1953-01-29

Mr. L. D. Crestohl (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege. One of the qualifications for becoming a member of this house is to be a Canadian citizen. I am a Canadian by naturalization. I am now apprehensive, Mr. Speaker, that the rights of members of parliament who are Canadian citizens by naturalization, and the rights of every other naturalized Canadian, are being seriously encroached upon by one of the provincial legislatures.
Second reading is now being debated by the Quebec legislature of a bill which tends to create a distinction between citizens of Canada; that is, between those who are Canadians by birth and those who are Canadian by naturalization. This is being done by amending the provincial election act to compel Canadian citizens by naturalization to produce their citizenship certificate before voting.


Mr. Graydon:: If anything was ever out of order, Mr. Speaker, this statement is.


Leon David Crestohl: If the hon. member will have patience for a moment or two, he will see my point of personal privilege.
This is a discrimination between Canadian citizens by naturalization and native-born Canadian citizens who are not obliged, under the proposed arrangement, to produce their birth certificates before voting.
I consider it to be an encroachment upon my status as a member of this house and I believe that steps should be taken, or that a statement should be made, to provide that provincial legislation cannot and should not differentiate between the rights of citizens of Canada, inasmuch as the status of citizenship is a matter which falls wholly within the jurisdiction of the federal parliament.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be allowed to make a brief statement about the 68108-92J
dispute between the Canadian railways and the Canadian Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen.
Spokesmen for both groups were here this morning and had a long interview with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) and myself. At our suggestion they are meeting here at Ottawa this afternoon at three o'clock to continue the negotiations which were in process when they received last night our invitation to come up to Ottawa to let us know just what the position of each party was.


Gordon Graydon: Does the chance of settlement look good?


Mr. Si. Laurent:: As long as the spokesmen for the interested parties are negotiating, I should not like to say anything that might have any bearing upon the outcome of their negotiations.
[Later:}


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister arising out of his statement with respect to the railway dispute. Perhaps I might be permitted to say I agree with the Prime Minister that, so long as the parties are negotiating, we should not discuss the subject matters in dispute.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: However, there is one
question which does arise with respect to the relationship between the executive and parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member,
I understand, is now about to put his question?


Mr. Lesage:: At last.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the Prime Minister say whether there is any truth in the report that the government has considered, if negotiations fail, taking action by order in council under the Emergency Powers Act; indeed will he assure parliament that any action taken will first of all be referred to parliament?


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: Similar questions have
been asked me by newspapermen, and I have told them that we do not attempt to burn bridges until we get to them.

Questions



QUESTIONS


Mr. Cardiff:: What changes, If any, have been made in security regulations affecting non-Canadians, in regard to atomic plants in Canada, since January 1, 1952?
He said: I should like to have this question dropped for rewording.


ST. MARGARETS, N.B., RADAR STATION
Mr. Robichaud:: 1.	What is the total amount which has been expended to date on, or in any way concerning, the St. Margarets, New Brunswick, radar station?
2.	What have been the annual amounts expended on, or in any way concerning the said radar station, in each and every year, including the year of its inception, to and including the first eleven months of the year 1952?
3.	Were any contracts awarded to any individuals and/or firms, in connection or in any way concerning the said radar station, during the year 1952?
4.	If so (a) what were these contracts for; (b) to whom were they awarded; (c) what was the amount of each contract?
5.	Were tenders called for any or all of these contracts?
6.	If so, what individuals or firms submitted tenders, and what was the amount of each tender submitted?


LAURENTIDES NATIONAL PARK
Mr. Gagnon:: 1.	What amounts have been voted by parliament towards the construction of a radar station in the Laurentides national park, Upica district, Lake St. John, province of Quebec?
2.	What sums have been spent up to the present?
3.	What are the names of the contractors?
4.	What amounts were paid to each one, and what was the nature of the work?
5.	Did the cost of the undertaking prove to be in accordance with the estimates?
6.	Has the said station been tested? If so, with what results?
"operation pine tree"


Mr. Pearkes:: 1.	Is the government proceeding with Operation Pine Tree?
2.	If so, what funds have been spent on this project to date?
3.	What is the estimated cost?


Mr. Claxion:: I should like to make a statement with respect to the questions asked by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) and the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon). These questions ask the cost of radar stations and they purport to give the location of radar stations. One of the questions asked by the hon. member for Chicoutimi is:
Has the said station been tested? If so, with what results?
The hon. member for Nanaimo in question 12 asks the amount that has been expended and the estimated cost of Operation Pine

Tree, by which I assume he refers to the general radar defence system of Canada.
As every Canadian bomber pilot knows, one of the things first in importance for effective bombing is to be able to locate and know everything possible about the enemy's radar defence.
This information is useful for a number of reasons. With it, attacking bombers can take the line of approach where radar coverage is least effective. If the attacker has sufficient knowledge of the location and character of the radar defences, he can try to put them out of action by jamming, by bombing and by sabotage. For these reasons, actual or potential enemy forces go to great lengths to obtain this information.
Giving the cost of various stations would help an enemy to decide whether or not each station was simply an early warning station or whether it was also a station for ground-controlled interception, a very important thing for him to know.
Also, giving the amounts expended and the estimated costs of several stations would enable an enemy to estimate with pretty fair accuracy the degree of readiness and the time when each station and the complete system would be in full operation. It would also enable him to say how long it would take to build additional radar defences, should a new type of aircraft or other new feature increase the threat of bombing attack.
The radar defences of North America are planned and will be operated jointly by the United States and Canada, and the United States air force and the R.C.A.F. agreed that the numbers and names of sites and stations, the equipment, the progress of construction and operational data would not be revealed.
Some time ago I addressed a letter to representatives of the newspapers across Canada asking their co-operation in this and generally speaking that co-operation has been forthcoming.
There is another reason why such information should not be given officially by the government. Giving it would enable a potential enemy to assess the accuracy and efficiency of this system of intelligence.
For these and other reasons which might be mentioned, it is not considered to be in the public interest to give information that would assist a potential enemy in obtaining information of this character about our radar defences. Consequently, it is not in the public interest to answer these questions.


Mr. Pearkes:: In connection with my question, no details are asked for. I simply ask for the over-all amount of the taxpayers' money which is being spent on a certain

Questions
project known as Operation Pine Tree. I security, to ask me, and I could also refer would ask that that total amount and the him, if that was desirable, to the chief of estimated amount be given.	staff concerned.


Brooke Claxton: The same objection applies
there, Mr. Speaker, because if it is possible for a prospective enemy to estimate the cost of a single station-and I suggest that it is a very simple thing indeed for him to do- then he can divide the total amount by that cost per station and arrive at the extent and the density of the coverage for the whole country. Therefore that question is equally objectionable.


George Randolph Pearkes: I have not asked for the
amount of any single station, only the overall amount.


Gordon Graydon: May I be permited to make one comment to the minister in connection with this. It may happen that as time goes on questions of this kind will be placed on the order paper quite unintentionally by hon. members. I wonder whether there is not some way in which that can be circumvented. Could it not be done by some liaison between the minister and those who might decide to ask questions, because it seems to me that the minister has taken the wrong way of dealing with it today, if I may say so. I say that to him in all kindness. What I refer to is his identification of Operation Pine Tree today with our radar set-up. I think that comes pretty close to giving away secrets.


Brooke Claxton: I am afraid the hon. member for Nanaimo has already done that, and I had no course, I think, except to assume from the form in which the question was put that it referred to radar defence. This word has also appeared quite unofficially and without authority in the press, and I am afraid that the restriction on the use of the word is no longer effective. Therefore I have not done anything that would help the enemy. But the answer I gave to the hon. member for Nanaimo with regard to this matter is the correct one; that is, that if anyone knows or can estimate the cost of a single station, then he can divide the total cost of the whole operation and arrive at the number of stations and the extent of coverage in the country, which is an important thing for an enemy to know, and which so far we have avoided giving.
With regard to the question asked by the hon. member for Peel, it would be elementary in the knowledge of every hon. member that information of this kind would be of assistance to the enemy; but I am available and it would be very easy indeed for any hon. member, who has a thought of putting down a question which might involve matters of


George Randolph Pearkes: On a question of privilege,
I must point out that when I framed that question and submitted it to the proper authority in this house I had no idea that Operation Pine Tree was in any way connected with radar operations in North America, and I did not know what Operation Pine Tree was.


Mr. Robichaud:: In connection with my question, would the minister have any objection to giving me confidentially the information which I sought in my question?


Brooke Claxton: I shall be glad to give consideration to that, and of course I shall be glad to give the hon. member for Nanaimo on a confidential basis the information he seeks as well.


Mr. Fleming:: May I ask the minister a question? Does the statement which the minister has now given to the house indicate also that the government will refuse to give to the defence expenditure committee information respecting the over-all cost-I am not speaking now of detailed cost-of matters of this kind?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I doubt if I should
allow that question. Is that not a question which should be asked in the committee, and not here?


Mr. Brooks:: May I mention the fact that
on January 19 the minister did answer a question similar to that asked by the hon. member for Gloucester. I asked:
How much money has been spent, on a cost plus basis, on the construction and development of the radar station at St. Margarets, New Brunswick, from its beginning until the present time?
The answer was:
$3,223,688.73 on a "cost plus fixed fee" basis.


Brooke Claxton: I am quite familiar with the fact that that question was answered by the Department of Defence Production. It was that answer which caused us to review the whole question. I have had it reviewed not only here, but in Washington, and the result is as I have indicated to the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Answered.


WORKING FORCE, OTTAWA-HULL
Mr. Knowles:: 1.	What is the total number of persons In the working force in the Ottawa-Hull district?
2.	What is the total number in Ottawa?
3.	What is the total number of non-government employees in the Ottawa-Hull district?
4.	What is the total number of non-government employees in Ottawa?

Questions
5.	What is the total number of non-government employees in the Ottawa-Hull district on a five-day week; on a five-and-a-half day week?
6.	What is the total number of non-government employees in Ottawa on a five-day week; on a five-and-a-half day week?


Mr. Cote (Verdun-La Salle):: 1.	The total number of wage earners in the Ottawa-Hull district is 104,432 (as at the census date, June 1951).
2.	The total number of wage earners in the city of Ottawa is 82,096 (as at the census date, June 1951).
3.	The total number of non-government employees in the Ottawa-Hull district is around 65,000. This estimate is derived by subtracting some 40,000 government employees from the figure for wage earners in the Ottawa-Hull district as at June 1951. This has been necessary because no figure of government employees is presently available for the census date.
4.	It is not possible to answer this question on the basis of available information because it is not known what proportion of the 40,000 government employees working in the Ottawa-Hull district work and live in the city of Ottawa.
Nova Scotia	 $ 80,894.75
New Brunswick	 22,082.00
Prince Edward Island	 10,232.50
Quebec	 46,006.60

^Payment of the bulk of claims is made in
5.	No precise figure is available. The annual survey of wages and working conditions carried out by the economics and research branch, Department of Labour, for October, 1951, covered non-government employees, mostly in firms employing 15 or more workers, in the Ottawa-Hull area in the following industries: manufacturing, construction, trade, public utilities, service, transportation and communication.
Of the 27,500 workers included in the survey, 12,100 were on a five-day week and 15,400 on a week of more than five days. The major industries not included in the survey were banks and insurance, and steam railways and ancillary services.
6.	The above-mentioned survey covered approximately 23,400 non-government employees in the Ottawa area, of whom 10,800 were on the five-day week and 12,600 on a week of more than five days.


FISHING BOUNTY
Mr. Browne (Si. John's Wesi):: What were the amounts spent for the annual fishing bounty, in the fiscal years since April 1, 1949, and how much was distributed in each province?


Mr. MacNaughl:: 1950-51	1951-52	1952-53$ 85,369.40	$ 88,118.20	$ 19.1020.878.50	20,343.50	56.208,438.40	11,035.10	20.1045.216.50	40,500.35	79.85$159,902.80	$159,997.15	$175.25*
of each year.


NATIONAL DEFENCE &quot;BACKGROUND MATERIAL&quot;
Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Who prepared the material for the mimeographed document entitled Department of National Defence, background material, in connection with defence references in the report of the Auditor General for the year 1951-52?
2.	When was preparation of the material for this document commenced, and when was it concluded?
3.	Where was the document mimeographed, at what time and on what day was it mimeographed?
4.	Who issued or released this document, and on whose authority was it issued or released?
5.	At what time was the first copy of this document given to anyone outside the Department of National Defence?
6.	What are the names of the persons who were given this document on Monday, January 12, 1953?
7.	Which of these persons asked for a copy of this document?
0.	Which of these persons were given a copy of this document without asking for it?
IMr. Knowles.]


Mr. Campney:: 1, 2, and 3. On January 1, 1953, the front page of the Ottawa Journal carried a story purporting to state what the report of the Auditor General would contain, with reference to the Department of National Defence, and the Minister of National Defence, anticipating that this would give rise to inquiries by the press, instructed that background material on the observations of the Auditor General relative to defence be prepared as soon as the department received a copy of the report. As stated in the memorandum of the Auditor General, tabled by the Prime Minister yesterday, proof of the relevant pages of the Auditor General's report was shown to a number of departments including national defence; and the background material was prepared after the receipt of these pages. The drafting of the

Orders for Returns
background material was completed on Mon-	POST OFFICE
day, January 12, and copies were mimeographed in the minister's office that committee to consider amendments afternoon.	rural	service
4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. At about 6:15 p.m., Monday afternoon, copies of this material were released with the authorization of the Minister of National Defence to those representatives of the press who asked for it.


CANADIAN FISHERMAN'S LOAN ACT
Mr. Browne (Si. John's West):: 1.	Have any loans been made under the Canadian Fisherman's Loan Act in 1952?
2.	If so, where were loans made and for what amounts?


Jean Lesage: 1 and 2. The records of the Canadian farm loan board are maintained on the basis of a fiscal year ending March 31. In the fiscal year ended March 31, 1952, one loan in the amount of $800 was granted in the province of Prince Edward Island under the provisions of the Canadian Fisherman's Loan Act.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Brown (Essex West):: 1.	What restrictions are in force on the importation of beer into Canada?
2.	Has there been any importation of a beer known as "malzbier" brewed especially for children? If so, from what country and in what quantities?
3.	Is there any restriction on the importation of a slightly sweet drink known as "malzbier", containing alcohol, from Germany or any other country?
4.	Is there any restriction to the importation of any syrup or beverage produced from barley, hops, yeast and water or any one or combination thereof?
5.	Has there been any importation of any brew containing alcohol known as "lollipop" beer? If so, from what country and in what quantity?


CANADIAN EXPORTS-IMPORTS
Mr. Laing:: 1.	What has been the value of (a) exports; (b) imports, by Canada, in each of the fiscal years 1930 to the present?
2.	What has been the budgetary surplus, or deficit, in each of the fiscal years since 1930 to the present?


Mr. Bradley:: Return tabled.



D.V.A. HOSPITALS  MAIDS

Mr. Bryce:: What wages are now being paid to ward maids and kitchen maids at the following hospitals: (a) Camp Hill; (b) Sunnybrook; (c) Deer Lodge; (d) Shaughnessy?
On the order:
Government notices of motion-the Postmaster General-Resolved, that a special committee be appointed to consider the bill, an act to amend the Post Office Act, and also the regulations, general administration and operation of the rural mail delivery service; with power to send for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses, to print its evidence and proceedings from day to day, and to report from time to time its observations and opinions thereon and that, notwithstanding the provisions of standing order No. 65, the committee shall consist of twenty-seven members to be designated by the house at a later date.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Last night, when I announced the business of the house, I mentioned that we would proceed with the resolution which would serve as the basis for amending the Post Office Act, and that I would ask permission to revert to government notices of motions so that we could set up the committee to study the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Will it stand until later this day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order stands.



FREEZING ORDER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I
should like to ask a question of the Acting Minister of Agriculture or the parliamentary assistant. As announced in the press yesterday, why has the government passed a freezing order refusing to sell some 35 million pounds of butter now in stock to the prevailing trade of the country?


Mr. Robert McCubbin (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Agriculture):: First of all, with regard to the 35 million pounds, there are only about 30 million in stock. In reply to the second question, the hon. member can rest assured that the trade does not need to worry about this butter. We have now sold the 1951 butter we had in storage, and we are only taking stock of 1952 storage. The trade is not yet suffering, and the consumer can rest assured that the price will not rise in respect of what we are doing at the present time.

Inquiries of the Ministry CURRIE REPORT



REFERENCE TO ALLEGED CANCELLATION OF RADIO BROADCAST

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Revenue. What was the reason that a subject for "Citizens' Forum" that was to be put over the C.B.C. this evening, namely a discussion on the Currie report, which was decided upon as a subject by the advisory committee to the Citizens' Forum, was cancelled, and the substitution of another subject made?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend gave me notice of this question, and I have made inquiries of the C.B.C. with respect to it. I am informed that the C.B.C. had not scheduled a forum on this subject, so there is no question of its being cancelled. The topic was suggested some time ago for this week by the Citizens' Forum advisory committee, but the corporation decided not to try to arrange a panel on this subject at this time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Why not?


John George Diefenbaker: I was right.


John George Diefenbaker: I would like to ask the
Minister of National Revenue whether the C.B.C. informed him as to why they made the decision that the Currie report would not be suitable for discussion over the C.B.C. at this time.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, that is a
matter within the judgment of the corporation, as to what programs they put on. To answer the direct question, I have not been informed of their reasons, if any.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Can you guess them?


James Joseph McCann: I am not guessing out loud.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the minister for that answer.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Albany M. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Fisheries. Is the Department of Fisheries aware that a bill, soon to be submitted for approval to the legislative assembly of the state of Massachusetts, is designed to compel our Canadian exporters of fresh lobster meat to pasteurize such lobster


meat in lieu of refrigeration, and to prohibit all shipments of Canadian fresh and frozen lobster to the profitable Boston market? If so, what steps are being taken by the Department of Fisheries and/or by the government to protect the interests of our maritime provinces lobster fishermen and exporters so seriously threatened by the proposed American prohibitory measure?


Hon. James Sinclair (Minister of Fisheries):: The department is aware of the fact that there is a bill before the Massachusetts state assembly dealing with a proposed amendment to lobster canning legislation. It is what we would call, in this country, a private member's bill. It was introduced two years ago and defeated by that assembly.
The department is studying the implications of the bill, in the event it should pass. I think however that there is very little this parliament can or should do about action which may be taken by the assembly of the state of Massachusetts.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Noseworihy (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Defence Production. My question arises out of a statement in Monday's press, a copy of which I sent to the parliamentary assistant. It reads as follows-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest the hon. member should not read the statement. I understand he has sent it to the minister.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Then the hon. member may proceed to ask a question.


Joseph William Noseworthy: The question is this: Will - the parliamentary assistant comment upon that statement?


Mr. J. H. Dickey (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, no comment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just like a minister!


Joseph William Noseworthy: I should like to ask the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Defence Production if he can tell us whether the report is correct to the effect that in spite of a $100 million subsidy for the construction of the CF-100, the schedule is still behind?


John Horace Dickey: The Minister of Defence
Production (Mr. Howe) made a detailed statement with respect to this program when

his estimates were being considered at the last session and hon. members will find this at pages 2742 and 2743 of Hansard of May 30, 1952. It will not be possible to make a statement dealing with this program on a question of this nature. The only brief answer which could be given would be to disclose the current and projected production schedules, which, I am sure all hon. members will agree, it would not be in the national interest to make public. A detailed statement, similar to that made last year, will be made by the minister on his estimates or on some other appropriate occasion in the house.



THE CORONATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. Earl Catherwood (Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Secretary of State. Has the government promised assistance to the Canadian Pacific Steamships line in assuring transportation to those Canadians who had booked passage for the coronation on the Empress of Canada, and now have to find other means of transportation?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: want to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. It is understood that the Canadian Pacific Steamship Company is using its best endeavours to provide accommodation in other ships for those who had reservations on the Empress of Canada. In any event it should be recalled that a press release issued by the coronation committee of Canada on December 5, 1952, stated that the committee regretted that it could not look after steamship, aeroplane, or hotel reservations for Canadians desiring to attend the coronation in London.



IRRIGATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should
like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Since his answer of a week ago can he state what further consideration, if any, the government has given to the early construction of the South Saskatchewan river project?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The government has not had an opportunity to give further consideration to that project since the hon. member asked his question a week ago.
Inquiries of the Ministry OLD AGE PENSIONS



PROCEDURE FOR COLLECTION OF ALLEGED OVERPAYMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is there not some step that this government can take so that the pressing of needy old age pensioners for repayment of alleged overpayments under the former Old Age Pensions Act may be stopped, particularly in Manitoba, where this inhuman practice is still being pursued?


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt if that is a question which should be asked on the orders of the day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: suggest-


Hon. Paul Marlin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Since the question has been asked and as my hon. friend may find it desirable if it is not answered to suggest that I do not want to give an answer, I think I had better deal with it forthwith. I thought the hon. member was going to rise and commend the government upon the progress it was making in the field of social security. If the situation is as the hon. member says that is a matter over which this parliament or this government has no control. That is a matter that comes exclusively within the competence of the provincial legislature. These are debts owing by individuals to the crown in the right of the province. If I may say so with great respect, I think my hon. friend knew that even before he rose.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question? Can the minister say whether this practice is being pursued in any other province than Manitoba?


Paul Joseph James Martin: What is the question again? I want to make sure so that I can give a correct answer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I asked the minister if he
can say whether the practice referred to in my question is being pursued in any other province than Manitoba?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Although the question has been asked and answered I am still of the opinion that it is not the type of question that should be asked on the orders of the day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The matter is very urgent to those who are affected.

Post Office Act



COMPANIES' CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT


Hon. Sluarl S. Garson (Minister of Justice) moved: the third reading of Bill No. 45, to amend the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, 1933.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.


Hon. Alcide Cote (Postmaster General) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Post Office Act to provide that the Postmaster General may, in certain cases, enter into contracts for conveying mail involving an annual expenditure of one thousand dollars or less, and may also, under certain conditions, while a contract is still in force, increase the amount payable thereunder during the unexpired term thereof.


Gordon Graydon: I take it that the minister will make his statement at this stage, which I think would be preferable.


Mr.   Cofe@St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville: Mr. Speaker, the main purpose of this resolution is to introduce a bill which will authorize the Postmaster General to increase the amount payable under a contract for the conveying of mail during the unexpired and subsequent length of the terms thereafter under certain conditions. I may say that during the consideration of the estimates of the Post Office Department in June, 1952, I referred to representations that had been made by members on both sides of the house asking that a special committee be set up to discuss payments and procedures relating to rural mail delivery service. I indicated that I would recommend the setting up of such a committee.
The bill which will be introduced and which is the subject matter of this resolution deals with increases of payment during the lifetime of any contract, no matter whether it is a renewal or other type of contract. The provisions of this bill will relate to all types of contracts for the conveying of mail, that is, rural mail service, service between post offices, service between railway stations and post offices and the like.
The representations made by hon. members were not restricted to adjustments in the rates of payment but also referred to matters having to do with the regulations governing

rural mail delivery service and the administration and operation thereon.	It is my
intention when this resolution has been accepted to ask the house to revert to notices of motions so that I may move the resolution standing in my name to set up a special committee. I hope that this will meet with the approval of all members on all sides of the house.
Since the last session the department and its officials have been working on this matter. A great deal of time and thought has been given to the subject and I trust that this bill to amend the Post Office Act will meet with the approval of all members so that the situation which has been complained of in the past will be duly corrected.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


Gordon Graydon: The minister's statement
was a rather brief one and I think that perhaps as the discussion progresses he will have to amplify his remarks with respect to some of the provisions of the bill to be introduced. This resolution envisages the introduction of a bill to amend the Post Office Act, which by the way was amended in 1951. On the surface the resolution indicates some confusion with respect to the provisions of the prospective bill. The Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) indicates in the resolution that he desires to have legislative powers to enter into contracts for conveying mail involving an annual expenditure of $1,000 or less without tender. In view of the legislation amending the Post Office Act which was passed by the house and assented to on the 30th of June, 1951, and more particularly section 23, subsection 1, thereof, it would seem to me that the resolution is a move to reimplement legislation which has been passed by the parliament of Canada previously. I say that because I find that section 23 of the amended Post Office Act of 1951 contains these words:
When the Postmaster General conceives that the public interest will be promoted by such a course, he may enter into contracts for conveying mail involving an annual expenditure of $1,000 or less, if the amount to be paid for the services to be performed under the contract does not exceed the amount ordinarily paid for services of a like nature under contracts made after inviting tenders.
I realize that the resolution is in general terms and that when the bill is before us we may have a clearer idea of the difference between the section I have read, which was passed in 1951, and the prospective legislation to be introduced when the resolution carries. However, as it appears at the moment the indication is that what the government is doing is asking for legislation similar in terms to that passed at the session two years

ago. In addition, there is a new provision which we will know more about when the legislation comes before us in bill form. The intent of it is that under certain conditions, while a contract is still in force, the Postmaster General may increase the amount payable thereunder during the unexpired term thereof. The resolution is of course delightfully vague with respect to whether the reference is to contracts of $1,000 or less or to the entire gamut of contracts regardless of the amount of the accepted tender. Those are matters concerning which we will have to have further information as we proceed with the discussion of the resolution and when the bill comes before the house.
At this stage I should like to make a few random remarks with respect to the proposed legislation. During the war years, when the rural mail carrier was having great difficulties, as he has been for many years, the government hit upon a plan under the War Measures Act of introducing a system of supplementary payments for mail carriers. It was meant as an emergency measure and was implemented on a partial scale across Canada and made applicable to various routes throughout the country. The effect of it was that where the annual mileage rate for a rural mail route-I am calling on my memory at this time to be my witness and I am afraid one's memory is not always a very good witness-was less than $50 a mile the matter would be reviewed by the department. One difficulty that arose came about because, instead of notifying each rural mail carrier across Canada and telling him of the provision under which he was entitled to apply, to the best of my knowledge not a single rural mail carrier anywhere was notified directly by anybody in the Post Office Department with respect to what his rights were and what he was entitled to receive under the supplementary payments legislation.
The result was that across Canada there must have been not hundreds but thousands of rural mail contractors who missed out, if you like, on the benefits available under that provision. Some members of parliament and others, possibly those in the rural mail carriers' association, did notify some mail carriers as best they could but in a haphazard and hit-and-miss way. There was by no means full coverage. The result was that those who got attention from their members of parliament, from the rural mail carriers' association or from some other quarter, were the ones who received an increase in their contracts, and the other poor fellows, who did not seem to have any friends at court and who never learned anything about the provision, carried on at the old rate. When they made application afterwards to have the
Post Office Act
provision made retroactive so that the mistake could be rectified they were told by the government that it was [DOT] too late then, that the money had gone into the treasury of Canada, and of course no mere rural mail carrier could be allowed to tamper with anything so sacred as that. An obvious and serious injustice was done to many mail carriers from coast to coast.
That was the first stage. Later further supplementary payments were provided for under emergency legislation after the war ended. Then for a time supplementary payments went out of existence altogether. What the rural mail carrier has always been anxious to do is to get some redress for the almost impossible situation in which he finds himself as a carrier of Her Majesty's mail. When other people do business for Her Majesty and do various things for the government not very many of them have to put up with a tender system under which they have to come back every few years to find out first of all whether the government wants them. In the second place, they are faced with a situation where they have to try to get their tenders low enough so that they will be accepted. The result is that, while people in other branches of the Post Office Department have a regular and orderly method of employment, the rural mail carrier has not.
Over the years a number of members of parliament have called for a committee, and it has not always been those on one side of the house because I think throughout Canada and in the House of Commons there is a desire to see that the rural mail carriers get a very much better deal than they have in the past. I believe it is five or six years now since I first asked on the floor of the house that a committee be set up to deal with their problems. Later the request was enlarged to include the whole of the ramifications of the Post Office Department. I have received various answers as to why it could not be done. None of them were very convincing. Of course, no argument of the government necessarily convinces a member of the opposition the first time it is made.


An hon. Member:: Quite right.


Gordon Graydon: Yes, and a lot depends, of course, on who is making the argument on the other side.
Now that we have at least received a promise of a committee to deal with rural mail and post office problems, I want to say this to the government. When that committee is set up-I have no desire to debate that now because it will come up later today-I hope that the committee will be privileged to hear evidence of those men across Canada
[433

Post Office Act
vho, day in and day out, through fair weather md foul, carry the mail. I hope they will )e allowed to come and be permitted to give estimony before this committee about what hey think is the best way of solving the rexed question of rural mail couriers' con-racts.
All through the years we have had a lumber of members of parliament discussing he matter from time to time and saying vhat should be done-some on one side and ;ome on the other. I think the time has now irrived when the people who are most nvolved, the people who know most about he situation, should be called to give their widence so that we in parliament may be n a position to judge how it should best ie handled. In the past, Mr. Chairman, our *ural mail couriers found, when the supple-nentary payments system had expired, that hey were without any possible way of laving their contracts from time to time *evised unless they were to throw up their :ontracts and ask for new tenders. That, of :ourse, made for inconvenience, made rouble, and very often did not meet the ;ituation.
What the minister did in 1951 in an attempt
0	cure the evil had the effect of compounding he evil to some extent because, not only vas he given extended power, which means
1	power of patronage, although it was not a ull carte blanche authority to deal with all ural mail contracts, but only those up to a housand dollars. I know that I am speaking o a number of members of parliament here vho in a minor way perhaps understand just low patronage does work in some parts of lanada. The intention with respect to this egislation was to extend the power of the ninister, the scope of arbitrary decisions of he minister and the department, but the idvantages that may come to the rural mail ourier from time to time by virtue of elas-icity-and I am quite free to admit there ire some advantages-may be outweighed by he disadvantages. Parliament will have to vatch and very carefully protect the situation o that the rural mail system will not get nto patronage where it would be, of course, nired in that slough for years to come. There nust be a way and there is a way out of this lilemma. I do not think the rural mail ouriers want to be the objects of what is ust plain ordinary party patronage. I am [uite sure they do not wish to be in their iresent position with regard to the tender ystem, unsatisfactory as it is. I think it is mportant that, before we attempt to size up he situation and form a judgment with espect to whatever legislation comes before his house by way of an improvement for he rural mail couriers, we ought to hear what

they say, That is my main plea this afternoon. Before the government asks the House of Commons to consider and decide upon this bill that is now being introduced, before it goes through-and no doubt the majority of the house will see that it does go through- we ought to have the benefit of evidence taken before the special committee inquiring into the Post Office Department.
I have no doubt that the minister intends to follow that procedure and if he does I shall be content; but I do want to point out to him and to the house that the problem of the rural mail courier has been a festering sore in our whole departmental set-up ever since I came into parliament and for a long time before. Parliament will not be the worthy institution that it is if it allows this sore to fester any longer. There is no need for it to do so if, when the committee is set up, the people who know something about the ramifications of the rural mail contract system have an opportunity to give firsthand evidence about how it should be solved. If that is completed satisfactorily I think we may well say that it will be a very good day's work for parliament.
I want to point out to the minister that when he moves, as he is doing now, toward an extension of the patronage system in connection with the post office, I think that he ought to stop, that he ought to look and that he ought to listen to those who will give evidence in the committee before this bill is passed. He should make an effort to find a satisfactory solution so there will not be just ordinary patronage, so that it will not be just one of these poverty-stricken systems of contract by tender that we have had before. The tender system has made great difficulties for those who have been operating the routes. In the final analysis we may come out of this committee with some legislation that will wipe out the scandalous situation which has existed for so long. If that is the result we shall not only have earned the plaudits of those people who so faithfully carry Her Majesty's mail across Canada in the rural districts; we shall also have met the wishes, desires and approval of the general taxpayers and citizens across Canada.
I would like to say to the minister that I fancy there may be a disposition on the part of the house to reserve their judgment on this resolution until the bill comes to us, until we know what the terms actually are, and also until such time as the committee makes its report on all of the evidence that is adduced.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Chairman, my purpose in rising is to ask one or two questions to

clarify certain phrases in the resolution. Do I understand that the provision:
-the Postmaster General may, in certain cases, enter into contracts for conveying mail involving an annual expenditure of one thousand dollars or less-
-means that the Postmaster General may without calling tenders deal with such contracts?
My second question concerns the provision that the Postmaster General may:
*-under certain conditions, while a contract is still in force, increase the amount payable thereunder during the unexpired term thereof.
I had thought that referred to contracts that were let by tender where it transpires that the person tendering tendered too low or where costs during the term of the tender have increased so that the courier can no longer carry on at the initial figure in the tender.
The Postmaster General might answer those questions when he speaks to the resolution. I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Peel. Probably I have not given so much attention to this matter as he has given it because he represents a rural area, at least in part, and my constituency is entirely urban. This question of rural mail deliveries is therefore not so important with me personally. But for many years I have considered that the present system of letting tenders for rural mail delivery left much to be desired. It is my opinion, at any rate, that in the great majority of cases those who tendered did so at too low a figure and that if they were not delivering the mail at a loss, in any event they did not get much out of it.
As far as I can see, there are only two ways by which this rural mail delivery can be provided for, namely either by the Postmaster General acting directly-which is what we call patronage-or by the tender system. There may be other ways but they do not occur to me just at the moment. While I strongly object to the patronage system, I must admit that the old system has not been satisfactory. When we have the committee set up and can bring before it those who have been delivering mail in the rural districts, if we can be given information that will provide an answer to this question, the committee will certainly be well worth while.
Like the hon. member for Peel, I do not want to discuss the resolution to set up the committee but perhaps I could say this; and if I say it now I certainly will not say it again. I am indeed glad that a committee is going to be set up-it is something that should have been done long ago-and I hope some good may accrue from it.
Post Office Act


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Chairman, I have wondered why mail carriers obtained their positions through examination. There is nc question about mail carriers from city post offices or on the trains. Why should rural mail carriers get their positions by contracts? I do not know how the minister could choose. Suppose four men put in tenders for the contract, that the lowest man gets it, and then six months afterwards he finds it does no1 pay. What is the minister going to do? Is he going to raise the contract? That would not be fair to the other man who put in a higher tender.


Mr. Hodgson:: Nevertheless, that is whal they do.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I suggest to the Postmaster General that this plan of letting rural mail carriers get their position by contract be wiped out, that those who apply for the job be examined in every possible way, and tha1 they get a decent wage. I know of a man al the lakehead who is not getting enough tc keep him going and he is asking for an increase, because things have changed. Bu1 as far as we at the lakehead are concerned. I must say that we are well pleased, in some cases, with the officials at Ottawa. We had one man who, for many a long year, carried the mail over the same route and he was allowed to keep the contract because it was only fair to him and his family, having regard to the fact that he had a wife and twelve children to keep. My suggestion is that the plan be altogether changed and that the rural mail carriers be chosen in the same way as other mail carriers are chosen.


Mr. Shaw:: Mr. Chairman, having repeatedly brought before the House of Commons certain complaints which I have had with resped to conditions surrounding rural mail deliveries, I naturally welcome the suggestion on the part of the minister and the governmenl to have a committee set up. I have repeatedly asked for such a committee although I believe that upon most occasions I had expressed the hope that the terms of reference would extend considerably beyond rural mail delivery service. However, since we are taking this step it is quite possible that in the near future we may have an opportunity of considering the post office generally in a committee having terms of reference which are adequate tc meet the situation.
It is a fact, in my estimation, that the rural mail delivery service is a most importanl one to those who are obliged to depend upon it for their mail. On the other hand there is probably no more difficult task that one car undertake than that of delivering mail, particularly in the foothills areas of the Rocky mountains. I have been troubled at times

Post Office Act
by certain conditions which I have noticed are often associated with the letting of a contract for mail delivery service. I need mention only two or three of these.
I well recall that upon one occasion a certain post office was opened. The owner of the store who would have the post office located within his establishment was, if I may use the word, "pressured"-or at least an effort was made to "pressure" him-into delivering mail free of charge over the ten-mile route on the ground that it would naturally be helping his business establishment anyway. How widespread that sort of thing might be, I do not know. Fortunately the fellow to whom I refer was just wise enough or smart enough to refuse to be "pressured" into that position.
In the second place, I am rather afraid that too much consideration is given to propositions like this: If you are an energetic sort of person, you can carry a few passengers or you can pick up some farm lady's groceries and thus make sufficient additional income to enable you to live in a sort of way, along with the money which you will be paid normally for the carrying of that mail.


Donald MacInnis: No; along with the money that you may lose.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Yes, along with the money that one may lose, as the hon. member for Vancouver East suggests. It is an established fact, of course, that there is no other department of government in which patronage exists to a greater extent than it exists in the Post Office Department. Possibly that situation is inevitable. Probably it does not extend to the same degree into this field of rural mail delivery. If it is at all possible to keep away from a situation in which patronage may predominate, I rather feel that is what we should do. Of course the prime factor throughout is that the Canadian people are entitled to a service; and in establishing that service we may have to indulge in certain things which normally we might not agree to.
In the establishment of these rural delivery routes and the calling for tenders I have noticed, upon more than one occasion, that all tenders have been thrown out. I have examined some of those tenders; and being thoroughly familiar with the routes over which those men must travel, I could have sworn that the man had something wrong mentally when he tendered at that figure. Yet so frequently we find the department simply throwing it out because, in their estimation, it is too high. It might be possible in the committee to go into that aspect of the matter and to endeavour to bring about a more realistic
IMr. Shaw.l
attitude of mind toward the subject in general. By the throwing out of tenders certain areas have been completely deprived of mail delivery service. I could name two or three such areas, and if I were on the committee-I am afraid I shall not be on it- I would be almost inclined to bring forward these two or three cases and endeavour to have the department justify failure to accept one of these tenders, and thus supply a very important service to the people of the community.
I shall not take any more time except to repeat that I am pleased the committee is to be set up. I am inclined to believe personally that the minister is conscientiously endeavouring to find a solution to a most difficult problem, and I am sure the committee members will help. I have no doubt that evidence that might be procured from witnesses will contribute a great deal also toward a satisfactory solution of the problem.


The Chairman:: May I remind hon. members that the resolution that is now before the committee is not the one which will constitute the committee. That will come later. This one is merely the resolution that precedes amendments to the Post Office Act. Since we are in committee of the whole on the resolution perhaps I might remind hon. members of citation 439 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition, which reads:
The object of the resolution recommended by the crown is to give the house a first opportunity to discuss the advisability of making a certain expenditure. The details of the projected measure are not then disclosed and debate is confined to the resolution which should not be lengthy, although care must be taken that the terms used are sufficiently wide to cover the whole of the bill which will be subsequently introduced.
Now that the spokesmen for each of the opposition parties have expressed their views on the problem generally, perhaps I might ask hon. members who would like to speak about the conditions of the post office mail couriers generally to reserve their remarks until the next resolution comes before the house. At this stage we are merely studying the advisability of making the expenditure which is contemplated by the minor amendments to the act which are proposed by this resolution.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I am going to restrict myself to your suggestion. I have but a few comments on the need for improving the conditions and increasing the allowances paid to rural mail couriers. As to the need there can be no argument. Throughout the years, as the hon. member for Peel has said, we on this side of the house have advocated the setting up of a committee to consider this and allied matters connected

with the Post Office Department. We naturally welcome the decision on the part of the Postmaster General to do-


Louis-René Beaudoin: May I ask the hon. member, having in mind what I just said, to refrain from discussing the committee resolution, because the one that is now before us reads:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Post Office Act to provide that the Postmaster General may, in certain cases, enter into contracts for conveying mail involving an annual expenditure of one thousand dollars or less-


John George Diefenbaker: If you had waited until I had concluded the sentence you would have seen the purpose of it, Mr. Chairman. This matter is one that will be discussed in that committee, and will be particularly appropriate to it. Indeed, it is one of the requests made by the rural mail carriers' association to parliament, and it is because they requested it that I concur that this matter can be best discussed in detail in the committee.
I might refer to the letter that was received by members generally from S. H. Webster, Acton, Ontario, the secretary-treasurer of the association, in which he says:
Our association executive felt that couriers should again have the privilege of remuneration adjustment without having to throw up their contract and retender.
The letter is dated May 5, 1952.1 know from the affirmative nod of the Postmaster General that that letter had something to do with the introduction of the present resolution, in an endeavour to accept in effect what was suggested by the association. The letter goes on:
Also, that the suggestion voiced in earlier sessions of parliament for a committee to study rural mail in its entirety was the best method yet proposed to place rural mail delivery and the service on a footing commensurate with its importance.
In order to find out the feelings of individual couriers a letter has been sent to all the mail routes across Canada, and while answers are still coming in, the response has exceeded all expectations.
Our Postmaster General has been advised of the result of this survey with a request that if possible it be considered during the present session.
When the minister replies to the remarks that are now being made I should like him to place on Hansard the recommendations made by the association, and the particulars of the survey referred to in the letter. During the years I have felt, as hon. members generally have, that the couriers have not been receiving fair allowances. In the past the only provision made for any increase was a provision that, in the case of a cancellation, a resignation or a re-tender, increases might be given. During the war provision was made, under the emergency legislation of wartime, to grant increases.
Post Office Act
I have said that I agree with the need and approve of the general principle contained in the resolution. I want to add one word of admonition or advice. Every precaution must be taken against the use of the powers contained in this resolution to discriminate against some or to favour others because of political considerations. This may well be an election year, and the granting of power to the Postmaster General, however estimable that gentleman may be, that enables him on his own determination to grant to one and to refuse to another has in it dangerous elements. A suggestion has been made that political considerations sometimes enter into these matters. I am not going into examples of patronage in the Post Office Department at this time, but within the last two years I know of several instances where obvious political partisanship has prevailed. Those instances occurred before the hon. gentleman became Postmaster General. Nonetheless they existed, and on a later occasion perhaps I shall refer to them in detail. At the moment I approve of the principle and of the need and ask the Postmaster General to apply it without regard to any other consideration than the best interests of public service.
What is being done will be acceptable to hon. members not only on this side but on all sides of the house and to the Canadian people as a whole. What has to be guarded against is that these powers-and they are wide ones-shall not be used so as to produce for the government of the day a juicy melon to be apportioned. That is one thing that must be guarded against. I know the minister has no such course of action in mind. Nevertheless a power is granted; and it is just as true today as it was 140 years ago when Lord Acton said that all power corrupts, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely.
What the rural mail carriers of Canada are asking of the government, and will ask of the minister in particular, is that in administering the tremendous trust which will be given to him it shall be administered with equality to all carriers without bias or prejudice, and without any consideration other than the public service.
I would like also to add that, in making provision for the right to increase tenders already granted, further consideration be given as well to increasing the number of routes. In Saskatchewan we find ourselves in the position that during the five-year period between 1946 and 1951 there was a decrease in that province to the extent Of 168 rural mail routes. I believe that decrease has continued since 1951.

Post Office Act
I make a special appeal to the minister on behalf of Saskatchewan, particularly the people in the rural areas of that province, in asking that every consideration be given whereby a fair and reasonable allowance will be provided for the carriers, and that rural mail services will be made available, to the degree that existed seven or eight years ago at least.
I shall not say anything further at this time, more than to repeat once again the support we have given through the years to doing something to remove injustices found all too frequently among these carriers, when they have not received fair and proper allowances. We would ask that, so far as possible, the increase should be made general, and not restricted too extensively to certain areas. I could point out examples in Saskatchewan where there has been a right to an additional amount over and above the amount of the tender, where carriers should have been entitled to increases, but did not receive them.
As the hon. member for Peel has said, many carriers did not know anything about their rights to apply for increased allowances. One might say that they should have been able to read what had been done. This may be so. I know of a carrier who had no idea whatsoever that any right had been granted by statute in 1951, and prior to that by order in council. I suggest that a general notice should be sent out- and it would not be a costly thing-by which all carriers would be informed. The legislation could be sent to them with the notification that they were entitled to further consideration, that a law had been passed, and that consideration would be granted if the public interest so demanded.
I have nothing more to add, except to ask the minister to place before us the recommendations of the rural mail carriers association, an association which has done so much to raise the standards of its membership, an association the executive of which has been reasonable in its representations, conciliatory in its attitude, and at all times desirous of contributing its part for efficient public service by its membership.


Mr. Laing:: Mr. Chairman, I wish first of all to compliment the very popular Postmaster General upon a very popular resolution. I do not share the concern of the hon. member for Lake Centre, who seems to think that the Postmaster General may be too generous and too political. I expect he will be neither.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not express any concern. I just asked that he should not be.


Arthur Laing: Well, the hon. member for Lake Centre is very proficient in raising warnings,

some of which have been valuable. However, I was far more concerned and impressed by the representations of the hon. member for Peel, because I know something about the background of some of the rural mail couriers, a great number of whom operate out of the city of Vancouver into the adjoining municipalities.
I have felt that in large measure they are people who are retired or semi-retired, or people who obtain income from other sources. There has been a great tendency for these people, many of whom know very little about costs, to put in quotations on these small but important jobs that are altogether too low.
I would hope that out of this resolution a formula would be devised which might remove some of the elements of competition. There comes to my mind the thought that perhaps a committee could be set up in a local area. I know that in Vancouver we could get together a committee of two or three people to assess the value per mile of operating any particular man's vehicle. The routes are specific as to mileage. If a man knew when making his quotation what he should expect for the operation of his vehicle I think we would have less objection to his competing on his own personal income. I have in mind in the city of Vancouver a man who has a contract today for the picking up of the mail at the drop boxes and from the railways, and delivering it to the Vancouver post office. Today he is being employed on an hourly basis for his trucks. He is receiving only 30 per cent of the total amount, per hour, for each of those trucks; the other 70 per cent goes to the labour operating the trucks.
There was a time in Vancouver when the situation was exactly the reverse, when 30 per cent went to the employee operating the truck, and he received 70 per cent for operation. This present situation is bad for the man who has the contract. I know the minister will have difficulty in working out a practical formula. But surely we can do a lot better and be more fair to these people than we have been in the past. I welcome the resolution.


Mr. Wright:: I should like to place one or two questions before the Postmaster General, which he may answer now or later. How many rural routes are there in operation in each province? How many are on a twice-a-week basis and how many on a daily basis? How many people are served by those routes in each province?
The hon. member for Lake Centre has indicated a decrease in the last five years

in the number of routes in Saskatchewan, brought about largely by the fact that the system used there has been based upon the old horse-and-buggy days. It is archaic. The amounts paid for the service given are not worth while. In the general revision we are now going to have with respect to rural routes in operation, something should be done in western Canada to put rural mail delivery on a sound basis.
Old routes were from 25 to 30 miles and could be served with a horse and buggy or horse and cutter. Many of the roads were not in too good condition and that was the only way in which the people could be served. But today more modern equipment is available and if the rural mail carrier can keep busy every day he can cover a greater area and render much better service to his customers. As a result he will have more for himself and be able to provide a better type of equipment.
I hope that these matters will be taken under consideration by the committee. I am sure that when the questions which I have asked the Postmaster General are answered we will find that as far as Saskatchewan is concerned there is very little in the way of rural mail delivery at the present time. What there is is mostly on a twice-a-week basis.


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say a word or two on this matter. On several other occasions I have taken advantage of the opportunity offered to express to the house and the Postmaster General the hope that a better system of rural mail delivery would be worked out. I agree with what was said by the hon. member for Peel and the hon. member for Lake Centre. I am not going to go into details, but I do contend that the need for a change is long overdue. The working out of an arrangement that will be mutually satisfactory will present quite a problem. Other speakers have referred to patronage. As far as my area is concerned I do not think that that enters into the picture and I hope that that condition will continue in the future.
Possibly an arrangement could be worked out on the basis of mileage, plus the number of boxes, plus the type of road. The matter of the extension of rural routes should be considered. I know the minister will correct me if am wrong, but I believe the arrangements governing the extension of routes, say in Saskatchewan or the western provinces, are such that when extended they are extended for greater distances than they would be in Ontario. I have heard that such is the case, although I am not sure.
Post Office Act
It will be remembered that rural mail delivery was commenced many years ago. The hon. member who has just spoken referred to the use of the horse and buggy and the horse and cutter. We have long passed that stage and I do not think it should be so difficult at the present time to extend our rural routes. I think all people in the country should have the advantages of rural mail delivery if it is humanly possible to provide it. This is the sort of thing the Post Office Department should be considering.
I am sure the minister realizes that no other department of government touches so many people. Even the newly-arrived immigrant is interested in receiving mail from his homeland and the instructions and other information sent through the mails to new Canadians. I think the minister can do a great deal to improve the understanding of his department by the people of Canada.
There are many new housing developments being carried out adjacent to our cities and it has not been found possible to provide postal delivery service the same as is provided in the city because of the absence of sidewalks. Some of the new modern housing areas do not contemplate the installation of sidewalks. These are some of the things that have to be worked out. I see the parliamentary assistant shaking his head, but this is still a problem for the department.


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: It was simply
because this is out of order; it is not provided for in the bill.


Mrs. Fairclough:: How do we know? We have not seen it.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: This is a resolution.


Harry Oliver White: I am hoping that, when the committee meets, interested parties, including representatives of the rural mail carriers' association, will be called in so that we can hear their side of the story.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Before we go any further may I say a word? Hon. members often say that the rules are outmoded and complain that sometimes debate is permitted to go on for some time when it is really out of order. Eefore I am accused of having permitted a debate which is out of order to continue too long I should like to ask for the co-operation of hon. members. If they will look at the order paper they will see that the resolution which will be debated immediately after this one is adopted provides for the setting up of a committee with a view to examining the amendments proposed by this resolution. Therefore, there is not a single speech that has been made on this resolution which could not be made on the next one.

Post Office Act
I think this provides a perfect occasion for the exercise of restraint. Once this resolution is passed, hon. members will have ample opportunity to discuss at any length they wish, on the other resolution, the matters they are now discussing. I leave these remarks for the consideration of hon. members.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I intend to remain in order. I am interested in the provision that permits the first speaker for each party to be in order and then the rest of us to be out of order. I must say that I have listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Peel, which I understand were out of order. But I do support his proposal and I think he adopted a very good attitude towards this whole problem.
I am interested in rural mail delivery as I represent a rural riding in which there are many difficult rural mail routes. I am glad to see a resolution being introduced which indicates that the government is beginning to realize the inequalities and unfairness of the present system. I had intended to say a little more, but I am going to take your advice and I will say no more on this resolution.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Mr. Chairman, I am going to take your command or advice, whichever you call it, and say very little at this time. I think the whole set-up is wrong. I think this whole matter of tenders and everything else should be handled by the civil service commission. I have personal knowledge of patronage being practised in my riding, not only recently but in the years gone by.
I understand that this resolution is being brought in more or less at the request of the rural mail carriers' organization and I hope that it will result in improvements in this system.


William Scottie Bryce: Mr. Chairman, I am going to abide by your advice and say only one thing. I am sorry to see that this is going to be put in the hands of the Postmaster General. I do not want to see the day when you have to be a Liberal before you can haul the mail. I do not want to see the day when you will have to be a Conservative, when the Conservatives are in power-


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Oh, no.


William Scottie Bryce: Oh, yes. It leaves the whole thing wide open to political patronage. The Postmaster General is given the power to say what a man will get or who will haul the mail. I have nothing against the Postmaster General as he is a good friend of mine, but I am thinking of those who may follow him and who may be really bad. It says distinctly here that the Postmaster General may appoint a mail carrier when the contract is for $1,000
[The Chairman.]
or less. I think they are pretty nearly doing it as it is. I know a fellow who hauled the mail for four years and then lost the job. Another person tendered and got it, and I know how he got it too. I wrote the Postmaster General and asked him when the route would come up for tender again. The effect of his letter was that they did not need to ask for tenders and that the fellow who got the job was doing all right. That may be all right but they did not take that into consideration in the case of the fellow who had the job before. They called for tenders. I do not want to be out of order but I regret a step that will leave the matter open to political patronage. I think we should get away from that.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: I do not believe the set-up is wrong. The civil service commission has enough work to do at the present time, and if the matter were turned over to them, it would be too much for them. In the second place, may I say that no political considerations enter my mind when I deal with the Post Office Department or the mail carriers. It may mean that I have to do a little more work but I am ready to do it for my mail carriers. I am sure the measure would not have been brought forward by the Postmaster General if its purpose was not to improve the situation of the mail carriers.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Before the resolution is carried by the committee, will the Postmaster General clarify it by explaining to the committee in what respect the bill to be introduced will differ from section 23 of the legislation passed in 1951? Would he tell us in what manner this resolution complements the other, because at first reading it would almost seem as if we were being asked for permission to do what has already been done.


Alcide Côté: I shall say only a few words in order to clarify the situation because I believe that a little confusion has arisen. First of all, I must thank the members who have already spoken and who are ready to co-operate in this matter. The bill to be introduced amending the Post Office Act does not change the act at all except in those respects mentioned in the resolution. The purpose is to allow the Postmaster General to readjust the remuneration received by mail contractors. Some of my hon. friends complained about patronage and said in support of their complaints that we must maintain the tender system. We are keeping the tender system. Nothing in the law is changed so far as the tender system is concerned.
Someone said that we do not actually operate the tender system in respect of contracts under $1,000. That is true. According to the

law the department has the power to enter into contracts when the amount involved is under $1,000, but I would say that in 95 per cent ot all contracts under $1,000 the procedure is the same in that tenders are submitted by contractors. There has been a general complaint from all sides of the house that provision should be made to readjust the remuneration paid under mail contracts. I can remember my hon. friend (Mr. McLure) referring many times to a contractor in his riding who had submitted a tender $5 less than the other man but lost the contract. He said that the man had had experience, had expended money to buy a car, and that it was an injustice to him. This is one of the injustices we want to correct by the bill to be introduced.
Take, for instance, a contractor who has carried out his contract for three years and ten months. We would be ready now, as we have the power to do, and as was suggested by my hon. friend who spoke a few minutes ago, to renew his contract. If he has given good service, if he has gone to the expenditure of a considerable amount of money, and is obliged to submit a tender again, we do not see why we should not renew that contract. It is permissible to do so now, but on the other hand we do not want to oblige that man to renew the contract if he is certain of losing money. That is why the bill is to be brought forward. The purpose is to find a way to readjust the amount paid to the contractor in such circumstances so that he can continue to serve his country and not lose money while doing so.
At the present time we have the power to readjust the amount of money in contracts under $1,000 but the method of doing so is not very satisfactory. It is done by taking the average of similar contracts obtained by tenders in an area. We take the average. I do not want to go into the details. It will be up to the committee to find the best way to do it. We think that the plan on which the department has worked will give satisfaction to the committee. We want to be in a position to readjust not only contracts under $1,000 but all contracts with the exception of those mentioned in article 29 having to do with the railroads, Trans-Canada Air Lines and so on. If it is a good principle to adjust contracts, the amounts of which are under $1,000, it is equally just, if we can find a way to do so without discrimination, for all contracts of a similar nature whatever amount of money is involved.
The hon. member for Lake CeiSfc't^Teferred to the association. We have received constant demands from many sources over the last five
Post Office Act
years. The association also wrote us and suggested that we should try to find a way to readjust objectively. What we have in mind is exactly that, to readjust not because in the minds of the officials a particular amount is the one which should be applied but because objectively from the information we receive from the labour department and all other sources the amount is fair having in mind comparable services performed in the area. Generally speaking that is what we intend to do. I cannot go into all the details on the resolution as to how it will be done.
It will be up to the committee to call any person whom they think should be called. I not only have no objection but I invite the committee to call every officer in the department, every person from the association, and any other interested parties who can give them information. I think such a course will be in the interests of the committee and what we are seeking to achieve, the betterment of the legislation, so that there will be no discrimination or unjust patronage according to the meaning that we usually give to that word. We in the department do not want people to feel that they do not receive justice and a proper appreciation of their claims from the Postmaster General. What we have in mind is to try to be in a position to give justice to all those who are serving the country in this way and who are a part of a big system. We feel that every citizen in the country must be looked after and must feel that he belongs to the same family. We are trying to give adequate treatment and service to all those who belong to the Canadian family.
I must thank all those who have spoken so far because they have said things which I really appreciate. It is my continuing wish and hope that I may be able to respond to the feelings they have expressed. I do not wish to do anything that may be described as furthering political patronage, making differences between this mail contractor or that mail contractor because one is a Liberal, another a Conservative or another a follower of any other political ideas. That is not what I have in mind. I want to approach the problem openly and broadly, and to find a solution to the difficulties which have existed for many, many years.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I will wait until the resolution is passed to revert to notices of motions.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I believe the Postmaster General has pretty well explained what I had in mind but I wonder if he would confirm my understanding, which is that in the

Committee on Post Office .ast part of this resolution all contracts are :overed, not just those under $1,000.


Mr. Cole (SI. Jean-Iberville-Napierville):: A.11 contracts except those covered by section 29, which deals with railway and aviation ransportation for which we already have the sower to enter into contracts without tenders.
If I may summarize, we are keeping the [aw as it is. We are keeping this legislation >s it is. The amendment is made only in an sffort to find a way of readjusting the contracts of those who are losing money and who would not continue to serve the country with the best equipment.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the minister one question arising out of what he said about rural mail couriers coming to give evidence before the committee. I would not want to be unreasonable in anything I suggest with respect to the matter, but I take it that those who might be witnesses, to give the committee some of their good advice, would be called in the normal way and would be paid their fare to Ottawa and back to their ordinary residence. Those people could not afford to come otherwise.


Charles Delmar Coyle: I think it would be unfair for me to try to make suggestions to the house. It will be up to the committee to decide what means they shall take to call witnesses, officials and other persons.


Alphonse Fournier: Hear, hear.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Cole (St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville)
thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 107, to amend the Post Office Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the minister leave to revert to notices of motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



POST OFFICE


Charles Delmar Coyle: That a special committee be appointed to consider the bill, an act to amend the Post Office Act, and also the regulations, general administration and operation of the rural mail delivery service; with power to send for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses, to print its evidence and proceedings from day to day, and to report from time to time its observations and opinions thereon and that, notwithstanding the provisions of standing order No. 65, the committee shall consist of the
Mrs. Fairclough.]
following members:	Messrs. Ashbourne, Beyerstein, Boucher, Brisson, Bryce, Cardiff, Cardin, Coyle, Cruickshank, Dinsdale, Dumas, Dupuis, Garland, Gour (Russell), Green, Hosking, Langlois (Gaspe), MacKenzie, MacLean (Queens), McCulloch, McWilliam, Noseworthy, Robertson, Robi-chaud, Spence, Ward and Welbourn.


Gordon Graydon: I take it, Mr. Speaker, that the minister is not going to make a statement in connection with the motion to set up a committee. If he were I would gladly yield to him.


Charles Delmar Coyle: I do not intend to make a statement.


Gordon Graydon: I think you are wise. Sometimes the less you say on these things, the less trouble you get into. I pass that on as good advice to the minister. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) follows it to the letter.


An hon. Member:: Why do you not follow it?


Gordon Graydon: I could include some more.
There are one or two things in connection with this motion that I would like to say. I had thought that a committee of this kind would not be confined entirely to the amendment which is now about to be made pursuant to the resolution which has passed. I thought the committee would have the power to deal with matters relating to the department as a whole.
If I were minister of this department-and I would not think that would ever happen- I perhaps would be taking the same position as the minister is taking. However, if the minister were standing where I am he would probably be taking my position.
I think it is fair to say that there are a number of things in the operation of the post office which do need cleaning up. Mere revision of the Post Office Act, which took place in 1951, does not necessarily do that. There are many outstanding problems in connection with the delivery and dispatch of mail in rural, urban and suburban areas which would seem to me properly to be the subject of review by a committee of this kind. I am not urging the matter especially at this time except to say that I think the house is entitled to have included in the matters referred to the committee things which are additional to rural mail contracts. With that I am going to rest my case as far as that feature is concerned.
The situation with respect to rural mail operations was dealt with by me at some length today on a previous resolution, and I have no desire to continue that discussion; but<^gMM'-*r.:e some other things I want to say t^tne"minister. With regard to what I had in mind about enlarging the powers of the committee, I was thinking particularly

of that great and growing section of Canada which is known as suburbia, in other words those sections, particularly on the fringe of great metropolitan cities, where people now find it attractive and convenient to live. They move out of the city and have their homes in the suburbs.
In my own county of Peel there has been a movement which has gained momentum particularly in the years since the close of the second world war. It has reached a point where we have a city of almost 30,000 people at the south end of Peel. That has brought all the growing pains that come to a new settlement of that kind. With those growing pains we have had a good many problems with respect to rural mail delivery and I want to bring that matter, that specific case, before the minister today if I may.
I should like to have seen the motion made broad enough and the committee's powers made extensive enough so they could have reviewed the whole question of suburban mail delivery. It really comes in between strictly rural delivery to the farmers and the letter delivery service which many of the urban municipalities enjoy. In the United States of America some improvements have been made both in the thinking and the procedure in the post office department, and those improvements have made for certain changes in connection with delivery in suburban places. I thought it would be a good thing for this committee to have the opportunity of discussing those changes and, if possible, finding a solution to some of the problems confronting these people in the suburbs.
These problems are real ones because in some cases the people are obliged to go a long way to the post office. They are unable to get rural mail delivery, in many instances, because of the fact that the settlement is not one that adapts itself to rural mail delivery. They therefore find themselves in between the two. They are neither rural nor urban. The result is that the suburban people of this class sometimes suffer and have great difficulty in getting their mail from time to time.
In the Lakeview and Port Credit areas in my own county the situation has been partially rectified by the establishment, or at least the promise of the establishment, of a letter delivery service. I want to take this opportunity of thanking the minister for what he has done in that connection to relieve an extremely serious situation which was developing in those fast-growing areas of Toronto township. But I want to say this to the minister. When he is dealing with
Committee on Post Office matters of this kind, and when he is instituting letter delivery service to take the place of rural mail service or of postal service which comes from the post office itself, I hope he will instruct his department to da two things in future, as a result of these experiences we have had there.
One is this. I hope he will not wait unti] 90 per cent of the people or of the houses in the area have those articles of hardware known as letter slots in which to put the mail. Human nature being what it is-and the minister knows this-as soon as people know that the mail is going to be delivered say a week from Monday they will rush ou1 to the hardware store and get slots, anc right down the street they will be all ready that day. But that will not happen if the minister does as he has done in this case and says to the people in an area: Just 52 per cent of you have slots now, and we wil make another survey in a few months. Yor find now that in the Lakeview-Port Credil area the percentage is something like 68.5 according to the minister's latest calculation and he is going to have another survey ir March.
In all kindness I suggest to the ministei that he ought to start these walks now. I: he does so; if he tells the people there tha in the course of a couple of weeks they will have mail delivery, and that if they d< not have a slot in the door they will no have any delivery, he will find a slot in every door in the Lakeview-Port Credit area. ] only mention that fact because it is a matte] of the transition from a rural mail and pos' office area into that of a house to house delivery area.
In addition to that, may I say this to thi minister. When he is taking over thesi rural areas he may find some blind spot here and there where the policy of thi department gets rigid and where they sa; the letter carrier should not be asked to gi along those streets because there are not a many houses as there are on some others When you give letter delivery service o rural mail service to an area I think it i good business, and a matter of fairness anc justice, to see that even those blind spot are taken care of and that everybody in tb area has service.
I point out to the Postmaster General tha in the Lakeview-Port Credit area there i: the Queen Elizabeth garden subdivisioi which started off with something like 10 houses, then got up to 200 and now ha nearly 400. Because it happened to have a: entrance from Cawthra road, which is ; main highway, and is not on that road itself unless things have changed in the last coup!
1448	HOUSE OF
Committee on Post Office of weeks these people are not going to have any letter carrierd service at all. That situation exists in many other parts of the country. When you put in a letter delivery service you are going to find a great many gaps, and that fact is going to cause a great deal of trouble because the situation is unjust and unfair. Even though you have to make your regulations a little bit elastic, go ahead and give service to that whole district, every house in it, and you will find that the results, having regard to public relations, will be great, both for the government and everyone else.
I make that plea to the minister, knowing that he is receptive and that he welcomes reasonable and sound suggestions. I would also ask him not to just let it remain on Hansard but, when he goes to his office after this debate, to get in touch with his officials and see that the thing is done. Do not just leave it on Hansard where it will remain six weeks from now, and have someone come along and say, "I raised a question and the minister said he would try to look into it."
I know the minister wants to do the right thing in these matters, and I make that urgent plea to him this afternoon. I am confident that he is going to do what I request.
I want to say that we welcome the setting up of this committee. I hope its terms of reference may be enlarged to take in some of the problems I have mentioned this afternoon in addition to matters with respect to rural mail couriers. As a parting word may I say to the minister that despite the fact that I know neither he nor the Minister of Public Works-oh, here he comes now. I can never make a statement about the Minister )f Public Works without having him arrive from behind the curtain. In any event I hope the minister will bear this in mind.
1 know he will not have anything to do with this committee. No minister ever does. All these committees are independent. The ministers hardly know they are set up, I understand. But somehow or other the committees unconsciously rather like to do the things that the ministers find are the proper thing to do, within bounds and within reason, of course.
I do not want to interfere with the com-nittee in any way; but when the minister is talking just naturally to some of the members of the committee, even in the corridors, he might just suggest that these rural mail couriers, in whatever numbers are reeded, have their travelling and living expenses granted to them when they come iown here to give evidence. These people are just going on the thin edge of nothing
[Mr. Graydon.l

economically, the whole lot of them; and it is tantamount to not getting their evidence at all if you make them pay their own way down to Ottawa. I think some allowance ought to be made. I have looked through the public accounts and I have found that there are a good many people across Canada who are allowed living allowances and travelling expenses. It seems to me that the rural mail couriers could be included in that great and growing body who at least are not asked to take anything out of their own pockets, in order to help the country.
Therefore I suggest to the minister and to the committee that everybody will be watching the work of the committee, because it is most important. I talk to many people who do not come from rural areas and who know nothing about rural areas, who think that this is just one of those side issues that does not amount to very much. I want to tell those people that this is a very important issue, and that in settling the problem of the contracts for carrying our mail in the rural areas this committee will be taking on a very heavy burden. I wish it well in the work it will do. I do hope the minister will take some notes, if his parliamentary assistant has not done so already, on three or four of the things I have mentioned so that I shall not have to come back later and ask the minister whether he has dealt with the things I mentioned two weeks ago.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, for a number of years we in this group, in association with other members on the opposition side of the house and also some members on the government side, have urged the necessity for the establishment of a committee to study this question of rural mail couriers. Therefore we are very pleased indeed to support this resolution, and look forward to the committee having a full opportunity to go thoroughly into the longstanding grievances of the rural mail couriers of this country.
Before proceeding with the brief remarks I wish to make in connection with this resolution, I want to congratulate the minister on the improved morale in the Post Office Department since he has taken over. I come from British Columbia. I do not know just how he has managed it, but I have met a lot of people who have said to me:	"I think
that Postmaster General is a pretty good guy", and so on and so forth. He must have a system of public relations that is quite effective, and I extend my congratulations.
I come from a rural area which is made up of many mountains and lakes which present some particular and unusual problems so far as the delivery of rural mail is

concerned. I must say at this stage that I have not particularly noticed any political patronage so far as the awarding of contracts for the carriage of mail is concerned, possibly partly due to the fact that the remuneration the department pays is low in relation to the average earnings of the working people in my constituency. But it is a difficult country to cover; it presents some unusual problems. Rural mail is carried by bus, by car, by truck, by barge, by launch and by steamer. For a short time it was carried by air to two isolated points as an experiment, which proved unsuccessful.
I have had a long residence in that district, and I have noticed the particular difficulties that the carrying of rural mail presents. However, I want to be fair. I have discussed this matter with the minister's officials, and I fully realize the difficult problem it is. But the tender system is not entirely satisfactory, and I know the mileage system presents difficulties. Even a salary system presents difficulties. That is why I welcome this committee which will have an opportunity to go into all these questions and into the experience of the officials of the department, and I trust that the rural mail couriers will have their representatives there to present their views. That is very important.
I want to give just briefly, Mr. Speaker, some examples of the unfairness that does exist under the tender system. I think of my district and of a certain workingman who had a small truck. He secured the mail contract between two points about a hundred miles apart. He gave most efficient service; he was well liked in the district. He was courteous, and usually kept the deliveries on time, sometimes under very difficult winter conditions. Then a tender was called for, and a man already successfully established in a considerable business tendered; and because his tender was a few dollars lower than the tender of the man who had operated the route for some time he received the contract. He then turned around and hired someone at less than average wages for that type of work to drive the truck. In my opinion that is one instance of the unfairness of the tender system, and I do not quite know how you are going to overcome it.
In another instance a man took a tender for carrying the rural mail by launch. He had a quite substantial launch. He spent some money in improving it and carried the mail between two or three points some thirty miles apart. Because these isolated communities are served only by a steamer service twice a week he was able to bring in certain supplies required by individuals in the community, and also to carry parcels
Committee on Post Office backward and forward. On several occasions his stout, seaworthy launch-one of the few in the district-was able to take sick people to hospital, and on emergency trips. After carrying on that service at a very reasonable price-a low price, I should say-to the satisfaction of everybody concerned, tenders were called for. Somebody else came into the picture and created confusion, against the wishes of all the people concerned in these communities. The matter was discussed for months and months. The man wants to build an even better boat, but he does not know what to do. Finally the whole situation became so difficult and there are so many, shall I say, intangible factors involved that the department reduced the mail service to those communities from three times a week to twice a week by giving this contract, for the present winter months, to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
I do think that there is unfairness under the tender system for two reasons. In many cases the contract goes to a man whose tender is slightly lower than the tender of the man who has satisfactorily performed the work for years. In the second place, the present system provides no security for men who sometimes have given years of devoted service to the communities they have served.
I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) when he was strictly out of order on the other resolution and when he was in order on this resolution, and I must say that on the whole I agree with what he had to say. I think he made a very reasonable factual presentation of the position so far as the rural mail couriers are concerned.
We in this group are very pleased indeed to see this resolution specialize on these particular problems. We can also support his other suggestion as well. We wish the terms of reference had been somewhat wider to permit an examination into general post office operations. However, having attained one objective by having this resolution placed on the order paper, we shall have to continue to advocate the second objective and trust that it will receive the favourable consideration of the Postmaster General as the days go by.
I bring these matters to the attention of the Postmaster General. I am speaking with some knowledge. Even before I came into this house I was interested in community organizations, boards of trade, farmers' institutes, and bodies of that sort; therefore I have a pretty good knowledge of the complexities and difficulties of this problem. In associations that I have been connected with we have often discussed ways and means of

Committee on Post Office correcting various mail situations. I admit again that it is a very difficult problem, but I trust that as a result of a thorough examination of this problem by the committee and with the advice of the officials of the department, when this committee reports its recommendations will make provision for a great improvement in the conditions under which the rural mail is carried in this country.


Mr. Robert Fair (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, like those who have spoken before me, I am also in favour of this resolution and only wish that it had been introduced and acted upon many years ago.
The problem of the rural mail courier is one that has taken up quite a little time in the house, and I am glad to see that we have at least secured a minister who has listened to what we members here have to say. I also want to thank him for putting into operation a rural mail route which was put out of business a little while before he came into office, simply because a few dollars were involved. At the present time none too much is being paid.
I believe the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) made a good suggestion when he said to the minister that the expenses of witnesses brought here should be paid, because the expense of coming here might prevent some valuable witnesses from putting in an appearance and giving evidence. We have paid plenty of money by way of expenses to other witnesses, and I hope these expense moneys will not be denied representatives of the rural mail carriers' association.
The system of tendering has been given approval in some places while in other places it has been discredited. If all mail carriers were good businessmen the situation would be somewhat different. However, many of them have been enticed into putting in tenders at figures much below the value of the work involved. The result is that shortly after they begin working they find they are losing money, and on some occasions this results in the giving of poor service. The result is that the people on the route must suffer because of the low tender.
In my home town I know of one carrier, Mr. George Martin, who is on his route six days a week. When I was home at Christmas he suggested something which might be of interest to the committee. He pointed out that some school district buses are paid on a mileage basis. That is, on a paved road the rate is so much per mile, on a gravel road it is slightly different and on a dirt road
[Mr. Herridge.l

another rate is paid. This might be considered with profit by the committee. Then I suggest there should be consideration of the density of population or the number of boxes per mile. This might be helpful to the committee.
I would ask that the committee and the minister give careful consideration to increasing the service from two to three deliveries a week. So far as I know in my constituency we do not receive more than two deliveries a week in any section of the territory which, at the present time, is somewhat in excess of 6,000 square miles. On the other hand people in cities and towns have daily mail service, and we hope provision will be made soon whereby they will have it twice a day.
I think therefore the committee might properly consider giving delivery three days a week in the rural areas. We must remember that the people in the country districts are, in practically all cases, primary producers and, as such, they should have their fair share of the services for which they are paying.
Then there should be some type of security for those people who spend many years of their lives delivering mail over rural routes. Perhaps this would not apply to those who have worked for only a short time; but there are many who have spent the best years of their lives in the delivery of mail, and I suggest the minister might consider making available to them the form of pension given to other members of the post office staff.
I do not wish to take up further time, but I felt I should make these few observations in the hope that they might be of interest to the committee.


Mr. F. S. Follwell (Hastings South):: Mr. Speaker, I have withheld any remarks I wished to make until this time, when we have before us the motion to set up the special committee. At the outset I should like to say to the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) that, coming from a constituency that has both rural and urban residents about equally divided, I find it necessary to take up many problems with the Post Office Department on behalf of those people. Let me say to you, sir, that I have had the utmost co-operation and success in dealing at the local level with postmasters involved, then with the district inspector, and then with the Postmaster General or his parliamentary assistant, as well as other officers of the department.
When I have discussed with the Postmaster General problems connected with expanding communities in suburban areas, such as were described by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. JANUARY 29, 1953
Graydon), he has been most receptive and, on each occasion, a daily mail delivery service has been put into practise.
Referring now particularly to the rural areas, may I say that I am deeply gratified that finally this matter has reached the point where a committee of the house is to be set up to deal with injustices under the act. One particular amendment that I suggest should be made would be to that section of the act which would seem to prohibit delivery of mail to residents living just off an established route. In bringing this matter to the attention of the minister's officials it has been pointed out to me that it is necessary to have an extension in order to service these people. In my constituency, and I am sure in every constituency across Canada, many who live in rural sections are not receiving regular mail service because of the fact that they are just off a travelled route. While I am not sure, my understanding is that, unfortunately, in order to have an extension of half a mile or a mile in the length of a route it must be established that there are a certain number of boxholders in that district. I have been informed that there most be three to a mile.


An hon. Member:: Four.


Frank Sidney Follwell: Someone says it is four. I have been confronted with this problem on several occasions. I believe it was the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. White) who said that we are past the horse and buggy days in the matter of mail delivery, that in these days we do not need to use the horse and buggy or horse and cutter. My only observation would be that a year or so ago I took up residence on a rural route and now receive my domestic mail from a box on that route. I find that, particularly at this time of year, the mail carrier must use a cutter, and that he finds it tough going. In my view he does not receive a bit too much pay for the job.
The hon. member for Victoria, Ont. (Mr. Hodgson) made reference to patronage in his constituency. That may or may not be true. However, it has been pointed out to me that back in the period between 1930 and 1935, when there was another government in office, patronage was rampant not only in the Post Office Department but also in other departments of government.


Mr. McLure:: Name them.


Frank Sidney Follwell: The hon. member asks me to name them. I must admit it was a little before my time. I am talking about something I have been told by members of the opposition. I have found in my dealings 68108-93
Committee on Post Office with the Post Office Department that everything is treated as a straight business proposition and there is no patronage at all. I have been able to secure some redress for those who have contracts under $1,000.
The service required on rural mail routes is increasing all the time. The number of boxholders on practically all routes is increasing. People are moving from the city to the country, and new Canadians are moving into Canada and going to live in areas served by the rural mail routes. The department takes the view in letting contracts that the national average of boxes per mile must be taken into account. That seems to me a wrong principle. On some routes there may be only a few boxholders, while the other routes may cover many boxholders. I think the committee would be well advised to consider such matters as this.
I should like to bring to the attention of the Postmaster General the lack of accommodation in the post office buildings in Belleville and Tweed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the proposed amendments which are to be studied by the proposed committee, and to conditions which relate to rural mail service.


Frank Sidney Follwell: What I was about to say has some connection with the rural mail carriers. Rural mail carriers operate in all directions from Belleville, and they must sort their mail and take directions from the postmaster there. That applies also to the village of Tweed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. member wishes to speak about the condition of distribution centres for rural mail he would be in order.


Frank Sidney Follwell: I should like to point out that the distribution centres are sadly overtaxed. The post office in Belleville was built many years ago to serve rural and urban communities of only a few thousand. Belleville is now a rapidly expanding metropolis with a population large in comparison to what it was when the post office was built. The accommodation has been added to by a little extension to the building here and a little extension to the building there and the putting in of a mezzanine.
The post office at Tweed has become quite active, its revenue being much higher than that of post offices in other villages and towns where new buildings have been erected for the purpose of serving the rural mail carriers. I am pleased that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) is here, and I ask him to consider including an item in the supplementary estimates to cover the construction of new post offices at these two points.

Committee on Post Office
I join with the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) in suggesting that the terms of reference of this committee should be broadened so that it can consider the whole letter carrier situation. I am speaking particularly for the carriers in my area who are members of the federated association of letter carriers. At the present time the remuneration they receive has no relation to the job they are doing. They are expected to be on the job six days a week and carry the mail whether it is snowing and freezing or 90 or 100 degrees in the shade. When compared with the rates received by those in industry we find that the letter carriers are not being treated on a comparative basis.
Letter carriers in the United States receive $4,300 a year as compared with approximately $2,850 received by the letter carriers in this country. I point out further that the letter carriers in the big country to the south work a 40-hour week whereas the letter carriers in Canada must work a 44-hour week. There is some suggestion that the two-a-day mail delivery will be restored. If that is done it will mean that the duties of the letter carriers will be much heavier than they are at the present time. I ask this committee which is to be set up to consider bringing the pay of letter carriers into line. As hon. members know, the letter carriers constitute the public relations department, not only for the government but for parliament as well.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has been referring to letter carriers, which is a considerable distance from rural mail delivery, the subject of the resolution.


Frank Sidney Follwell: I should like to conclude by suggesting to the Postmaster General that this committee consider all phases of the rural mail service and possibly be given an opportunity to look into the wages being paid to our letter carriers.


Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon):: Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting patiently all afternoon to take a small part in this discussion on rural mail delivery. I want to bring a particular matter to the attention of the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) this afternoon because I know he has a special interest in the area which I represent, after having received such a cordial welcome during his visit there last July. I understand it was the first time in a good many years that we had been honoured by a personal visit from the Postmaster General.
I agree in a general way with the remarks of the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), but the problem I wish to put before the minister-perhaps we will be able to discuss it later in the committee-is almost the reverse


of the difficulty the hon. member for Peel mentioned. He referred to the problems that have arisen with the development of suburban communities. On the prairies we have the reverse process. As our rural areas have tended to become depopulated and our farms to increase in size, there has been a tendency for some of the rural routes to become uneconomic to operate.
This matter came to my attention quite recently in a specific case when the rural delivery service from the town of Alexander, Manitoba, was abruptly stopped. Apparently the tender submitted for the particular contract was $1,250, but the Post Office Department thought the route could not be operated on an economic basis for more than $1,000.
As I listened to the discussion this afternoon, particularly on the resolution which was before us, it occurred to me that the solution being sought might in some way assist in this problem that is peculiar to the prairies. The matter will have to be considered in the committee; but if the present trend continues and our farm population continues to move towards the cities or suburban areas and as a result farm units become increasingly large, then it may mean that there will have to be further cancellations of service if the situation is only going to be considered on the basis of economic distribution. Such a result of course would not increase the attractiveness of life in rural areas. No doubt the minister is aware of this situation. I think it is of sufficient importance to command the attention of the committee.
I do not know whether I should mention at this time matters pertaining to what have been described as distribution centres, but they are of interest to me. If I can refer to the post office at Brandon as a distribution centre for rural areas, I should like to point out that there has been an appropriation on the books for the past three years-this concerns the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) too-for the expansion of facilities in that city. There has been some considerable delay in carrying out the contemplated program. During the minister's delightful visit to Brandon I think he had a chance to realize the situation, and no doubt the appropriation that has been on the books for three years now will be used in the very near future to correct it.


Mr. T. J. Kickham (Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) on bringing in this motion providing for the setting up of a committee to consider ways and means of assisting rural and urban mail carriers. In my constituency they are practically all rural carriers.

In 1951 I brought in a resolution asking that rural mail carriers receive greater consideration from the Postmaster General. Discussions were carried on with the former postmaster general by myself and other members, and in the session of 1951 legislation was passed making provision for assistance to veterans receiving $1,000 or less. That assistance has proved to be generally quite satisfactory. The committee now being set up will have discussions on ways and means of assisting rural mail carriers now receiving $1,000 or over, and I am quite sure the revision of the legislation that is to be made will be as satisfactory as were the amendments to the Post Office Act of 1951.
As I sat and listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Hastings South (Mr. Foil-well), I fully agreed with what he said about doing away with the present restrictions on the service to rural people who reside on byroads that are not now served by regular rural mail routes. I believe the minimum requirement now stands at four boxholders per mile. In many cases that is working a great hardship on people living off established mail carrier routes. The tendency in rural farming and fishing areas today, especially in farming, is toward larger holdings because the mechanization of farming has brought about the absorption of smaller farm holdings. Therefore the result is that there are fewer residents per mile. When you consider the service the Post Office Department renders to people living in urban areas, who have two and three mail deliveries a day, while on the other hand there are people in rural areas who are not being served at all, or other cases where the woman of the household has to walk two miles to a mailbox, to me it is just not fair. We need these people in the isolated areas. They are producers. I feel quite confident that when this matter comes up for discussion in the committee the Postmaster General will give these people the fullest consideration.
(Translation):


Mr. Raoul Poulin (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, to conform with the very judicious advice given a few moments ago by the chairman, I felt it my duty to refrain from speaking at that time. I trust, however, that I may be permitted to say a few words on the motion to set up a committee.
Previous speakers have spoken at some length about the situation of rural mail couriers, which it is desired to readjust by a method that might be more satisfactory 68108-93i
Committee on Post Office but that could also prove somewhat dangerous for the minister himself, in spite of the fact that he is a man of good will.
The Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) will not deny, I am sure, that, as a rule, rural mail couriers are not sufficiently paid for the work they perform. It is easy to say that they themselves set their own price. However, because they are free to quote a price according to their own judgment, things are not always as simple as that.
What usually happens is that someone in the postal district where tenders are called decides to send in his own tender. He has learned somehow or other what was the amount of the contract of the previous mail courier. Once his contract is secured, he soon realizes that the scope of his responsibilities is much more extensive than he first imagined. His plight becomes unbearable. He makes this situation known to his member who, I imagine, passes his request on to the minister with the grievances of the man concerned. During the period which preceded the nomination of the present minister, as far as I know, the minister used to answer invariably, "Very well, if the holder of the contract is not satisfied, let him drop his contract and it will be up to him to put in a new tender". That was not a solution to the problem. Let us hope that the procedure for obtaining a contract under the bill, which has just been read for the first time, brings about a practical solution to this problem.
I would like to add only a few words in connection with another aspect of this question, which I will no doubt be able to discuss since the committee we are being requested to form will no doubt be able to look into the operation of rural mail services.
I am thinking now of the extension of rural mail service to rather distant parts of some concessions. In these concessions are sometimes to be found two, three or four farmers who do not enjoy rural mail delivery and who are therefore in a very difficult position indeed.
I understand that the minister is bound by the present regulations and that he can do no more, in spite of his good intentions. Unless I am mistaken there must be at least four or five residents over a one-mile stretch before these people become entitled to rural mail delivery. The farmers, moreover, it must be remembered, do not enjoy the privilege of going to the post office on Sundays since these are now closed. Formerly they were

Committee on Post Office open before or after high mass, sometimes in the afternoon and certainly in the evening, so that these people could be sure of meeting there to transact their postal business and many other things. But this is all over now. On the other hand the farmers do not have as many occasions of going down to the village as they had in former days. They generally sell their produce on their own doorstep and the things they buy are generally delivered there too. So that they must make a special trip of four, five or six miles to post a letter or get their mail, which they now receive quite frequently, for today our farmers read the daily newspapers.
For these reasons, I think that the rural mail service should be extended, that there should be a means of making a thorough survey of the situation, precisely during the proceedings of a committee such as the one we propose to establish. There should be a means of correcting this anomaly so that the farmers, even those who live in remote areas, may receive their mail if not every day at least every second day.
You will allow me here to quote a fact. A group of four farmers have established themselves on the land of their forefathers on land which had been opened up a few generations ago. Now one of these farmers sold his land and settled elsewhere for the one and only reason that he had no access to a daily postal service.
I trust that, knowing the minister's good -will, it will be possible, when this matter is studied in committee, to correct this situation.
(Text):


A. Earl Catherwood: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a matter of very great satisfaction to all members of parliament and to all parties in the house that the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) has finally acceded to the oft-repeated request made not only by members of the opposition but by other parties as well to discuss this matter in detail, particularly as it applies to the general administration of rural mail delivery and the problems of the couriers. I think this is the first time a real attempt has been made to deal with this matter, which has never been given the attention and consideration that it should have received. It involves a group of people that have served this country and the postal department very ably.
I think I express the views of members who have a knowledge of the responsibility, the work and all that is involved when a rural mail contract is signed. When we think of the thousands of people who day by day loyally carry Her Majesty's mail during

winter and summer, through sunshine and storm, we realize that these people feel that above all the mail must go through. We must consider that in carrying out their duties these people handle millions of dollars worth of securities and papers. We also must associate with them, Mr. Speaker, those who serve urban municipalities in a like capacity. We find that there have been very, very few cases where mishandling or misappropriation of funds has been charged against those people. I think it is very commendable that such is the case.


An hon. Member:: There are no horses in the mail bags.


A. Earl Catherwood: I think it has been proved that these people have been honest and loyal in carrying out their duties.
As was mentioned by the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. White), the post office does serve all the people of Canada, regardless of whether we are rich or poor, regardless of our station in life; we are all treated alike in the service we get from the rural mail couriers.
I trust that the committee will go into all aspects of the work very thoroughly, and deal not only with the service of the couriers but with the other services which can be rendered by this department.
I hope serious study will be given to the possibility of bringing in a recommendation that rural mail couriers should come under some form of civil service provision. That may not be possible, but every member of parliament who represents a rural constituency knows of individual cases where these men have been carrying the mail ten, twenty and thirty years or even more but are not in a position today to even buy a late model car with which to carry out their duties. I think it is an indication that, as we all agree, these men are not receiving sufficient remuneration. It does seem to me that for service in this field some more permanent policy should be put into effect to at least in part compensate them for their years of work. A system might be inaugurated whereby after five years of proven service a pension plan would be open to them. A general scheme might be worked out uniformly on a mileage basis with due consideration being given to conditions in the locality or municipality.
If we could eliminate the tender system that is presently in effect I think we would be taking a step which would greatly advance the situation, considering all the responsibilities and the duties which mail couriers are called upon to perform.
There are many other details which I hope and trust will be gone into very carefully

by the committee which has been set up for the purpose. We realize that the problems are most perplexing and most difficult. They will not be solved too easily. This committee have a big job to do, and they will be required to undertake a full analysis of the many factors which will arise during their deliberations.
I cannot help but feel that this legislation is a step forward, and I hope it will at least partially solve the situation that should have been faced years and years ago. I trust also that it will eliminate the unfavourable factors that have been associated with the Post Office Department, in connection with political aspects which in many cases have not been conducive to what we consider good and above-board principles.
I would like to emphasize the statement made by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) when he said that every facility should be extended to these people in order that they may come and give evidence which will assist the Postmaster General and the committee. Knowing the Postmaster General as we do, I am sure he will give them a favourable reception and that after their suggestions are heard action will be taken. As a result, Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in supporting a recommendation to set up this committee.


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad of the opportunity this resolution gives to say a few words with regard to matters concerning mail deliveries in the rural areas.
I am quite sure everyone in the house has had the same experience I have had, that when we take these matters up with the Postmaster General, particularly the present incumbent of the office, we receive pleasant, courteous and agreeable replies to our representations. They always appear to be approached in a sympathetic manner. I think it is correct to say-at any rate it is my own experience-that we are encouraged by these replies to hope that at last we have found a really sympathetic Postmaster General and that we are going to have all our requests accepted.
But unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the realization does not always measure up to the anticipation which this extremely pleasant attitude has aroused. If therefore I am somewhat critical this afternoon of affairs with respect to the rural services, I hope the Postmaster General will not take it amiss but will realize that I am sincere when I say that we appreciate his courtesy, that we are quite ready to believe that the lack of universal success in getting our requests accepted is probably not his fault, that if it were left
Committee on Post Office to him alone we would get them all, but that he is not able to do all he would like to do for us.
Nevertheless, that does not alter the fact that-in my experience, at any rate, in my constituency-the service to rural areas is far from improving to the extent which I believe it should improve, particularly when viewed in relation to the improvements in service and the speed of service in the more settled districts, but has in fact followed a retrograde course.
I have before me notes and correspondence that I have been having with the Postmaster General concerning five rural mail problems in my constituency. In the first of these there has been a reduction in the service. The second one is an effort to restore a service which was taken away twenty years ago. In the third one there has been a complete elimination of a service in existence for thirty years. In the fourth one, as the result of an alteration made in the general set-up of one service, there has been the elimination of another service, this time after forty years. And in the fifth one there is the threat of the elimination of a rural service. This state of affairs is spread throughout the whole constituency; it is not just in one area. You can therefore see, Mr. Speaker, that there is cause for concern and complaint on the part of the residents of the rural districts of my constituency with respect to the mail service which they are receiving.
I want to take this opportunity of impressing upon the minister the need of the people of these particular districts for a restored or an improved service. I have in mind, first, the matter of mail service to Beaton, which lies at the head of the Arrow lakes. It is served by a ferry boat which runs three times a week between Arrowhead and Beaton. There used to be a thrice-weekly mail service. That service has been reduced in recent months from three times a week to twice a week; and that reduction, may I say, Mr. Speaker, has taken place in the face of the fact that there is a great increase in the mining activity in that area.
I have had letters from the chamber of commerce in the district and from others concerned in the mining business, and they have impressed upon me the great inconvenience that reduction causes. I passed this information and these requests on to the Post Office Department, and as I say, we have had sympathetic letters; but so far, unfortunately, although a review has been promised, we have had no results. I want therefore to take this opportunity of laying before the Postmaster General the case of this service which at the moment is being investigated
1456	HOUSE OF
Committee on Post Office by his inspector in Vancouver, and to ask him if he will give it his own personal attention and give the necessary instructions that the service be restored from twice a week to three times a week.
The next area is at a place called Chezacut. It is in the district known as the Chilcotin, one of the finest ranching areas in the province. It is an area which lies well beyond the limits of ordinary settlement. I am not going to say that it lies beyond the limits of civilization, because that would be going too far; but in so far as we have a frontier area left in our part of the country, it is a frontier area. The people living at this point are some sixty miles from the nearest post office. I am informed that up until 1933 there was a regular service between Redstone and Chezacut. That service was discontinued in 1933. The result is that there are several families, with at least 25 children-that was the information I received in 1950-


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Individual families?


Edmund Davie Fulton: There are several families, and a total of 25 children.


Albany M. Robichaud: That is better than the Frenchmen.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is a virile country. These families and children are without mail service. When I wrote the Postmaster General about this matter, again I received a letter which promised an immediate investigation; but unfortunately the investigation resulted in a report which informed me that the Postmaster General decided it would not be possible to restore this mail service. The reason he gave us was that on account of the mileage that it would be necessary to cover and the fact that there were not very many families in the district, the result would be-and I quote from his letter-that "we would show a considerable deficit as the cost of this service would be far in excess of the expected revenue".
I do not want to get into a discussion of general principles here-I will do that in a moment or two-but I just want to pause to suggest that when you are considering services to rural areas, it is not proper to place the matter exclusively on a financial basis and say that unless the service will show a profit or at least will not operate at a deficit, we will not give the service; because that attitude results in a situation which makes it almost impossible for families to live in those districts, particularly families with children where it is necessary sometimes to get word out in a hurry, in the case of emergencies, or where it is necessary to carry on correspondence courses for education. The people


simply cannot get their children educated; they cannot bring them up with the amenities and facilities they should have, when most services are denied as a result of erroneous insistence on the necessity of showing an operating profit before inaugurating or continuing rural mail service.
The third case concerns Heffley Creek rural route No. 2, which is another case in which the service has been discontinued. This service was in existence continuously for some thirty years until it was cut off this summer. By constituents there, I am advised that the service was "cut off abruptly this month"- that is the month of July

"with just a note in the mailbox stating it was to be the last delivery". My correspondent goes on to say that he has four children who depend on the mail delivery for their correspondence lessons. Well, I took this matter up with the Postmaster General, and as a result of these inquiries I received a rather unusual letter from him in which he gave as the main reason for the discontinuance of the route the fact that the road conditions were poor, on account of which the courier had asked for an increase in the amount of his contract. He previously operated it for $364 per annum, $7 per trip. When the contract expired a renewal was offered, but he refused it and submitted another tender at the rate of $600 per annum, which he subsequently agreed to reduce to $550, and the department felt that that was too high. They went on to say that one of the reasons given for the rate, according to the tenderer, was the deplorable condition of the road which the tenderer said resulted in large bills for the repair and maintenance of his car.
The Postmaster General went on to say that the residents who wanted the route continued should improve their road if they really wanted a rural route. The Postmaster General does not appear to appreciate the conditions. What he is doing is to require the people, who live there as individuals, to maintain some thirty miles of road, which is of course entirely a provincial responsibility.
In British Columbia there is no longer the system of the old days-and it had its advantages-whereby the farmers living in the country areas had the opportunity of working out their taxes by doing a certain amount of road work. That system has not been followed for some time by our provincial administration, and there is no way in which the farmers, who are busy enough as it is at any rate, can keep up the road.
This seems to me to be another case in which the department just does not recognize

the difficulties under which the inhabitants of those rural areas are living. The fact that the road conditions are poor and the conditions of life are strenuous is, I submit, an additional reason why every effort should be made by all governmental authorities to do what they can to bring to the people the amenities which will make their life a little less hard, and generally make conditions under which they live a little more pleasant. Certainly the regular receipt of mail is one of the things to which people in rural areas most look forward. Here we have a condition where instead of their circumstances being improved, and everything possible to improve them being done, they are compelled to accept a worse state of affairs as the years go by, and the service which they enjoyed for thirty years has now been discontinued.
The fourth case concerns the mail service in the Ashcroft-Clinton area, the gateway to the Cariboo ranching country. Here a mail service which was in operation for forty years has been discontinued. This state of affairs came about as the result of a change in the mail service on the Cariboo highway. We had been pressing for a matter of some five years for a daily service to the main post offices on the Cariboo highway, from Ashcroft north. On September 15 last, after these lengthy negotiations, the department suddenly announced its decision to implement this service. I might say that they announced it by means of informing the residents in the Clinton area that they would no longer be receiving their thrice weekly service which they had received by a rural courier. That was the first indication that they or I or anyone else had that the decision had been arrived at to institute this daily service, by bus from Ashcroft, to the main post offices on the Cariboo highway.
The reason given for the discontinuance of this rural service is that the department will not maintain two parallel services, one a rural service to the boxes along the highway, while at the same time there is what you might call a main line service from Ashcroft, dropping off mails to the main post offices along the same route.
Well, it may be difficult to argue against that, at least in theory, but there are two observations I should like to make. The first is that I do not think it was proper that this decision should be made and implemented without any warning to anyone concerned that the result of the change-that is the institution of the daily service by bus to the main post offices-would be the discontinuance of another service. That fact had simply not been discussed. Secondly, it
Committee on Post Office means that all the other rural points dependent on service from Clinton as their central post office have had their mail service changed as well, because the decision to institute the daily main post office service covers only first-class letter mail. Previously, in the area from Ashcroft to Clinton, there was the three times a week service, and in other cases once a week rural service, which carried all classes of mail, parcels as well as letters. That has been discontinued, and parcels have to go by train, with long delays, and letters only are carried by the daily service to Clinton. One of the rural services has been discontinued as a result, and with respect to the other services they receive only letters; they have to wait a very much longer time before they get their parcels.
A petition has been submitted to the Postmaster General asking that this matter be taken care of by providing that the daily service to the main post offices, which would include Clinton, should carry all classes of mail, and that a separate rural service be instituted covering the points between Ashcroft and Clinton formerly served three times a week. Whatever the method adopted, Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that the result of the change has been that a service to a rural area which contains a very large number of people, which had been in existence for forty years with reasonable satisfaction, has suddenly been discontinued.
I sent a petition to the minister covering one portion of this area, asking for the reinstitution of the rural route. I have received the usual courteous answer, but so far have had no action. Sometimes it seems to me that it takes the minister's department a very long time to get their reports, because it is well over six weeks since the matter was referred to him. A report was promised, but I have had no further word.
The final case I want to bring to the minister's attention concerns rural route No. 1 at Pritchard. Here again is a case of a route which has been in existence for many years, now threatened with discontinuance because the contractor finds it impossible to continue operating at the present rate. I must say that the residents of that route appreciate the fact that a temporary authorization was granted for the continuance of the route at a higher rate, but that arrangement is not permanent. It is merely continued at the Postmaster General's pleasure, and might be cancelled at any time. What we want there is authority for the contract at a rate which will enable a tenderer living in the area to operate without loss. Just because the costs of operation have increased-the population has not gone
1458	HOUSE OF
Committee on Post Office down; in fact it has increased somewhat-is, I submit, no justification for discontinuing a service which is essential to those who live there. A contract must be awarded at a rate which will enable the carrier to operate with safety and certainty.
Mr. Speaker, these are five problems which concern the residents of rural areas in my constituency, so far as their mail service is concerned. I submit that each one of these could be satisfactorily settled by the application of the general principle which I maintain should apply, namely that those living in the rural areas of Canada are now entitled to priority in the matter of their mail service.
After all, the cities and urban areas in Canada would not exist if it were not for the rural areas lying behind them. If it were not for the produce of the farms, the forests and the mines of Canada we would not have any cities, because there would be no justification or occasion for them. Yet rural areas in most cases have inadequate service and exist under conditions of great hardship. Now they are beginning to find their conditions made even worse because, at least in those cases I have outlined, they have been deprived even of those meagre mail services they formerly had.
Keep in mind that city life has all the amenities. People in the cities do not have to expose themselves to an equal extent to the rigours of winter. They have all conveniences right at their doorstep. They have the advantage of mail delivery and parcel post, regular deliveries from the shops, and the like. They do not have to drive through snowdrifts on rough country roads to obtain the very necessities of life. Yet these cities, already enjoying an adequate mail delivery service, suddenly found themselves, a year or two ago, in receipt of the de luxe all-up air mail service, a service provided only at the expense of the whole country which of course includes the rural areas. I have not been able this afternoon to find the figure among my papers, but I recall that I did receive from the Postmaster General figures showing the increase in cost to the Post Office Department as the result of this all-up air mail service.
I am not suggesting that this service should be eliminated. But I do suggest that if it is to be given at the general expense of the country, including the taxpayers in rural areas; if our cities are to be given this super de luxe service when already they were enjoying a quite adequate service, then surely the rural areas should be provided with an adequate service instead of the


meagre and, in some cases, totally inadequate service from which they have been suffering for so many years.
This argument of course has double application to cases such as I have outlined this afternoon, where an already meagre service is either going to be discontinued, or made more inadequate through having the deliveries reduced from three to two each week.
I repeat that if the cities of Canada can be given this super service at the general expense of the taxpayers, including those in the rural areas, upon whom the cities depend, then it is time-more than time-that adequate service be provided for those who live in the rural areas, without whose willingness to endure hardships and to go to the country and produce the things we all require there could be no existence for those of us who live in the cities.
I am sure if this problem were put to any individual living in a city he would say, "Surely; I agree with you. Let us give the farmers, the ranchers, those working in the mines and the forests an adequate service." Let us cut out this penny-pinching which results in destroying in some cases even the amenities of mail service they already had, and let us get on with improving rural service generally.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, I have only one problem to mention in connection with rural mail delivery. Perhaps we might call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw to the attention of the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) and the committee which is to be set up under this motion a condition under which the rural patrons of the post office do not receive the same consideration as city patrons. This motion is to set up a committee to investigate the regulations and the general administration and operation of rural mail delivery services, and I feel that this is a proper place to call the attention of the Postmaster General to the anomaly which I will now describe.
When first-class mail is posted in a post office it is delivered for three cents when it can be handled through that post office. But in the case of a rural post office, where there are no walks by letter carriers, a letter to be called for at that particular office or deliv-

ered by a rural mail courier must have a four-cent stamp placed upon it. I feel that that is a discrimination against the rural patrons of the Post Office Department. The principle is that if a letter passes through one office only it is delivered for three cents irrespective of the method of delivery. In the cities it is delivered by letter carriers performing their usual walks; in the country districts it is delivered by rural mail carriers using a car or a horse and buggy in order to deliver mail to the patrons of that particular post office.
This works a particular hardship upon that large class of patrons who live in what was described by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) as suburbia, that borderland between rural and urban communities. Let me give an example of a condition which exists throughout the dominion, and I use the city of Victoria, British Columbia, as my example.
A letter posted in the post office there to be delivered to 2000 Quadra street will be delivered by a letter carrier on his walk for three cents. But if it is addressed to 2100 Quadra street it will be delivered by a rural mail carrier and must bear a four-cent stamp. The line which is taken as the limit of three-cent postage does not conform at all to the city boundary, it is an arbitrary line which was drawn a number of years ago by the Post Office Department. It was suitable in those days, but the environs of the city of Victoria have built up tremendously, and unless one had a map with that particular line drawn upon it he would not know when he passed from the three-cent to the four-cent area.
One of the main difficulties is that a business or professional man living just over the border must pay additional postage due every time he receives any mail with a three-cent stamp upon it. Many of the city streets run through this imaginary line. A correspondent addressing a letter might consult the city or telephone directory to find an address; and if the address was 2000 Quadra street his letter would be delivered for three cents. But another person looking up another address and finding it to be 2100 Quadra street would make it necessary for the professional or businessman who might be living at that number to pay extra postage due if only three cents were placed upon the letter.
I am using this just as an illustration. I am not suggesting for one moment that 2100 is actually the number of a house on that particular street. This is the condition that exists in Victoria, and I think a similar condition exists in every rural post office 68108-94
Committee on Post Office throughout the land. If you deliver a letter at a rural post office, unless it is to be called for at the post office it can be delivered only by a rural mail carrier. Although it goes through only the one office it must have a four-cent stamp on it. Surely the principle is that if a letter is posted in one office to be delivered to a person through that office it should require only three cents. If it is to go through two offices, naturally there should be a four-cent stamp upon it.
Surely the matter of delivery is not of prime concern. If it is possible to deliver a letter for three cents through one city post office to addresses in that city, that letter being delivered by hand at the door to the person to whom it is addressed, surely the same privilege should be granted to the rural patrons of the post office. When they receive a letter which only goes through one office it should be possible to carry it to them for three cents, no matter what the method of delivery is.
I would therefore ask the Postmaster General to give this matter his consideration, because there is an anomaly there. There is great difficulty with the borderline cases where the Post Office Department has drawn an arbitrary line between letter carrier delivery and rural courier delivery. A person writing a letter cannot tell where that line is, and it is a hardship on the residents of the kind of area which was described as suburbia today by the hon. member for Peel.
These people are very definitely handicapped because they have to pay the amount of the postage due stamps, and in the case of business and professional men it sometimes amounts to quite a large sum. I cannot help feeling that it is only fair that rural patrons who receive their mail through one office should not be required to pay more for the delivery of their mail through that one office than a city resident has to pay for the delivery of his mail through one office. I hope the Postmaster General will give the matter very careful consideration.


Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief. I want to speak on behalf of the rural carriers in my riding. I am not worried, as was the previous speaker, about whether my pre-election speeches will be delivered at any particular rate. It is rather amazing to me that a member coming from a district adjacent to Victoria would want anything delivered except an obituary notice, which would be customary in the city of Victoria.
I do want to say that I think the system is wrong under which rural carriers are operating at the present time. I do not know

Committee on Post Office what the solution is, but I believe a committee of the house might consider the matter and arrive at some decision satisfactory both to the public and to the carriers. Unlike my friend from Nanaimo, I am not worrying about whether it costs three or four cents to send my speeches to my constituents because I would prefer, as I think he should, that they do not get there.
I think the present system is not good for the public or the carriers. I know that in my own riding people have bid for carrier routes at rates at which they could not carry out their contracts profitably. I think they bid on them knowing that they could not be carried out at the rates at which they tendered. What the solution is I frankly admit I do not know; and I am perfectly sure that the hon. member for Nanaimo, with all his vast carrier experience, both pigeon and otherwise, does not know the solution. However, I believe the matter could be referred to a committee.
I want to say that I think the present system on the contract basis is entirely wrong, and that a committee should be set up to study it.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take very much of the time of the house because this subject has been thoroughly discussed. Neither do I wish to embarrass the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote), but may I say that I agree with the many kind things that were said about him this afternoon. I am sure that his genial manner and pleasant smile are going to help him a lot in his portfolio. I also feel he is not likely to fall into some of the errors that his predecessor committed.
I am pleased that a committee is to be set up. Such action has been recommended before in the house, and I think a committee can do a lot of good. People from all parts of Canada will come before the committee to express their views on this most difficult problem, and I know that good results will attend the work of the committee.
There are many problems, and having listened to the members who spoke this afternoon one realizes that the problems are the same in practically every constituency, particularly the rural ones. My own constituency is about 80 per cent rural, and I think it has as many rural mail routes as any other constituency in Canada. The great problem in the past has been the difficulty of the courier in obtaining suitable compensation for the work he was doing. I think this situation has been brought about by the keen competition for these jobs. Why there should be such

keen competition is hard for me to understand because, as has been pointed out here, it is a very difficult and important job, and the mail couriers certainly have to cope with the weather and many other difficulties.
I agree with what was said this afternoon by a number of members from rural constituencies about people in the rural districts not receiving the same treatment as those in the cities. To my mind there is no reason in the world why a city district should have two daily mail deliveries whereas in some country districts they only have three mail deliveries a week. I think that is most unfair, and as long as that situation prevails there is going to be a great deal of dissatisfaction throughout the country. I also believe that, while the present system of obtaining mail couriers is obsolete and unsatisfactory, we must be very careful not to institute a system which will be on a patronage basis. I think such action would lead to much difficulty and abuse. When the committee meets I am sure it will give this matter very serious consideration.
I should also like to point out to the minister with respect to rural mail delivery that I believe one of the reasons a good many people are leaving the country districts today, especially the back country areas, is the fact that they are not receiving sufficient mail service. People in the cities have their radios and now their television sets, and they have two daily mail deliveries; but people in the back areas are only getting mail two or three times a week. They cannot have their daily papers and this all works great hardship on them.
I am not going to worry the house this evening with the many problems I have in my own constituency. There will be opportunity to do that later. I have already brought many of them to the attention of the department and some have been corrected, while others have not. I would like, however, to read to the house a typical letter which I received some time ago which illustrates, I think, the problem there is in the country. This has to do with .... rural route No. 2. The writer says:
We have had no mail driver on this route for the past four months. Our mail driver gave up the route because it did not pay him. I understand that a tender went in, approved by the local executive, but that Ottawa would not contract. I presume that the authorities figure it on a mileage basis but it is more than that.
The driver leaves at ten a.m. in order to have
the mail at	 by eleven o'clock. Then he
has to wait for two trains and the sorting of the mail, getting home about five p.m. Thus, it takes his whole day for a thirty-mile trip.
That is an indication, Mr. Speaker-and there are many-why you cannot stick to

any hard and fast rule as far as mileage is concerned. This man spends his whole day and he should be entitled, as I am sure the minister will agree, to a full day's pay. The result in that district was that they could not get a man to drive the mail on the basis that is now in effect. The writer goes on to say:
I believe we have a right to the same service that we are helping to pay for in the rest of Canada and ask that you advise us at your earliest convenience what we are to expect for we have been slighted too long.
That is just an indication of the feeling of many people in many sections, not only of my own province but I am sure all across Canada.
As I said at the outset I am certainly well pleased that the minister is setting up this committee, and I believe these many problems will need to be carefully considered. I also feel certain that some solution can be found.


Mr. G. M. Murray (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of points that I would like to bring to the attention of the minister with respect to our particular part of Canada. One of them has to do with air service. I think you should use aircraft more than you do now in servicing these rural routes. An aircraft based at the international airport in Vancouver, running due north through the Cariboo, I am prepared to say, could on a daily run carry all the mail more cheaply than it is being carried today, shuffling it over the railways, back to Edmonton, up and down the P.G.E., the C.P.R., the C.N.R and the other railways, carrying mail clerks and adding unnecessarily to the cost of getting mail over the rural routes. I hope you will study that suggestion and either make contracts or put on your own mail plane from the international airport at Vancouver to say Whitehorse and back, on a daily schedule, so the mail may be delivered promptly and smartly from the central office to those industrial districts along that route.
I think the minister might well consider establishing a base rate for all road transportation of mail. The public utilities commission in British Columbia will establish the cost of hauling goods from one point to another, at so many cents per ton mile. For motor transportation it could be accurately established and it might very well be considered, when calling for tenders, whether the department could say that the base rate would be so many cents per ton mile. From there on it would be a matter of efficiency and people could compete in any way they liked, but we should not send the mail at less than the actual cost to the man doing the work.
Committee on Post Office
Up in our district it is difficult to get couriers to carry the mail from the central office out into the country. They are throwing up their contracts because they do not want to work for nothing. After all, the cost of gasoline, tires and so on is standardized. Everybody knows what they cost. Even hourly labour rates are well standardized. The department could say that in a certain area the base price would be so much. If the work could be done for that, all right; if not, more would have to be paid.
As I say, a good many of those people delivering mail in my area are doing so just out of a sense of duty and service. They are losing money on every load they carry. In that connection I would say that the British Yukon Navigation Company is carrying mail on the Alaska highway from railhead to points in the Yukon at very much less than the actual outlay they are forced to make in order to carry that mail. They are doing that as a service to people along the way.
The government of Canada should not depend upon charity. We should pay these men a fair sum for the work done, and it can be reckoned very easily these days when costs are so well known.
I want to commend the department for the good work which they are doing. I think the minister is following in the footsteps of that great Liberal, Sir William Mulock, who introduced penny postage and who was such an ornament in this house and such a figure in world history when he occupied the position which is now so honourably occupied by the minister.	,


Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: Mr. Speaker, a good many members have entered this debate, and it has now become a wide open debate on postal matters. I suppose we can deal with pretty nearly any part of the Postmaster General's department which may have come to our attention.
The resolution to set up a committee to deal with postal courier matters and other things in connection with the postal department is one for which we on this side of the house have agitated for a number of years. Now we have the support of both sides of the house, and we have the assurance of the Postmaster General that he is in favour of this committee which, particularly, will study rural mail couriers to see that those men, who are great servants of Canada, get what is fair and just treatment.
We all know what the mail couriers have gone through in the years of service which some of them have given. We all know how niggardly they have been treated with regard to salary, but they have not been niggardly

Committee on Post Office in the time they worked, in order to make even their small salaries. We know that no other class of servants of the government has given such service as have these mail couriers who are now being given consideration by this house. We hope to see that they receive something in the way of salary which will be adequate remuneration for the good work they are doing.
When speaking about postal matters, the first thing that comes to my mind regarding my own constituency is the post office building that has been promised to us for over ten years. It is dangling again because of the fact that an election is not far away.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I presume the hon. member is only making a passing reference to post office buildings.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is all the government is doing about them too.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I just thought that possibly it would be well, Mr. Speaker, to remind the house that I had not forgotten the promises that have been made for ten years or more. That is all I shall say about this dangling of the new post office building.
There are several things I want to speak about tonight and bring to the attention of the new Postmaster General. One is the manner in which we have been treated as a postal area in connection with mail couriers. As a postal area, the province of Prince Edward Island has not had the attention it should have had. For instance, we do not have a divisional controller, nor do we have a postal zone like Nova Scotia or New Brunswick. Instead of having a postal area and a post office division of our own, we are hitched on to the province of New Brunswick. We have the same set-up, nevertheless we have no control, as it were, of our wants.
At the post office at Charlottetown we have some of the best postmasters and inspectors, and the whole staff are excellent as I know the Postmaster General will find out if he has not already done so. We have an excellent staff there. Yet if some rural post offices want some little item in order to complete their rural post office work, they come in and, instead of being able to get it right there in Charlottetown, they have no say in the matter. The first thing they say is: We have to find out from Saint John, New Brunswick. They write or telephone to Saint John and the Saint John man says:	No; there is
the controller at Moncton to whom I have to go. So they go again from Charlottetown to Saint John, then from Saint John to Moncton, and then the Moncton controller has got to go back to Ottawa. Probably by that time


they have forgotten all about what they needed, and nothing more is heard about it until another person comes in.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The usual runaround.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I mention this matter because we, as a province, should have the same treatment as the other provinces receive. We should have control of our own postal affairs. We have been neglected in this matter. It seems to me that the Liberal party, knowingly or otherwise, like to take these things away from our province, if they can possibly do so, in order to make it smaller.
I want to call to the attention of the Postmaster General the fact that his predecessor went one better than that when he was advertising postal matters all across Canada and in the United States. What did he do but get out a map of Canada and leave Prince Edward Island off the map altogether. All hon. members will remember that incident. It cost a great deal of money to rectify that error, because the contracts had been made and the government had to cancel the contracts and pay for them without getting the advertising.
I now want to deal for a few minutes with another little matter that I desire to bring to the attention of the Postmaster General, namely the stamp vendor's position in the post office at Prince Edward Island. There is a stamp vendor there who has been employed by the government for a number of years.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member is under a misapprehension.
At the opening of his remarks he was quite right when he said that he could discuss postal matters in a general way. But I want to restrict him by adding "only inasmuch as they refer to rural service". I should therefore like him to confine his remarks to that aspect of postal matters.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I was under the impression, Mr. Speaker, that earlier today when the first resolution was before the house for consideration a limit was set, and that those who kept within those bounds were all right at that time. I understood from Mr. Speaker that when the second resolution came up for consideration the sky was the limit as long as the discussion was on postal matters. However, I am quite agreeable to leaving this matter open.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps I should clarify what I said this afternoon. If the hon. member reads the resolution which is now

before the house he will find that the first two lines are as follows:
That a special committee be appointed to consider the bill, an act to amend the Post Office Act-
The resolution which we studied this afternoon was one preceding the introduction of this particular amending bill; I therefore suggested that those who wanted to say anything about the amending bill could perhaps say it on this resolution which is also to be sent to the committee for study.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I would take it, Mr. Speaker, that we are to confine ourselves more to the rural mail couriers, and that we can elaborate possibly a little bit more on that matter. However, I think at some stage during this debate there should be a time when we would be able to bring forward certain matters that are worrying us, more or less, with regard to the postal department.


Pierre Gauthier: That can be done on the estimates.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I hope we shall not have to wait until the close of the session to bring these things to the attention of the house.
A few moments ago I was speaking about the mail couriers and saying what a wonderful class of citizens they are. I am dealing more particularly with the constituency of Queens. In that constituency the great trouble we have always had with reference to mail couriers' contracts has been the great discrepancy between the various mail routes. No matter how much alike they were, in the granting of contracts these differences came into the picture. As an illustration, let us consider contracts for routes covering only eight miles. They were only small contracts, yet in those contracts there was a difference of as much as $120 a year. That was on an eight-mile contract. Then we come along to the nine and ten-mile contracts. Here the discrepancy goes up according to the people who have the job of driving the mail. The discrepancy goes up to $210 on a distance of ten miles, with the lowest-paid courier serving 50 per cent more boxes than were served by any two of the others put together. Yet he is paid $210 a year less.
I want the Postmaster General to remember some of these things when this committee is set up; and I want him to see that the committee endeavours to get as fair a remuneration as it is possible to get for each mail route. Now we come to the twelve and thirteen-mile contracts. Under this system that we have there is a difference of $250 on a considerable number of contracts. Surely there should not be that much difference.
Committee on Post Office On a fourteen-mile route we have a difference of $320 per annum on a small contract of $900.
These discriminations between the different contracts and contractors run as high as $650. These contractors give practically the same service. Some of them work on highways on which they can use automobiles possibly ten months in a year. I hope the committee will take that into consideration. Some of the contractors I have mentioned must have not only a small truck to deliver mail in the summer time, but in the spring they must have a horse and buggy, or a horse and wagon, and in the winter time they must have a horse and cutter. Therefore they all have a certain amount of expense. When the expenses of most of the couriers are calculated, together with the cost of everything they have to buy, such as feed for the horse, horseshoeing, harness repairs of different kinds, as well as the expense of an automobile, and so forth, very few of them make a decent daily wage.
Why are we limited in what we may say in regard to these contractors when we are discussing this new legislation that has been sought and is to be introduced, that will put into the hands of the Postmaster General the right to bargain with the mail couriers on all contracts under a thousand dollars, and some over that amount as well? This is giving too much power to one man. No matter how good a man he may be, power is being put into his hands to enable him to work in the interests of the party to which he belongs. He cannot help but take into account the interests of his own people when it comes to making mail contracts.	j
I am not going to labour this question any longer. There are many things I should like to say but I will abide by your decision, Mr. Speaker. I hope that later on the Speaker will permit me to say what I have to say to the Postmaster General. I now want to give him a word of advice. We had a Postmaster General not so long ago who on several occasions promised us that a committee would be set up, but it was never done. We now have an hon. gentleman who in his first speech to this house as Postmaster General told us that he was going to have it set up. He is therefore in right with all the people across this country who favour working in the interests of the mail couriers.
I have one further word to say to him. I should like to see him cut clear entirely from politics because my memory of his predecessor amuses me, especially in connection with his political career. He has been promoted to something higher, and we have
1464	HOUSE OF
Committee on Post Office to leave him in peace. I hope our present Postmaster General does not follow in the footsteps of his predecessor.
(Translation) :


Pierre Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to prolong the debate, but as I am not on the committee-and I am not blaming anyone for that-I would like to make a few suggestions now.
First, when the time comes to award contracts, we often receive representations, especially when the said contracts concern two adjacent territories, because there is a discrepancy of $200 or $300. It sometimes happens that people put in such or such a bid because the roads are bad during the winter. Quite often, also, the rural mail courier has to beat his own way in the morning after a storm; that is not very interesting. That man must have a better horse or better equipment. That is why the amount of his tender is a little higher.
Secondly, sometimes there is a request for a box at the end of a road and the minister replies that the distance is too great between the last box on the route and the one asked for. Therefore, I would ask that the distance prescribed be increased because the man who happens to live too far from the last box to be able to get one himself seems to be somewhat neglected, and although he might have the best disposition in the world, he feels inclined to criticize the department; however we do not want this to happen because the department does its best to please everybody.
Thirdly, when there is a request for sorting frames used in preparing the mail to be delivered the next day, it seems only fair to me that those sorting frames be sent to the post office as soon as possible, so as to make things easier for the couriers and enable them to do a good job.
Fourthly, we would ask the public-and we have the right to do so-to co-operate with the rural couriers so that, in winter, when the snow piles up, the latter are not obliged to shovel a path to the owner's mail box. As often happens, even if the courier asks the owner to clear his walk, the owner does not bother to do so. We would like the department to ask the general public to make the work of the rural mail courier somewhat easier since the latter is deserving of much attention and much praise for the way in which he goes about his business.
Now, again, there is the matter of one mail route in one parish encroaching upon another parish. For instance, there are people in Les Ecureuils who have to have their mail addressed to Neuville since they are served


by the Neuville courier, whose circuit extends to the parish of Les Ecureuils. It seems to me there should be a way of preventing the rural mail route of a parish from extending into the neighbouring parish, and even more so when a route passes from one constituency to another.
These are the only remarks I wished to make, Mr. Speaker. I hope that I have not taken too much of the time of the house and that the minister will forgive me for having detained him for a few minutes.
(Text):


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Speaker, there are three things I want to say. I have found that the salaries paid to those who work in rural post offices are very low, amounting to $13 and $15 a month. We know that an expert woodcutter, cutting wood in the bush, can earn more in a day than would run those post offices for a month. We do not think they get enough.
The second thing I notice is that this is legislation to amend the Post Office Act so that we shall have deliveries twice a day. I will not push that very far, but we need that in the cities and the Postmaster General knows it.
As I mentioned this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I think this way of choosing civil servants by contract has become obsolete. Why cannot these men or women be chosen in the same way as other civil servants are chosen? They have responsible jobs. Why can they not be chosen by examination? I hope this suggestion will be considered.


Mr. G. W. Montgomery (Victoria-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to take much time in the discussion of this motion. I find myself deeply interested in it, and it is one with which I can say I agree.
I could spend some time in bringing to the attention of the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) problems of my own constituency, just as other members might do. Thus far my contact with the Postmaster General has been most pleasant indeed. I am sure no one could have extended greater courtesy to me. I have not bothered him much because not long ago he told me legislation would be brought down which he hoped would meet many of the problems not only in my constituency but across Canada as a whole.
I believe this motion to set up the committee is a move in the right direction, provided the members of the committee really get down to business and make an effort to find a method for the proper appointment and payment of rural mail couriers. This

is not going to be an easy matter, because I suppose that conditions vary throughout the country. Different conditions will be found in different constituencies. Perhaps it will not simply be a matter of setting down a basic rate per mile.
In my own constituency, for instance, in the summer the rural mail courier can carry out his task without any great difficulty. But in the winter time he faces an entirely different situation, and it is not unreasonable that, to be properly compensated, on his thirty-mile route he should receive more money than would another rural mail courier with a route of fifty or sixty miles. The man in my vicinity may have to plow his own road a good part of the time in the winter months. When the snow is blowing he is not going to have good roads. On the other hand, on other routes the roads would be plowed and there would be no difficulty of this kind.
All these points must be considered. As the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) said this afternoon, I hope the committee will consider the requests of rural mail couriers from outlying districts. Not only should they appear from the Ottawa area; they should come from both the east and the west, so we may find out some of their difficulties. These will not be easily solved. It is my view, however, that in setting up a committee we are going about it in the right way.
If I understood the Postmaster General correctly, the bill introduced this afternoon will not become law until after the committee has made its recommendations. If it were to go through in its present form I am afraid it would prove to be only a temporary solution. While I am very much in favour of an upward adjustment of the fees or remuneration of rural mail couriers, I feel there must be safeguards. These will have to be considered by the committee and dealt with in its recommendations. Not only must there be safeguards for the couriers; there must be safeguards for the public as well. At the moment I have on my desk a petition in this connection. I have in mind a case where the regular mail delivery is on Wednesday but, because of a storm, the roads are impassable. Then Thursday is a holiday. Friday is another stormy day, with the result that the people in that area have received only one mail delivery that week instead of three. This is not uncommon.
In some areas the delivery is daily. Yet there are other areas just as thickly populated, and entitled to just as good delivery, where they have only three deliveries in a week. The committee will have to get to the bottom
Committee on Post Office of these conditions. As was suggested by the hon. member for Peel, it would be preferable to have a percentage of the witnesses come to Ottawa. They could be chosen from various areas across the country, and permitted to tell their story to the committee.
I could make some comments about discrimination, and many other subjects. However, after having listened to other hon. members who have spoken in the debate I think there is no need to repeat what they have said. I can state, briefly, that I am very much in favour of setting up the committee, and I express the hope that it will go into the situation thoroughly. I am of the opinion that the Postmaster General is looking for a solution. Having talked with him I am satisfied that he is sincere in this matter, and that he wishes to bring down legislation which will remedy the conditions from which the rural mail couriers are suffering. It is imperative that they be treated fairly in the matter of the compensation to which they are entitled.
I believe that is all I wish to say, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. G. T. Fulford (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to delay the proceedings of the house for more than two or three minutes, because I feel that everything that could be said on this subject was said this afternoon. The debate will have shown the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) the arduous task ahead of the committee in separating the wheat from the chaff.
Excellent ideas have been put forth in the debate. I think all hon. members representing rural constituencies owe a debt of gratitude to the minister for setting up the committee. I do not think there is one of us who is not worried over the inequalities of the present system. Each of us has in the back of his mind some solution to overcome those inequalities; indeed, we have heard them discussed today.
I trust the present system will be superseded by one that will give the rural mail couriers a fair return on their investment, a fair return on the amount they put into their cars and equipment, or the sleighs they may have to use in the winter months. I trust some formula can be devised, based upon the length of the route, the number of boxes along the route, the condition of the roads and the like. When a man seeks a contract or is given the duty of delivering the mails he will then be assured of at least an honest and fair return on the amount he must lay out for equipment and for the time he must spend at his work.
Urban mail carriers are required to pass a civil service examination. As far as the
1466	HOUSE OF
Committee on Post Office appointment of rural mail couriers is concerned, I think we should do away with the objectionable patronage that enters into these appointments and have civil service examinations set for these people, bearing in mind always that they should receive an adequate return on their investment and for the time required to carry out their duties.
(Translation):


Albany M. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, on the subject of this resolution, to which I give my entire support, I wish to point out to the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote), inasmuch as this resolution, which relates to the functioning of the rural mail delivery, applies to my riding, first a deficiency in the rural mail delivery in the constituency of Gloucester and, secondly, a gross anomaly in the present system.
I said a deficiency. According to the figures in the last report, or the directory published last December by the Post Office Department, 9,721 family heads are served in my constituency by your department. Of this number, 782 family heads get postal service through rural mail delivery. We have only 7 rural routes in the vast county of Gloucester which is unquestionably the largest rural constituency in the whole province of New Brunswick.
As I say, we have only 7 rural routes and only 7 per cent of our postal population, if I may use such an expression, is served by rural mail delivery. That is, in my opinion, a deficiency, and that is why I do urge the hon. minister to pay special attention to Gloucester county whenever representations are made to him for the establishment of new rural routes or new rural mail delivery systems. Frankly we have been rather sadly neglected up to now, as can readily be ascertained by the department's own figures.
I therefore wish to call the minister's attention to the case of the Canobie district, to which I have already referred in a letter which I wrote him on November 24 last. I would call the minister's attention to the fact that in the Canobie area there is, at present, one district that enjoys rural mail delivery. Now in this district there is one place called Springfield whose people have no service at all. There are no boxes in that district. There are 5 farmers, 5 families without any postal service at all. Moreover, there are in that same district 13 new settlement lots; this means that in the very near future there will be 18 farmers in the district of Springfield which, up to now, has had no postal service.
[Mr. Fulford.l

The same situation prevails in the western section of the Canobie district, known under the name of Doucetville. There is not a box at Doucetville. There are nonetheless between 10 and 12 good farmers without any postal service. The people from both Springfield and Doucetville must walk a distance of nearly a mile to get their mail in the boxes of neighbours who are charitable enough to allow the mail of these people who have no postal service to be deposited in their boxes.
In reply to my letter, the minister stated that my requests would receive serious consideration, but to date no decision has been made. I believe it is about time we had a formal decision from the department, so that we may know whether something can or cannot be done for those people who, I repeat, are without any service.
May I also bring to the minister's attention the very special case of two islands, Shippi-gan and Miscou islands, situated in the northwest part of my constituency. The situation there is quite unusual and, during certain periods of the year, especially in the spring and in the fall, mail services are completely inadequate. For those reasons I beg the minister to give special consideration to the matter when a request complying with the requirements set forth in the postal regulations is made to his department for the establishment of a rural mail service on Shippigan and Miscou islands.
There is another special case to which I want to draw the minister's attention; it is the case of the present post offices at Sormany, Nicholas Denys and Madran. These three post offices are located in a district which at present draws considerable attention from all those who are interested in the stock market across Canada, because they are located in the district where gigantic mining developments have taken place recently in the northern part of New Brunswick. I believe that in the near future requests will be made for the establishment of a rural mail delivery service in this new mining district and I do hope that the matter will be given special attention when that request is made.
There are other concrete cases which I would like to bring to the department's attention. I shall mention but one. It is the case of the new settlements of Allard-ville, D'Aulnay and St. Sauveur, where, as yet, no rural mail delivery service has been established; before long, a request will be submitted to the department to that effect.

I said there existed an anomaly in our district, and here it is. When I began these remarks I pointed out that, all told, 9,721 heads of families, according to the department's own figures, enjoyed postal service. Now 1,879 of these are English-speaking and 7,842 are French-speaking. That is to say that, taking the population of my constituency as a whole, 19-2 per cent are English-speaking and 80-8 per cent are French-speaking. Nevertheless rural mail delivery, which serves 782 heads of families, can be broken down thus: 443 English-speaking heads of families have it at present as against 339 that are French-speaking. That is to say that the current rural mail delivery system in the county of Gloucester serves English-speaking heads of families in the proportion of 56-6 per cent, whereas our French-speaking heads of families are served in the proportion of 43-4 per cent only.
Compare, Mr. Minister, this proportion or rather this disproportion with the figures I gave you a moment ago concerning the heads of families who are served by the postal services, and you will have there what I had reason to call, at the beginning of my remarks, an anomaly. I would therefore suggest that the department rectify, as soon as possible, this situation, which is quite abnormal, in the rural postal service of this great Acadian constituency of Gloucester in the province of New Brunswick.
(Text):


Mr. L. Philippe Picard (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to suggest to the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote), and any other members of the house who may want to be enlightened on the question of rural mail services, that they should consult Hansard of February 20, 1947. They will find there the remarks I made on that occasion, which I believe are as apt and to the point today as they were then. If the Postmaster General has actually read them I think he will agree with me. I see no purpose therefore in repeating or enlarging upon them, and if more hon. members would follow the same practice with respect to many other subjects I am sure our debates would be shortened.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word on this subject because I represent the largest constituency in area in the southern part of Ontario. It is sparsely settled in many districts, and I think there are at least as many rural mail routes as in any other constituency in the province. I have many grievances that I could air, but I do not like to thresh old straw. I do not think that does any good. I
Committee on Post Office have said before that I think the hiring of mail couriers should be done by the civil service commission, but there would be no use of my making that suggestion now or bringing forward a resolution to that effect because with the large number of Liberal members in the house I would not get very far with it.
The government has indicated the way it wants to handle this matter; and be that as it may, it cannot help but be an improvement over the old system. I realize that it gives the minister much more power than previously and much more opportunity for patronage, but even at that the situation cannot be any worse in the future than it has been in the past so far as my riding is concerned. I think the minister knows something about it. Most of it took place before his term of office began. So far as patronage is concerned, I cannot find very much fault since he took over the portfolio. I was pleased when I heard the minister say that there was not going to be any favouritism or patronage as a result of the proposed legislation, and that so far as the rural mail carriers were concerned everything was going to be done as fairly and equitably as possible and for the benefit of Canada as a whole.
It is a big problem because Canada is a large nation and we have so many diversified areas. In my riding we have some mail routes that do not go off paved roads, whereas in some of the more sparsely settled areas the roads are very narrow, hilly and rocky, and in some places it is almost impossible to travel over them with a car. Some of the mail carriers have to keep a car for the summer and to provide horse-drawn vehicles in the winter months.
I understand that the committee is going to be set up to recommend to the minister ways and means to pay the rural mail carriers on an equitable and fair basis. That is a big job, and if the committee goes into every mail route in Canada it will not be finished its work by this time next year. It will have to set up some sort of system whereby it will deal with certain classes of roads.
I want to say to the minister that I believe in my riding we have the best group of mail carriers in Canada. In fact they could not be any better. We have people who have carried the mail for twenty years and have never missed a trip winter or summer, rain or shine. Not one letter or parcel has ever gone astray on these routes.
I think the policy of the government has been that when the four-year contract for a mail route expires the contractor gets a renewal provided he is satisfactory and

Committee on Post Office does not want any more money. However, that has not always taken place. Patronage has come into the picture. I can cite many cases, and I do not have to go out ot my own riding to do it. I hope that situation will be changed. When a man is satisfactory, does not ask for any more money and can produce a petition signed by every mailbox owner on his route indicating that they want him to have the route, I hope the department will pay attention to these things and will not listen to the president or chairman of the Liberal association in a little corner of the riding who will only take the department off on a downhill road that is no good for anybody.


Mr. Larson:: Liberal chairmen always listen.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I hope they are listening in my riding tonight. They have been anything but fair, and I want to tell you that it has not done them any good. Every time you change a mail carrier don't forget that there are four or five other applicants for the contract. When you pick one the other three are dissatisfied, and that has happened on a couple of occasions in my riding. They displeased many more than three. I think that is something the minister should take into consideration, and I hope he will not be like his predecessor.
I came to Ottawa to see his predecessor one time not so very long ago, and I remained here for two days. During that period I called him on the phone at least every hour trying to get an appointment, but he was too busy. I told him if he was too busy to see me for five minutes I was going to put a placard on my back and walk up and down in front of the office until he would see me. Then he said he could talk to me on the phone for a minute. When I put my case to him over the phone he said, "Oh, my officials, my officials, my officials."


An hon. Member:: Three times?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I hope the minister will run his department and not let his officials run him down the hill. Sometimes they are all right and sometimes they are all wrong. That is not good for the government either.
There is another matter to which I should like to refer. The hon. member for Hastings South (Mr. Follwell) spoke today and said that he had obtained extensions of mail routes on the basis of three boxes to a mile. I was very glad to get that information, because just yesterday I received a letter from the minister's department turning down a request for service on the basis of three boxes to less than a mile. The letter said that government policy was four boxes to a mile. In the last few years I have received several letters

from the Post Office Department all stating that the basis was four boxes to a mile. Therefore I say now that patronage can be a bad thing, because apparently some ridings can get service on the basis of three boxes to a mile.


Frank Sidney Follwell: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit me-


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: You sit down. I did not ask you any questions.


Frank Sidney Follwell: On a question of privilege, if I may be permitted to speak from this side of the house, I am sure the hon. member will recall-if he will look at Hansard he will see it-that I said I was of the opinion it was three to a mile. I said I did not know how many it was to the mile. I referred it to the Postmaster General. I did not get an answer from him but someone on the other side of the house said "three to a mile". The hon. member immediately said that it was four to a mile in his constituency.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I was the one who made the statement, and I have one that is three to the mile.


An hon. Member:: Patronage!


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hastings South (Mr. Follwell) also went back to something that happened in 1930; but look at the young gentleman. He doesn't remember what happened in 1930, and I think he had to admit that before he finished his speech tonight.


Frank Sidney Follwell: Quite right.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Nevertheless I do believe there are certain places where they should accept three boxes to a mile. As a matter of fact there is a place in my riding where I would like to get a route at three boxes to a mile. That is desirable where elderly persons live, especially when the mail courier is willing to deliver that mail without any additional cost. It is something that should be considered.
I am not in favour of this bill having to do only with contracts under $1,000. If you are going to give the minister a bit of leeway, well, give him some leeway. Why stop at $1,000? Make it something worth while because most mail routes are over $1,000.


Alcide Côté: my hon. friend will allow me, I think there is a little confusion. We intend to do exactly what he desires, to readjust contracts not only under $1,000 but all contracts except those covered by section 29.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I am glad to have that explanation because over at Beaverton last September they took the mail contract away

from the fellow who had had it for sixteen years. He never missed a trip and never lost a letter, but they gave it to another fellow on a contract at practically the same price. The fellow who had it for sixteen years had it sixteen years too long at the price he was being paid; and the fellow who got it last September has had it too long at the price he is getting. I am going to have a talk with the minister about a little increase for that fellow, because I certainly think he needs it.
There has been a new set-up for mail distribution in about one-third of my riding since the minister took over his office. I want to say that we appreciate that very much. It is something I have been after for five long years, but I never got any place until we got the genial minister in the proper chair and in the proper job. He got busy and did something about it, and we have a better mail service in one-third of my riding than we have had since confederation.
There are some more improvements that should be made, and I spoke to the minister about them. He said that I should get the matter in shape and come over and talk to him about it. The improvements are not going to cost any more money; there are just a few little things that could be shaped up. When we get this bill through the house, get this legislation set up, and have all the information and advice that the committee can give, we will be able to chat about these things and probably get around to doing something about them.
I did want to go into deliveries of mail in the towns, and I was wondering how it would be set up. Is it to be according to the population of the towns, or revenue, or just what will it be when we get the two deliveries a day? For instance, in the town of Lindsay we had two deliveries until recently.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The committee is being set up to consider the operation of the rural mail delivery service. I do not think the committee would have power to go into city deliveries, and in any event this resolution does not affect delivery within cities.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Mr. Speaker, I abide by your ruling. Nevertheless the hon. member for Hastings South went into letter deliveries in Belleville and the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Murray) discussed deliveries on trains and airplanes.


Mr. Speaker:: I think if the hon. member had brought that to the attention of the Speaker, those hon. members would have been called to order.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: It happened that you were not in the chair, sir.
Committee on Post Office


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure that would not have made any difference.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I abide by your ruling, sir. I think if there is any change it has to be a change for the better, and I am glad to say that I am in favour of the resolution.


Mr. Auguste Maltais (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly not my intention to follow the hon. gentleman who preceded me in all the political matters about which he spoke. My comment will be very brief because some of the points I had intended to make have already been covered by my colleague the member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier).
One point I would like to submit for the consideration of the committee that will be set up is the fact that sometimes we meet with difficulties when we try to obtain a rural route in some of the villages in my constituency. It would appear to me that when the Postmaster General has to make a decision regarding a mail route it must be determined whether the locality concerned is to be considered a rural region or an urban region. At Ste. Anne de Beaupre, a town in my riding, we have a community that is considered to be an urban district, yet closer to the village there is what is considered to be a rural district. The department claim that under the present regulations they do not qualify as an urban area.
May I suggest that some scheme could be arrived at, or some system of delivery, which would be neither a rural courier's route nor a city service, but something in between. I hope the regulations which will be established will have such a degree of flexibility as to permit people who want a particular type of service to receive that service.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.


Charles Delmar Coyle: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief. I wish to repeat my appreciation for the approach to this motion taken by all members. I wish also just to say a few words to my hon. friend from Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) who spoke in French regarding a considerable number of special cases.
(Translation):
I wish to assure my hon. friend that we examine carefully all cases. I know that a case may appear particularly worthy to the hon. member who submits it but, when that case reaches the department, it is added to all the others that must be considered on their respective merits.
1470	HOUSE OF
Committee on Post Office
I am sure that my hon. friend saw nothing more than a coincidence in what he calls an anomaly in the proportion of Englishspeaking and French-speaking people who get mail delivery. If I understood him correctly, he is not blaming anyone; otherwise it would be an insinuation inconsistent with my hon. friend's character.
(Text):
Sir, I want to conclude by saying that this problem is more complicated than we might think. Evidence of that is already before this house, because nearly all members have a solution or a partial solution. I am sure, however, that with the atmosphere of objectivity which members have created, and with the explanation and testimony of officials and others, the proper solution will be found. I wish to thank every hon. member in the house, and all members who have participated in this debate. I am sure something good in the form of legislation will come from this committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Do I understand that it is the wish of the house that the names of those who will serve on the committee shall be announced this evening?


Alcide Côté: Yes. I move:
That the committee consist of: Messrs. Ashbourne, Beyerstein, Boucher, Brisson, Bryce, Cardiff Cardin, Coyle, Cruickshank, Dinsdale, Dumas, Dupuis, Garland, Gour (Russell), Green, Hosking, Langlois (Gaspe), MacKenzie, MacLean (Queens), McCulloch, McWilliam, Noseworthy, Robertson, Robichaud, Spence, Ward, and Welbourn.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is unanimously agreed that these hon. members will form the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: the second reading of Bill No. 105, respecting the liability of the crown for torts and civil salvage.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister not going to make a statement?


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is just waiting for an invitation to do so.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He now has it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, this bill is the most far-reaching and is indeed the final step in making the federal crown in Canada liable in tort for damages for which, were it a private person of full age and capacity, it would be liable in respect of a tort committed by a servant of the crown or in respect of a breach of duty attaching to the ownership, occupation, possession or control of property, or in respect of motor vehicle damages sustained by any person by reason of a motor vehicle owned by the crown. The bill also has other purposes to which I shall allude later, but its main purpose is to make the crown, in respect to the matters which I have mentioned, liable to the full extent to which it would be liable if it were a private person of full age and capacity.
It is appropriate, I think, in discussing the principle of this bill to link it with the history and the development of the rules governing claims against the crown for redress in those cases where a subject feels himself aggrieved. In their historic origin our courts were the king's courts which were created to hear and determine suits brought between subject and subject in accordance with the rules of the common law. Since these courts had been created by the king and, in a very real sense, represented the monarchy in the exercise of its judicial function, it was not possible for a subject to sue the king in the king's own courts.
However, once in a while even in those times, subjects had legal claims against the crown for which their only hope of redress was by petitioning the king for justice. Since these petitions involved points of law which the king was not in a position to consider personally, the practice grew up under which he authorized certain courts to consider whether such petitions should be granted, by an order or fiat addressed to his own courts directing in effect: Let justice be done. It was only in this way that issues between the crown and subjects were brought before the courts and there determined in accordance with the rules of the common law.
It was thus that two principles emerged, the first of which was that claims might be asserted against the crown in the form of a petition; the second of which was that such claims could not be entertained until a flat had first been granted. These principles of the English common law were first given statutory form in Canada by this parliament in 1876 when Hon. Edward Blake, the minister of justice under the Alexander Mackenzie government, introduced the Petition of Right Act of Canada to that effect. Until this government introduced a bill in 1951

to abolish the flat, the granting of it continued to be the sole basis upon which petitions of right against His Majesty in the right of Canada could be decided in this country.
Although certain claims might be asserted against the crown in this way, the crown was very far from being in the same position as a private individual in respect of its subjects' claims generally. The only claims that could be made the subject matter of a petition of right were those in which the land, goods or money of the subject were in the possession of the crown or in which the claim arose out of a contract entered into by or on behalf of the crown.
That was the position in 1887 when this parliament enacted that the Exchequer Court of Canada, which had previously been established as the court in which laws relating to taxes and revenues might be enforced, should also be the appropriate forum for the hearing of these petitions of right. This legislation of 1887 also introduced a fundamental change in the law. Prior to that time, as I have said, claims against the crown arose where the lands, goods or money of the subject were in the possession of the crown, or arose out of a contract entered into by or on behalf of the crown. Claims against the crown could not be brought in respect of any tort-that is any wrongful act-not involving a breach of contract for which a civil action would lie. The reason an action could not be brought in respect of a tort or wrong was upon the ground that in law the king could do no wrong and therefore could not be liable in tort. But this act of 1887 gave the exchequer court jurisdiction to hear and determine every claim against the crown arising out of any debt, injury to the person or to the property, or any public work resulting from the negligence of any officer or servant of the crown while acting within the scope of his duties or employment.
Thus for the first time in Canada-and to the great credit of Canada, for the first time in the English-speaking world-actions in tort based upon the one tort of negligence only were permitted to be taken against the crown. I think that it is fitting that for this enlightened legislation we should pay our respects to Hon. John Thompson who was the minister of justice under Sir John A. Macdonald, and who subsequently became Sir John Thompson and prime minister himself.
As an indication of the enlightened attitude of Canada in this respect, it may be noted that it was not until 60 years later that the
Crown Liability
United Kingdom and other commonwealtl countries permitted proceedings against ths sovereign for torts.
With slight amendments from time to time this rule established in 1887 has prevailec until the present day. Actions against th< crown in tort are still confined to negligent although, as I pointed out on a previou: occasion, to say only that they are so con fined may to the layman be misleading as t( their scope unless one points out that a largi percentage of actions in tort-possibly as higl as between 90 and 95 per cent-are action; based upon the negligence of servants of thi crown.
In Canada the law as amended by thi; legislation of 1887 continued substantial!: without change until 1950, when this govern ment introduced the Statute Law Amendmen Act by which it was provided that action might be brought against crown corporation in the provincial courts. This legislation ii itself was a radical departure from existin; law and existing legal theory; for before tha time legal proceedings against the crown ii the right of Canada could only be taken in thi courts of His or Her Majesty in the right o Canada. The 1950 act therefore, in permittinj actions against the crown in the right o Canada to be taken in the courts of Hi Majesty in the right of the provinces, mad' these crown corporations amenable to th jurisdiction of all Canadian courts in mucl the same way as ordinary corporations.
In the following year, 1951, by an amend ment to the Petition of Right Act wi abolished the necessity of securing a fia before proceedings could be brought agains the crown. Proceedings may now be take] against the crown as of right and withou first obtaining the crown's consent.
The bill now before you represents per haps the most far-reaching change of al. Its purpose is to place the crown, in so fa as actions in tort are concerned, in substan tially the same position as a private indi vidual. Upon the passage of this bill th crown will be liable not only for all tort committed by agents or servants of th crown, but also for torts that may be com mitted without the intervention of a servan or agent, namely torts arising out of thi ownership, occupation, possession or contrc of property including motor vehicles. Th list of actions that are generally recognize' as coming within the classification of "torts are as follows: (a) negligence; (b) nuisance (c) trespass; (d) assault; (e) false imprie onment and false arrest; (f) malicious prose cution; (g) libel and slander; (h) deceit; (:

Crown Liability
interference with contract rights; (j) trover and conversion; (k) slander of title; (1) infringement of patent.
Making the crown liable for torts committed by its servants will make the crown liable for those torts I have just mentioned wherever they are committed by a servant while acting within the scope of his duties. Of these as I have already stated, the tort of negligence is the most significant, and next to it that of nuisance.
The extension of the crown's liability for breach of duty arising out of ownership, possession or control of property would make the crown liable as occupier to invitees, licensees and occasional trespassers in accordance with the ordinary rules of law; it would extend to the crown liability for nuisance or negligence committed otherwise than through the medium of a servant of the crown. For example, the crown would be under a duty to prevent injury to adjoining property from a building, from the escape of noxious and dangerous things, from the presence of dangerous things, from interference with riparian rights and, generally, for nuisance and negligence in respect of the management of crown property.
In the above respects Canada is now extending the liability of the crown in Canada in the same manner in which the United Kingdom has extended the liability of the crown in the United Kingdom.
At this point I think I should interject some words of reassurance to the taxpayers of this country. While these provisions will probably result in some increase in the amount payable by the crown to persons injured, it should be noted that many of the claims which will arise under this present legislation are now being paid on an ex gratia basis, notwithstanding that there is no legal liability, because it has been felt that there is a moral one. Therefore it is not expected that the total liability from a financial point of view will be increased too greatly. It is not expected, for example, that the liability of the crown in respect of all the new causes of action against the crown which are created by this bill will be anything like as great financially as those based upon the negligence of the crown's servants.
There would, of course, be no liability in any case where anything was done under the authority of a statute. Nor is it intended to impose liability in respect of the ownership of property unless the crown is, in fact, controlling and administering the property. For example, in the Northwest Territories, and to a lesser extent in the provinces, the federal crown owns wild or unoccupied lands. In respect of such lands it is intended to make

the crown liable only where the crown has, in fact, assumed control and is in some way using or administering the property.
It is also proposed to exclude liability where the crown has abandoned the use of a particular work. For example, the crown might, as a public convenience, construct a wharf in a remote area but, because the need for it no longer exists, the crown might cease to maintain it. It is intended to make provision for a public declaration of abandonment in order that the crown would not be obliged either to continue to maintain the work indefinitely or to demolish it.
This brings me to the second main provision of the bill, which is that it makes applicable to the crown the ordinary laws relating to salvage services rendered in assisting any crown ships or in saving life therefrom or in saving any cargo or apparel belonging to the crown, in the same manner as if the ship, cargo or apparel belonged to a private person. Here again this provision is a counterpart of that contained in the United Kingdom crown proceedings act.
The third main provision of this bill is that permitting small claims in negligence up to a limit of $1,000 to be taken in the district or county courts that would have jurisdiction if the action were between subjects. This will enable the issue to be determined locally and result in a saving of costs, and will enable small negligence claims to be disposed of quickly. All other actions of course will continue to be brought in the Exchequer Court of Canada.
May I say in conclusion that the step being taken in this bill follows logically from the development of our whole legal history and particularly from the measures which we enacted in this present parliament in 1950 and 1951. In all these matters we have to keep in mind two important factors. On the one hand there is the obvious consideration that the citizen as a litigant should have an economical and effective method of pursuing his claim against the crown. Against this must be balanced, however, an equally important consideration, namely that in the interests of the general body of citizens as taxpayers this litigation against the crown should be carried on as economically and efficiently as possible.
This is the third important piece of legislation in this regard which the government has brought forward in the last three years. We have gone into this process gradually in order to make sure step by step that we were providing reforms for the litigant without imposing any undue burdens upon the taxpayer. Our experience with the legislation which we passed in 1950 and again in 1951

in this respect has been very favourable. Our impression is that the present legislation will remove virtually all of the restrictions upon litigants who desire to sue the crown without imposing a new and costly burden upon the taxpayer.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would move the adjournment of the debate and would suggest that, in view of the fact that the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) will not be here tomorrow, it might stand over until the beginning of the week.
On motion of Mr. Diefenbaker the debate was adjourned.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, if I might have the consent of the house to revert to motions for a couple of moments, I would be glad to announce to you, to the house and to the country that collective bargaining is still an effective instrument to deal with labour relations in this country.
The representatives of the Canadian railways and the representatives of the brotherhood who had been negotiating for some considerable time to settle the renewal and revision of the collective agreement governing their relations have agreed upon terms for the renewal and revision of that agreement; and the instructions that the members of the union would withdraw from service at six o'clock on the 2nd of February are being cancelled at this moment. The railways are also withdrawing the notices of embargoes on shipments of perishable goods.
I think it would be appropriate to add- and I feel that this would be in the name of all the members of this House of Commons- that we are highly appreciative of the publicspiritedness of those who have been negotiating on behalf of the railways and on behalf of the brotherhood. They have fully and magnificently recognized their responsibilities to the Canadian people whose servants they are, as we are, and whose interests are as dear to them as they are to us and to those we represent.
I think they have done a magnificent job, and that it is a credit to Canadian democracy that matters about which there were honest and sincere and pretty widely diverging views could be settled when honest men of good will got together and did their best to discharge their responsibilities to their fellow citizens.
Threatened Railway Strike
That has been done; and I think it is a bright page to be written into the history of labour relations in this country.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) if he is in a position to give us, in general, the terms of the settlement arrived at?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I would prefer that that should come from those who have made the settlement. It has been their responsibility, and they have discharged it magnificently.
I can say that there are two points which have been mentioned to me, that perhaps had to be mentioned to me. One was that there is an increase of the order of 12 per cent going into force, with an appropriate retroactive date to be determined by the parties.
There is for a certain group of yardmen, I believe it is, a forty-hour week, to go into effect on the 1st of October next, evidently with adjustments which will have to be made in the wage scale so that the take-home pay will not be seriously affected by that change in the hours.
The adjustments with respect to the application of the forty-hour week are matters upon which there still remain diverging views on the part of the representatives of the men and the representatives of the company. They have both agreed that I am personally-not as Prime Minister, not as head of the government'-but that I am personally to select a person to decide, as referee, what those adjustments will be, both parties agreeing to abide by the decisions of that referee.
As that is a matter which will not require to be implemented before October 1, 1953, both parties told me that there was no immediate urgency in announcing the referee, but that they hoped it might be done within a reasonable time. I was naturally highly flattered by the confidence they both expressed.
I asked them if they had any suggestions. They preferred to make no suggestions, but to leave it entirely to me to make the selection, without any suggestions or recommendations or objections. They said they preferred to have me use my own best judgment in selecting a person to do that for them, and that they were going to be satisfied to abide by whatever adjustment that referee decided was the proper adjustment in the circumstances.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we of this group would like to join with the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in the well-deserved tribute which he paid to the parties who have carried on

Threatened Railway Strike these negotiations, and who have shown the public spirit to which the Prime Minister referred tonight.
I am sure we are all delighted, not only that an agreement has been reached but that it has been reached through the process of collective bargaining, without any outside interference. That is perhaps the most important aspect of the announcement made tonight by the Prime Minister, and we applaud it very happily. We are naturally interested-and I think that goes for all of us-in the details of the settlement. I was afraid at first, when the Prime Minister began to reply to the question of the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), that he would not be able to give us any of the terms tonight. However, he has been able to give us a good deal of information.
That information does seem to suggest that a basis of settlement agreeable to both sides has been worked out. I wonder if the Prime Minister is in a position to say whether or not the terms agreed upon include any reference to the changes in rules which did, for a long time, stand in the way of a settlement. Is that subject in the category of matters that have been agreed upon, or is it in the category of matters to be dealt with oy the person whom the Prime Minister will name?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The only matter to be dealt with by the referee I am to appoint is the matter of adjustment required by the institution of the forty-hour week. There are other matters about which precise decisions have not been arrived at, but the parties have agreed that they trust each other sufficiently to be able to work those out without there being any danger of their interfering with the completion of a collective agreement.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will take up Bill No. 44, to protect the coastal fisheries; the resolution in the name	of	the	Minister	of	Resources	andDevelopment respecting the conservation of water resources; also the resolution in the name	of	the	Minister	of	Resources	and
Development respecting the establishment of the historic sites and monuments board of Canada; the resolution in the name of the same minister respecting the revision and consolidation of the Yukon Act; then Bill 47, to amend the Territorial Lands Act; and if these matters are disposed of, we will consider the resolution to amend the National Housing Act.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, January 30, 1953