service personnel who die in the service or while undergoing treatment under the Department of Veterans Affairs. It only refers to service estates; that is, the pay and allowances and similar sums that may be left to the credit of a service man when he dies. The third section provides for the creation of a defence research board charged with the direction and coordination of all research on defence matters.
Mr. SMITH (Calgary West); The second section would 'be permissive only?

Mr. CLAXTON; It permits the adoption of regulations to deal with service estates. It is a device which was found very convenient during the war.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: I realize that, but it is not compulsory; it is just permissive?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


Mr. BROOKS:: I do not think very much exception could be taken to the resolution, which is simply putting into statutory form what is already in effect by order in council, as I understand it.


Brooke Claxton: With regard to service estates, the procedure would be continued permanently in peace time, whereas the order in council only related to the period of the war.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I understand that. In reference to the appointment of one deputy minister and three associate deputies, I believe that meets with the general approval of all hon. members.
I should like to mention one matter, however, which arises under this resolution. On January 14 the Prime Minister announced that he had appointed five deputy ministers. On looking over the list we find that three of those deputy ministers were not veterans of either the first war or the last war. The point I wish to make is that in appointments of this bind, among the very highest we can make in this country, the veterans' preference should be taken into consideration, just as it should be considered in all other appointments. I have nothing to say against any of the gentlemen who have been appointed. They have given splendid service in a civilian way in this country, while the deputy minister of defence gave splendid service in a civilian capacity during the war. I do not suppose there are many people who could have given much better service. But when our government is urging civilian employers throughout this country to give preference to returned men; when it is urging employers under the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act to take back into their employ the men who served overseas, I think we can justly ask of this government that in making appointments, whether the highest or lowest in the civil service, this veterans' preference should be taken into consideration. I am surprised that this has not been so in respect of these appointments. I do not think it can be said that out of nearly a million men, the finest young men this country could produce, young men from every walk of life who served overseas, we could not have found one who could have

National Defence Act
done the work required. And not only did we have men from the last war, but we also had the men from the previous war whom we should consider, and from among whom we could choose.
Out of all these men, this great army from one end of Canada to the other, I say that the government should have set an example to civilian employees throughout the country and should have given something more than lip-service to veterans' preference, to show that its intentions were as it has expressed them, and should have appointed to these positions men who had oversease service.
I shall not make any further comment. This is a case which speaks for itself. I want it clearly understood that I have no personal grievance against any of those who have been appointed. I have read of their records in civilian life and, apart from the fact that they were not returned men, it would appear that they were well qualified for service of this kind. But I contend consideration should have been given to the appointment of returned men to these high positions.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, in his concluding words my hon. friend said that consideration should have been given to returned veterans in respect of these appointments. He will probably recall that a considerable time elapsed before it was possible to appoint deputy ministers to the Departments of Fisheries and Mines and Resources. May I say that one of the reasons for the long delay was the search made to discover someone for each of these posts who was a veteran and who at the same time was fully qualified to fill these important posts.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I know of one applicant
for the position of deputy minister of fisheries who, I should have thought, was well qualified. However, I do not hold myself out as a judge in that respect.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say
this, that the government certainly must consider qualifications. The mere fact that someone who applies is a veteran would not necessarily make him the person for whose appointment the government would wish to take the responsibility.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I would not suggest that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope the
committee will realize how increasingly difficult it is becoming to find men wholly qualified to fill these high positions, not merely from among veterans but from among others who are qualified to serve in such positions.
The matter of salaries has been mentioned at different times. Today, now that the war
is over, many private companies are beginning to offer very high salaries to men with executive capacity and ability. It is almost impossible for the government to hold many of its employees in executive posts, let alone to find men prepared to take such high executive posts at the salaries the government is paying.
I have a special responsibility in this regard, because the recommending of deputy ministers does fall upon me. I can say to the committee that great care was exercised in these appointments. It was the combination of qualifications required in a deputy minister-some technical, some connected with ability to fill an executive post, and considerations of experience and the like-which made the government feel that the appointments in those two instances were in the public interest the best that could be made.
With respect to the Department of National Defence, it is my understanding that two of the associate deputies are veterans. I believe the deputy minister was one who had volunteered for service but who, for reasons of health, had been prevented from serving in the armed forces. But he had given exceptional service and had had exceptional experience in the Department of National Defence. He has exceptional qualifications as an executive. As my colleague reminds me, he was one of the deputies in the Department of National Defence since 1941, throughout the greater part of the war.
Those are the considerations which have entered into these appointments. Viewed in that light, I think my hon. friend and others will see that the government was far from overlooking the desirability of having these positions filled by veterans, if that was at all possible.
Personally, I only wish we could find for these higher positions men who are fully qualified, whether from among the veterans or from those who during the war have given service in some other way-but preferably from the ranks of the veterans.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I do not wish to enter into a controversy in connection with this matter. But it does seem to me that when we are faced with the necessity of choosing a deputy minister for the Department of National Defence, and having in mind the fact that so many capable men were serving on our military staffs overseas-and Canadian staffs were considered the finest of any army, or at least just as good-it is difficult to believe that there was not one man from among those many hundreds of men who could not have filled this position. To me, it does not make sense.
36S
National Defence Act


Mr. SKEY:: When this same matter came before the United States Congress there was considerable discussion respecting the rights of the chiefs of the various services, and whether these chiefs of staff would have the opportunity of appealing directly to the minister, rather than having to pass through deputies in each instance.
Will the minister tell the committee whether the chiefs of the services will be allowed to go directly to him with their problems? I am asking this because I feel it is important that they should be allowed direct representation to a member of the government. Some limited experience on my own part has lead me to believe that in many instances th attitude of the services is wrong in the matter of approaching the government. The services are inclined to ask themselves: what will the government permit us to do? Will the government approve this? What has been their approach, rather than one whereby they would put to the government a precise and exact appreciation of their combined defence roles in so far as their obligations to Canada and the united nations might be concerned. Some of the smaller branches of the services might have their points of view overlooked, unless they are given direct access to the ear of the minister.


Brooke Claxton: I am glad to give the hon. member the assurance he wishes to have. This bill does not deal with the positions of chiefs of staff; but of course they have direct access to the minister, and will continue to have it.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Is it the desire of the government to appoint an assistant deputy minister for each of the services?


Brooke Claxton: Not at the present time.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: They will not necessarily function as part of the service. So it may develop that a service may have no assistant deputy associated with it.


Brooke Claxton: No service has any deputy or associate deputy particularly associated with that service. The deputy and associate deputies are appointed by the government, and their duties are given to them in accordance with their functions with regard to the department and all three services, and not having regard to any particular service. One associate deputy will deal with finance and supply and another will deal with personnel and pay.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: What will the deputy minister deal with, all branches of the services?


Edmund Davie Fulton: This resolution is to introduce a measure designed to put into force one of the aspects of unification of the services and I think it affords a proper opportunity to bring up again the question of appointing a defence committee. This matter was first raised in my hearing in the session of 1945 by the hon. member for Vancouver South, and it was raised again last session by myself and also by the hon. member for Nanaimo and various other hon. members. Every time the suggestion was made the minister for the time being replied that the suggestion merited the most careful consideration, that it had a great deal to be said for it, but as other considerations had to be borne in mind the committee was not appointed.
I do not think it is necessary to take a great deal of time to go over again the purposes which this committee would serve and the advantages which would follow. Hon. members on this side of the house-and I imagine this applies to private members on the other side-have a feeling of frustration in that we cannot find out anything about the defence policy of this country. There is one result that will follow. There will be in the minds of hon. members, and I am certain it will be in the minds of the people of 'this country, when the estimates of this department are brought before us covering hundreds of millions of dollars, a feeling that they should be slashed, that $20,000,000 should be taken off here and $50,000,000 taken off there. On the other hand, when certain cuts are made, such as a reduction in the forces, we have not a sufficient knowledge of defence policy upon which to base our criticism.
Last session I suggested that it was the duty of hon. members to acquaint, not only themselves but their constituents, with the necessity for an adequate defence force and how it could best be maintained. I drew attention to the fact that we were not in position to do that because of this lack of adequate information about defence matters. In answer to my question, the Minister of National Defence at that time said1 that he was sympathetic to the appointment of such a committee, but that during that session.-this was the last session -it had been simply impossible to appoint the committee. I should like to quote what the minister said, as reported on page 5269 of Hansard:
-so that at the beginning of another session,-
He was referring to the session which is just commencing:
-which we could perhaps regard as our first normal session of the new parliament, it should be possible to give early consideration to that question. The real reason why it was not

Standing Committees
actively considered this time was that there were so many other matters which had to be dealt with that it would not have been possible for members to serve on another committee.
I suggest that that was the only possible reason which could be given for not appointing that committee, and) therefore it should be appointed now without further delay.
Another reason is that another defence measure is coming up and we do not want to be in the position we were in, with regard to another bill and not be able to refer it to a committee. Will the minister say whether he is prepared to appoint this committee and, if so, when it will be appointed? If he is not prepared to appoint it, will he give the reasons governing his decision?


Brooke Claxton: I have been in this job for something less than two months and I think the suggestion made yesterday was the first time I have heard it suggested that a defence committee should be appointed. I am afraid that I shall have to give some thought to the suggestion and discuss it with my colleagues and my predecessor.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is the answer we get every time. This is the first time the minister has not been prepared to admit that it is a good suggestion. I think the situation merits comment on the practice of changing cabinet ministers with such dizzying frequency that they cannot give answers when we ask a sensible question. Perhaps it is not fair to say that of the minister who, after all, is not the Prime Minister. He has taken over a job given to him, so perhaps we should not criticize him too strongly because he finds himself in a position where he cannot give an answer. I notice the former Minister of National Defence who is now Minister of Finance has just come into the chamber. Perhaps the present Minister of National Defence could discuss the matter with him because he had it before him on two occasions in two different sessions. Perhaps we could then get an answer, if not tonight, then when the resolution is again before the committee.


Brooke Claxton: We are anxious to get on with the resolution in order that the bill may be introduced and proceeded with tomorrow.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Brooke Claxton: I think there is a general desire on the part of hon. members to get on with this emergency legislation. If the bill is before hon. members, then we could have on the bill all the discussion that could take place on the resolution. There would be no difference whatever if we could take that one step forward.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The situation has arisen where it seems the onfy way in which we are able to get information or get a straightforward answer is to hold up the business and demand an answer, to say that we will not go on with it until we get the information.


Brooke Claxton: I resent the suggestion about getting a straightforward answer. The hon. member will appreciate the position I am in. I cannot do everything; I cannot read all the back pages of Hansard to see what has been done in another department.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does not the department keep a file?


Brooke Claxton: The department looks after its own affairs in a very effective way. I must say that I resent any suggestion that you cannot get a straightforward answer.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, February 13, 1947