1954-01-15

Hon. Brooke Claxlon (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the interest which has been expressed by a number of members from time to time in the Kurt Meyer case, I should like to make a brief statement with respect to his case and that of Johann Neitz, the only two German war criminals convicted by Canadian military courts still serving sentences. Their sentences are being served in a British administration prison at Werl, Germany.
The terms of the agreements between the occupying powers and Germany provided for the review of the sentences of war criminals. In view of the delay in bringing these agreements into effect, some time ago boards were set up in each of the British, United States and French zones to review the sentences of all convicted German war criminals still held in custody in those zones.
The Canadian government appointed Brigadier Sherwood Lett, Q.C., C.B.E., D.S.O., M.C., E.D., of Vancouver, to represent it as an observer when the cases of Meyer and Neitz were considered by the board set up in the British zone. This board has reviewed the sentences now being served by Kurt Meyer and Johann Neitz and has recommended that in both cases the sentences be commuted to fourteen years.
The recommendation of the board in each case was unanimous and Brigadier Lett has recommended that the government should accept the recommendation of the board.
After the most careful consideration of the circumstances the government has accepted the recommendation of the board.
Both Meyer and Neitz will be eligible for such remission of their sentences as they may have earned or may earn in accordance with the rules in force in the prison where they are confined and which are laid down by the British custodian.
I might add that I understand the reviewing boards' recommendations in each zone have
been accepted in each case by the governments of France, the United Kingdom and the United States.


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence arising out of the announcement which he made a moment ago of the reduction of sentence imposed upon Kurt Meyer. Is that reduction not most generous compared to some of the other sentences? Did the government agree with it? Will the minister say when under the present rules now in effect Kurt Meyer will be released from custody?


Brooke Claxton: With regard to the first part of my hon. friend's question, the reduction in sentence is by no means generous in comparison with others. I understand it was made on precisely the same basis as similar sentences have been reduced. Indeed it is a fair thing to say that a great number of men sentenced to life imprisonment for much more serious crimes than this-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Brooke Claxton: -have been released already.


An hon. Member:: What could be more serious?


Brooke Claxton: With regard to the second point, that will depend upon the rules in effect in the prison where he is confined, which prison is administered by the British authorities. He will receive exactly the same treatment for good behaviour or whatever service he has rendered as other prisoners who are there.


John George Diefenbaker: Does not the minister know when Kurt Meyer will be out on the basis of the regulations that are in effect there?


Brooke Claxton: I cannot tell the hon. member.


John George Diefenbaker: Is it not a fact that on the basis of a 14-year sentence he would be available to be released immediately?


Brooke Claxton: It should be some time within a matter of months or a year or so. I cannot give the exact information because we are leaving that recommendation to be made later by the British authorities.

Kurt Meyer and Johann Neitz Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):	Mr. Speaker, supplementary to
that, I should like to ask the minister what could be more serious than to order the shooting down of young Canadians in cold blood contrary to every rule of war?


Brooke Claxton: I am sorry, but Kurt Meyer was not convicted of ordering the shooting of Canadian prisoners of war.


Mr. Drew:: May I ask what he was convicted of, since that certainly was the charge.


Brooke Claxton: He was found not guilty
of that on the evidence as disclosed to the court. The sentence imposed upon him was imposed in view of his conviction of having what would amount to constructive responsibility for this action. It took place in an area where he was in command. I am speaking from memory, and I should not do so in connection with a matter of this kind, but my recollection is that he was not found guilty of actually ordering the shooting.
I think I should make it plain that some people who have been released were in the gestapo or security police in some of the countries and were found guilty of killing, torturing to death or causing to be tortured to death numbers of citizens of those countries. Still they have been released.


George Alexander Drew: I should like to ask another
question. Is it not correct that Kurt Meyer was found guilty and sentenced to death for his responsibility for the inexcusable shooting of Canadian soldiers under his control?


Brooke Claxton: That is quite a different
thing from the first statement made by the Leader of the Opposition. That is substantially correct.


Mr. Speaker:: May I point out for future
guidance that sometimes several supplementary questions following a main question are tantamount to having a debate on the matter. I did not want to stop the questions being asked because I realized the interest which hon. members had in the subject matter of the announcement made by the Minister of National Defence. However,
I should like hon. members to refresh their memories as to the rules governing oral questions to be asked before the orders of the day. I should like to quote briefly from a ruling by Mr. Speaker Macdonald to be found on page 428 of the Journals of Tuesday, May 29, 1951, as follows:
I would however emphasize that these oral questions should be asked only in connection with very urgent and important matters of public concern and only if it would not be in the public interest to 
place them on the order paper and receive answers in accordance with the method provided for in the standing orders. They should always be brief. No debate is permitted and the reply should be as concise as possible.



DUMPING


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday last
the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asked whether any regulations had been passed under Bill No. 29 or whether any instructions had been issued under that bill since it was passed. I took notice of the question and promised to reply to it as soon as possible.
The amendment to the Customs Act contained in Bill No. 29 did not call for the issuance of regulations, and no regulations have been issued. Instructions, however, were issued to all customs officials. The terms of these instructions I conveyed to the house on December 16 and they may be found on page 978 of Hansard of that date.



ALLEGED IMPORTATION OR DUMPING OP VEGETABLES IN MARITIME PROVINCES

['Mr. Speaker, this matter has been under consideration, as you know, and has even been discussed with you, and I hope we have found a method whereby it can be arranged to have a date next week when external affairs might be discussed, provided of course that there was no serious objection from any quarter of the house to this interruption in consideration of the ordinary business of the house.']
James Joseph McCann: Yesterday the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) asked whether the department had received complaints with respect to the importation or dumping of United States vegetables in the maritime provinces, and if so whether my department had taken any action with respect to the complaints.
The department has not received any recent complaints in respect to the dumping of United States vegetables in the maritime provinces. However, the minimum seasonal specific duties provided in the tariff are being applied regularly on recommendation of the Department of Agriculture, and as recently as January the 13th the minimum specific duties on cabbage and carrots were applied in the maritime provinces.
The duty under that is cabbage nine-tenths of a cent a pound and carrots one cent a pound in place of the regular tariff of ten per cent. The former of course is much higher.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosefown-Biggar):: May
I direct a question to the Prime Minister? In view of the proposed calling of the general assembly of the United Nations and the developments in international affairs since external

affairs were last discussed in the house, would it be possible for the government to arrange for an early discussion of external affairs?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been under consideration, as you know, and has even been discussed with you, and I hope we have found a method whereby it can be arranged to have a date next week when external affairs might be discussed, provided of course that there was no serious objection from any quarter of the house to this interruption in consideration of the ordinary business of the house.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the news dispatches in this morning's papers, which read, "Hear army critic asked to resign as blast sequel", is the minister in a position to inform the house whether any disciplinary action has been taken against Colonel Peck as a result of the recent speech he made?


Mr. Dechene:: A soldier wants to run the country.


Brooke Claxton: The situation regarding this, Mr. Speaker, is as follows. Lieutenant Colonel Peck made a speech before a branch of the Vancouver board of trade, and that speech was reported by the Canadian Press. If Colonel Peck or any other officer made a statement such as appeared in the report of the speech in the Toronto Globe and Mail of last Tuesday, then I believe everyone would recognize that he was quite unsuited to command any unit of the Canadian armed forces.
However, I did not take that dispatch without making inquiry. When we got a copy of the speech which Colonel Peck says he delivered it appeared that while there were some remarks in it which might be injudicious or injustified, still it was a sincere and honest and well-intentioned effort to arouse interest in the reserve army. On the understanding that the speech was given as he says it was given and according to the text that was made available to us, no further action need be taken. I would point out that Colonel Peck as a member of the reserve was not on duty at the time and consequently was not subject to the code of service discipline.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Fulton:: Has the Minister of National Defence any information as to whether Colonel Peck's speech was in effect cleared with the area commander, Brigadier Megill, before its delivery?


Brooke Claxton: I understand that that was done, yes.



THE BANK ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Is the
Prime Minister in a position to inform the house approximately when the government expects to be able to bring in the amendments to the Bank Act, and when those amendments will be referred to the banking and commerce committee?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: A similar question was asked of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) on December 1 last by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). At that time the Minister of Finance stated that he did not anticipate it would be possible to bring in this legislation before early in February. As a matter of fact I know that the drafts have practically been completed, but the government does not wish to pass definitely upon them in the absence of the Minister of Finance. They would like to have him present when the official drafts are being put into final shape for recommendation to the house.
We expect the Minister of Finance back here in the latter days of January and we know that he, as well as other members of the government, is anxious to have the legislation brought before the house as soon as possible and to have it go to the banking and commerce committee with as great dispatch as is convenient.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the announced increases in Blue Cross rates in Ontario and in view of the statement made by the Ontario minister of health regarding national health insurance, can the minister say whether the government will reconsider the matter of legislation with regard to a nation-wide health insurance plan at this session?
1144	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have dealt with this matter on at least two occasions during the course of the present session. I have not seen the statement of the minister of health in Ontario to which my hon. friend directs my attention-


Stanley Howard Knowles: He said he would have national health insurance within five years.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did read in this morning's Globe and Mail that the minister of health in Ontario spoke appreciatively of the cooperation he has had from the federal government.



POLIOMYELITIS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, has the attention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare been drawn to an article appearing in the New York Times of January 2, 1954, regarding extensive tests being made with a new polio vaccine? If so, is any similar action being taken in Canada, or is there any joint action of the two governments?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what your ruling would be as to whether this question is one that should appear on the order paper. I should think it would be one of that kind. However, I can dispose of it now by saying that we are aware of the vaccine mentioned.
Perhaps the hon. member will recall that I made a statement early in October to the Canadian Public Health Association pointing out that this vaccine was now being produced at the Connaught medical research laboratory at the University of Toronto, and that the federal government through the national health program had made available to the Connaught laboratory substantial funds for its more general research program. I said that we were following this particular research project with great interest. It is clear therefore that in this way we were well aware of the situation, long before the New York Times called attention to it.



MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. As I represent a large number of the friends


of the first and No. 1 optimist in Canada, we would like to express to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) our hearty congratulations, wishing him success, true happiness and long life.



ARMED FORCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill). Would he inform the house if payments of prisoner of war allowances will be extended to Canadian prisoners of war in Korea? And another question along the same lines. What percentage of Canadian prisoners of war who are eligible have, to date, applied for these allowances?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think this is one question which should be placed on the order paper.



POST OFFICE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, January 14, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Cote-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair:
That it is expedient to amend the Post Office Act to increase the rates of postage on letters posted in Canada from the 1st day of April, 1954,
(a)	on each letter for delivery within the postal area in which it is posted, from three cents to four cents for the first ounce or fraction of an ounce, and from one cent to two cents for each additional ounce or fraction of an ounce, and
(b)	on each letter posted within one postal area for delivery in another postal area from four cents to five cents for the first ounce or fraction of an ounce, and from two cents to three cents for each additional ounce or fraction of an ounce.
The Chairman:: Shall the resolution carry?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, is not the minister going to make some attempt to answer some of the questions he has been asked?


Mr. Cote:: Post Office Act
approximately 150 per cent, and the salaries of the basic classes of employes in the public service, such as letter carriers, postal clerks and railway mail clerks, have increased approximately 100 per cent.
As I have indicated, the estimated effect of the proposed increase on the revenues of the department will be approximately $15 million. If you look at the Postmaster General's report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1953, page 3, you will find statistics which will enable you to check this estimate. I am now trying to answer directly the question: How did you arrive at this estimate? There are approximately 1,500 million pieces of first-class mail which, at one cent an item, will give you $15 million. To this should be added additional postage on the items which require more than the initial rate of postage. The total increase we estimate will be in the neighbourhood of $15,750,000. Against this, we must deduct the items forwarded by air mail, on which at present an air mail surcharge is paid. We estimate that this will be in the neighbourhood of $900,000, so that you will see that the amount we expect to obtain is slightly less than $15 million.
Reference has been made to the rates of postage paid in the United States. In this connection I would suggest that you examine the financial statement of the United States Post Office Department and look also at the deficit. I could further support the case for the increase by referring to the rates paid in other postal administrations, but I prefer to deal with this matter in relation to the Canadian economy.
Reference was also made and opposition expressed on the one hand to so-called hidden subsidies, but on the other hand it was suggested that the additional costs to which I have referred should be overcome by charging them to the general surplus. In the same breath some have criticized the subsidies and they have suggested them. These two approaches appear to me to be inconsistent. As far as I am concerned, I prefer to make an outright statement as to what the cost will be and, as I have already indicated, have those persons who use the service meet the additional expenditure. This seems to me to be the most equitable and straightforward way.
Some hon. members have referred to the surplus which the Postmaster General's reports show over the past twenty years. I would ask these gentlemen to bear in mind that during these years the department's revenues were augmented by the amount of postage stamps which were being used in payment of the tax on cheques or other
[Mr. Cote.l
remittances. Had this not been the case, then the surpluses to which they refer would have been materially reduced, if not dissipated entirely.
This year no postage stamps have been used in payment of the tax on cheques. As a result the surplus of $6,500,000 shown in the accounts for the last fiscal year will, it is estimated, become a deficit of at least $1 million.
It has been suggested that the department should not anticipate the increased expenditures, but should wait until the deficit actually occurs. I might say it is not a question of anticipation but one of fact. The increased rates of payment to postal employees are effective from December 1, 1953. Adjusted higher rates have already been paid to rural mail couriers, and adjustments are continually taking place. Arrangements are already being made for the recruiting of the additional staffs required to give the five-day forty-hour week service, and there is already a potential deficit as the revenues have barely been maintained compared to last year, whereas the total expenditure has increased during the nine-month period already elapsed by $4 million.
I appreciate the reference made to that great Liberal, Sir William Mulock, and to the fact that, while he was postmaster general, he reduced the letter rate of postage from 3 cents to 2 cents. At that time the opposition opposed the decrease. Now they oppose the increase. But the point I wish to make is that in 1898 the initial salary of postal employees was $400 a year. Now it is $2,400 a year, an increase of 500 per cent. The letter rate now proposed, namely five cents, would mean an increase of 150 per cent over the rates charged more than 50 years ago.
I now come to two specific cases. The hon. member for Vancouver East made the statement that direct air mails from Vancouver to Calgary were carried on the Canadian Pacific Air Lines rather than on the direct Trans-Canada Air Lines. Such is not the case.
He also made reference to mails being carried on the Canadian Pacific Railway to Kamloops and then transferred to the Canadian National Railways. There is nothing wrong with this. It is good post office practice and is simply the most economical utilization of space paid for and available.
I believe he also stated that he had been informed that the department was endeavouring to eliminate the night differential granted to postal employees. We have no

such thought in mind. I am afraid that he is getting his information from an unreliable source.
Another point which was raised related to an incident mentioned by his leader which happened a number of years ago where mails were stated to have been carried in what seemed to be an illogical manner. The department does not claim to be perfect. Errors are bound to occur in an organization of this size, but there is usually some justifiable reason for the action taken. We are always desirous of being told when our decisions do not seem to be logical or justifiable, and we shall always be glad to explain the situation, if necessary to make inquiries, and, if any reasonable improvement can be made with due regard to economical operation, it will be done.
Now that we are talking about the service, let me give you some indication of the additional service which has been given by the Post Office Department during the past ten years. This is in answer to some suggestions that the service was poor or even worse. The number of cities where door to door delivery is given has increased from 89 to 127, or 38 additional cities. The number of additional homes served by letter carrier during this period is over 750,000. In the rural areas the number of patrons receiving rural mail delivery has increased from 290.000 to 410,000, an increase of 120,000 boxes. Therefore in the urban and rural areas over 870,000 additional families have been given individual service to their own homes or boxes in the last ten years.
In the outlying districts postal service has assisted in the development of such areas as Yellowknife, at points where there are uranium and other mining projects and where there are water power and aluminum developments such as at Kitimat in British Columbia. Additional service has also been given to Sept lies in the province of Quebec in connection with the iron developments in Ungava, Labrador and northern Quebec. Many other such cases could be enumerated. As a matter of fact, the amount which we are paying for air stage services, that is, services to outlying and pioneer points, is approximately $1,500,000 a year.
May I come now to my hon. friend, the hon. member for Eglinton. He exhibited to the house several envelopes to indicate the standard of service. I know he did not knowingly wish to be unfair, and he was good enough to give me the exhibits so that due inquiry could be made. This has been done. I am going to read to the house the report I have received in each case. I am glad to 83276-731
Post Office Act
do this as many charges of poor service are due to carelessness or irregularities on the part of the complainants themselves. Hon. members will recall that there were three letters addressed to the hon. member for Eglinton which were delayed unusually, even if it was at Christmastime. These letters could not be sorted because they lacked the necessary street address. All postal sortation distribution methods are based on address. The item would have to be diverted to the directory branch for search. During this past Christmas rush the volume given directory service was approximately 3 million pieces. It would be completely impracticable and impossible to expect that 6,600 helpers and 3,000 regular staff could memorize the addresses of individual people. It cannot be assumed that the residence of the hon. member for Eglinton would be known to individual members of the staff. I know that for me personally there is only one member for Eglinton, but I will assure him that for the employees of the postal service the situation is a little different, even if he is disillusioned on that ground.


Mr. Fleming:: Would the minister permit
a question?


Alcide Côté: Let me finish. I think the hon. member needs this information to put a true question. The latest Toronto street directory lists the names of fifteen people with the name "Fleming" whose first initial is "D". Of course, as I said, there is only one Don Fleming to me, but to these people there is one Don Fleming, one Donald Fleming, one D. M. and one Donald M. In the latest Toronto Bell Telephone directory there are eight male Flemings whose first initial is "D". There is one D. M. Fleming and one Donald M. Fleming. All of the foregoing are at different addresses. Neither of the directories indicates that any of these Flemings is an M.P.
During the peak there were seventy-two people devoting their time exclusively to insufficiently and improperly addressed items of mail. The individual search for information, it will be appreciated, is time consuming and involves high cost because of the number of people necessary to rectify the neglect of mailers. Let me add this in order to be fair to my hon. friend. He said that the name and address, "Donald Fleming, Toronto, Ontario", this is the way that the name appears in the house directory, parliamentary guide and similar works giving addresses. May I suggest to him and to all members who live in important cities similar to Toronto-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

Post Office Act


An hon. Member:: Nothing is similar to
Toronto.


Alcide Côté: -that where people have common names the address should be given as completely as possible. As I have already said, the fact that this occurred at a time when the department was dealing with millions and millions of letters explains the little delay in the case of the letters to my hon. friend.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Has the time arrived for the luestion?


Mr. Cole:: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is the minister aware that mail goes that way from Ottawa all the time in the case of Toronto members, that is to say, with nothing but "Toronto, Ontario" and "M.P." on it, and that in the ordinary case delay in delivery for the purpose of finding the street address is never more than half a day? That is a far cry from three weeks' delay as in one of the cases I mentioned last night.


Alcide Côté: It is possible in these cases, since the letters must have been returned to my hon. friend, that they came back here because there was no Toronto address on them.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, they did not come back.


Alcide Côté: A delay of ten or eleven days or even three weeks is self-explanatory in the light of the information I have already given. I can appreciate that other persons may have some friendship for my hon. friend. There is only one man like him and he may receive letters more rapidly in other circumstances, but even if he is well known the fact is that at Christmastime we have additional staffs including some people doing work on a determined route who cannot memorize even important names. I must give the hon. member full information because I want to satisfy him. Then there was a card and in this case the card was well addressed. There is no doubt about that.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I can recognize the minister's desire to satisfy the hon. member for Eglinton, but I hope that hon. members will realize my difficulty in that the taking up of individual cases in the committee will delay the debate. I think we should confine ourselves to examples for the purpose of clarifying the debate rather than take up individual cases.


Alcide Côté: If my hon. friend is satisfied, I am satisfied.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am anything but satisfied, Mr. Chairman. I am only satisfied of this, that the post office service has deteriorated

to a shocking degree, and if the minister has not got a better explanation than he has offered this afternoon he had better look elsewhere for any justification for this monstrous increase in rates. Why not let us hear about the card that was delayed a week and which was properly addressed to the street address?


Mr.   Coie@: I do not want to be out of order, but if the chairman will allow me I will give the explanation about the card. This item is prepaid at the third-class rate. First and second-class mail has priority over it. This item is postmarked December 30 which would be at the peak of the rush of New Year's cards, the peak of New Year's cards being the day before New Year's eve. With the long week-end intervening, this third-class item would be processed on the first full working day with total staff on duty, namely, Monday, January 4, and, as stated by the hon. member, it was delivered on January 5, 1954.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, January 6 for the others. They were after mine.


Alcide Côté: No, he said the 5th.


Donald Methuen Fleming: To me, but I said the others received their similarly mailed cards on the 6th.


William Alfred Robinson: I wonder if the minister would agree with me that these individual requests will simply delay the business of the committee. Surely, they can be handled individually by the member for Eglinton and the minister.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, Mr. Chairman.


Alcide Côté: I have attempted to reply fully to the representations which have been made by the opposition. If any further information is required I should be very glad to furnish it, if possible when the house is in committee on second reading. If there are further specific cases, I shall be glad to deal with them in my own office if hon. members will bring them to my attention.
In view of the remarks made concerning delays in service in the speeches delivered by the hon. member for Hamilton West and the hon. member for Vancouver East, it might not be inappropriate for me to read two letters which have been received concerning the postal service in those centres. The first one is a letter dated December 28, 1953, from Mr. J. H. Moore, general manager of the Hamilton chamber of commerce, to Mr. W. J. Turnbull, the deputy postmaster general.
It reads:
Dear Sir:
On behalf of the members of the Hamilton chamber of commerce I should like to express to you our

sincere appreciation of the wonderful efforts made by the Hamilton post office in caring for the heavy Christmas mail this year.
Under the leadership of our postmaster, Mr. C. D. Stipe, the staff of the post office has done a magnificent job in keeping deliveries of regular and Christmas mail up to date for the past week or ten days.
I understand that our post office handled over one million more pieces of mail this year than was the case last year and in spite of this we have received all our regular business mail on time every day.
Speaking personally for this office, I think I can safely say that all our first-class mail has been delivered the day following its mailing and even second and third-class mail has been delivered by the second day after mailing.
This is, indeed, a very fine record and on behalf of the business and industrial firms of Hamilton I feel that you would be interested in knowing how much we appreciate this very fine service.
Yours sincerely,
J. H. Moore
General Manager.
Now, I turn to the member for Vancouver East because there is a letter from his riding. This letter is dated January 11, 1954, and is from Mr. Reg. T. Rose, executive secretary, Vancouver board of trade, Vancouver, B. C., to the Postmaster General. It reads:
Dear Sir:
At a meeting of the council of the Vancouver board of trade on Thursday last, I was asked to advise you that the council had noted the efficient operation of the Vancouver post office during the heavy pre-Christmas period and desired to extend, through you, to Mr. James Turner, the postmaster, our appreciation of the splendid efforts which he and his staff made to ensure a prompt and efficient delivery of the heavy volume of mail.
The president and a number of officers of the council visited the post office at the height of the pre-Christmas mailing season and were impressed at the effective way in which handicaps caused by lack of proper equipment, overcrowding of floor space and the use of part-time inexperienced staff had been overcome.
Your department is to be complimented on the efficiency of its operation, as it is evidenced in Vancouver.
Yours very truly,
Reg. T. Rose,
Executive Secretary.


Mrs. Fairclough:: May I ask the Postmaster General a question? Did the department issue a form letter by which the chambers of commerce were provided an opportunity to answer?


Alcide Côté: No, we have enough to do to look after your mail.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: They are similar.


Alcide Côté: Now, Mr. Chairman, may I resume by saying that we must be fair to one another and realistic about the whole problem confronting us. After all, we all agree that these expenditures are necessary in order to implement the five-day week, and cover the salary increases of the post office employees and the rural mail carriers. No one is to
Post Office Act
blame. I believe I have given sufficient information by way of comparison between the increases in the different public services and the department. I believe the increase in the postal rate is quite moderate. Let us admit that this is a reasonable increase.
Let us face the facts. Since we are all agreed that these expenditures must be met, there are only two ways of doing it. One way is to let the users of the service pay for it. Those who are against the resolution say that the general public should bear the burden of the increased expenditures, even although some of them do not want the service. I believe that if each member in this house faces the facts and realizes the necessity for the increased expenditure, he should vote in support of the resolution.


George Alexander Drew: The minister has dealt rather generally with the situation, Mr. Chairman, and to his own satisfaction has partly disposed of the example given by the hon. member for Eglinton concerning certain delays. I doubt, however, if there is any hon. member in this house who is not well aware of the delays that have occurred. Many have been ready to recognize the difficulties with which the post office department is confronted, but to suggest that there have not been extensive delays wholly unrelated to misaddressing, or lack of address, is simply to deny the facts that are in the minds of almost all hon. members here.
There have been comments, and not unfriendly comments, about the change in the postal service in this country. For instance, there was the statement made in more than one city that mail posted in Britain was being delivered here more quickly than mail posted and delivered in the same city. Having said that I think that every hon. member here knows from his own experience or her own experience that we have no more loyal, trustworthy and devoted civil servants in Canada than those who are delivering and handling the mail in this country. There is probably no public servant who is so closely in touch with the daily life of every one of us as the postman who delivers the mail at our door. He is practically a friend of the family. He is very much a part of the life of each family.
I am satisfied that there is nothing but praise and commendation for the way in which those who are carrying out the daily routine of the mail service have been performing their functions. The criticism which has been directed to the situation which exists is a criticism directed to the administration of the department. It is a criticism such as was made by the business firm which

Post Office Act
inquired into the activities of that department less than a year ago. It is a criticism of the kind that was placed, as a matter of record, by the firm of J. D. Woods and Gordon, and referred to in this house, although not in detail. It is criticism of the failure of the department to implement recommendations that could have been carried into effect.
The minister is quite correct when he says that it is so easy to suggest that increases of any kind should not be made, because no one of us likes paying more than we paid before for any other service. This, however, is something a little different from those ordinary increases which take place in regard to the daily necessities of our life. The minister has said, and it is no way an unfair suggestion, that we should look at the comparison between the increase in postage rates and the increase in the costs of other public services of a similar nature. At first glance that seems a cogent argument. There is another argument, however. The rise in cost of service has been general throughout the world. We must not only look at the increase in rates in relation to the increase in the cost of other services. It would be advisable for us to look at our rates in comparison with rates for similar services in other countries where there are similar social and economic conditions.
With that thought in mind, naturally we first direct our attention to the United States. We find that at a time when we are asked to approve an increase to five cents for the first ounce, in the United States, where in the ordinary course of events the cost of service is certainly not less than in Canada, they pay two cents for first-class mail placed in post offices where there is not a pick-up postal service, and three cents for the first ounce where there is the ordinary pick-up service.
In Britain they start with a higher weight. In Britain the unit of weight is the first two ounces. There they charge just over three cents, which is the present value of the two-pence-halfpenny postage. If we examine the rate that is charged for that service in countries of similar economic and social structure, I think we shall find that we have the highest rate in the world for that ordinary service to the homes of our people where family messages and the other communications are carried in this way.
The attitude on this occasion is simply one of showing where the department estimates that new costs are going to be incurred but there is no suggestion of what the department could do or has done to bring about some of those economies that might be effected. Already the minister has expressed
[Mr. Drew.l
his approval when one hon. member last night referred to a great postmaster general, and I might say he is regarded as a great postmaster general by all Canadians, namely the late Sir William Mulock. Sir William Mulock became famous not only in Canada but throughout the world because of the reduction of postage rates to what was then known as the penny postage, the two-cent stamp. He was reversing a trend that had gone on for some time. He was carrying forward a trend that had developed from 1851. To show the changes that had taken place, in 1851 the lowest charge for a letter was 18 cents, and then we came to the point in 1898 when living expenses were certainly far higher, and when any comparison of the cost of ordinary services would suggest on the present basis an increase. Nevertheless we find that there was actually a decrease at that time. No matter what some people may have thought at the time, I believe that because of the general acceptance, over the years, of the soundness of the position taken by Sir William Mulock at that time, it might be well to refer not only to the words which have been quoted but to certain other views that he expressed.
At column 5525 of Hansard of 1898 I find these words:
I venture to say that these statistics establish beyond all question that the reduction in the letter rate promotes an increase in the number of letters, in the volume of business and in the revenue, and at any rate it is essential to the interests of the country that there should be the cheapest possible mail communication.
May I say that this statement has found general acceptance throughout the years: -that there should be the cheapest possible mail communication.
The minister is quite correct when he says that there was some questioning at that time about the wisdom of this course. From Hansard I read the following:


Mr.   Sproule@: May I ask the hon. gentleman, does he mean that it will be self-sustaining, without charging any postage on newspapers?
Well, of course, that is another story for another time. I continue:
The Postmaster General: Yes, I do; I mean to say that by the first day of January next, this department will be self-sustaining, without any revenue derived from the postage on newspapers, but it has to be borne in mind-


Sir Adolphe Caron:: How are you going to make it up?
The Postmaster General: By economy and by the improved revenues of the department.
I suggest that the answer of Sir William Mulock on that occasion, in a speech that has been taken, over the years, almost as a textbook on the general desirability of encouraging the use of mails by the lowest possible

postage rate, stands up. When he was asked how he was going to do it he said:
By economy and by the improved revenues of the department.
The fact that we shall have a five-cent stamp to perform the same service as a three-cent stamp will perform in the United States, just across that long border, is something that is not to be completely disregarded. After all, there are large business enterprises at many points along that border in cities from the Atlantic to the Pacific, some of them larger than others, some of them enormous businesses, sending out many thousands of pieces of mail every day. There would be nothing illegal in anybody getting in an automobile and driving across the boundary and posting these several thousand pieces of mail for three cents apiece and sending them into Canada at the reduced rate, below what they would pay if they posted the mail in Canada in the first place for delivery within our own country. I do not say that that is an impossibility. It would be a perfectly reasonable thing to do when in many cases they are just as close to a post office in the United States as they would be to a post office in a Canadian city.
Naturally Canadians want to support their own services and naturally there would be criticism if Canadians went outside the country to do that. However, we found in the case of cigarettes and a number of other things that people do look at the dollars and even at the cents. We are talking about cents in this case but those cents can accumulate to a great amount. No better evidence of the fact that many a mickle makes a muckle is to be found than in the amount of revenue the Postmaster General expects to obtain by this increase of one cent. Surely that is a fine example to our children of the law of economics and how much a cent may mean if there are enough of them put together.
Then there is another point. I think it is appropriate to mention this at this time. Hon. members of this house must have noticed that during the past week two important Canadian banks held their annual meeting. The Banque Canadienne Union Nationale-


An hon. Member:: That is not a bank.


George Alexander Drew: No, that is not a bank. The Banque Canadienne Nationale and the Royal Bank held their annual meetings last week. In each case the president of the bank emphasized that we must no longer be complacent about our high-priced economy. It was pointed out without in any way being alarmists, without in any way suggesting that this country of ours with its unique opportunities is not likely to see greater and
Post Office Act
more prosperous days ahead, that it would be wise for us Canadians to remember that we live in a competitive world where price along with quality is going to determine whether the things that we produce are going to be sold.
This is not the first time that I have raised this point in the house, nor is it the first time that it has been raised by other members of the Conservative party. We have sought to emphasize that in a period of increasing world competition taxes of all kinds and burdens of every nature which increase the ultimate cost of the thing we sell must be examined, not only from the point of view of the burden on the individual but from the point of view of the effect it will have upon a nation which is today more dependent than any other nation in the world upon the maintenance of its export business for the continuance of its prosperity.
I suggest that this is not the time to be increasing the tax burden, and this is a tax for a service. This is not a time to be increasing this burden when we should be looking for every opportunity to save even one cent. We must recognize that this becomes a part of the general cost of doing business and selling the things that we produce.
There is another feature that arises in the cost of postage. Unless the newspapers of Canada from one side of the country to the other have been quite wrong in their comments about delays in deliveries, there has been an increasing number of delays in the delivery of our mail. Even if it is a question only of three days instead of one, that is important. One clear demonstration of the efficiency of organized society is the speed with which people can communicate with each other within that society.
In other countries they have been increasing the speed of delivery. In other countries, even where the costs are high, there are several deliveries a day. In some of the larger cities in other countries a letter posted one day is delivered the same day. We should be striving to improve the effective delivery and more frequent delivery of our mail, instead of having a less frequent delivery with unexplainable delays of one, two and three days in the delivery of business mail.
All this tends to persuade people to use other services such as the telegraph and the telephone. Who knows but that may be one of the reasons why so many millions of dollars have been added to the cost of telegrams sent by this government. It may be due to the fact that the government departments know that their own Post Office Department is so slow that, if they want to get

Post Office Act
a quick answer they had better use the telegraph or the telephone. We have been curious as to the tremendous increase in the cost of telegrams and telephone calls and perhaps that is the explanation. It would be interesting if we could get that answer. Certainly a higher cost of postal service will encourage people to use these other services.
We pride ourselves on the efficiency of our telegraph and telephone services. I think we can say with satisfaction that they are not surpassed in any country of the world, even when we consider the long distances of this country. The Post Office Department should be doing everything they can to provide a cheap service by mail which offers a means of communication to the masses of our people. The rate should be such as to encourage them to use it more and more.
The attitude of the government in regard to these costs is demonstrated by the fact that emphasis has been placed upon a supposed loss of $7,500,000 because of the elimination of the stamp tax. Are we to believe from that statement that the Post Office Department can sell $7,500,000 worth of stamps without additional cost? Does it cost nothing to produce stamps? Whether they are right or wrong, some newspapers in this country have suggested that some stamps look as though they had been produced without much cost.


John George Diefenbaker: Produced by themselves.


George Alexander Drew: The fact remains that there is a specific cost element in the production and handling of stamps. Surely we are not going to be told that there was no difference in the cost of the operation in the handling of the $7,500,000 worth of stamps? Surely that would be a condemnation of administration which the department would hardly like to place before us. No, it is not $7,500,000 we are dealing with; it is the net result of the elimination of that.
But there is something more. The measure now before us is the pay-off on the political bait that was offered last spring. The government knew perfectly well when it removed the stamp tax that this result was going to follow. It pointed out how convenient it was going to be not to have to put stamps on cheques; but it is only now that we are being told that the taxpayers of Canada have got to pay for it in another way. Instead of paying it on the cheques, so many of which are issued by the larger corporations in this country, this is going to be paid by way of the postage stamps which are so much a part of the service rendered to the masses of the people in every part of Canada.


Mr. Hodgson:: They will take the cent off at the next election.


George Alexander Drew: When today the minister tells us that some of these expenses could not be anticipated, may I remind him that the general policy of a five-day 40-hour week was being instituted some considerable time ago, and that this must surely have been in the minds of officials of the department at that time.
No, Mr. Chairman; this is another case where the pleasant thing was done before the election. And now, with all the smiling blandness of the explanation given by the minister here today and yesterday, we are asked to approve the adding of this burden to the postal service of Canada.
I was interested in the statement made yesterday by one hon. member when he said that if big businessmen were paying it this government would not be making the change. I do not quite understand that statement; but let us remember that, very largely, it was the big businessmen who paid the stamp tax, in so far as those big businessmen may be regarded as paying what the corporations pay. But we know perfectly well that the costs of those things are added to the cost of doing business in this country anyway; and they are deductible for income tax purposes. This was known very well by the minister who is sponsoring the bill as well as by the minister who announced this increase in the price of postage stamps.
A good deal has been said about the cost of post offices across the country. The suggestion seems to be that we should not worry about an increase of this kind when we think about all that is being spent on post offices. Let me point out that post offices do not serve only in the handling of letters on which this postage will be paid. Those post offices handle registrations and special delivery services. Then, in addition to that, in most places the post office building houses the customs offices. In other places we find in the post office buildings the offices of the government annuities service as well as services rendered by the Department of Labour.
In short, post office buildings across this country are for the general service of the community. Certainly nothing I am saying suggests that we should be reckless in the handling of our postal service, or in any other services, or that we should disregard the costs. But having regard to the fact that our neighbours in the United States, who live lives very similar to ours and who are faced with costs very much like those we face, are called upon to pay only two or

three cents tor first-class postal service of this kind, I suggest it is very unsound, in this very competitive world, to ask our people to pay five cents for a similar service.
I repeat that we are not just dealing with one cent, or even with a five-cent piece which, on occasion, has been embarrassing to governments before. We are dealing with the total amount of this increase in a service that is closely associated with the daily lives of our people, perhaps more closely than any other service they receive from the government each day.
I suggest therefore that much more than a casual explanation of expected added costs should be given to us by the Postmaster General, who heads a department which has accumulated such enormous surpluses in years gone by. I know that reference has been made to them; but, having regard to the explanation offered today, may I remind the minister how easy it would have been to wait and see just exactly what the net result of changes being made would be, and whether certain things could not be done to expand the services offered by the Post Office Department through the introduction of new devices, such as have been introduced in the past to encourage the use of the postal service.
We know that over a period of 10 years the surpluses of this department amounted to $70,193,330.54, and that for the preceding 10 years the surpluses were $22,969,606.69, making a total of more than $93 million surplus in the last 20 years in the operations of this department, and at the lower stamp rates which have been in effect during that length of time.


Mr. Cardiff:: What did they do with the money?


George Alexander Drew: It has gone into accumulated revenues; and the people paying for this service have been asked to contribute in that way to the maintenance of other government departments where this principle did not apply.
Nevertheless those who are paying for a service of this kind surely have the right to say that it would be better, before we are asked to approve a five-cent or any other rate, to see exactly what the result of changes will be. And also we might hope that there might even be some attempt at improving the efficiency of the service and introducing new devices to encourage its use.
If we were told that never in the past had there been a deficit in the Post Office Department within that period when those huge surpluses accumulated, then perhaps we might understand the minister's sensitivity on this point. But the fact of the matter is that 83276-74
Post Office Act
there were deficits. Within that 20 year period when $93 million accumulated in surpluses, there was a deficit in 1939 of $167,961.80 and in 1951 of $1,326,788.51. But these deficits were absorbed in the general activities of the department. The surpluses to which I have referred accumulated, in spite of the deficits in the two years to which I have referred.
There is one other matter that certainly should be examined before we are asked to approve this recommendation. I submit this is the time for us to leave no doubt that we do not approve of the principle placed before us, because in a democracy it is always hoped that even a government that is the least responsive to the will of parliament will sometimes feel that arguments offered have had weight sufficient to persuade them to change their course.
I suggest that the present Postmaster General would be taking a step in the right direction and one which would win him a substantial measure of commendation if he announced that, in view of the arguments which have been presented, he proposed to let this motion stand. That course would be consistent with our democratic system, because no argument has been presented which justifies this increase now proposed to us. I therefore most earnestly submit to the Postmaster General that he should not close his ears to the arguments that are being made or close his thoughts to the possibility that he might go down in history as a great Postmaster General if he would assert his belief that economy is a sound course and that we should stand where we are until he has tested the changes that he has made.


Alcide Côté: I just want to say one word since the Leader of the Opposition raised the matter of making comparisons with the United States. The letter rate is three cents, but the Postmaster General in the United States has made representations for an increase. Rates have been increased on newspapers and parcel post. One most important fact he forgot to tell us is that in the United States there was a deficit last year of $770 million. If the Leader of the Opposition wants our economy to be exactly like the one of the United States, I hope at least he does not wish that we have a deficit similar to that in the United States.


George Alexander Drew: I think the minister is aware of the fact that the increase that he is referring to is not an increase in the first-class postal rate.


Charles Delmar Coyle: The letter rate is three cents; an increase to four cents is proposed.


George Alexander Drew: A newspaper rate increase.

Post Office Act


Alcide Côté: No; letter rate.


George Alexander Drew: It has not been put into effect.


Alcide Côté: They are actually studying it now and representations to that effect have been made by the Postmaster General himself.


George Alexander Drew: I have no doubt that the Postmaster General has read the reports of the strong objections that have already been raised by members of congress to any such suggestion.


Charles Delmar Coyle: I do not want to enter into a discussion of the matter. I would be out of order if I did so. But let me remind the Leader of the Opposition that there is an eloquent piece of evidence here in the annual deficit of more than $700 million. When it is recalled that the population of the United States is at least ten times greater than our own, he will understand why, according to our economy with our smaller population, the five-cent rate is reasonable.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, yesterday I stated my very strong opposition to this increase in postal rates. I therefore do not need to repeat my arguments today. I then made it clear-and I still feel that I was right-that this is just a case of putting back on a tax which was taken off just before the election.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: And it will be taken off before the next election too.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, no doubt. But next time a tax is taken off just before an election, we will ask the Minister of Finance under what name he proposes to reimpose that tax after the election if the government should be elected again. However, I have another purpose in rising at this moment. Naturally most of the stories that are told from this side of the chamber are stories that show up the weaknesses of the government or inadequacies in government services. But once in a while we have an example on the other side. I have had this one in my files for some time. I did not know whether I would ever have the nerve to tell about it in the House of Commons, but the discussion today about the difficulty that the post office people had in locating the hon. member for Eglinton in the city of Toronto reminded me of this piece of evidence which I now have in my hand. I therefore went up to my office and got it.
It so happens that, as is the case with many other hon. members, a great deal of mail comes to my home in Winnipeg when I am down here and which my family has to readdress and forward to me here. To save them trouble I had made some time ago a rubber stamp which reads, "House of Commons,

Ottawa, Ontario". All that the members of my family need to do is to stroke out my home address and rubber stamp the new address. Some of the members of my family have formed the habit of using that rubber stamp even when they write me personal letters. They simply write my name on the envelope and then use the rubber stamp "House of Commons, Ottawa, Ontario". But on March 14, 1950, one of the members of my family wrote me a letter and, as was usual, wrote on the envelope in ink "Mr. Stanley Knowles". But that member of my family forgot to apply the address by means of the rubber stamp. Nothing else was put on the front of the envelope, not even "M.P.", not even "O.H.M.S.", not even "Ottawa", or not even "Canada"; just "Mr. Stanley Knowles". It was postmarked at Winnipeg at 11.30 p.m. March 14, 1950.


John George Diefenbaker: It has the House of Commons stamp on the back of it.


An hon. Member:: There is only one Stanley Knowles.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I received it here in Ottawa the next day. It is postmarked on the back as received at the House of Commons March 15, 1950.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend points out that "House of Commons" is stamped on the back.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, that is just the House of Commons crest on the flap.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It is still pretty good.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As the hon. member for
Hamilton West says, it is still pretty good for the post office employees in Winnipeg not to have to spend two or three weeks but rather to put the letter in the proper bag and to see to it that it reached me within 18 hours after the letter was written. So there are times when the service provided by the post office is pretty good.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: They all vote for the hon. member so they know him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was not asking for that sort of comment but I have no objection to it, Mr. Chairman. As I say, when we have examples like this one, there is no reason why we should not give the commendation that is deserved. But that still does not justify putting on, after an election, a tax that was taken off just before it.


Mr. Hees:: When the Postmaster General was replying to a statement made by the hon. member for Eglinton last night pointing out certain delays in the delivery of mail, I think the Postmaster General implied that, provided the mail was properly addressed, there would be no delay in delivery. This

morning I received a letter from one of my constituents, and I took the trouble to telephone him long distance to find out whether these letters to which he referred had been properly addressed, and he assured me that they had been. I should therefore like to read exactly what he says. The letter is from Mr. Willis L. Blair of 2 Kimbourne Avenue, Toronto. He says:
Dear Mr. Hees:
I wish to pass on to you two instances of serious delays in the mail service in the city of Toronto.
In the one case, I mailed a letter with 3 cents postage affixed in proper place, on the 17th of December, 1953. This letter did not arrive at its destination until December 23, 1953.
That is six days later. The letter continues:
In the other case the letter was mailed on January 1,	1954 (in plenty of time for the 5 o'clock
pick-up)-
That being a holiday.
-with a 3 cent stamp on it, and it did not arrive at its destination until January 6, 1954.


Alcide Côté: Will my hon. friend let me have the envelopes so that I may have inquiries
made?


George Harris Hees: I will get the envelopes for the Postmaster General and I shall be glad to do that. My constituent goes on to say:
I can appreciate the fact that the post office facilities are taxed to the limit at the Christmas season, but I can see no justifiable reason for first-class mail to take five and six days to reach its destination right here in the city. It may be a coincidence but both pieces of mail mentioned above were delivered from postal station "J" on Danforth Ave.
Second class mail has been taking anywhere up to seven and eight days for delivery. This situation is certainly deplorable but it is about the delivery of first class mail I wish to complain.
I would appreciate it, if at some appropriate time, you would take this matter up with the Post Office Department. How is this department going to justify an increase in postage rates of 25 per cent to 33J per cent, when their present service is not worth the current rate we are paying?
Yours truly,
Willis L. Blair.
I hope that the Postmaster General will have these cases investigated. I am giving him all the information I can because I think that first-class mail delivery is, as Mr. Blair says, deplorable.
I want to speak for a moment about the reduction in the air mail rate. The Postmaster General has told us that the air mail rate will be reduced from seven cents to five cents.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I hesitate very much to interrupt the hon. member in his remarks, but I do not believe that the reduction of air mail rates comes within the purview of the resolution before us, which is 83276-74J
Post Office Act
entirely one to increase certain postal rates. I would ask the hon. member to bear that in mind.


George Harris Hees: With all deference to you, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that this is an important part of this whole discussion because the reason given for the increase in rates is loss of revenue. I want to point out here why I believe that the loss of revenue which will take place because of the decrease in the air mail rate from seven cents to five cents is unjustified. I believe that, quite the reverse of regular mail, air mail is something for which a person can pay an extra fee if it is so important for him or her to have such mail delivered in a hurry. If I have to have a letter delivered somewhere in Canada faster than ordinary mail delivery will take it there, then I am perfectly willing to pay two or three cents extra to have that service. I am sure every Canadian feels exactly the same way about it. This is not regular postal delivery. This is, if you want to look at it in this way, a luxury service for which people should be willing to pay if they receive the service.


Alcide Côté: Will the hon. member permit a question? Does he suggest that we should abolish air transportation for mail?


George Harris Hees: I am going to make two suggestions to enable the Postmaster General to keep his service on a pay-as-you-go basis without increasing the general postal rate. The first is to leave the air mail rate at seven cents. According to simple arithmetic, a reduction of two cents on 32 million pieces of mail amounts to $640,000 a year, and leaving the air mail rate at seven cents would mean a saving of that amount. Then I come to my second suggestion. In his budget last year, the Minister of Finance cancelled the stamp tax on cheques. That matter has already been discussed by several members. The Minister of Finance estimated that it would cost the government $12 million to effect the cancellation of the stamp tax on cheques. That tax was borne largely by business, and very little by the ordinary people of the country.
The ordinary workingman receives his pay cheque, takes it to the bank and cashes it. When such cheque had a stamp affixed to it, the stamp was put there by the firm employing him. He cashes the cheque, takes the money home, gives most of it to his wife, keeps some for himself, and carries on for the next week or two. If the ordinary person has a bank account, it is usually a savings account and he issues relatively few cheques. To me the cancelling of the stamp tax on

Post Office Act
cheques was simply a pre-election inducement, shall we call it, to business. I do not know any ordinary citizens who were very elated about its cancellation, or felt that they benefited very much from it. It is something which everybody certainly accepts, but if it is a question of a choice between requiring people to affix a stamp on a cheque, and raising the general postal rate one cent right across the board, then to me there is no comparison.
The arithmetic of this whole thing adds up in this way. Last year the Post Office Department showed an operating surplus of $6 million. If the stamp tax on cheques had not been cancelled, that $6 million surplus, together with the $12 million which the Minister of Fiftance estimated it would cost the government to eliminate the stamp tax on cheques, would add up to $18 million. The Postmaster General estimates that his new expenses are going to run around $14 million. Therefore, according to my arithmetic, the Postmaster General and the government, if they would follow the suggestion I am making, would be able to show a surplus of $4 million, and it would not be necessary to tamper in any way with the general postal rates which affect the ordinary people of this country; the people whom we must protect. They are the people who are going to be hurt very materially by this general increase in postal rates. If the Postmaster General and the government feel that the Post Office Department must pay its own way, this is a suggestion how to do it. It is a suggestion which I feel will meet with the general approval of people throughout the country, and for that reason I recommend it most seriously to the Postmaster General for his consideration.


Mr. Bell:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take part in this discussion for a moment not so much as a politician or parliamentarian but as a philatelist, a stamp collector. I have one or two observations leading up to one point I have to offer. I am a member of the Saint John stamp club and, I think, still a member of the Canadian philatelic society. Stamp collectors generally have a pretty good idea of the whole picture so far as the stamp business is concerned.
First of all I should like to make an observation about our Canadian stamps. Back in the 1920's we turned out some very lovely, finely engraved and beautiful stamps which received attention all over the world. I refer particularly to the 50-cent Bluenose stamp which I think won an international prize at that time. But since the twenties our stamps have deteriorated greatly in their engraving,

and while Canadian stamps are generally very highly regarded by collectors in the sense that they are scarce and in demand on the market I do think we should note that our stamps have fallen off slightly in their beauty. When this increase goes through and new stamps are needed I think it might be noted that perhaps we could concentrate a little bit more on the standards that we followed formerly.
Another point, and one that is perhaps more important here, concerns the relative value of ordinary postage in other countries of the world. As a collector thumbs through his stamps he naturally notices the value of the stamps of these other countries that are found in the largest quantity, and I should like to take a minute now to compare the rates or values of stamps in the countries of Europe and elsewhere in the world. It was not possible for me to get any exact figures on the relative rates in other countries. I checked with the Post Office Department, but they did not have any information. I quite appreciate that a request for such information would be unusual, and also difficult to fill. The rates would have to be translated into our own currency, and in addition to that some of the countries are on the metric system of weights.
Nevertheless, from a quick observation, from talking with people who have travelled and from my own travels, I have gathered some figures which I should like to throw into this discussion. I believe that in Poland it costs six cents to send a postcard. Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria are both a cent less than that figure. The other figures decrease generally until you reach countries with a better culture and a better standard of living. I happen to know that in Portugal, Egypt and India the rates for both postcards and ordinary mail are very high.
Turning to Great Britain and the United States, the two countries which are perhaps most comparable with our own today in terms of general enlightenment and culture, I believe that the postal rate in England is one and a half pence. I am still sure that the postal rate in the United States is three cents, although the Postmaster General hinted there might be an increase. I know that in his state of the union address, President Eisenhower recommended moving the rate to four cents, but no action has been taken in congress. We have rates, therefore, in both England and the United States of about three cents.
Now, the conclusions I shall draw from these one or two observations, as a stamp collector, are alarming. When other people who are familiar with the situation see that

countries with depressed conditions, that do not have the fine standard of living we have, charge high rates for this necessary service and the other countries with better living conditions have a lower postal rate, and this proposed increase in Canada will be going in the direction of the depressed countries, then people will be forced to conclude that Canada is stepping down to the levels of those countries. I know that my stamp collecting friends will agree with that.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I should like to comment briefly on this proposed increase in the postal rate, mainly because yesterday the hon. member for Charlotte made an observation to the effect that people in the various parts of Canada were not too interested in the effects of the proposal. I have received several communications on the subject, and as the information arising from this discussion is scattered across the country through the medium of the press, I am sure I shall receive further communications. I believe that is to be expected because, as was pointed out by various speakers, the people of Canada, like the people of all democratic countries, have come to regard the provision of a reasonably inexpensive postal service as a part of their democratic heritage.
It seems that it is an unwritten principle that they identify the provision of cheap postal service with the provision of highways, bridges and other means of communication. The proposed increase, therefore, even though it seems to be infinitesimally small, as it is in this case, will draw considerable protest from the people of Canada.
I should like to make one brief suggestion to the Postmaster General on this matter. During the debate several members have made statements praising the efficiency of the employees in the Post Office Department. I am rather inclined to conclude that, as a result of the improvement in working conditions recently made, the introduction of the five-day, forty-hour week and the increase in wages, you are going to see a further increase in efficiency. It might be that the increased volume of work handled by the employees would tend to offset the increased expenditures that have resulted from these improvements. I say this because from a very narrow knowledge of the subject-I have knowledge only of the conditions in our local post office in Brandon-I would be inclined to think that if efficiency is the same in every post office as it is in Brandon we might increase revenue to such an extent by the improvement in productivity that it would more than offset the expected $12 million deficit.
For example, some statistics I have in front of me relating to the Brandon post office
Post Office Act
show that in 1925, with an annual revenue of $110,600, there were 44 employees. In 1952 with a revenue of $217,120, there were 41 employees, a decrease of three employees and almost a doubling of the revenues. In terms of the employee situation, before the changeover to one delivery per day there were 15 walks in the city of Brandon. As a result of the decreased frequency of service the number of walks was decreased to 12 and eventually cut to 11. Since the improvement in the salary situation, and notwithstanding the rapid expansion of the city of Brandon since the war, the number of walks stands at eleven and a half.
I was rather curious about the half a walk, so I inquired about it. I understand that as a result of appeals from the local office it was decided to put on a carrier for four hours a day, and this constitutes half a walk. It seems to me here is efficiency par excellence. In our local post office unit with revenues going up and work increasing-no doubt the figures for 1953 will be considerably above those I quoted for 1952-there has been a decrease in the personnel employed. I see no reason why, if such efficiency is possible right across Canada, sufficient savings might not be made to meet the expected deficit.
In any case the proposal is of such a controversial nature that it would be wise to postpone a decision for two or three years to ascertain the effect of the new situation in the Post Office Department. If, as the member for Charlotte concluded yesterday, there is no undue anxiety in the minds of the people of Canada concerning this one-cent postal increase, it would not do any harm to the government if it waited even until a preelection year before introducing this measure.


Edward George McCullough: I rise to support hon. members who have spoken against the introduction of this resolution at this time. Some members of this group rose yesterday and asked for a vote on the matter. It is a pleasure to listen to the explanations of the genial and courteous Postmaster General. He has always been nonchalant in his answers, and courteous throughout the whole debate. I think he is taking the matter more seriously now than when he first introduced the resolution. The preponderance of evidence which hon. members have brought forward in this debate indicates that at this time the people of Canada do not like this increase in the postal rate in any way, shape or form, and are not in agreement with it.
In his explanation this afternoon the minister told us there are only two methods by which we can meet the situation which faces the post office at the present time. He said that owing to the introduction of the five-day

Post Office Act
and forty-hour week there have been increases in costs. I want to suggest to him that the two methods which he indicated, namely an increase in the cost of postal service or subsidization of the Post Office Department, are not the only ways by which improvements can be brought about. Economies in the operation of the post office could be effected. If his department would seriously undertake economies I am sure that improvements could be brought about.
I suggest to the minister that the United States post office department has just done that very thing in one operation. They investigated different methods by which they could inaugurate economies, and they found that by using nylon mail bags instead of the heavier canvas bags they could save the post office department $800,000. That change is to be instituted in the near future. I know very well that the United States post office department handles a great deal more mail than we do in Canada, but I want to promote the idea of that change here in Canada, and I am sure we could make a proportionate saving in this country.
It surprises me that 125 days after the August 10 election we should have this government introducing a resolution such as this. Prior to the election they brought in a so-called election budget, which was given a great deal of publicity in Canada. I know that in my own province the Liberal candidates referred to it quite often. Frequent reference was made to the discontinuance of the 3-cent tax on cheques.
It seems to me this government has some sort of tax malady. In my school days we used to hear of trigger-happy people who would go out and shoot up everybody. Now we have a government that is tax-happy. Before the election they became affected in some way, and they found ways and means of reducing the revenue of the government by eliminating the tax on cheques, and taking off a tax here and there. The Liberal candidates in the west went around the provinces indicating that the government was going to slash taxes, and suggested that if they were returned to power that sort of thing would continue. What do we find? Immediately after the government returns to Ottawa they ask hon. members to impose a tax on the mails of this country.
Let us look at this question. Yesterday the hon. member for Charlotte said he felt the people were willing to pay this extra amount. He said it would be big business who would pay the bulk of the increase. Today we are living in a complex society. It is quite different from 30 or 40 years ago. Today

many of our young people are in the armed forces and are away from home. This is going to be an important restriction on the people in the low-income brackets. The people we are concerned about are not the people in big business. They can take care of themselves. If we have a 7-cent air mail stamp they are able to put the 7-cent stamp on their mail and have it go by air. I am concerned with the people in the low-income brackets.
We have a government across the way who by their decontrol policy and tax policy are leaving with the people in the small income brackets only a small amount of money to take care of their needs. They have to budget very carefully. If we accept the truth of the statement that today our dollar is worth perhaps 50 cents, then it becomes obvious that every cent we take from the purchasing power of the people in low-income brackets will have an important effect on the livelihood of these people.
I feel quite confident, and I say it to the minister, that the young people in the armed services want to continue to correspond with their people at home. They want to continue writing to their people, and they are not worrying too much about fast mail service. If the minister cannot assure the committee that first-class mail will go by aeroplane, then I am sure these people would rather have the lower rate than the higher rate suggested.
I do not want to prolong this debate, but in view of what has happened the Postmaster General might tell the committee now, since he is bringing in this measure 125 days after the election, whether when election time rolls around three years from now we shall again have the 4-cent postage.


Mr. Thatcher:: May I direct one question to the minister, and I do this for clarification purposes. Perhaps the minister has given the information, but can he tell the committee exactly what deficit or surplus he estimates the post office will have next year if this resolution passes?


Charles Delmar Coyle: If we could be assured of no other increases in either material costs or wage rates and so on, we should have a surplus of half a million dollars. We should have a surplus of half a million dollars, but according to the experience of the past this half a million dollars may not be enough to cover the increase in cost of basic materials or other services necessary to the operation of postal services. Therefore it might be a few hundred thousand dollars, or it might be less than a hundred thousand dollars. In other words we might have a little surplus or a little deficit.


John George Diefenbaker: There are one or two questions I should like to ask the minister. I am not going to repeat the arguments that have been advanced in the last two days in opposition to this resolution. I rise merely to ask one or two questions because after all this gives the minister an opportunity to answer questions that may be relevant to the resolution. Indeed I think the minister deserves credit for being almost the only one of the ministers who in introducing a resolution is not surrounded by officials. He has actually answered the questions by himself and of his own knowledge.
Having said that, may I ask whether or not consideration has been given to the fact that in increasing the rate from 4 to 5 cents, there will be a decrease in the amount of revenue. As the Leader of the Opposition said, that was the experience when a heavy tax was placed on cigarettes. At that time we pointed out the great danger that the law of diminishing return would apply and that ultimately the government would find itself in the position where it would have to retreat from the taxation it had imposed. No doubt the minister and his officials have given consideration to this matter, and I should like to know the degree by which it is thought this increase of 25 per cent in postal rates on ordinary mail will reduce the total revenue.
The minister referred to a commission or committee which over a period had investigated the Post Office Department with a view to improving its efficiency, or at least its effectiveness. Certainly my experience with the department has been such that I can make no criticism, but naturally when an experienced group of chartered accountants make what the minister has referred to as a full and complete examination there is no doubt that in their report generalized considerations and decisions would be arrived at.
Would the minister place before the committee a summary of the recommendations of that commission and also of what changes, if any, have been put into effect in order to implement their report? As I remember, the minister stated yesterday that various recommendations had already been implemented. Would the minister take the committee into his confidence and summarize in a general way the criticisms that were made and also in general outline the improvements that have been brought into being in an effort to remove such shortcomings as were found by the commission?


Alcide Côté: In answering the first question, may I say that I cannot state exactly to what degree this increase will decrease postal
Post Office Act
revenue. If I correctly recall the information I have received, it will not affect in a big way the estimate we have given to the house.


John George Diefenbaker: What has been the
experience in the past when an increase has taken place?


Alcide Côté: I could not say. I shall get this information and give it to the house on second reading. As far as the other question asked by my hon. friend is concerned, may I say that I invited the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace to look over the Woods-Gordon report. As I remember, that report was made a month or two after I took over the department. It was a managerial report for the use of the department alone. It would not be fair if I gave one hon. member a copy and not another. I extended that invitation last evening to the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace, and he was in my office this morning and again this afternoon.
We asked these experts to go all over the department to find out where, when and how it could be improved. That was why we had experts come in to show us if it could be improved. Necessarily this department must follow the expansion of the country. If there is one department which must closely follow the expansion of this country it is the Post Office Department, because of its work in establishing communications between members of the whole Canadian family which necessitates our going everywhere in Canada.
That was one of the factors which inspired the department to ask for this managerial report. The report is in my hands and I have no objection to showing it to any hon. member. We have started to implement the recommendations of the report. For instance, there was some criticism of the location of a sorting table and the suggestion that it be moved from one place to another to permit a speed-up in the mail and bring about greater economy in that particular place.
I shall be only too glad to ask my officials to give me an up-to-date report. I would not like to impose upon hon. members by making another long speech, but if it is the unanimous desire of hon. members I shall be only too glad to bring in a summary of the implementations already made in following out the recommendations of the Woods-Gordon report, and also some information as to any possible decrease in the volume of business because of the increase in rates.


John George Diefenbaker: Did that commission suggest that many of the difficulties would be solved by increasing the rate from 4 to 5 cents?

Post Office Act


Charles Delmar Coyle: I am not in a position to answer that question. I have not read the report lately, but I shall be glad to look into that matter.


Mr.   Palierson@: 
Mr. Zapliiny:: Mr. Chairman, I have no desire to make a speech on a subject which has been so well discussed. However, I have a few questions to ask the minister.
First, in the debate yesterday the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, I believe it was, expressed the hope that some of the financial benefits accruing from this increase might find their way to the postmasters in the smaller post offices throughout Canada. I am wondering whether that was just a hope on his part, or whether he had some indication from the government that that is to be done. Would the minister comment on this point?


Alcide Côté: I understand that actually the officials are considering giving an increase to

revenue postmasters. However, I shall be in a better position to give details when the bill is before us for second reading.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: A further question has reference to a part of the discussion to which I believe the Postmaster General has not replied, unless I missed it. The question has come up repeatedly in connection with second-class mail not being included in the proposal before us. I suppose there must be some reason why the increase is for first-class mail only. In view of the fact that it has been pointed out that we are losing money on second-class mail, from a cost accounting standpoint, while we are making a profit on first-class mail, would the Postmaster General tell us why he is not proposing an increase in the rate on second-class mail?


Alcide Côté: According to statute, parliament has to decide about any increase in the rate on first-class mail. However, we may take it for granted that it is a general increase of one cent all along the line.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Either the Postmaster General did not understand my question or I did not understand his answer. I have asked why he is confining the increase to the rate on first-class mail, and leaving second-class mail untouched.


Alcide Côté: I do not understand what my
hon. friend is saying. Does he ask whether we are going to increase the postage rate on newspapers?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Anything which would fall
within the definition of second-class mail.


Alcide Côté: No.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Newspapers would be one of them.


Alcide Côté: We are not going to touch newspapers.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: You have no intention of
asking for an increase on that?


Alcide Côté: No, not on newspapers.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Would the Postmaster General explain why he is not asking for an increase in the rate on a class of material on which we are losing money, from a cost accounting standpoint, and why he asks for an increase on a class of mail on which we are now making a profit?


Alcide Côté: The increase we are asking will be made all along the line in first-class mail. I do not want to make a speech about the way news is spread and publicity is required by the people. That has been discussed by several members. We are not increasing the rate on newspapers. However, I shall make
Private Bills-Divorce
inquiries as to exactly what the increase will affect, and I may make a detailed report on every item. At the moment, however, I do not think there will be any increase on newspapers.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: It is five o'clock, Mr. Chairman.
Progress reported.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. W. G. Weir (Porlage-Neepawa) moved: that the following bills be read the second time:
Bill No. 85, for the relief of Marie Jeannine Bisson Lecuyer.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 86, for the relief of George Joseph John Louis Gustav Brisebois.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 87, for the relief of Ivy Isabel Brown Wilkinson.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 88, for the relief of Eileen Sybil Eels Goldstein.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 89, for the relief of Liliane Bernier L'Heureux.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 90, for the relief of Andrew Warden Clark.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 91, for the relief of Frances Herscovitz Hershon.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 92, for the relief of Mary Frances Beatrice Lord Tomkinson.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 93, for the relief of Roslyn Belkin Cohen.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 94, for the relief of Phyllis Mildred Brohart Stephens Mowat.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 95, for the relief of Anna Lillian Montague Maye.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 96, for the relief of Gerald Fry.- Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 97, for the relief of Gordon Amos Finlay.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 98, for the relief of Eleanor Mary Hastie Moon.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 99, for the relief of Jean de Tonan-cour Racette.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 100, for the relief of Pauline Frances Elizabeth Appleton Powell.-Mr. Croll.
Bill	No. 103,	for	the relief	of	Joseph
Anthony Albert Britt.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 104, for the relief of Violette (Labeebe) Zakaib Kenemy.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 105, for the relief of Elizabeth Josephine Grant Drummond.-Mr. Croll.
Bill	No. 106,	for	the relief	of	Joseph
Georges Roger Dufort.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 107, for the relief of Max Wulfo-vitch.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 108, for the relief of Jessie Moffat Luce.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 109, for the relief of Julia McKenzie Clarke Smith.-Mr. Croll.

Private Bills

Divorce
Bill No. 110, for the relief of Phyllis Matthews Cloutier.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. Ill, for the relief of Rose White Bishop.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 112, for the relief of Victor Della Porta, otherwise known as Jack William Taylor.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 113, for the relief of Edith Hersh Beck.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 114, for the relief of Dorothy Amelia Hockley Burne.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 115, for the relief of Dora Garoff Bernstein.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 116, for the relief of Phyllis Weiss Cohen.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 117, for the relief of Rose Lillian Budd Cooke.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 118, for the relief of Jeanne Delattre Toubeix.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 119, for the relief of Esther Smilo-vitch Benjamin.

Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 120, for the relief of Shirley Ann Slayton Dubuc.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 121, for the relief of Grace Mary Harrison Lay cock.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 122, for the relief of Lawrence Druxerman.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 123, for the relief of Shirley Catherine Bradley Boyd.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 124, for the relief of Ferdinand Nunes, otherwise known as Ferdinand Numes.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 125, for the relief of Sarah Este-phanie Debonnaire Johnson.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 126, for the relief of Sarah Ida Rishikof Neidik.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 127, for the relief of Harold Goldstein.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 128, for the relief of Mary Kathleen Hayes MacDonald.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 129, for the relief of Dorothy Elizabeth Brewin Lovegrove.

Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 130, for the relief of Barbara Jean White Simpson.

Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 131, for the relief of Donald George Kirk.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 132, for the relief of Joseph Wil-mott Albert Parmenter.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 133, for the relief of Margaret Agnes Dupont Legault.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 134, for the relief of Jack Merson. -Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 135, for the relief of Philip George Ralph Anley.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 136, for the relief of Rebecca Joyce Isobel Hahn Vengroff.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 137, for the relief of Mary Szabow-ska Skowron, otherwise known as Marie Szabowska Skowron.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 138, for the relief of George Arthur Crittenden.-Mr. Croll.
[Mr. Weir.l
Bill No. 139, for the relief of Evangeline Emma Bonner Dancsak.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 140, for the relief of Reginald George Silversides.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 141, for the relief of John Partridge.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 142, for the relief of Jacques Labonte.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 143, for the relief of Laura Solow Schwartz.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 144, for the relief of Leona Kuprasz Veremchuk.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 145, for the relief of Mary Bernice Patricia Mullins Coristine.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 146, for the relief of Evelyn Saxe Harris.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 147, for the relief of Catharina Elizabeth van de Casteel Fortune.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 148, for the relief of Hazel Viola Christena Darey Moore.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 149, for the relief of Leontine Pelletier Lamothe.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 150, for the relief of Lillian Hazel Welch Alexander.-Mr. Croll.
Bill	No.	151,	for	the	relief	of	Therese
Perrier Langlois.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 152, for the relief of Anita Eleanor London Lewy.-Mr. Croll.
Bill	No.	153,	for	the	relief	of	Norma
Patricia Cooke Campbell.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 154, for the relief of Alexandra Morgoci Cucu.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 155, for the relief of Daisy Helen Dean Harpes.-Mr. Croll.
Bill	No.	156,	for	the	relief	of	Gerald
Gaudet.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 157, for the relief of Genevieve Mary Emily McGuire Carragher.-Mr. Croll.
Bill	No.	158,	for	the	relief	of	Sydney
Silverman.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 159, for the relief of Joseph Lucien Nadon.-Mr. Croll.
Bill	No.	160,	for	the	relief	of	Patricia
Louise Noseworthy St. Laurent.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 161, for the relief of Joseph Octave Leopold Richer.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 162, for the relief of George Gerald Patterson.-Mr. Croll.
Bill	No.	163,	for	the	relief	of	Marcel
Berube.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 164, for the relief of Gertrude MacDonald Watt.-Mr. Croll.
Bill	No.	165,	for	the	relief of	Claire
Pierrette Desrochers Dixon.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 166, for the relief of Fernand Laurin.-Mr. Croll.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated on

Tuesday it is not my intention, for the reasons I gave at that time, to ask the house to take any time in the discussion of these bills at the moment. However, I think it might be well for us to keep a box score. We gave second readings to 60 divorce bills in half a minute on Tuesday, and we are asked now to give second reading to another 80 in a half minute today.
Motion agreed to and bills read the second time.



CANADA GRAIN ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, December 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Argue for the second reading of Bill No. 3, to amend the Canada Grain Act (distribution of box cars).
Mr. W. M. Johnson (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased to rise at this time to speak in support of Bill No. 3, an act to provide for the distribution of box cars at a marketing point in accordance with the wishes of the farmers. I do so at this time because I had the opportunity, during the Christmas recess, to return to my constituency and discuss this proposal with the farmers in the various districts concerned, and I found that they were unanimously in favour of a system whereby they would have some say in the allocation of box cars among the elevators at a particular marketing point. They favour a principle whereby they would state their intentions of delivery to the various elevator companies, and the railways would then be obligated to deliver railway cars in response to their wishes.
In addressing the house the last time we were debating this motion, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) made the point that the car order book as at present constituted is perfectly adequate as a mechanism to allow the farmers to deliver grain to the elevators of their choice. He implied that there was no necessity for any further regulations in order to give the farmers the privilege of delivering to the elevators of their choice. In that regard I might state that the president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool, Mr. J. H. Wesson, speaking to the annual convention of the pool, had this to say:
I notified the minister that as far as the pools were concerned our main interest was not to eliminate the car order book section but to do something by an amendment to the act to deal with the distribution of cars when the car order book section could not function under these conditions,
Canada Grain Act
-to deal with the distribution, not by regulation of the board of grain commissioners but by a definite amendment to the act.
The bill we have under debate is a definite amendment to the act that is aimed at distributing box cars according to the farmers' wishes. At the same time the memorandum to the government of Canada from the interprovincial farm union council in November of last year had this to say:
We realize that the present car order book provisions are inadequate to meet present conditions, and we submit they were not framed for such a purpose. We desire now, as we did when we appeared before the agricultural committee of the House of Commons last spring, to make a specific recommendation that the proposals put forward in the committee's report to the house on that occasion, following our presentation, be proceeded with immediately to review and revise the Canada Grain Act, including the section dealing with the car order book, and add a new section providing the farmer opportunity to deliver his grain to the elevator of his choice. However, we urge the retention of the present provision for the farmer to order a car in his proper turn to the loading platform or other place of his own choosing.
Our bill meets with the exact requirements as set out by the memorandum to the government from the interprovincial farm union council. I believe the two statements I have referred to would refute in its entirety the statement made by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) who, as reported at page 934 of Hansard, said:
... no demand has been made for it by the western farmers themselves.
As reported at page 936 of Hansard, the Minister of Trade and Commerce stated that Mr. R. H. Milliken, solicitor for the Saskatchewan wheat pool and a lawyer, finds the legal terminology of our bill not to his liking. We do not profess to be lawyers. If Mr. Milliken takes exception to the legal terminology of our bill-and I maintain that is what he took exception to, and not the principle contained in it-then I suggest that the government themselves could improve on the legal wording by giving the task to one of the abundance of trained legal backbenchers so they would have something to do this session.
As practical farmers we all realize that delivery to the elevator that has the room is a most unsatisfactory criterion. On occasion I have been forced to deliver one load to each of three elevators because they filled up in that order. I have my own desires as to where I want to market my grain, and I do not want to be governed by the principle that there is room for only a certain amount of my grain in a certain elevator because the railways have allocated box cars in that particular proportion.

Canada Grain Act
This matter was taken up by a group of individuals in my constituency, and I have some highly interesting correspondence to prove the necessity for the inclusion in the Canada Grain Act of a principle whereby the railways would have definite guidance in the allocation of box cars at a marketing point in accordance with the wishes of the farmers. Here is a copy of a telegram sent to Superintendent E. Cutts of the Canadian National Railways at Saskatoon, copies of which were later sent to Mr. Mclvor and to Mr. Milner. The telegram reads as follows:
We the shipping committee as representatives of the wheat pool members of Springwater district do not see why Federal Grain with two licenses but only one agent, should get two-thirds of grain cars at this point when they continually show space, while the pool is plugged and patrons cannot deliver their quota to the elevator of their choice. It would seem to us that this being a democratic country there should be no reason why we cannot have sufficient cars to handle our quotas through our own pool elevator system.
That telegram was sent over the names of Mr. H. W. Turner, chairman, and Mr. R. C. Staples, secretary of the local wheat pool committee. They received in reply a telegram from Mr. Cutts. It was addressed to Mr. H. W. Turner, chairman, and Mr. Robert C. Staples, secretary, wheat pool committee, Springwater, Saskatchewan, and reads as follows:
Wheat board instructions require empties be supplied each elevator equally when they have grain to ship.
That is the answer they received from the railways. Here is the answer they received from the Canadian wheat board, signed by Mr. W. Riddel, commissioner:
In the absence of Mr. Mclvor I wish to acknowledge receipt of your telegram of November 27 last, regarding distribution of cars to the elevators at Springwater. I note that the pool elevator is receiving one third of the cars whereas the Federal Grain with two elevators but one agent is receiving two thirds of the cars being supplied.
While our board has no control over the distribution of cars at local points,-
That is a significant point.
-I wish to advise that I have brought your complaint to the attention of the railway company. 1 trust that as a result they will take some action to correct the situation.
I think here we have two very significant statements made by two significant authorities. Canadian National Railways, on the one hand, is saying that it is the responsibility of the wheat board to distribute box cars among the elevators at a marketing point. On the other hand the wheat board comes back and says it has no control over the distribution of cars, that the railway has that job. It looks to me like the old army game of trying to find the pea under the
r.Mr. Johnson (Kindersley).]
shells, but in this case the C.N.R. and the board of grain commissioners do not themselves know which shell the pea is under. It makes it very difficult for the farmers to try to figure it out. It points to the fact that legislation is necessary in the form of an amendment to the Canada Grain Act to provide a system whereby the railways and the Canadian wheat board can allocate box cars according to the wishes of the farmers among the elevators at a particular marketing point.
I believe if the principle of allowing farmers to select the elevator of their choice were introduced it would not involve too much rigidity and would not substantiate what those who oppose this bill believe, that the farmers are continuously changing from one elevator to another. I think if you take the pattern of several years' delivery at a particular point you will find that the same farmers deliver to the same elevator year after year. Conditions became particularly aggravated in periods of congestion when the elevators did not have room to accept the grain offered, and therefore the farmers had to change their pattern of delivery. Rather than being able to deliver it to the elevator to which they would prefer to deliver, they have been forced to deliver to the elevator that has space or suffer the consequences.
When you have a condition in which elevator agents and elevator companies have complete control over the purchase of grain you run across some situations which are not conducive to good farming practices. For example, the elevator agent who has a certain amount of room in his elevator is certain that it will be filled very shortly because of the necessity of the farmers to deliver grain. Therefore he does not have to concern himself with providing service to the farmer in order to induce him to deliver his grain to that elevator.
We have instances of grain elevators closing their doors sharp at six o'clock. I do not object to that, but I do object to their closing the doors at six o'clock sharp when there is a load of grain coming up the runway, and I can cite more than one instance where that has happened. The agent has become very independent. It is not his responsibility to be at the elevator. He can take up other occupations. It may be selling insurance, it may be helping one of the neighbouring farmers to combine or complete his harvesting operations. In any case he is absent from his place of business, and when a farmer comes to have a moisture test made to learn whether it is safe to harvest his grain, or to get a dockage test made or have his grain

graded so he will have some guidance as to what bin he should put it in, the agent is absent.
I think the responsibility for providing service to the farmers rests on the elevator company, and this situation has arisen through lack of competition. We have an outstanding example of that reported by Mr. M. M. MacKinnon, assistant commissioner of the board of grain commissioners. He made an investigation into the marketing situation at Tramping Lake and this is what he had to say:
Mr. P. Wisbeck, the Searle agent, advised that he is farming 300 acres. . . . The United Grain Growers' agent is also farming and has not sold any of his grain yet.
When you have a situation where companies are allowing their agents to completely disregard the service they should provide for the farmers, and are permitting them to go and farm themselves with no serious loss in their deliveries, surely you are creating a problem that needs correction. The way to do that is to amend the Canada Grain Act as set out in Bill No. 3, in order to provide farmers with an opportunity to deliver their grain to an elevator of their choice. These points I have raised would automatically be eliminated. The agent would be there providing service. He would be looking for business and wanting the farmer to deliver his grain to his elevator.
I maintain that the same principle holds with respect to agriculture that applies to other industries. I do not believe the railway rations automobile cars among the Chrysler corporation, Ford and General Motors, or that it is laid down how many cars they may get to ship their automobiles to western Canada. Cars are not given to these companies on the basis of one each. They are given to them on the basis of need, and I maintain that the same principle should hold true in the case of farmers, who should be given box cars on the basis of need. If a particular farmer wants to deliver his grain to the Federal elevator, for example, he will have the opportunity of doing so. If he wants to deliver it to the pool elevator he will have the opportunity of doing so.
That is exactly what the bill stipulates. It provides a mechanism which, as I have already mentioned, may not be perfect so far as legal terminology is concerned, because after all we are not lawyers, but I suggest that if the government really want to do something to improve this situation they could devise a workable and practical amendment among the lawyers who sit idly on the back benches.
Canada Grain Act
I would also suggest that when the time comes to vote on the bill hon. members from the wheat-growing areas should consider the people they represent and vote according to their wishes rather than according to the conscience of the Liberal party. In that way we would find all members from the wheatgrowing areas voting in support of a bill that involves the principle of allocating box cars according to the wishes of the farmers. No one can tell me that the farmers do not wish this procedure. I have had enough experience with farmers and farm meetings, and through being a practical farmer myself, to realize that this principle is most important and necessary, particularly in periods of congestion.
I am not criticizing the period of congestion. I realize the circumstances that have led up to it. We have had three excellent crops, and I would certainly commend the government and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) for at long last giving us the Canadian wheat board to market our grain and afford us some stability. The principle of marketing grain through the Canadian wheat board is one that has proved of immeasurable value to the farmers of western Canada, and I think we can improve on the system of delivering our grain by giving farmers the privilege of allocating grain to the elevators of their choice.
Finally, I say this bill covers the principles desired by the farmers, and it could be made workable. It is requested in principle by the three western pools, and it is a measure that will solve the temporary problem confronting us.


Mr. G. H. Casileden (Yorkion):: I wish to speak in support of this amendment to the Canada Grain Act because I think it is aimed at removing an injustice which has lasted far too long. The hon. member for Assiniboia who introduced this bill, and who introduced a similar bill last year, is motivated by the hope that this injustice against the Saskatchewan pool organization can be remedied. I hope this afternoon to prove, first of all, that there is an injustice and, second, that in spite of what has been said in this house the farmers in the pool organizations do wish this injustice removed.
In the annual report of the Saskatchewan wheat pool for 1953 they set out as item No. 5 in their future policy the following:
A workable plan for the equitable distribution of cars between elevators and shipping points throughout the three provinces, on the basis of the amount of grain handled or to be handled during the season, to the end that growers may be able to deliver grain to the country elevator of their choice; at the same time preserving to the individual grower his right to order cars under the car order book sections of the Canada Grain Act.

Canada Grain Act
In that same report we find that during the crop year 1952-53 the Saskatchewan wheat pool delivered some 46 per cent of the grain. Further figures show that farmers belonging to the Saskatchewan wheat pool, who are active members of that organization, number almost 80,000 out of an estimated 112,000 farmers in that province. This means that approximately 70 per cent of the farmers in that province are members of the Saskatchewan wheat pool. It is natural to expect that these farmers, since they recover a dividend of approximately 3 cents per bushel from their own organization for the handling of that grain, would, if permitted, deliver their grain to their own organization. They would not then be assisting in the making of profits for other organizations, line companies, which have in the past exploited the farmers to the full.
Actually the number of elevators in the province is not the proper criterion by which to measure the deliveries that any pool organization would likely get. This bill is an appeal on behalf of the organizations and the farmers themselves to permit the farmers to deliver their grain to their own elevator, and thus share in the profits accruing from the handling of that grain through their own organization.
Under the present set-up the injustice results from the inequitable distribution of cars because of the failure to give instructions to train crews to see that cars are delivered to the various points according to the wishes of the farmers. Thus, instead of the pool farmers being allowed to deliver their 70 per cent of the grain, they have only been allowed to deliver 46 per cent of all grain, a loss of approximately 24 per cent. I believe the total deliveries to the farmers' organizations in 1952-53 amounted to some 214 million bushels. You can see that the failure to deliver the other 24 per cent caused the farmers a severe loss.
If you take a year when the elevators are empty and there is an opportunity for the farmers to deliver to the elevator of their choice, you will find that they will deliver 70 or 75 per cent of their grain to the wheat pool elevators. As soon as the elevators become filled, then the wheat pool deliveries drop off. The farmer must get money somewhere, and he is compelled to deliver his grain to the opposition elevators. When there are empty elevators at other points, he has to go there, or else forgo the cash advances on his grain.
It is understood that the adoption of this measure will mean more administrative work. It will require that the train crews be instructed definitely. It will require that the

wheat pool elevators at various points show what their business is. Elevators will be filled, and cars will be distributed to them in proportion to the business they are doing. It is because of the injustice in the situation that the proposal is being made. Surely a person who produces a commodity, and has an organization through which he can distribute it, should be allowed to distribute it through that organization. He should not be compelled, because of a lack of administration, to deliver the commodity to his opposition.
Perhaps members of the house would appreciate the problem if I were to make a comparison with a manufacturing concern. We will say a company manufactures refrigerators, shoes, shirts or something else, and to get that commodity to the retail market the company handles it through jobbers. What would happen if the company had its own jobbers and was suddenly, through the manipulation of box cars, delivery systems or something else, compelled to deliver that commodity to an opposition firm or through some other jobber who would not give it returns on its commodity?
The wheat pool organizations are behind this. The wheat pool members are behind this. There is a basic human right here which I feel should be recognized. The pool organizations realize that we have had a large wheat surplus for a couple of years. There is a large carryover. We might even have larger carryovers in the future, but surely if this can be done we see no reason why it should not be done. If cars can be distributed according to the wishes of the farmer so he can choose the elevator to which he wishes to deliver his grain, surely that right should not be denied to him. If the present system is continued the farmer's position might be reduced still further, and he does not look forward with any joy to helping build up his competitors. In addition to that there is the aspect of personal gain, the 3 cents per bushel. Over the past years that amount has been paid, and in some cases even more. Why should we deny that right to these farmers if there is any way of granting it?
While I was home at Christmas I made an examination of this problem. I obtained reports from the various pool committees showing the actual record of car deliveries. The car order book is operating at some points, but oddly enough we find that the train crews have avoided, if possible, spotting cars at those points where there is a car order book. In proportion, more cars were delivered to places where there was no car order book. Then the cars could be spotted in

front of the opposition elevator companies; at least that is the way it worked out. At another point where there was only one elevator, a wheat pool elevator, for some reason or other there had not been sufficient cars spotted to enable the farmers to deliver their 3 bushel quota, much less than the 5 bushel per acre quota which prevails today.
When the 5 bushel quota was announced the instructions were very definite. No cars were to be distributed to those points at which there was space in the elevators. This action meant that if the farmers wished to deliver their grain, they must deliver it to the opposition elevator companies, their own elevator being full.
There is something basically wrong here; there is a right which we think under our Canadian system should belong to every individual, namely the right of freedom of choice, to deliver his commodity to an elevator of his own choosing, particularly if it is his own. That is being denied to him. It is because of that injustice that we are bringing in this amendment, in the hope that something can be done to rectify it. There may be imperfections in it, but the basic principle and the causes behind it are sound. It is a case of justice, a case of a right that is not being given to these people. I can tell you in all sincerity that they look upon the present situation as a move on the part of some people who would like to see the Saskatchewan wheat pool and the co-operative pools of the west damaged in whatever way may be possible.
These people have carried on a fight on the western prairies for over 40 years. Throughout my lifetime I have watched the wheat pools and the co-operative organizations bit by bit getting themselves out of the clutches of the line elevator companies and the grain exchange people who operated the grain exchange to suit their own ends. When the farmers had no organization of their own and no elevators of their own they were compelled to drive up to the line elevator companies and take whatever price was offered and pay whatever price was charged for the service given. In the operation of the grain exchange the elevator companies set the price at which the wheat was sold and pocketed the millions that they obtained for the wheat.
Today, after 40 years of struggle, the farmers have their own organization; they have their own elevators. They have something over 1,100 in my own province, and they have annexes and other storage facilities there equal in number, if not greater. When they finally got their own terminals
Canada Grain Act
and their own flour mills set up they thought they would be allowed to deliver the grain to their own elevator companies. Now they have finally reached that goal they find that somebody else has put in a roadblock which prevents them from reaching the point they have been trying to get to. They are being penalized to the extent of 3 cents a bushel on about 24 per cent of the grain which is being delivered, about one-third of the wheat pool grain, and which should be going through their own elevators.
I am not able to say whether or not this bill will go through. I only know the cause is just; I only know that what they are asking for is fair. I know the organizations themselves are after it. I have not heard any real reason as to why this right should be denied them and why this principle should not be established.
Naturally, in a time of congestion such as we have at the present time some leeway must be given. It is impossible to handle all the grain through perhaps one particular elevator, but if you give these people the right to choose where they wish to go, they will be satisfied. Nobody says everything should be handled by the pool. That would be a monopoly and we do not believe in that. The farmers should be given free choice in the matter.
The facts prove that 70 per cent of the farmers in Saskatchewan are members of the wheat pool, but the facts are that so far as this 70 per cent are concerned they have a right to ask that they be given the privilege of delivering their grain to their own elevators or the elevators which they choose. In support of that we shall continue our fight.


Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldt-Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the very fine presentations that have been made by the two hon. members who have preceded me there is little, if anything, new that I might add to this debate. However, I should like to emphasize once again some of the points which they made. At the outset I should like to make one or two observations on this problem of box car shortages.
In the last 25 years technical advances in the agricultural industry have been phenomenal. The mechanization has taken place in almost every phase of the agricultural industry, with the result that like other industries it has become a streamlined and efficient business in this country.
What we find today is a situation like this. While one end of the industry has been completely changed through technical advances and mechanization, the other end of the

Canada Grain Act
industry, namely the transportation of the products produced, is just about the same as it was 25 or 30 years ago when farmers took their grain to the market with a horse and wagon. This is one phase of the problem to which we should give some thought.
We hear a great deal about pipe lines for oil and gas. Possibly we should be giving some thought to a pipe line for wheat as a solution to this real problem of box car shortages. The problem we have to try and solve is that of the shortage of box cars. We must try to get the best, the fairest and the most equitable distribution of the facilities at hand.
In spite of everything that has been said about this bill I believe it remains a fair measure. We believe that its adoption will give the farmers of this country an equitable distribution of box cars.
The bill is in line with views held by farm organizations. As has been pointed out here this afternoon, it has been endorsed by the annual meetings of both the Saskatchewan wheat pool and the Saskatchewan farmers' union. I said there was argument against it. One of the arguments was put forward by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He said that it was physically impossible for 90 per cent of the grain to be handled through one elevator system. To some extent I doubt the validity of that argument, because I know of a great many places in the province where there is only one elevator, and it does not seem to have too much trouble taking all the wheat in that area that is designated to be put through that elevator.
Another argument put forward is that it will interfere with the car order book. I have heard that several times and of course it is absolutely untrue, because the bill as presented is very explicit in that regard. It is intended to apply only where the car order book is not in effect.
While I am speaking about the car order book, I should like to say something more about it. I think we have to support the provisions respecting the car order book in the Canada Grain Act until we have something that is going to work better. I am of the opinion that the provisions regarding the car order book are completely antiquated, for the simple reason that the original purpose of the car order book in the main does not apply at this time. I am sure one of the main reasons the car order book was instituted in the first place was to protect the farmers in western Canada from the unfair practices they had to contend with in the private grain trade as to grades and weight, which of course reflected ultimately in the price they received for their product.

Those unfair practices do not apply at the present time in so far as the private grain trade is concerned. I am of the opinion that the private grain trade will give as good service as the pools, but I hasten to add that they are giving that service because of the presence of pool elevators throughout the country which constitute a threat to their very existence unless they deal fairly with the producer. That is one reason I believe the car order book is more or less obsolete at the present time.
One other reason why I believe it is inadequate is that set forth by the Minister of Trade and Commerce when he referred to the suspension of the car order book. He said, as reported on page 939 of Hansard of December 15, 1953:
With the absolute need for priority shipments, the distribution of cars in accordance with the applications in the car order book cannot be properly carried out. To check every application to ensure that the grain to be shipped has a preference is impossible, and would unnecessarily delay shipments.
Looking at it from that point of view I think it is pretty safe to say that the car order book is not as important as it might be.
As I said a moment ago, I doubt if anything I can say will add to the fine presentation we have heard already. The arguments by the minister with regard to the suspension of the car order book do not seem to be very valid. It must be remembered that at the time of its suspension it applied only to 200 points out of some 1,200 in Saskatchewan, and did not apply in either Alberta or Manitoba.
In conclusion may I point out again that I believe the proposals outlined in the bill now before us are fair and have the support of farm organizations and farm people in western Canada. I am sure their adoption will make for a more equitable distribution of box cars.


Mr. H. H. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would remind hon. members that if the hon. member for Assiniboia speaks now he will close the debate.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I believe there has been a very good discussion of this bill, and from that discussion I think it is clear that if it becomes law it will provide a fair, equitable and workable method of distributing box cars.
When the Minister of Trade and Commerce enters a debate he usually takes a very decided position. He opposed this bill, but in doing so I think he made one of his milder presentations. The minister claimed that this bill would make the distribution of

box cars more rigid. Then in the very next sentence he complained that the bill was not rigid enough. He said that another difficulty in the bill was that it did not require the farmer to deliver grain to a particular elevator. First the minister said it was too rigid and then he said it was not rigid enough. The minister went on to say, and I quote from page 935 of Hansard of December 15, 1953:
We are not discussing grain marketing in general but a particular bill related to it, and if there are weaknesses in that bill, obviously the bill should be opposed whether you like the principle or not.
I submit that that is no reason for defeating this bill. Rather the subject matter of the bill should be referred to the agriculture committee of this house for discussion and consideration. The problem of the distribution of box cars in western Canada is serious. Its solution is urgent, and I believe members of parliament should be giving consideration to a solution of that problem.
I think most hon. members in the house agree that the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce is particularly able. I have enough confidence in the minister to believe that he could bring forth a workable solution to this problem if he cared to. There is just one difficulty. If a workable solution to the distribution of box cars is brought forward it will allow farmers to deliver grain to the elevator of their choice. When they are able to do that it will mean more grain for their own elevator system and less grain for the private elevator system.
The minister said he had never heard any complaints from the wheat pool organization about the distribution of box cars. Well, I certainly have. They complained in their latest annual report. A committee of the three western wheat pools have been considering this problem for the last year. A resolution was passed at their most recent convention asking for a proper and fair distribution of box cars.
I hope when the vote is taken members from all sides of the house will support the bill. I was glad to note that we are receiving support from members of the Social Credit party. I am hopeful that we will receive some support from western members of the Conservative party. The problem is certainly urgent; it must be solved, and to say that it does not exist is not being realistic.


Mr. Goode:: I was paired with the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Wylie).

Post Office Act


Mr. Speaker:: The hour devoted to private and public bills having expired, the house at eight o'clock will resume the business that was interrupted at five o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Cote -Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair:
That it is expedient to amend the Post Office Act to increase the rates of postage on letters posted in Canada from the 1st day of April, 1954,
(a)	on each letter for delivery within the postal area in which it is posted, from three cents to four cents for the first ounce or fraction of an ounce, and from one cent to two cents for each additional ounce or fraction of an ounce, and
(b)	on each letter posted within one postal area for delivery in another postal area from four cents to five cents for the first ounce or fraction of an ounce, and from two cents to three cents for each additional ounce or fraction of an ounce.
Mr. Montgomery:: Mr. Chairman, while a good many members on this side of the house have entered the debate, nevertheless I feel that people outside the house and particularly in my part of the province of New Brunswick are becoming more interested as more is said here.
One point has been brought to my attention from my own province since this debate started. I have no desire to criticize the Post Office Department and' the congenial minister in particular, inasmuch as he is one person with whom it is difficult to argue because he is very co-operative. I also believe I can honestly say that in general the post office officials give exceptionally good service and sometimes, as in the case of my own constituency, under most difficult circumstances. But I understand that the increase in postage rates is not being introduced for the purpose of increasing or improving the service. Like other speakers I say that neither I nor the people whom I represent believe that this tax-and it is a tax-this increase in postage rates is being imposed solely for the purpose of meeting increased expenditure in the department.
In other words, having in mind the farsightedness of the Minister of Finance, we do not believe it can honestly be said' that this situation could not have been anticipated when the budget was brought down last

February. We also feel that there is discrimination, and I will come back to that in a few minutes. However, as the Postmaster General said, let us be fair about this matter. Let us examine the facts as the government has placed them before us and as it placed them before the people last summer and in the budget debate last spring. When the Minister of Finance brought down his budget he reviewed very ably the financial situation of the country. After making that review he told us that he was going to eliminate the stamp tax on cheques. He could very well do so because he was still budgeting for quite a considerable surplus.
At the very time he was doing that, at the very time he was telling hon. members that he could dispense with the stamp tax on cheques, he also knew that he was going to take away a tremendous amount of revenue from the Post Office Department. I am satisfied of that, and I think any member of the house, knowing the Minister of Finance, knew very well that the minister realized that the department would suffer. For over 20 years this department has contributed millions of dollars to the consolidated revenue fund. About eight or nine months after removing the stamp tax the Post Office Department found itself in financial difficulties. Why? I am not convinced that this was a surprise to them, and' I do not think any member can say, after listening to the arguments put forward in the house in the last two days, that anyone should be surprised who knew the situation prior to last February.
Therefore the government knew quite well when they removed the stamp tax that something had to be done for the Postmaster General. The Minister of Finance budgeted for a surplus, and as far as we know he is going to achieve it. Let him turn over part of that surplus to the Post Office Department to meet its expenses for this year. Give the Postmaster General a chance to put into operation some of the recommendations made by the firm of consultants which investigated the department at their request. I understand he is starting to implement them. Give him a year to see what economies he can put into effect. Give him a year to see what the picture will be. I am very doubtful that there will be much of a deficit, because I believe the Postmaster General is just as efficient as any other minister and his department can be run just as efficiently as any other. Give him a chance to see what he can do, and if it is necessary to provide funds to meet a deficit let them be provided out of the

consolidated revenue fund, because over the years that fund has received millions of dollars from the department.
If the government do not consider that is the fair thing to do, then they will have to face the criticism which is going to be made, and which I believe we are quite justified in making, that the stamp tax on cheques was removed simply as an election promise and for no other reason. It is a tax. I do not care whether you call it postage; I say it is still a tax. It comes out of the people.
Coming back to the question of discrimination, the stamp tax on cheques was paid largely by the people who could better afford to pay it, but now everybody who happens to write a letter is going to have to pay the higher postage rate.
There is another point in connection with discrimination. From what has been said here there seems to be no doubt that the air mail rate is going to be reduced. It is going to be eliminated, if you wish, because all mail will carry a 5-cent postage stamp for the first ounce. I happen to live in an area where very few people use the air mail service. If I want to send a message from my home to Ottawa it will arrive here quicker by train than by plane. That is the case for all of the area I represent, because we are so far from an airport that by the time a letter has been mailed in the post office and taken to the airport it will take longer to reach Ottawa than if sent by train. But we will have to pay the same amount of postage on our mail as will those people who can and do use air mail service substantially.
As one of my colleagues said this afternoon, if a person wants to use the air mail service he can do so. I do not think anybody has been kicking about paying the extra postage, but let those people pay for the service who want it and use it. We do not want air mail service because in our community it is of no particular benefit to us. It does not seeem to do us much good. If we happened to be sending letters to Vancouver, Victoria or other places in the west we might get some advantage from it, but most of our people do business with people in Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa and other points in the east. If they want to use air mail they are quite willing to pay for it, and that is the opinion I have received today from my constituency.
Last night the hon. member for Charlotte said that as far as he knew nobody in New Brunswick was kicking. That may have been true up to the point when people began to wake up to the fact that this was simply a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul, that it was a case of removing a tax in one place
Post Office. Act
and imposing it in another. There is, therefore, some opposition to this increase in the postage rate.


An hon. Member:: The same thing over and over.


Gage Workman Montgomery: It may be the same thing over and over, but it pays to say these things over and over. If we do not say them over and over, the people will not know about them. Hon. members can sit over there and smile because they know they have the power to put this thing over whether or not we like it. However, that is not going to keep us still. You are not going to shut us up. We have to talk about this in order to enlighten the people. I have not heard any hon. member on that side of the house say anything about this to support the minister.


William Alfred Robinson: Has the hon. member concluded his speech?


Gage Workman Montgomery: No, I have not, but I am very near the end, Mr. Chairman.
I know I am not going to add a great deal to the debate so far as the house is concerned, but I do believe I should speak for my people. I feel that I have made my points pretty well. You may not wish to pay any attention to them, but there is a discrimination. There seems to be no good reason for reducing the air mail rate. I am not satisfied, and there are lots of people who are not satisfied, that it is necessary to make this increase in postal rates.


Mr. Hamilton:: In the annual report of the Postmaster General for last year we find a sentence to the effect that the department has received assistance from the firm of J. D. Woods, Limited, management consultants. This was the report to which I referred yesterday in this house, saying that we had not seen it. The minister was kind enough to say that he would make it available to me for whatever use I wanted to make of it.
I want to thank him for doing so. I am sorry he could not lend me a copy of the report, because I did find it a little difficult working on the corner of his secretary's desk throughout this morning and studying the report while she dictated to a succession of three of her secretaries. Apparently there is no shortage of staff in the hierarchy of the Post Office Department. Perhaps that is the reason it just seemed to the minister yesterday that he had 50,000 people instead of the
44,000	he actually has.
Before we examine the statements made in this report, I think two general points should be made. First of all the report was commissioned by the department itself, which

Post Office Act
paid many thousands of dollars for it. I do not know how much. Perhaps the minister might tell us. From having seen other jobs of this kind done, I would imagine it cost between $10,000 and $15,000 for the complete job. It is quite obvious, therefore, that the department is to a certain extent, as in all these cases, in a position to suggest to the group doing the job the nature of the treatment that should be undertaken, and perhaps in a certain way how their remarks might be phrased.
I think this is particularly important, because as I understand it the government has a number of jobs of this kind which are done from time to time, and it is quite obvious that any firm would want to retain this connection. When the report is critical, it is no defence to say you will take measures to correct this situation unless the criticism contained in this report is very limited. Throughout the whole of this report we find generalized criticism of the department which indicates a state of affairs that can only be solved by a general housecleaning. There has been no indication in the department's annual report or in anything that has been said in this house that there is going to be any general housecleaning of the Post Office Department.
We must remember also that in its own report for this year the Post Office Department has said that it has for a number of years been devoting a great deal of time and effort to management and organizational problems.
If the department has been doing that for a great many years, and a report is written concerning their operations at the end of 1952, we would logically expect to find the department in fairly good shape. On the other hand, if after all this an independent organization paid by the government to study a government operation is still critical of that operation, then surely we are correct in assuming there is something wrong with that department. The department has demonstrated its inability to correct the situation.
We come now to the report itself. It opens with a glowing sentence praising the Post Office Department. As I have already said, that is what we would logically expect to find. After all, the government paid for it. The opening sentence says that the firm has been impressed by the over-all efficiency of the department, the basic soundness of its administration and organization. That is almost standard in any reports where companies are involved, as any of you who have seen these reports know. As we have said, the government is paying for it. This is very

much the same sort of thing as the Dale Carnegie principle which says that you say something nice before you criticize. It is along the lines of the standard sales technique which is to the effect that everything you say is fine, but-and then you give the fellow the truth.
We must not be misled, therefore, by a few statements-and there are a few-in the report which commend the department. I leave those for the minister to bring up later. The basic fact is the report recommends a complete and sweeping reorganization of this department, implying that it is poorly organized, poorly run, inefficient in many cases, and that savings of hundreds of thousands a year could be made in one operation in one city.
It is said that previous recommendations by the civil service commission for increased efficiency have not been followed; that physical facilities presently available for the receipt, storage and dispatch of postage stamps and unemployment insurance stamps are inadequate, both from the viewpoint of security and material handling. Later on I am going to bolster all this with specific quotations from the report.
The report makes over 75 major recommendations of one kind or another. To my mind that is a clear indication of the sorry state of the department now. The recommendations in that report, and I am not going to list them here, range from radical reorganization of lines of authority, decentralization of much activity, and complete changes in the personnel operation, to the establishment of new divisions, increases in the special delivery rates and improvement in the service and reorganization of the tender procedure. The report continues by suggesting such things as the introduction of a system ensuring direct review of services provided for the public so that the complaints and requests of the public may be anticipated.
If 75 sweeping changes of this nature can be logically recommended by this organization, then something is certainly wrong within the department.


William Alfred Robinson: I just noticed the hon. member turning a page. May I point out that in committee, as in the house, hon. members are not allowed to read speeches.


William McLean Hamilton: I thank you, sir, for that. These are notes. I presume I can start over again and have another 40 minutes because of these interruptions.

Now let us turn to an examination of some, not all, of the specific charges made in this report. Here is what the report says regarding planning:
It is apparent that the number of clerical staff presently available for this type of work is completely inadequate to deal with the problems being encountered throughout the department.
That idea is bolstered again in another section of the report. We shall now deal with the section having to do with the present method of operation. It says:
Many of the problems raised by the postmasters . . . are referred to the operations branch at headquarters for decision. This system requires the staff at headquarters to deal with a multitude of individual problems . . . The staff at headquarters operate under continuous pressure and there are many delays in dealing with comparatively minor matters. The staff are so occupied in this routine that they are unable to develop and apply policy decisions which would eliminate many individual requests.
If I may say so, it is necessary that I put this on the record because the report is not available to us. I have had the opportunity of studying it, and this is the only way I can put it on the record so the people of Canada can see what is happening in the Post Office Department. In giving these quotations I am abbreviating somewhat but retaining the nature of the quotation and the words used in the report.
With regard to the operations branch the report says:
The work of the operations branch has over the years increased to the point where the staff at all levels are overloaded with a multitude of routine problems and correspondence. No one has had the time to develop policies which can be applied on an over-all basis.
Is it any wonder, when we see these things unfolding before us, that the Post Office Department finds it necessary to come and ask for an increase in the postage rates? Is it any wonder they should do that with this type of internal organization?
Turning to the buildings which are used by the post office we find the report saying:
It is essential that detailed consideration be given to new construction in order that the most efficient operating methods be incorporated in the design.
Quite properly, the postal superintendent in charge of the buildings division has concentrated on this phase of his activities. All the staff in the division have been so engaged. They have not had time to seek out and introduce operating economies throughout the existing post offices. Our survey has disclosed that there is room for substantial savings through better layout, equipment and control.
The post office needs information; it needs controls. Here is one of the things the report has to say regarding controls:
The branch is operating under a severe handicap as there are no standards established to measure the relative efficiency of a given method of operation. The lack of such standards is particularly
Post Office Act
felt when requests are received for additions to staff or accommodation. The only relative comparison of the volume of work in various post offices is the revenue received by each for the services it renders to the public. It is recognized by the department that this is not an adequate yardstick due to the varying conditions under which post offices operate. The lack of such a standard also makes it difficult to appraise the benefits which might be obtained from improvements in methods and equipment.
We have here another indication why the department is operating largely in the dark, yet it comes to us asking for an increase in rates. We know now, on the basis of the information which is going on the record, that really this department knows not whereof it speaks.
Another section of the report deals with the mechanical engineering division, which is a new department suggested by this report, and I quote:
A mechanical engineering division should make a detailed examination of the equipment and layout presently in use in post offices. This study will disclose great differences in the equipment. In some instances, equipment installed many years ago was continued in use although more efficient equipment is now available. No attempt has been made to standardize on the most efficient equipment.
The report goes on:
There is a need for a reappraisal of the services being provided at various centres across the country. The department should be continually examining the nature of services provided and prepared to make alterations as required to keep pace with changing conditions.
There is very clearly a suggestion there that the department is not doing that; that it is static; that it is not keeping abreast of what is going on in the world.
We now come to another section of the report, regarding a methods and procedures division. The report says:
This division would be responsible for preparing and amending operating manuals. This is presently the responsibility of the services, methods and examinations division. The staff available for this work has proved inadequate and the existing manuals were, in many cases, issued years ago and are now in a large extent obsolete.
The production of up-to-date operating manuals should more than repay the expenditure involved in staff salaries required to prepare them. At the present time there are numerous errors occurring throughout the service and the correction of each one requires the expenditure of time and labour.
We now come to the question of workshops which the department is operating. I never knew that the post office operated workshops. This is what the report says:
At headquarters in Ottawa and a number of the large centres across the country workshops under the supervision of local plant engineers have been established . . .
Then comes an interesting point, because we find that these workshops have been

Post Office Act
greatly enlarged so that they are doing something else. Here is the quotation from the report:
It was noted during our survey that a number of these workshops have extended their activities to the manufacture of equipment such as cupboards, wastepaper containers, binneys, and skids, and to the repair of typewriters and other office equipment.
The Post Office Department is in the office equipment business. The report goes on:
These workshops were not established for this purpose and it is questionable if this type of work is economical.
It is suggested that a detailed study of the actual staff requirements to carry out the essential repair work be made and the staff be reduced to a minimum required to perform these duties.
I should now like to give hon. members an item in the report which vjjll capture the imagination of Canadians across this country more than anything else in it. After all, what I have shown so far is fundamental; terribly important, but it is fundamental; it is the organization and operation of the department. Here are three ideas for this committee which show clearly where the department is not taking advantage of current operating methods and the information available to it in order to save the taxpayers' money. Item 1 has to do with floor space and reads as follows:
Floor space,-a redesign of a letter-sorting rack in the forward letter section of the Toronto post office, and improved layout of these racks would result in a 45 per cent saving in the floor space used for this purpose. The changes would not have any significant effect on the labour cost of the operation as it is presently performed.
Item 2 is as follows:
Equipment design. The use of conveyor belts and changes in equipment would allow two operations to be combined.
I understand that this refers to Toronto. Hon. members understand that I have not the report immediately in front of me. The minister has it. There are minor matters which I have no doubt he will correct me on, but there are no major ones.
I am giving just a few of the quotations from the report, which goes on to say that a change in the equipment used would allow these operations to be combined.
While this plan will require further development there is an indicated annual saving in the forward letter section of the Toronto post office alone of approximately $200,000 per annum.
This is referring only to Toronto, and it states it will require further development; but there is indicated an annual saving in the forward letter section of the Toronto post office alone of approximately $200,000 per annum. Let us make it quite clear that this $200,000 saving is possible after the

necessary equipment and everything else connected with the operation is installed. That would mean the taxpayers of this country would have to pay to the Post Office Department $200,000 a year less. Putting it another way, the expenses of the Post Office Department would be $200,000 a year less.
With regard to the work place lay-out, the report states that a rearrangement of the lay-out equipment used for sorting tables would increase the efficiency of the operation by from 10 to 26 per cent, with resulting reductions in staff.
Let those three examples be impressed in the minds of everyone as an indication of what is happening today in the Post Office Department, and the tremendous savings of hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of dollars that it would be possible to make if this department would smarten up and operate in the most efficient and economical way.
The report then goes on to refer to the special delivery service. It is interesting to note that for reasons best known to himself the minister decided this year to raise the other rates of postage but not the special delivery rates. The report states:
The cost Information available to the department discloses that the special delivery service is operated at a considerable loss. In some centres the postal rate for a special delivery letter is less than the contractor is paid to deliver the letter. The user of the special delivery service is interested in a rapid and assured delivery. It is believed that the majority of users would be prepared to pay considerably more for this service if their requirements were met.
The special delivery is used by only a small number of people, but it is not paying its way; yet in the case of another service the rates are increased. At this point I should like to make just a passing reference to another item in the report which I think is tremendously significant. I am surprised that neither the government nor the Postmaster General has seen fit to make some mention of this matter at some point. There is a suggestion in the report that the post office savings bank, once a most vital part of the economy of this country, has now largely outlived its usefulness, that there is little demand for it. The report recommends categorically that this operation of the Post Office Department be abolished, and it points out that a saving of $377,000 could be made in that one particular instance.
I am not committing myself, nor do I intend to get into a debate on the question of the abolition of the post office savings bank, but here is a potential saving of

$377,000 mentioned in this report of which we knew nothing. No one outside the confines of the minister's office, as far as I can find out, knew of this until last night when for reasons which I should like to think were good the minister made the report available to me.
With regard to the transportation and carriage of mail the report says:
Little effort has been made to appraise the whole transportation problem and to develop a rational plan or policy to govern future operations and methods.
The report continues with a discussion of subsidies as an important factor in the operation of the Post Office Department. It states:
The need for a subsidy should, however, become less as an area grows and the volume of normal traffic increases. In the past in negotiating contracts no effort has been made to set out the amount that has been paid as subsidy as opposed to what might be described as the normal cost of operation.
And again:
The subsidy may therefore be perpetuated long after the justification for it has ceased to exist.
Then with regard to the railway mail service division the report states:
At the present time there is no one senior officer at headquarters responsible for the over-all direction of the railway mail service.
There is much more in the report. Then another quotation:
A limited survey of the conditions in Toronto discloses that the planning of this pick-up and delivery service has not been given the consideration which it deserves.
I come now to a reference to how they handle their stamps, which represent money. The report states:
The postage supply section of the postage stamp division is responsible primarily for the receipt, storage and dispatch of postage and unemployment insurance stamps to postal depots and government agencies. The physical facilities presently available for this purpose are inadequate both from the viewpoint of security and material handling. Many improvements in procedure could also be made.
Then follows an important matter which I believe others of my colleagues will take up and comment on later. The report goes on to say:
We have reviewed a report of the civil service commission. A comprehensive analysis was made in 1950 of the method of keeping records and issuing stock. It is suggested that this report be reviewed and the suggestions put into practice.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Three years too late.


William McLean Hamilton: Three years too late, and probably gathering dust somewhere on a shelf.


Alcide Côté: I think my hon. friend is a little unfair. After all, I opened the door of my office and he spent the whole day there. Although he may throw flowers at me, I
Post Office Act
think he should also give me a chance to explain that this report was asked for by my department. The other day hon. members were complaining that we were doing absolutely nothing, and I replied to my hon. friends on the other side of the house that we were doing something. As a matter of fact we did ask for the report. We asked these experts to go through the department, to consider all the problems of the department and make recommendations. It is from their report that my hon. friend is quoting.
On the one hand he does not seem to be satisfied with the way the Woods-Gordon people appraised the department, yet on the other hand he quotes their recommendations without knowing that some of them have already been implemented, which is a little unfair on the part of my hon. friend. When my hon. friend came to me last night I told him that this was a managerial report and as I had only my own copy, it would have been unfair for me to give it to him when I could not make copies available to other hon. members.
I was the one who invited him to my office to peruse the report. Then this afternoon he came to me again and asked if he could go to my office once more. I said yes, and he went there. He may have forgotten this, but he said to me, "When the bill is up for second reading I will want to ask a few questions as to whether these recommendations have been implemented". When he was still at my table at noon I said to him, "Are you still at it?" He said, "Well, I will tell you-


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Alcide Côté: He told me-


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


William McLean Hamilton: I shall resume this talk, after the short speech that has been given by the minister. I want to thank him, because I was getting close to my 40 minute limit. I have another ten minutes. I think I shall start all over again now.


William Alfred Robinson: I would ask the hon. member to note that I cannot allow him to refer to the report.


Mr. Green:: Mr. Chairman, would you repeat that statement. I did not understand it.


William Alfred Robinson: The ruling is this, that we cannot allow this exchange between the minister and the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace. If he wishes to refer to the report, that is all right. But please, can we confine ourselves to the resolution increasing the postage rate?

Post Office Act


Howard Charles Green: I understand, then, Your Honour is not ruling that the hon. member cannot refer to the report.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He said he could refer to it.


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member can refer to the report. Certainly he can refer to the report; but the hon. member will please direct his remarks to the resolution which is before us.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, it would seem to me that my remarks were just a little bit pertinent to the resolution before us. If someone comes to me and says, "I need more money to operate my business", and I find that his business is operated in a shockingly inefficient manner, then I think I am quite right in asking him to straighten out his business before he asks for more money.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. What you can do is ask the Chair and, through the Chair, ask him to operate his business in a more efficient manner.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I must say, as an aside, that I am very much a neophyte in this house. I am not too conversant with its rules. I am deeply appreciative of the courtesy which has been extended to me by Mr. Speaker, by yourself and all the members of the house.


Alcide Côté: And the minister.


William McLean Hamilton: I will try to improve as time goes on.


An hon. Member:: You cannot get any worse.


William McLean Hamilton: The report contains a section concerning licensed vendors. Apparently a licensed vendor is a man who purchases stamps from the post office and resells them. These would be tobacconists and places of that kind. Quoting from the report I find it says:
Even the most active vendors rarely receive more than 75 cents per month and the stamps are generally sold as a convenience to their customers. In one instance that came to our attention the vendor made 17 trips to the post office in one month to purchase stamps for resale and received a total commission of 57 cents. Each purchase involved a preparation and signature of the receipt which was later forwarded to Ottawa and processed.
Permit holders on the other hand purchase their stamps at face value and there is no special accounting involved. It is suggested that the licensing of vendors be discontinued.
That is one thing which I hope the government has already done.


Alcide Côté: We have; and that is why I think my hon. friend should wait until I make a report. He should see what implementation there has been before criticizing since he does not know what has been done so far.
[The Chairman.]


William McLean Hamilton: It seems to me that by putting this material on the record it will give the Postmaster General something to report upon. He can cover all these various points at once, and we will not need to bring them up individually.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William McLean Hamilton: All right; these are facts. These are not just opinions. These are not just ideas. These are facts which have been set out in cold, hard type, by an organization retained to examine the Post Office Department. And if it hurts just a little bit, that is too bad. I am not happy to see a department of government, one of the agencies of government, subject to this sort of thing. I do not want to stand here and say these things.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William McLean Hamilton: I do not want to stand here and say these things about any department of government. But, just as the Postmaster General said yesterday that he was not always going to do the popular thing, but that he had his duty to do, I, too, on this side of the house have my duty to do. And I think hon. members are just a little bit unfair. When what I say begins to gouge and hurt, and when the facts come out, they begin to try to shout me down.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You will get used to it.


William McLean Hamilton: Turning now to the report-


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is standard practice.


William McLean Hamilton: Turning now to the report, and the section regarding the financial and statistical controls, we find that it says:
It has been recognized in the department for some time that there is a lack of information on which to base policy decisions and control activities. The only existing data which can be used to compare the operations of two post offices is the dollar revenue received by the post offices. This is not an adequate measure of the volume of work performed by each.
The report continues with other criticisms along the same line, which I shall not set out in the record. I have no doubt that later on the Postmaster General will tell us about all the things he has done to implement the report and what he is going to do later on. He will tell us what a bright picture there will be. I would like to put on the record something regarding past history and what might have been done by a particular division. The report says:
A cost ascertainment division was established to devise a practical method whereby the cost of handling various types of mail could be established or estimated.

We know that the cost ascertainment division was established in 1946. Then quoting again from the report:
The division has made some progress and each year produces a statistical report in which the cost of the various postal services is estimated. During recent months-
And remember that is six years after.
-a few of the large post offices have been asked to estimate their expenditures in advance and submit monthly reports comparing their actual expenditures with these estimates.
And so, six years after we established a division to do something, the cost ascertainment division, they are still beginning to go into action. This is one of the reasons 1 hesitate to put any confidence in any statement to the effect that we are going to rush into action on all the recommendations in this report, or any statement that they have been already implemented or that they are going to be implemented very shortly.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.


William McLean Hamilton: Quoting again from the report-and I am almost to the end of the quotation-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William McLean Hamilton: All right. This is a $30,000 saving. It states:
A number of suggestions in connection with the routines in use in the purchasing and stationery division are set out in appendix I. The adoption of these suggestions should allow reductions in staff with savings up to approximately thirty thousand dollars a year.
Here is a department which has been in operation since 1869. In 1952, after having studied their own operations over a number of years, as they say in their own report, always attempting to become as efficient as possible, it is possible for outsiders to come in and show where the department can make a saving of $30,000 a year on stationery and purchasing alone. Then it continues, dealing with accident prevention:
At the present time there is no formal program for the reduction of accidents.
That is in the report. Then it says:
This is a costly waste both to the individuals concerned and to the department.
And then the final quotation, and one which I think sums it up. The report speaks about communications between field and headquarters and it says:
It was apparent from discussions in the field that a certain amount of frustration exists.
This condition probably arises from a lack of understanding of the field problems by headquarters and the headquarters problems by the field. Suggestions and important matters from the district offices forwarded to headquarters for comment and 83276-75
Post Office Act
approval are often not dealt with for long periods or put off by repeated requests for further information. From the headquarters standpoint these suggestions are often so poorly presented that It is impossible to take intelligent action.
We have here a summation of the whole operation. Headquarters does not understand what is happening out in the field and the field does not understand what is happening at headquarters; and we have 44,000 people operating the post office under those conditions. Then the Post Office Department comes in and says, "We want to increase the rates because we are not going to make any money, and we are not satisfied with the $90 million we have made over the past 20 years".
I am just wondering-and I am afraid I am not going to see them-what other reports of this nature the government has in its files and which contain similar information. I will just bet there are dozens of them if it but had the courage to show them.
In my discussions with the minister at one point today I said that I proposed to extract material from the report and ask him what he had done about it, and I referred to second reading of the bill. I apologize to the minister for not having delayed until then. The reason was my ignorance of the rules of the House of Commons.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I very much regret having to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, may I ask on
what basis you make that ruling? Two or three speeches have been made by the Postmaster General since the hon. member started to speak.


William Alfred Robinson: If the hon. member wishes to speak again, that is his privilege; but his time has expired on his present speech.


William McLean Hamilton: I can finish in about one minute.


Howard Charles Green: May I point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that time and again this matter has been ruled on by other chairmen where there has been an interruption of the kind made by the Postmaster General tonight, not once but two or three times. The ruling has been that such an interruption starts the time of the member who is speaking running again, and that under those conditions the hon. member may speak for another 40 minutes.


Mr. Harris:: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I say that I think I saw the hon. member back of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra indicate that if he had not already completed what he was saying,

Post Office Act
he had almost reached that point. I think everyone wants to complete this discussion before we adjourn tonight. I wonder if we might just leave the matter in this position, namely that anything more the hon. member wishes to say he may say at this point, and then if later, because of other things that may be said in the meantime, he feels he should continue, of course that is his privilege as an hon. member.


William McLean Hamilton: About one minute will do it.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


William Alfred Robinson: I am entirely in the hands of the committee. Does the commitee agree that the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace has the floor?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William McLean Hamilton: As I was saying to the minister, Mr. Chairman, when this point came up I did not realize that I would have the opportunity to put this information on the records of the House of Commons at as early a stage as this, and I took advantage of the opportunity in order that, as I said to him today, the information having been set out he might give us his answers and his explanations of these facts.
Before I resume my seat I have just one further question. I should like to ask the minister when we in Notre Dame de Grace are going to get our second mail delivery a day.


Alcide Côté: Mr. Chairman, I wish to deal with one point only. The hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace presumed that it would be possible for me to give the answers to the questions which he has just asked or the matters which he has just brought to the attention of the committee. Unfortunately I could not be here and in the department at the same time. While I was here today, he was in my office perusing the report. I may assure him, as I assured the hon. member for Prince Albert, that I will eventually give a summary of what has been done so far.
May 1 say this. I want to be fair with everybody, and I want everybody to be fair with the Postmaster General. Having regard to the way these representations were made tonight by the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace, I think they must be completed by the following statement. The report was asked for by the postmaster general who was my predecessor. When it came, we immediately implemented the recommendations in so far as it was possible or advisable to do so. Next week there is to be another meeting to study the matter and see what

more could be done. When I make my statement with regard to implementation of the recommendations I will say what my hon. friend forgot to say, namely that most of these recommendations cannot be carried out in one year; their implementation must be spread over a period of years. I may add that if he still has some doubt about the experts of the Woods, Gordon company-as he insinuated at the beginning of his statement-these experts are also employed by the premier of the province of Ontario.


Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of bringing to the attention of the Postmaster General any personal complaints with regard to the delivery of mail. Over the years I have received from the post office nothing but excellent service. Consequently I have no letters to produce that have been delayed in delivery. I have none to produce that have been incorrectly addressed or anything of that nature. In fact, what disturbs me so frequently with regard to the postal delivery is that some letters I would prefer not to receive arrive with great promptness. I would be perfectly happy if they were delayed for several weeks. I have never been quite able to understand why a letter advising me that I have overlooked some account or other arrives the day after it is mailed.
I should like to pay my respects to the postal employees who, over the years, have delivered mail at my home. They have been looking after me extremely well during the last few years. I find that their work is very well done and I am perfectly satisfied. I have no complaints on those scores at all.
I intend to direct any suggestions I may have to make with regard to the administration in general and to the Postmaster General himself. I think one of the reasons this debate has gone on as long as it has at the resolution stage is the fact that the Postmaster General took an improper approach to this problem. It is a matter of experience, I suppose. We all learn. If, on the introduction of the resolution yesterday, the Postmaster General had given a detailed explanation of the operation of the postal department and had given the figures and the statistics to prove conclusively that an increase in postal rates was needed, I think perhaps this debate would have been over long before this time. It is because. ,hat information has not been given to us that we have been searching for it from this side of the house.
For example, on a first reading of what the minister said yesterday one would be inclined to think there will be increased costs

for postal service next year, that we must therefore have increased revenue to look after that opportunity. He should have said, as that Nothing at all is said with regard to any of the economies that might be introduced, and nothing at all with regard to the nature of the postal service and its effect on and importance to our country.
The Postmaster General had an opportunity of presenting a broad picture of the importance of postal service in Canada. He missed that opportunity. He should have said, as that great postmaster general who has been mentioned earlier, Sir William Mulock, said, something about the nature of the postal service and its importance. These are words of Sir William Mulock which were quoted yesterday:
Public opinion favours the cheapest and freest possible communication by mail throughout all parts of the country.
I think that holds true today just as surely as it did in the days when Sir William Mulock made the statement. I think the present Postmaster General should have emphasized that point and pointed out to us the nature of the postal service in Canada. He should have disclosed to us what in his opinion is the business part and what is the public service part, because these things should be clearly understood. If you are going to consider the postal service merely as a business, then you balance expenditures against revenues and you say that this or that must be done. But there are other factors concerned.
Again this afternoon I thought the Postmaster General's replies to the statements made yesterday by hon. members were inadequate. I think I recall him saying yesterday that so many things were discussed during the course of the day that he could not begin to answer them all at that time. He had an opportunity today, and we would have been quite content to listen to him for a considerable period if he had dealt point by point with the matters raised by hon. members on this side of the house. But he summarized very rapidly. He said-and I hope I am quoting him correctly or at least giving the gist of his remarks-that those who have spoken in this debate so far can be divided into those who think the users of the postal service should pay and those who think everybody should pay. There was more to it than that.
There was certainly a third view expressed by member after member on this side of the house. Granted that there were those who said the users should pay; granted that there were those who said everybody should pay, but what about the remarks that were made 83276-75*
Post Office Act
about the increased business that might result for the post office through greater efficiency? What about the remarks about searching for other sources of revenue? What about the remarks reviewing accounting procedures within the department, and the suggestions that some of the subsidies to other governmental departments and to Trans-Canada Air Lines, for example, might be discontinued?
Surely this was a different point of view from the two the Postmaster General mentioned, and I regret to say that the Postmaster General did not deal with these matters. Then we had set out for us yesterday by the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace, who has made such a splendid contribution to this debate, the surpluses and the deficits over a long period of years. I think this is the type of background material that the Postmaster General should have given us-We were informed that for the first 30 years-following confederation there was a series of unending deficits and that then, with the change in postal procedure and a reduction in postal rates, surpluses resulted in the second 30 years. There were twenty-two surpluses and nine deficits, but on balance surpluses. There was a surplus for that 30-year period.
For the last 20 years we had our attention drawn to the fact that there had been eighteen surpluses and two very small deficits, resulting in a surplus of $90 million for the final 20-year period.


An hon. Member:: Good government.


Gordon Minto Churchill: In speaking about these
surpluses the minister attempted to tell us that the ones we have had recently were due to the stamp tax which was removed last year, but he did not give us any figures to indicate how much of the surplus was due to that tax, and he did not go back over the years to show when the stamp tax began to increase the surplus. He said nothing about these matters at all but just made a statement, not backed up by evidence, which he asked us to accept. I think that is not quite good enough when we are dealing with a matter as important as this.
This then is the objection I make on this occasion with respect to this important matter, and it is important because it affects everybody in the country. There are some who say that people do not write letters. I have never met anyone who did not write a letter or did not receive letters. In some way the postal service affects everybody in the country. In a matter as important as this I think we should have had full information, but we have been dependent on this side of the house to provide that information.

Post Office Act
Look at the research that has been done by the hon. member for Hamilton West, the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace, the hon. member for Danforth and others on this side of the house who have done the reading, compiled statistics and presented a picture to us of the functioning of the Post Office Department over the years. Why did we not have that presented by the Postmaster General himself? I think he missed a very great opportunity there. In my opinion sufficient information has been disclosed in the course of the debate to indicate that there are a great many ways of saving on the postal service; that there are ways and means of increasing, we hope, the efficiency of the service, and that these should be explored before an increase in the first-class postal rate is put into effect.
The Postmaster General neglected to give us a picture of the future of Canada. Are we not expecting great things? Do we not hear from other ministers of the crown about our expanding economy? Do we not hear about the increase in our population and the general advance of Canada? Is it not right to expect that as our population increases postal service will increase, and that additional revenue will be produced from that source?
The statistics shown in the minister's annual report, and the ones upon which I think he based his expected revenue from the addition of one cent on first-class mail, show that per capita about 100 pieces of first class mail are carried by the post office during the year, and the corresponding revenue from that source. Our population, by natural increase and by immigration, is increasing yearly at a rate-I will use round figures-of about 300,000. On a per capita basis that should surely indicate almost a million dollars additional revenue to the Post Office Department with each succeeding year.
The Postmaster General has not taken that into account in his consideration of this problem. Had a proper picture been presented to us it would have made it much simpler for us to consider the whole problem. We might have been saved some of this lengthy discussion, and perhaps we would have been less critical of the Postmaster General and the administration of his department. We would like an assurance from him that the Post Office Department is going to continue to serve the people of Canada with greater efficiency, with speedier service; that the revenue of the Post Office Department will increase on that account; that there will be a reorganization so the department is bearing only those expenditures that are properly

those of the Post Office Department, and so on. Such information, however, was not forthcoming.
I believe the Postmaster General still has an opportunity this evening to deal with some of these matters and answer some of the questions that have been raised on this side of the house. He should tell us, for the information of members and the people of Canada, the place the postal service has in this country, and' what part of it is strictly business and what part of it is a public service.


Mr. Adamson:: I should like to make a suggestion to the minister. I represent a riding which contains a part of Toronto 9, part of Toronto 3, all of Toronto 15, all of Toronto 14, and all of Toronto 18. I think the old constituency of York West has had the most rapid growth in so far as postal services are concerned of any riding in the dominion. I should like now to pay a tribute to Mr. MacNabb and the officers of the operations department of the post office. Hardly a week has gone by without some new section of suburban Toronto which I represent requesting increased service, increased postal walks or other services. I may say that I have never had anything but the utmost co-operation from the operations department.
There are one or two problems I should like to mention which are peculiar to suburban ridings. I should like to comment on the regulation which prevents two sub-post offices from being within a statute mile of one another. I think that regulation is archaic, for this reason. The suburban highways leading from our metropolitan centres are six and eight lane roads. Traffic travels both ways along those roads at an average of 40 miles an hour, although 30 miles per hour is the statutory speed limit. When one has eight lanes of traffic travelling at that speed, it is as difficult and dangerous to cross that road as it is to cross the Niagara river.
The regulation states that if a sub-post office is on one side of the road another subpost office cannot be situated within a mile of it, even although it is on the other side of the road. It is obvious that these main highways and this traffic present a barrier which, while not constituting a statute mile, is at the same time a hazard and an obstacle far greater than the statutory distance. I only hope that when this matter is dealt with this regulation will be reconsidered, particularly as it affects suburban municipalities. There have been several sub-post offices, and one in particular, at which a great deal of

congestion has taken place simply because no other post office can be located closer than one mile.
There is just one more thing I wish to bring to the minister's attention, and that is the question of the timing of the mail. A business organization may start-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I hesitated to interrupt the hon. member, but the resolution before the house is for the introduction of an amendment to increase certain postal rates. I would suggest to the hon. member that this does not give this committee the right to discuss any subject matter which might properly be discussed on the Postmaster General's estimates, but only those which would have some effect upon the cost of operation or the necessity for increasing postal rates.


Agar Rodney Adamson: That is exactly why I brought up this question of postal delivery to business firms. I do not think the average firm would object seriously, at least most of them would not, to paying increased rates if they got their mail at a sufficiently early hour in the morning so the day's work could commence with the delivery of the mail. There have been several complaints that mail is not delivered sufficiently early. As I say, these firms would not object to the increased cost of mail service so long as they received the mail early, because the cost of keeping a business organization sitting around for an hour in the morning is infinitely more than the increase in the postage rate.
I hope that when this increase goes through, as it apparently is, part of the increased revenue will be directed toward getting mail to these business firms early in the morning.


Mr. Macdonnell:: It seems to me quite clear that we have drifted into a ridiculous position. When this debate began yesterday certain figures were put forward, and they were queried. They have been disintegrating ever since. In addition to that, tonight we have had the report about which the minister and the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace told us. We have been given figures of possible savings running into a very considerable amount. If my memory serves me correctly, the figures mentioned must have been a million dollars or more.
This report contains many recommendations. The minister told us frankly that he is beginning to implement them, but it seems to be asking a great deal of members to ask them to take this step at this time when we simply do not know the facts as they exist, and when the minister tells us he hopes
Post Office Act
he is on the verge of making a good many improvements. It seems to me a most inopportune time to take such a step.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: This afternoon I was interested in some of the remarks the minister made, and particularly the letters to which he referred from the chamber of commerce in Hamilton and the board of trade in Vancouver. I might tell the minister that he missed a good bet if he was looking for congratulatory messages to the department. He missed the one I wrote to the postmaster in Hamilton complimenting him on the excellent service which he gave me over the' Christmas season on mail which had to be redirected because we had changed our place of residence. If the minister had obtainedl that one, possibly he would have been able to gloat a little bit. The post office has done an excellent job for me, and I give it credit.
However, I might say that while we do have an excellent staff in Hamilton, even an excellent staff can be sabotaged by inefficient administration; and I am very much afraid that is what has happened in a great many centres, because a two, three or six-day delay in the delivery of mail over comparatively short distances is not at all rare. The instances which have been brought up in this house are only a few from the many hundreds which come to the attention of members of parliament from time to time. I am sure members on the government side of the house get just as many of them as do members of the opposition, but perhaps they do not talk about them so much.
I was also interested in the figures which the minister read with regard to the mounting costs of administration and the mounting expenses of the department. While they are interesting, they are to be expected. A nation cannot increase in population three, four or fivefold without all these services increasing to the same extent. Certain it is that we have many more towns and municipalities benefiting by reason of house to house delivery than we had years ago. Certain it is that if tomorrow a municipality makes application to the department and can prove it is of a size that requires that type of service, it would be the minister's duty to see that such service was instituted. We would expect that. It cannot be taken by the same token, however, that this service which is rendered is entirely without any revenue to substantiate it.
All of us were interested in the Woods and Gordon report. The report of the department for the year ending March 31, 1953, has not been in our hands too long. It is only natural that the reference to the services of

Post Office Act
a prominent firm of management consultants would whet the interest and certainly the curiosity of an opposition which is charged with inquiring into these very things. Therefore the minister should not feel at all badly that someone should put the necessary hours of work into digging into this report and then produce what he found.
Yes; I can imagine the minister's chagrin that probably these facts were produced before he himself had an opportunity of giving a full report, but it is a fact that four months after this report was received, in the departmental report of March 31, 1953, there is what might be considered a mild sort of boast that considerable progress has been made with changes in organization along the lines suggested. Then in the next paragraph the lines suggested are described rather broadly. As a matter of fact "broadly" is exactly the word used. That is what the report says:
Broadly, the recommendations provide for greater decentralization of responsibility for operations into the field organization; strengthening and reorganization of staffs at headquarters so that senior officials may be able to devote more of their time and energy to over-all operational study and planning; strengthening of the engineering organization at headquarters to provide the means for time and motion studies, greater designing facilities and the setting up of standards for application throughout the service; intensification of research and planning in the field of transportation; further development of cost controls, so as to make available information on which to base decisions affecting all aspects of the service.
It would be a very incurious person indeed, Mr. Chairman, whose curiosity would not be whetted by this general statement of what the department was undertaking as a result of having received this report.
While I have no intention of quoting the report clause by clause, I might say that every hon. member should be interested in knowing just what savings can be effected by the implementation of the report brought down by a very capable firm of management engineers after months of study. In particular, just to mention one or two items, it would be interesting to know what has been discovered with relation to the cost of government-owned transportation for city delivery as against that provided by private contractors. It would be interesting to know also what has been discovered in the field of tenders, because the minister will remember that on a number of occasions we have discussed tenders in the house.
No doubt under this heading the suggestion would cover a very broad field. We would be interested to know that; we would be interested also to know what has been discovered with reference to the operations

of the post office savings bank. It is true that in some centres of this country it is the only bank that is available to the people in that locality, but in a great many other places it is simply an additional service provided in a centre where other banks are and have been operating, and generally speaking take care of the requirements of the citizens of the locality.
I see that in the current report-if I have overlooked it I apologize-no mention is made of the loss in that department for this year, although in 1946 the loss on the operation of the post office savings bank was given as over $260,000. If that was the loss in 1946 I would think you could reasonably expect that it would be half as much again today, and that is a sizeable amount of money. You are getting well up toward half a million dollars.
I should like to quote one or two other very interesting suggestions which were made, and on which we may be pardoned for having reasonable curiosity. We can take the remark which appears on page 33 of the report and which reads:
The work of the operations branch has over the years increased to the point where the staff at all levels are overloaded with a multitude of routine problems and correspondence.
Then there is another matter which to my mind is most important to a department handling the volume of not only mail but also parcels, all of which pass through the post office. I refer to materials handling. I suppose the whole field of materials handling has received more expert study in the last ten years in industry generally than almost any other phase, with the possible exception of accounting by tabulating machines. If, as is indicated in this report, the materials handling in the Post Office Department is many years behind the times, then we would be interested to learn in what way the department proposes to remedy that situation, and what they estimate the savings to the department will be by reason of accepting these recommendations.
As I said a moment ago, Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to go into the Woods and Gordon report. That does not mean I am not curious about it. On the contrary, I shall watch with great interest for some report from the Post Office Department as to just what has taken place. But I do say that the Postmaster General has probably been given a most unsavoury task. Whether that is true or not, I would say that it is in my estimation a most audacious move to come before this parliament and propose an increase in the postal rates of this nation, to ask the people of Canada to give to a department

something in the nature of $15 million more revenue, when that department has not the least idea what it needs this money for. Neither has it any idea just where it can save a sizeable amount of money, and that despite the fact that they have in their hands, and have had now for some 14 months, an excellent report which might very well have been implemented before this request came to the people of this country through this parliament.


Mr. Hardie:: Mr. Chairman, during the last few days there has been considerable discussion from the other side of the house with regard to this suggested raise in postage rates, and it has been said by hon. members on the other side that hon. members on this side have taken very little interest in this matter. The position of the government is not a happy one, and they know it; but when the government has to raise rates by one cent in order to provide services and give its employees dollars and cents and not lip service, we are ready to support the stand of the government in that regard.
During the debate some mention has been made of the 5-cent defeat of this government, but it seems to me that for the last two days the taxpayers of Canada have been paying for campaign speeches by hon. members across the floor.
Another thing that more or less amazed me was the statement by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton that he could pay 4 cents and get better service than air mail by putting his letter on the train. There are other parts of Canada where we have to pay 7 cents in order to get the same service he gets for 4 cents, and we will be most happy with this 5-cent rate across the board under which we will receive the same service as the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton is getting for 4 cents. I think it is about time we got it.
Post Office Act
Resolution agreed to: Yeas, 49; nays, 34.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I declare the resolution carried. Shall I report the resolution?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Cote thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 168, to amend the Post Office Act.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. minister leave to introduce this bill?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Alcide Côté: the first reading of the bill.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: the adjournment of the house.
He said: On Tuesday we shall take up second reading of the bill to amend the acts respecting the Northwest Territories, and then the committee stage of the Criminal Code. Monday and Wednesday being private members' days I shall have nothing to say about them. On Thursday we shall begin with the housing bill and continue until it is completed on Thursday or Friday.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 9.40 p.m.

Monday, January 18, 1954