1954-02-08

Mr. C. W. Carter (for Mr. Harrison):: Mr. Speaker, I move that the first report of the standing committee on standing orders, presented on Friday, February 5, 1954, be now concurred in. Notice of this motion was given last Friday.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the passing of this motion. Indeed, I am a member of the committee, the report of which is now before the house. There is, however, just one word I rwould like to say and I think I should be permitted to say it.
I have noted with interest that the motion now moved on behalf of the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Harrison) is recorded in the Votes and Proceedings of Friday last suggesting that notice of it was given on that occasion. I also notice with interest that although notice was given on Friday the motion does not appear anywhere on today's order paper. In other words, it is apparently being regarded as a procedural motion which it is proper for a private member to move so long as the required 48 hours' notice has been given.
When one couples this with the ruling that Your Honour made in connection with another matter last week, it seems to me that a definite practice is being established. I have no objection, but I do wish to draw attention to it so that on future occasions when other private members find themselves in a similar position and wish to move procedural motions comparable to this one they may be accorded the same privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Since the hon. member has raised the point, perhaps I should remark here that it might be well for us to consider whether motions such as this should not be inscribed on the order paper under the title "Motions", so that they would appear on the order paper and no hon. member would be caught by surprise. This might well be considered by the standing committee on procedure.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
83276-117*

[Stage Direction]
INCOME TAX COLLECTIONS, P.E.I.
['Answered.']
Mr. MacLean:: How much income tax was collected in the prov-	
mce of Prince Edward	Island by the federal government each year since 1938? Mr. McCann: Total amount of income tax collected	
Fiscal year	by federal government
ended 31st March	in Prince Edward Island
1938 		
1939 		
1940 		
1941		
1942 		
1943 		
1944 		
1945 		
1946 		
1947 		
1948 		
1949 			 2,978,755
1950 		
1951		
1952 		
1953



Mr. Diefenbaker:: How many pounds of (a) butter: (b) margarine, have been purchased for use In the Royal Canadian Mounted Police barracks in Regina, month by month since the 1st of January, 1953?


Mr. Garson:: The provisioning of messes in Regina and the selection of individual items of food is a joint responsibility of the mess committees, elected by dining members, and the dietitian. Food purchases are paid for from mess funds.
Administrative officers at Regina and headquarters, Ottawa, check the diet sheets and audit accounts to ensure that the nutrient value is kept at the proper level and that there is no extravagance or waste.
Based on the average cost of meals, a rate is struck from time to time and the mess funds are reimbursed from public funds. In turn, members taking meals in messes are charged a standard rate which applies generally throughout the country, and the amounts involved are stopped from pay and deposited as a refund to consolidated revenue.

Questions
Messes in Regina, operating under this system, purchased:
1953	(a) Butter (b) Margarine
January	
700	lbs.	345	lbs.February	
750	"	392	"March	
850	"	280	"April	
700	"	460	"May	
800	"	172	"June	
524	"	339	"July	
450	"	112	"August	
510	"	330	"September	
800	"	340	"October	
950	"	256	"November	
950	"	388	"December	
900	"	400	"


OFFENSIVE LITERATURE
Mr. Fulton:: 1.	In how many cases since 1949 have prosecutions been launched under section 207 of the Criminal Code in respect of (a) crime comics; (b) obscene literature; (c) other offensive matter as defined in the said section?
2.	In how many such cases respectively have convictions resulted?
3.	What was the punishment imposed in each case?


Mr. Dickey:: 1,	2 and 3.
Violations of section 207 of Criminal Code,
1950	1951	1952Prosecutions 	. 33	31	30Convictions	28	29Disposition- Option of fine	. 17	18	22Gaol 	7	5Suspended sentence.	. -	3	2
Note: No figures available by subsections of section 207 to show offences in respect of
(a)	crime comics; (b) obscene literature; (c) other, separately.


TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES-MOOSE JAW
Mr. Thatcher:: 1.	Have representations been received by Trans-Canada Air Lines, asking for a daily flight into the city of Moose Jaw?
2.	If so, has Trans-Canada Air Lines considered these representations?
3.	Has the company decided to make such a daily flight?
4.	If not, for what reason?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes, and even before the recent representations were received.
3.	No.
4.	T.C.A. under its existing route licences is not authorized to stop at Moose Jaw, and would not be justified in applying to the air
[Mr. Garson.1
transport board for the required amendment to its licence until deliveries of Viscount aircraft now on order, made available the additional DC-3 aircraft time which would be necessary for such a stop.


ATLANTIC REGION, C.N.R.  LAY-OFFS
Mr. Murphy (Westmorland):: 1.	In the recent countrywide lay-off by the Canadian National Railways, how many men were affected in the Atlantic region?
2.	How many men were laid off in the Canadian National Railways shops at Moncton and is this a temporary lay-off?
3.	What are the prospects of these men being taken into the railway employ at a future date?
4.	Does it depend on traffic conditions generally or dieselization in the Atlantic region?
5.	Are there more lay-offs to come and will they be of a permanent or temporary nature?
6.	Is diesel equipment being repaired at the Canadian National Railways shops in Moncton and. if not, will diesel repair shops be built in Moncton?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:-
1.	Since October 1953, 312 employees in the mechanical department on the Atlantic region have been laid off.
2.	Of the above group, 240 were from Moncton main shops. The duration of the lay-off will be determined by business requirements.
3.	See answer to No. 2.
4.	Staff requirements are affected by traffic conditions.
5.	See answer to No. 4.
6.	All diesel equipment presently operating on the Atlantic region is repaired on that region, and most of the work is done at Moncton.


SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN IRRIGATION PROJECT
Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	What is the present position of negotiations between the federal government and the government of Saskatchewan regarding the South Saskatchewan river dam and irrigation project?
2.	Have representatives of the two governments met to discuss the matter? If so, who represented each government and how many meetings have been held?
3.	Has the government of Saskatchewan made any offer as to the amount that it is prepared to spend in connection with the development of (a) power; (b) irrigation? If so, what was the amount of such offer?
4.	Did the federal government suggest that this offer be withdrawn and, if so, for what reason?
5.	Have contractors been asked to make any estimates as to the cost of construction since the 10th of August, 1953? If so, what are the names of said contracting companies and the amounts of their respective estimates?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1.	A committee of provincial experts under the chairmanship of the provincial minister of agriculture, Hon. I. C. Nollet, is meeting

a committee of federal experts under the chairmanship of the director of prairie farm rehabilitation, Dr. L. B. Thomson, to consider possible costs of construction if a dam is to be built on the South Saskatchewan river.
2.	Yes. The Minister of Agriculture met the premier of Saskatchewan on two occasions and following each meeting he and Dr. L. B. Thomson met the entire government of Saskatchewan in Regina.
3.	The Saskatchewan government offered to pay $20,000,000 on the cost of the dam on account of power and agreed with the P.F.R.A. estimate that their expenditure on irrigation would be at least $25,000,000.
4.	The federal government through the Minister of Agriculture suggested it would be better to have the actual cost of power written into any agreement which might be made. The provincial government agreed.
5.	No. It would not be possible to get bids if we were going to publish the amounts and thus put other contractors in possession of such bids.


JOHNSTON-WESTERN CANADA PROJECT   IRRIGATION
Mr. Fulton:: 1.	Has treasury board approved a recommendation for the sum of $46,000 as an item, or part of an item, for inclusion in the estimates of 1954-55, for payment of the cost of irrigation works on the Johnston-Western Canada V.L.A. project near Kamloops, British Columbia?
2.	If so, when, and what is the number of the treasury board minute or order?


FISH SCREENS, NICOLA, B.C.
Mr. Fulton:: 1.	Has treasury board approved a recommendation for the sum of $6,000 as an item or part of an item, for inclusion in the estimates of 1954-55, for payment for fish screens installed in the Nicola, British Columbia, district?
2.	If so, when, and what is the number of the treasury board minute or order?


Mr. Abbott:: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might answer these two questions orally. Both were placed on the order paper by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) before the tabling of the estimates. They relate to items for irrigation work in British Columbia.
The answer to both questions is that there are items in the estimates, as tabled, regarding the cost of irrigation work in British Columbia, but the treasury board does not issue a special order with respect to individual items and therefore it would be impossible to answer the second part of my hon. friend's question in both cases.
Questions


FRUITS AND JUICES, IMPORTS
Mr. Ross:: 1.	What quantity of (a) canned fruits; (b) canned fruit juices; (c) frozen fruit juices; (d) frozen canned fruits, was imported into Canada, during the year 1953?
2.	From what countries and what quantity from each?


John Horace Dickey: 1 and 2. Figures for the complete calendar year 1953 are not yet available. Imports during the period January 1 to October 31 1953, are as follows:-
(a) Canned fruits:
Country	Pounds
United Kingdom	 146,401
Union of South Africa	 938,811
India	 5,597
Malaya	 627,274
Jamaica	 155,860
Hong Kong	 6,116
Australia	 3,635,284
Belgium	 1,143
Cuba	 152,812
Japan	 740,667
Mexico	 5,373,412
Netherlands	 369,358
Hawaii	 17,930,482
Taiwan	 408,773
United States	 31,804,450
Total	 62,296,440
(b)	Canned fruit juices:
Country	Gallons
United Kingdom	 22,584
Jamaica	 48,704
Trinidad	 751,105
Australia	 7,216
Mexico	 91,465
Netherlands	 265
Hawaii	 1,586,602
United States	 8,738,363
Total	 11,246,304
(c)	Frozen fruit juices. United States: 898,756 gallons.
(d)	Frozen canned fruits. Information not available. Not separately classified in trade statistics.


JOHNSTON-WESTERN CANADA PROJECT   IRRIGATION
Mr. Fulton:: With respect to the fact that the sum of $46,420 was approved by treasury board as part of an item included in the estimates of 1954-55 for payment of the cost of irrigation works on the Johnston-Western Canada V.L.A. project near Kamloops, British Columbia: 1. Did treasury board approve or

Orders for Returns
authorize the release of this information for general publication prior to the tabling of the estimates in the house?
2.	If so, when, and who was authorized to release it?


FISH SCREENS, NICOLA, B.C.
Edmund Davie Fulton: With respect to the fact that the sum of $6,000 was approved by treasury board as part of an item included in the estimates of 1954-55 for payment of the cost of fish screens installed in the Nicola, British Columbia, district: 1. Did treasury board approve or authorize the release of this information for general publication prior to the tabling of the estimates in the house?
2. If so, when, and who was authorized to release it?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Here again, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might answer these questions verbally. My hon. friend asks with respect to certain items in the estimates concerning irrigation works in British Columbia, whether treasury board approved or otherwise the release of this information for general publication prior to the tabling of the estimates in the house.
In reply I would say that the treasury board performs many useful functions, but the approval or authorization of information is not among those functions. Hence the answer to these questions must be in the negative.


Mr. Speaker:: Answered.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Dinsdale:: 1.	What has been the total production of chemical fertilizer in Canada for each year since 1945?
2.	What firms in Canada are engaged in the production of chemical fertilizer, and what is the production figure for each firm each year since 1945?
3.	How much Canadian fertilizer has been exported to the United States of America, and at what price per ton each year since 1945? What are the exporting companies?
4.	How much fertilizer has been imported into Canada from the United States of America, and at what price per ton each year since 1945?
5.	What has been the spring price of chemical fertilizer in Canada each year since 1945?


John Horace Dickey: Return tabled.


CROWN ASSETS DISPOSAL CORPORATION- BOOTS AND SHOES
Mr. Thatcher:: 1.	How many boots and shoes were sold by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation during the last fiscal year?
2.	How many of these were new and how many were used?
3.	What was the original price paid for these boots and shoes?
4.	For what reasons were they declared surplus?


CROWN ASSETS DISPOSAL CORPORATION- BLANKETS
Mr. Thatcher:: 1.	How many blankets were sold by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation during the last fiscal year?
2.	How many of these were new and how many used?
3.	What was the original price paid for these blankets?
4.	For what reasons were they declared surplus?



CROWN ASSETS DISPOSAL CORPORATION


Mr. Thatcher:: 1.	Were the 150,012 jackets which were sold for $111,723.44, according to page 23 of the ninth annual report of the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, new or used?
2.	What was the original price paid by the government for these jackets?
3.	For what reasons were they declared surplus?
4.	To how many companies were invitations for offers sent, in connection with the sale of these assets?



CROWN ASSETS DISPOSAL CORPORATION-WATCHES

Mr. Thatcher:: 1.	Were the 7,460 watches which were sold for $6,714, according to page 23 of the ninth annual report of the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, new or used?
2.	What was the original price paid by the government for these watches?
3.	For what reasons were they declared surplus?
4.	To how many companies were invitations for offers sent, in connection with the sale of these assets?



UNITED STATES CITIZENS-EMPLOYMENT IN CANADA

Mr. Fulton:: 1.	For how long a period can a citizen of the United States of America, who is not a citizen of Canada, remain in civilian employment in this country?
2.	What are the provisions covering this situation?
3.	Are there any provisions ensuring that priority in employment on projects in Canada shall be given to Canadians? If so, what are the details of such provisions?


Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	Was any pork exported to Germany in 1953? If so, how many pounds?
2.	Was any canned pork exported to Germany in 1953? If so, what quantity and at what price?
3.	What amount of canned pork, if any, is presently stored by the federal government?



IMMIGRATION EXPENDITURES

Mr. Fulton:: 1. What amount was expended in each of the fiscal years ended March 31, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953 and 1954 to date, for all purposes in connection with the immigration facilities, including inspection services, salaries of officers and other related expenditures,

maintained in each of the following countries: England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Germany, France, Italy, Holland and the Scandinavian countries?
2. What amounts are being asked for in the coming fiscal year for each of these countries?



MAIL CONTRACTS

Mr. Brooks:: 1.	In how many cases has the Postmaster General entered into contracts under amendments to the Post Office Act provided for in Bill 107, 1953, for conveying mail involving an annual expenditure of $1,000 or less?
2.	In how many cases under the above amendments has he increased the amount payable under existing contracts, during the unexpired term thereof?



DEFENCE EXPENDITURES

Mr. Nicholson:: What is the total cost to Canada, of (a) world war I; (b) world war H: (c) defence expenditures, since the end of world war II?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Edmund Davie Fulton: For a copy of any treasury board order or minute approving or authorizing the inclusion of an item, or as part of an item, in the estimates of 1954-55, of any amount or amounts for payment of the cost of irrigation works on the Johnston-Western Canada V.L.A. project near Kamloops, British Columbia.



FISH SCREENS, NICOLA, B.C.

Edmund Davie Fulton: For a copy of any treasury board order or minute approving or authorizing the inclusion of an item, or as part of an item, in the estimates of 1954-55 of any amount or amounts for payment for fish screens installed in the Nicola, British Columbia, district.
He said: In view of the answers given by the Minister of Finance to the two earlier questions, indicating that there are in treasury board no separate notes of approval for specific items, and after discussions with the minister, as a result of those discussions I would ask that these notices of motions be dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.



JOHNSTON-WESTERN CANADA PROJECT- ALLOCATION OF FUNDS

Edmund Davie Fulton: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, and other correspondence, and memoranda of telephone calls, exchanged between the government or any minister, department or agency thereof, and any other person or organization outside the dominion government service, since 1st June, 1953, concerning the allocation of funds for the Johnston-Western Canada V.L.A. project near Kamloops, British Columbia.
Inquiries of the Ministry



WATER POLLUTION, NORTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER

John George Diefenbaker: For a copy of all letters and telegrams which have passed since the 12th of November, 1953, between any department of the federal government and the provincial governments of each of the provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba, together with reports made to the federal department of health by all officials, investigators or analysts of said department relative to the pollution of waters of the North Saskatchewan river by the alleged dumping into the river at a point near Edmonton, Alberta.


Mr. Marlin:: I wonder whether my hon.
friend would be agreeable to allowing this matter to stand until tomorrow so that I may have the opportunity of perhaps discussing the matter further with him before the motion is adopted.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion stands.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. T. Applewhaile (Skeena):: I should
like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources following on the question of Friday last by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green). Has the government received copies of a resolution passed by the executive committee of the British Columbia and Yukon chamber of mines recommending an early meeting between representatives of the province of British Columbia, the Yukon Territory and the territory of Alaska, to discuss the proposal that the territory of Alaska allow British Columbia and the Yukon access to the Pacific ocean by way of corridors through the Alaska panhandle? If so, has the government received any representations from the governments of British Columbia or of the United States asking that such a meeting be held-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the hon. member not
know the rules?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: -or does it see any adequate reason to initiate any such discussion itself?


Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for having sent me advance notice of his question.
The answer to the first part of the question is yes. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), several of my colleagues, and I received copies of the resolution by the executive committee of the British Columbia and Yukon chamber of mines.

Inquiries of the Ministry
Tiie answer to the second part of the question is no. The government has not received any representations from the governments of British Columbia or the United States, and it does not see any adequate reason to initiate any such discussions itself. So far as the Yukon is concerned, for which the federal government has complete responsibility, there are not at this time nor do there appear to be in prospect any problems of development that require the establishment of "corridors".
Goods to and from the Yukon, as hon. members are aware, are now transported through the Alaska panhandle. I have been told by businessmen in daily contact with these matters that goods from Vancouver destined for Whitehorse, or vice versa, which are shipped through Skagway in bond, are handled by the customs with no delay or inconvenience at all.
Mr. Speaker, if I may be allowed to do so, I should like to make this further statement. Some of the discussion with regard to corridors has stressed the importance of securing an area where industrial sites can be established on or near tidewater. I think there has been a tendency to overlook the significance of the word "near". Many large industrial plants, even when located right at the water's edge, find it necessary to load their raw materials into railroad cars to transport them to stockpiles or to various sections of the plant. If this has to be done anyway, it adds relatively little to the cost to transport the material a few miles from the seaboard. For example, the aluminum industry at Arvida is generally regarded as being located at tidewater, yet in fact the plant is about 20 miles from Port Alfred, where the raw material is unloaded from ocean-going vessels and where finished products are shipped.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would point out to the minister that it is not quite regular to say more than is required to answer the question which, as hon. members have noticed, was quite long. I think the hon. member has received a long reply, and I do not think it should be any longer.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, I will not be any longer, but it is a question of exposing government policy on this question of corridors, which is quite a complicated one.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister wishes to make a statement, he must do so under "motions". We are now at the stage of questions being asked and answers being provided. If I allow long questions to be put and long answers to be given, we shall then

have long supplementary questions and long supplementary answers, and there is no end to the process.


Mr. Green:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra wishes to ask a question on the same subject?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I understood that the minister had practically finished his statement. May he not be allowed to finish it?


Mr. Speaker:: If it is the wish of the house to hear the statement, I have no objection. Is it the wish of the house to have the minister make the statement?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Ferguson:: No.


Howard Charles Green: This question is of the utmost importance on the west coast of Canada. I would ask that the minister be allowed to finish his statement. He has been cut off right in the middle of it.


Mr. Speaker:: I have no objection to that course. I just want to point out again that if a statement is to be made, it should be made under "motions". That is the practice that has been established, as the hon. member knows. If it is the wish of the house to hear the rest of the statement which the minister has started to make, he may proceed.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: No.


Howard Charles Green: Go ahead.


Jean Lesage: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If there is any objection-


Mr. Speaker:: I just asked if the minister had the consent of the house to continue with his statement. Apparently he has, so he may continue.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: No, he has not.


Jean Lesage: To continue, satisfactory industrial sites appear to be available in parts of British Columbia immediately adjacent to the Alaska panhandle.
A point that should be kept in mind is that the "corridor" proposal amounts to a suggestion either that Canada acquire title to some United States territory or else get extraterritorial rights on United States territory. Neither possibility is one that is likely to be viewed with any favour in the United States.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I object. The minister has

not unanimous consent. He is establishing a precedent by breaking a rule that will be broken forever.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, speaking on the point of order, may I say that I am not surprised at the hon. member who has just objected.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Ferguson) has objected. Therefore there is not unanimous consent. Let us conclude this incident.


UNITED NATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I
should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has his attention been directed to a speech delivered by the majority leader in the United States Senate, Senator Knowland, on Saturday to the effect that with the exception of Turkey and South Korea, the other nations within the United Nations had not made proportionate contribution to the forces there? He also said that it would be a disservice to the allies of the United States to think that the United States approves of the inequality of the contributions of other nations.
Has the minister any comment to make on that statement? In addition, is he in a position to say whether or not the United States government has ever made any such suggestion to the government of Canada?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I have read the statement in the press attributed to Senator Knowland. I have no comment to make on it, and no suggestion of that kind has ever been made to the Canadian government by the United States government.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alislair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the concern felt about the situation, can the minister have figures on unemployment released more frequently than once a month?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: The hon. member for Winnipeg North kindly sent me notice of this question. The answer 83276-118
Inquiries of the Ministry. to it will have to be in the negative, and I am quite sure my hon. friend will understand the reason for that. As I pointed out to the house on January 27 last, it was decided in December, 1952, to issue the complete employment and unemployment statistics derived from both the national employment service operations and the dominion bureau of statistics monthly labour force survey at the same time. This has been done partly because the labour force survey data are available only on a monthly basis and partly to avoid confusion between the two sets of figures.
There is also the point I mentioned earlier, that the gathering and preparation of these two sets of figures require a substantial amount of time and effort, and the costs involved in issuing both sets more frequently would be very substantial indeed. In view of these reasons it would be very difficult to do it twice a month.


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Has his attention been drawn to the report in Saturday's press that the United States federal reserve board has cut the bank discount rate from 2 per cent to If per cent as a move to curb the current economic decline, and is the government of Canada contemplating similar action here?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Acting Prime Minister):: This is a matter concerning the Minister of Finance, and I will ask him to answer the question.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The government is aware of the action taken by the federal reserve board, the reason given being that it was a technical move to bring interest rates in the United States in line with treasury bill rates prevailing there.


Colin Cameron: I should like to
ask a supplementary question, or rather to ask my question again of the Minister of Finance, because quite obviously he has not seen the report to which I refer. The one to which I refer states quite definitely that the federal reserve board has cut the bank discount rate in an administrative move to curb the current economic dip. My question was
1858	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry whether the government of Canada is contemplating similar action. I have not had an answer to that.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend is reading from a newspaper report as to the purpose of the move. My information is based upon a communication made to the Bank of Canada prior to the move by the federal reserve board. The government of Canada is not responsible for the interpretation placed on these moves by the press of the United States.


BRIDGES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. E. Lennard (Wentworth):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Can the minister state if the plans for the Burlington canal bridge have been received by his department from the Ontario government and, if so, when it may be possible to approve them?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. In reply, I presume he has in mind the high level vehicular bridge which the Ontario government is contemplating. I make this point because there is a railway bridge and a low level vehicular and pedestrian bridge across the canal at the present time. Therefore there are related problems when considering a solution to the Ontario government's highway problem in this dense traffic area. The minister of highways and several of his officials visited me on January 22 with sketch plans which we reviewed. These plans they took away with them, and it was the understanding that they would send them to us with a formal application for federal government participation in the cost of the high level bridge.
Because of the nature of the problem the Department of Transport and the Canadian National Railways are concerned as well as the Department of Public Works. There have been meetings of officials of these federal government departments and agency to determine the extent of the federal government's interest. The meetings are continuing pending receipt of the plans and submissions from the Ontario government.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Will the minister have a survey or investigation made as to the adequacy or inadequacy of the present rates of unemployment insurance benefits?


Milton Fowler Gregg: That problem is being surveyed and studied continuously by officers of the commission and of my department.


DUMPING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Has the minister or his department received representations from the vegetable growers' association of Manitoba with respect to imports of United States vegetables? If so, would the minister care to comment on the situation at this time?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: The hon. member gave me notice of his question. The answer is that the Department of National Revenue has no record of having received any representations from the vegetable growers' association of Manitoba during the past year. A somewhat similar question was asked and answered on January 15, and can be found at page 1142 of Hansard. It was asked by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings and had to do with the alleged importation or dumping of vegetables in the maritime provinces. In my answer I gave certain information, and if the hon. member will read it I think it may help to solve any difficulties with reference to the manner in which this matter is handled.


WATER POLLUTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: have a question I wish to ask the Minister of Fisheries, but as he is not here I shall address it to the parliamentary assistant. It has to do with the pollution of the waters of the North Saskatchewan. Has he received a report from the inspection staff-there are two inspectors of the Department of Fisheries

in Prince Albert-regarding the hundreds of fish that have died within the last three days, and particularly on Friday last, as a consequence of pollution? What is going to be done to meet the situation?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries was just called out of the house. As acting minister, I shall be very glad to bring the matter to his attention.


John George Diefenbaker: It is a serious situation. [Later:!


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: In view of my hon. friend's question to the Minister of Fisheries, and particularly his comment about the seriousness of the situation, which we all appreciate very much, perhaps I might read the text of a telegram that was sent the day before yesterday to the minister of public health of the province of Alberta. It reads as follows:
In view of the many questions asked respecting the pollution of the North Saskatchewan river through industrial wastes said to originate with industries in Alberta, I would like to offer the co-operation and assistance of the technical officers of this department to participate in a joint study with the technical officers of your province and of the industries to endeavour to find a solution to the problem. 1 appreciate that the matter is not one that is within federal responsibility but in view of its importance and the complications and technical difficulties that would appear to exist, the solution may well be one that can only be found with the full utilization of all of the technical resources that can be made available. If you feel that this is a helpful proposal I suggest that you have Dr. Somerville communicate with Dr. Cameron with a view to working out satisfactory details and arrangements for an immediate study.
I have not as yet received an answer.


John George Diefenbaker: May I make this one reference, in thanking the minister, to point out that the matter I raised a moment ago is shown in a picture appearing in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of February 6, in which hundreds of dead fish are shown piled up along the river near Prince Albert.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will the minister consider presenting a motion to the house to refer the important annual report of the Canadian wheat board to the standing committee on agriculture?
Post Office Act


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to do that at an appropriate time.


SUPERANNUATED CIVIL SERVANTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that there seems to be no item in the estimates to provide for a supplement to the pensions of superannuated civil servants, particularly those in the lower brackets, will the minister consider bringing in such an item when he prepares his supplementary estimates?


Douglas Charles Abbott: He will consider it as usual, but I think it is very unlikely that there will be an item included.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope the consideration will be better than usual.


POST OFFICE ACT
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, February 5, consideration in committee of Bill No. 168, to amend the Post Office Act-Mr. Cote- Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Rates on letters.
Mrs. Fairclough:: Since the minister has given as one of the reasons for an increase in the postal rate the introduction of the five-day 40-hour week, the manner in which this change in delivery is to be worked out becomes a question of considerable importance. Several reports have appeared within the last few days, both in the press and over the radio, with reference to staff which is to be eliminated. I am very much concerned about this because I cannot believe that some of the reports which I have heard can be correct. Will the minister tell us just how he intends to proceed under the 40-hour week?
Actually, the letter carriers are working a 48-hour week, and then having a liquidation week every eleven weeks. For the purposes of this system a staff was employed to work in the liquidation weeks. I understand that plans are under way whereby the regular staff will work five days a week, Monday through Friday, and that casual help will be brought in to work on the Saturday.

Post Office Act
Now, this does two things, if it is true. It removes from the post office the liquidation staffs which, in the city of Hamilton, I am given to understand, number eleven employees, men who are experienced letter carriers, and substitutes in their place whatever casual help the Post Office Department may be able to pick up at the offered rate of $1 per hour.
In an effort to secure this casual help I understand the officials of the department have been soliciting the universities and high schools to ascertain if students at those institutions would care to undertake this work at $1 per hour. I understand also that the regular post office employees have been solicited and, regardless of the rate at which they are paid, have been offered this Saturday work at $1 per hour. Quite apart from the fact that they have been offered the work I understand that they have been told, whether or not they volunteer, they shall be called upon if necessary to perform these duties on Saturday.
I believe this house would be interested in knowing whether it is the Postmaster General's intention to utilize the liquidation staff where it is his intention to institute the five-day week, or whether he is considering the rotation of the staff to permit experienced letter carriers to carry the mails on Saturday, or whether the rumour which I have heard-I may say that I heard the announcement over the radio this morning-to the effect that the post office is soliciting casual help from all and sundry, is true. Will the Postmaster General please tell us?


Mr. Cote:: The principle of the five-day week is to permit the employees to work five days or 40 hours per week. It is applied, as we understand, because we want them to work no more than five days or 40 hours per week. We will not force employees to work more than that. But if amongst those who are already working there are some who want to work in their spare time, we would certainly consider their application.
Now, we are going to employ some other people to work the time necessary to complete the week. It will be understood that, although we want to give the privilege to our employees of working the five-day week, at the same time we want to keep the best service possible. In some places it would disrupt the service for a new man to come in and try to get used to several routes. This would cause delay and difficulty. By adopting the scheme we have in mind, we will be in a better position to give service because the same man will be on the same route every day except Saturday.

For the information of the house as well as the hon. member, I might say that we are recruiting as well some clerical staff, so there will be openings there for spare carriers. A delegation from the letter carriers association has endorsed our scheme. I do not know if I have made myself clear, but since we are applying the 40-hour week we want to give those employees who do not want to work more than 40 hours that privilege. We want also to keep this service as speedy and as efficient as it was before.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: If I understand the minister correctly, he is now telling us that the casual employees he hopes to recruit will do a better job than by taking the experienced letter carrier and putting him on a different route. Do I understand the minister to have said that?


Mr.   Cofe@: I do not want to be misinterpreted by the hon. member. We want to have the same service we are giving every day, but the rotating service suggested by the hon. member would mean that the newcomers would have to learn at least eleven different walks, and they would have to take a new route every day.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: May I say that is precisely what the liquidation staff have been doing. They take a route a week, and for eleven weeks they take different routes.


Mr. Cole:: This has caused a lot of complaints and complications, and we want to avoid the difficulties we have experienced in the past in connection with that scheme.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: If the rotation scheme has worked and these eleven employees who have been taking eleven different routes are put on regular routes, does the minister not agree it would be preferable to having high school or university students come in and work two or three months and then stop because they get into examination periods, summer holidays come along, or for some other reason? It seems to me there will be a terrific dislocation in the mail deliveries. If there is a dislocation on Saturday, then naturally the hangover of errors will fall on the regular carrier for that route when Monday rolls around. I believe it would be preferable to employ the staffs now employed in the Post Office Department, in the liquidation staffs, and to use them to build up the service on a regular five-day basis, whether it be Monday through Friday, or Tuesday through Saturday, or whatever the case may be, so that these men could be kept in their jobs. But to discharge experienced employees to take on casual help at $1 an hour seems to be just asking for trouble.


Charles Delmar Coyle: The people who know the work and who have done the work have accepted the agreement we are now trying to implement.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Do I understand the Postmaster General to say that the agreement they have made is with the complete approval of the national association of letter carriers?


Charles Delmar Coyle: Yes.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: If that is so, it certainly has not met with the approval of the locals.


Charles Delmar Coyle: You cannot please everybody.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: You have not pleased anybody, so far as I know.


Howard Charles Green: On this point, within the last few days there have been serious complaints from Vancouver. Apparently Mr. MacNabb of the minister's department was out on the west coast the week before last, and announced that probably there would be a plan of hiring high school students. I have here a press dispatch of February 1 taken from the Vancouver Sun, which says:
Post office authorities are considering the hiring of casual help, including high school students, to make Saturday deliveries of the mail when the five-day week for most postmen becomes effective on April 1.
This was the report of R. H. MacNabb, manager of postal operations, Ottawa, when he visited Vancouver at the week end.
He said in an interview that regular postmen also will be given the opportunity of making extra money by working on Saturdays if they want to.
Now, that seems a very unusual way to bring the five-day week into operation. Surely private industry does not have to resort to measures of that kind when it brings in a five-day week. The postmen in Vancouver have been protesting very bitterly. Other newspaper dispatches say that the protests will centre around the employment of casual help by the post office at substandard wages, and the reduction of professional post office standards by the employment of unsupervised and inexperienced people to handle public property as valuable and vital as the mails.
Union officials are reported to have recommended that the only permanent solution to providing a five-day week for postmen is for the department to hire extra postmen for every five walks in the city.
Some such plan as that I mentioned last would seem to be the businesslike way to bring in this five-day week. Why is it necessary to go out and hire high school students on a temporary basis in order to meet this situation?


Charles Delmar Coyle: Mr. Chairman, we must make it clear that while many private enterprises can simply stop working on Saturdays, the
Post Office Act
Post Office Department cannot. We have to deliver the mail. If there have been some carriers who have worried about being relieved of their work, this should not be the case, because they might be absorbed in the sorting staff.
So on the whole we have thought over this problem carefully. And it has created a problem. The Minister of Finance explained to the house that the five-day 40-hour week was creating a great problem in the Post Office Department. We have understood that, and I think now everyone understands it. But we have made this study, and have looked into the implementation and have come to the conclusion that this was the best way to implement the five-day 40-hour week scheme, while at the same time giving the best possible service.
I think everyone would understand that we are not asking those people who want to work only five days or 40 hours to work on Saturdays. That is their privilege. But if they asked us for other work, we would certainly consider their requests. On the other hand, we have to do the job, and to do it as quickly as possible. So that we have to have these casual workers on Saturdays.


Howard Charles Green: Then, the situation will be that on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays the regular postmen will deliver the mail, while on Saturdays it will be delivered by high school students or-


Alcide Côté: No.


Howard Charles Green: On Saturdays the mail will be delivered by high school students or by a regular postman who-


Alcide Côté: Not necessarily.


Howard Charles Green: -or by a regular postman who wishes to work the extra day.


Charles Delmar Coyle: Not necessarily.


Howard Charles Green: Or by any other casual help. Why not adopt the suggestion put forward by the union, that there be an extra postman for every five walks?


Charles Delmar Coyle: What union?


Howard Charles Green: This is made by the union officials. I am referring to a dispatch which mentions the amalgamated civil servants association. This dispatch from Vancouver suggests that there should be a plan to hire an extra postman for every five walks, rather than to bring in all this casual help.


Alcide Côté: Well, that is exactly the principle we have rejected-the principle of rotation. I have explained already that we think the plan suggested by the hon. member will not give

Post Office Act
satisfaction, so far as this work is concerned. We think further that by having casual workers-not necessarily students, but whoever may be hired, even including those already employed in the Post Office Department who are willing to work on Saturdays- we will give a better service.


Howard Charles Green: Then I am right in saying the situation is to be that on Saturdays the mail is to be distributed by casual workers.


Charles Delmar Coyle: Yes, that is what we have in mind.


Howard Charles Green: Well, that seems to me a very unbusinesslike way of doing it.


Charles Delmar Coyle: We already do it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to put two or three questions to the minister. If he wishes to interrupt as I go along, it will be satisfactory to me.
First of all, as a member for Winnipeg I was glad to learn the other day from the Minister of Finance-although it was in advance-that Winnipeg is on the list of communities where postal workers will be put on the five-day 40-hour week. We also learned later in that day that Regina is on the same list. When will we have the complete list so that the whole country will know what communities will be on the five-day 40-hour week, so far as postal workers are concerned?


Alcide Côté: My hon. friend is right in saying that the other day the Minister of Finance made the statement that Winnipeg might have, or is going to have-


Stanley Howard Knowles: No; don't qualify it-Winnipeg "is" on the list.


Alcide Côté: "Is" on the list. We had to assume that wherever the clerical staff was on the five-day 40-hour week, then we would have to consider introducing the five-day week for the operational staff. We did that because it was following the dominant pattern in a particular city or town where the five-day 40-hour week was already implemented. Therefore we have prepared our own estimates on that principle.
As far the second part of the question is concerned, we asked on Saturday and again today to have all the details as soon as possible, because we are going to implement this working scheme as announced before April 1. We are as anxious as my hon. friend to obtain all the details as soon as possible. Only this morning we again communicated with the civil service commission to have the details furnished to us in a week or so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am glad to know that the Postmaster General is as anxious as I am, because I am quite anxious. I move now, Mr. Chairman, to another question that I wish to put to the Postmaster General. When the Minister of Finance announced the postage increase in his statement to the house on Tuesday, December 8, as recorded in Hansard at page 691 he said:
The government has accordingly decided to recommend the following adjustments in first-class postage rates effective April 1, 1954:
1. A general increase of one cent per ounce over existing rates.
I should like to know how far that policy of the one-cent increase is to be carried. The bill that is now before us amends only one section of the Post Office Act, namely, section 10, which sets the rates of postage on letters posted in Canada for delivery in Canada. In respect of what the bill does we are clear. It raises the present four-cent rate on letters from one area of Canada to another to five cents, and it raises the present drop letter rate from three cents to four cents. In addition, it raises by one cent the rate for additional ounces where a letter is overweight. But the question that comes to my mind has to do with postcards. I have been asked whether the rate on postcards is to be increased.
When one looks at the bill he finds no reference to postcards; but I have been rummaging around in the Post Office Act to try to find where the rate for postcards is set, and I do not find it there at all. It looks to me as though the rate for postcards is probably set under section 6 (d) of the Post Office Act, which gives the Postmaster General the authority to make regulations:
(d) establishing rates of postage on any class of mailable matter for which the rate is not established by this act.
I hope the Postmaster General will correct me if I am wrong. I take it from that, and from looking through the act generally, that since there is no rate for postcards set in the act, the rate is fixed by the Postmaster General under the authority conferred upon him under section 6 (d). I assume it is under that authority that we have the present rate for postcards. I want to know, and I hope the Postmaster General can give us a clear and categorical answer on this, whether there is any intention on the part of the Postmaster General, either with or without the advice of his colleagues in the cabinet, to raise the rates on postcards after this bill has gone through. As I interpret it, that would be perfectly possible. The

bill can go through and by statute parliament, over our opposition, might increase the rates on first-class matter, but it would still be possible after the act had received royal assent for the government to decide to increase the rates on postcards or to increase the rates on letters which are unsealed, that rate that people make use of at Christmastime in sending out Christmas cards, for example. I think it is only fair- I hope the minister will not be cross with me because I ask this question. I do so because I am suspicious; I have been around here a long time, and I am more suspicious the longer I am here. I hope the minister will not think that I am unfair when I ask for a categorical statement that it is not the intention of the government to raise any of the other rates except the one that is being raised by the bill that is now before the house.


Charles Delmar Coyle: My hon. friend is right. This
bill is before the house, and because it is before the house it is up to the house to decide whether there should be a readjustment in the postal tariff.
As far as postcards are concerned, it is true that they will follow the principle of increasing the rates by one cent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, the Postmaster General-


Charles Delmar Coyle: Not through this bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, but this is something that we have not known. I was right in saying that I get more suspicious the longer I am around here. I am sure a lot of members around the house are surprised and shocked right now, and the country is going to be shocked, to discover that, although all the bill does is to increase by one cent the rate on first-class letters, it is the intention of the government, when the bill has been passed, under the authority of section 6 (d) of the act, to raise other rates by one cent as well. I am sure they are doing that because the minister-


Mr.   Coie@: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend-


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope the minister can say I am wrong.


Charles Delmar Coyle: My hon. friend must remember that the Post Office Department has always had this right. He just quoted to the committee the section which says that we have this right. He cannot be shocked because we have this right and we have always had it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I quite recognize that the government has always had the right; but I
Post Office Act
think in terms of ordinary fairness the government should have told us right from the start that in addition to what is provided for in the bill they were going to raise these other rates as well. I ask the minister if the rates on unsealed letters such as the ones that people mail at Christmastime in which they put Christmas cards and mail them for two cents-it used to be one cent-are going to be increased.


Charles Delmar Coyle: The answer to my hon. friend's question is no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But postcards are going to be increased one cent?


Charles Delmar Coyle: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But this is what we have not been told.


Charles Delmar Coyle: I am telling-


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are telling us now.


Charles Delmar Coyle: I did not have a chance before, since my hon. friend has been-


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is an insult to parliament, to say that; it is an insult for the government to say that in all the time that this bill has been before the house the government have not had the chance to tell us that along with the increase in first-class rates there is to be an increase in postcard rates, not by virtue of the bill that is before parliament, but by virtue of the authority that is already in the act.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Exactly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister who has just spoken has only been in the government for a short time but he is used to this unlimited power that the government has.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The power was given by parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let it be clear that the hon. gentlemen on the other side are technically correct; the government has that right at the present time under the Post Office Act, and has had it right along; but at the moment we are not dealing in technicalities, we are dealing with the question of what is fair play. The government has a bill before parliament amending the Post Office Act. Parliament is being asked to put it through. If it had not been for my suspicious nature this matter might have gone through without parliament realizing that what is being effected at this time in practice is an increase of one cent not only on first-class letters, but on postcards. According to the Postmaster General they are going up one cent.


Alcide Côté: Perhaps I should tell my hon. friend that this act has been in effect since

Post Office Act
1868. It was revised in 1951. That provision was then in the act; my hon. friend sat there and never said a word about it, never objected to it. I am talking about the bill. I am sorry if I have aroused my hon. friend's feelings. He said that this was a defy'-


Stanley Howard Knowles: "Insult" was the word.


Charles Delmar Coyle: So long as we are discussing the bill I stuck to a discussion of the bill. This is the first time that my hon. friend has asked the question, and I am answering the question he asked. What more does he want?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Postmaster General and the Secretary of State can throw their arms in semicircles if they wish. The plain fact of the matter is that the government is not playing fair with parliament in this situation. The Postmaster General is perfectly correct. This has been in the act ever since the year 1868. But here we have a case where the rates are being increased, and the portion of these rates that can be increased only by statute is before the house. I ask anyone with an ounce of fairness in his make-up if it would not be the proper thing to expect the government to say at the same time that they were going to make these other increases. The Minister of Finance did tell us what was going to happen in that one sentence which I just read. I repeat what he said:
There will be a general increase of one cent per ounce over existing rates.
He did not tell us how far that extended. When we look at the bill all we see is an increase with respect to first-class mail in Canada, and another in the case of drop letters. But I submit even a parliament which has become inured to this kind of thing must be shocked by what we have learned at the present time.
Mr. Chairman, I have a third matter I want to speak about but I suspect there are other hon. members in the house who wish to pursue this point. I will leave the other matter until later. At the moment I simply want to protest as strongly as I can not only against the fact that there is to be this increase on postcards, but also at the way in which it is being done, and in particular at the way in which the government has tried to slip this over parliament.


Charles Delmar Coyle: Mr. Chairman, I think my hon. friend will agree that what he is suggesting could not have been done. A bill was brought here to readjust the postal tariff because we had to deal with it according to statute. Nothing else could be done. And it is absolutely-
	. j |


Stanley Howard Knowles: But could you not have told us on second reading of the bill that this was to happen? The minister cannot say he did not have time or that he did not have the latitude. He went all over the world-


The Chairman:: Order.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I would like to pursue this matter a little further. Can the minister tell us if there are any further increases whatsoever envisaged in the Post Office Department other than on postcards and first-class mail?


Charles Delmar Coyle: The domestic rates apply to the whole of the dominion and the western hemisphere. In the case of other countries, five in all, the cost will go up to six cents and postcards will be increased by one cent.


Mr. Slewarl (Winnipeg Norlh):: But there
will be no increase on two-cent mail?


Charles Delmar Coyle: There is nothing suggested on that.


John B. Stewart: Can the
minister answer the question I asked on second reading?


Charles Delmar Coyle: The two-cent charge is now
applied to Christmas cards and that will stay.


John B. Stewart: You have already told us that. Can you answer a question I asked on the second reading? What is the actual cost of delivery between points on a first-class letter?


Charles Delmar Coyle: That depends entirely on where the letter is going. If for example a letter were sent to Aklavik it might be as much as 25 cents.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I am asking for an average and I would suggest we be given the average on a letter, say, from Ottawa to Winnipeg.


Charles Delmar Coyle: We know the over-all cost, but if my hon. friend wishes to concentrate on a letter from one place to another it would be very difficult to supply the actual cost. It might even vary according to the area from which the letter was sent to Winnipeg.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I would think the finance branch of the post office must know the average cost of carrying first-class mail. I suspect some statistical department knows the number of pieces of first-class mail which are carried. If so, it would then be only a matter of elementary division to determine the approximate cost of carrying one piece of first-class mail. We know what this figure is in the United States. The minister may recall

that I mentioned that fact earlier during the debate. We know what the cost is in the United States, so why are the figures not available here?


Alcide Côté: My hon. friend will understand that there are 1,500 million pieces of mail to deal with, and on these figures alone it will be seen how difficult it would be to determine the actual cost of one piece of mail from one area to another.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: But, Mr. Chairman, I merely asked for the average cost. All that is required is to take the total cost of delivery of first-class mail, divide that by the total number of pieces of first-class mail carried, and there you have the answer. I am rather interested in knowing whether this increase is justified on the basis of the actual cost of carrying first-class mail. I think the committee is entitled to that figure.


Alcide Côté: If I understand my hon. friend correctly, he wants to know the cost on one piece of mail.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Yes, the average cost.


Charles Delmar Coyle: I can give him the breakdown which appeared in the Postmaster General's report if that is what he wants to know. But that does not apply to one simple item.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Perhaps I should phrase my question in another way. Assuming there is a costing department in the post office, can that department furnish the amount of profit made by the department through the delivery of first-class mail?


Alcide Côté: The Post Office Department
operates on the total revenue. We do not operate on a subdivision of revenues. For example, we may have a surplus in one part of the department and a deficit in another part, but we have to consider, for example, rural routes which do not pay their way, and they have to be considered as part of the over-all picture.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I want to consider the parts. The minister has told us we may have a surplus in one service and a deficit in another branch of the service. That is quite likely, but I want to know whether in that department dealing with the first-class mail there was a deficit or a surplus. It seems to me incredible that the Post Office Department should not have some costing method whereby they can establish which part is making money and which is losing money. I would like to know the profit made out of the transportation of first-class mail in Canada. I appreciate that there will be
Post Office Act
a deficit here and a surplus there, but I am concerned only with the department carrying first-class mail with which this legislation is concerned. What is the profit made today in carrying first-class mail in Canada?


Alcide Côté: The revenues of first-class mail amounted to 46-9 per cent of the total cost. The cost of first-class mail is 45-2 per cent, leaving a surplus of 1 [DOT] 7 per cent of the total cost.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: So that the carrying of first-class mail at the present time resolves itself into a profit for the department. Is that right?


Alcide Côté: Of 1 - 7 per cent.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Not 1-7 per
cent, surely. It would be almost double that, in view of the fact that we are dealing with something less than 50 per cent of total cost. But I know what the minister means. Can he tell us what the loss is in the department from the transportation, let us say, and the delivery of newspapers, second-class mail?


Alcide Côté: $15 million.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: We have a figure in dollars and cents of what the loss is in this one department. May I have a figure in dollars and cents of what the profit is in the carrying of first-class mail? We know the loss on second-class mail is $15 million. What in millions or in hundreds of thousands is the profit on first-class mail?


Alcide Côté: We will work that out.


Edmund Davie Fulton: While the minister is working out that sum, I should like to go back to this extraordinary, shattering and, I might also say-


Alcide Côté: 


Edmund Davie Fulton: -sweeping suggestion that the House of Commons has just received from the Postmaster General in answer to the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. We have just learned that, in addition to the increase on letter mail, there is to be a one-cent increase on all postcards. That is the first time that news has been given to the house. Not only is it the first time it has been given to the House of Commons but it is the first time that it has ever been hinted at; and the government, in the persons of the Postmaster General and the Secretary of State, adopt the extreme attitude: "Well, we have always had the power to do it under the Post Office Act so why should you be surprised that it is now being done?" Mr. Chairman, I regret to have to use strong words to so agreeable a minister but I say that what the government is doing

Post Office Act
here has not been very far short of obtaining the consent of the house to this legislation by a form of false pretences.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Alcide Côté: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member should withdraw those words.


William Alfred Robinson: I do not think they should be used.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I said what they had been pursuing is not very far short of obtaining the consent of this house to legislation by false pretences, and there is nothing there to withdraw. I will now demonstrate the basis for my statement.


Alcide Côté: If you put it that way-


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is nothing unparliamentary in what I have said, and what I have said is strictly accurate. I wish to proceed to show the basis for my statement.


Alcide Côté: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, I ask that the words be withdrawn.


William Alfred Robinson: I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the words "false pretences" if he is applying them to the minister.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Speaking on this question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I submit that there is nothing inherently unparliamentary in the words "false pretences". I was careful in what I said. I said that the government has been not very far short of obtaining the consent of this house to legislation by a species of false pretences, and there is nothing to withdraw. The statement is accurate in every respect.


Alcide Côté: I am very sorry-


Edmund Davie Fulton: And the words not being unparliamentary in themselves, there is nothing to withdraw.


Alcide Côté: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to persist. I would not insist if my hon. friend had not implied, in his own phrasing, that we had acted under false pretences. I am very sorry to be compelled to insist that he should withdraw those words. It is unparliamentary to speak in that way and he knows very well that it is unparliamentary.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I know perfectly well that it is not unparliamentary, and the words themselves are not unparliamentary. They are not indecent and in themselves they are not unparliamentary. I do not say that the Postmaster General has been guilty of false pretences. I thought about what I was going to say before 1 said it, and in what I have said there is nothing unparliamentary. Just

because the Postmaster General insists, Mr. Chairman, I can assure you that I do not regard that fact as sufficient reason for withdrawing the words.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. The question is whether the hon. member has used offensive words against either the committee or any member thereof. I listened carefully to the words used by the hon. member for Kamloops. He framed his statement very carefully. But at the same time the question resolves itself at times into whether an offence has occurred. The minister has indicated that he takes it in that way. I must maintain order in the committee. In view of the manner in which this discussion has proceeded, I hope that the hon. member for Kamloops will co-operate by withdrawing the words in so far as they apply to the minister or to the committee.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the spirit in which you have put this matter before me, and I shall try to reply in the same spirit. I wonder whether I am correct in presuming, from what you have said, that you do not find the words "false pretences" in themselves to be unparliamentary but that you are suggesting that if there was any intention on my part to say that the Postmaster General personally has been guilty of false pretences, you would have to ask me to withdraw.


Mr.   Coie@: Or the house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I accept that statement, sir, and I would point out that I have not said that the Postmaster General has been guilty of false pretences. I do not consider that such a statement would be within the limits of parliamentary order and therefore I did not say that. What I said was that the government has obtained the consent of this house to the legislation by a practice which falls not very far short of false pretences. If the Postmaster General thinks that in those words I intended to imply that he personally had been guilty of false pretences, I assure you, Mr. Chairman, and him that such was not my intention.


Mr.   Coie@: Or the government.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The words were used in a sense which I think should be accepted, in the strict and literal sense, by the committee and by the Postmaster General and should not be taken as imputing bad motives to one individual. I have said that the statement I made was accurate in every particular and I shall now proceed to show the basis of that statement.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I take it that the hon. member withdraws the remark in so far as it refers either to the minister or to any member of the committee.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes. I have stated quite candidly that I have no intention of implying false pretences with respect to the Postmaster General. The basis of the statement that our consent to this legislation was obtained without our appreciating what we were being asked to consent to is to be found at page 1107 of Hansard. This bill is based upon a resolution which the Postmaster General introduced for the government on January 14. The resolution said that it was expedient to amend the Post Office Aot to increase the rates of postage on letters posted in Canada from the first day of April, 1954. The resolution referred exclusively and entirely to letters. Nothing was said about postcards there or any other form of mail. In explaining to the house why they were asking for approval of the resolution and of the legislation which would be based on it, the Postmaster General explained that they were anticipating a deficit of $13| million. As reported at page 1102 of Hansard he went on to say this:
Expected net revenues from the increase in postage rates will be approximately $14 million, leaving only $500,000 to take care of possible normal increases in the price of basic materials . . .
And so on. It is true that in those words he said: "Expected net revenues from the increase in postage rates". While I think it was only logical to expect that we would take the words as applying to the increase resulting from this bill-that is this increase -nevertheless I realize that a loophole or an escape-hatch, if you like, was left in the words used here "the increase in postage rates", not this increase.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Read the minister's very first sentence.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But when you read on and come to page 1107, you will find this paragraph, which I submit stands by itself. The Postmaster General had again gone over the factors which made up this anticipated deficit of $13i million. He then said:
Those three items alone account for $13,500,000. If we agree that those expenditures should be made, then we have to have the funds to make them. We propose to get those funds by means of this increase, as we think it is the most equitable way to do it.
"This increase" refers to the increase that would result from the resolution then before the house, which resolution was approved and on which this legislation is based. The Postmaster General told us that they needed
Post Office Act
$13,500,000 extra to cover the anticipated deficit. He told us this $13,500,000 would result from this legislation, and it was on that basis that the government asked the house to support the bill now before us. Now we are told that it is not this legislation alone that is necessary to cover the increase, that there are going to be other increases in postal rates, other increases which are not hinted at, other increases the possibility of which was at the time definitely excluded if the words of the Postmaster General are given their normal meaning. He said that "this increase" was expected to cover the anticipated deficit.
It is on that basis, sir, that I made the statement that the government obtained the consent of the house to this legislation by something which falls not very far short of false pretence. I have now shown that these words were conclusive and that my statement is thoroughly justified. Therefore I think the government must agree that it has followed a most reprehensible course in its relationship and dealings with the house so far as this legislation is concerned, and I submit without further ado that the Postmaster General should withdraw the bill and not proceed further with it at this session.


Alcide Côté: I want to calm my hon. friend. He was excited to the point where he was somewhat overeager with his words.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not at all. The words were strictly accurate.


Alcide Côté: May I refer my hon. friend to the statement made by the Minister of Finance on Tuesday, December 8. His statement was quite clear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Choicely worded.


Alcide Côté: He said, as found at page 691 of Hansard:
A general increase of one cent per ounce over existing rates.
If my hon. friend would read again what was said at the time I think he would be satisfied. May I also say that the increase of one cent on postal cards represents a small fraction of one per cent of all revenues. The only purpose is to keep the rate on postcards in line, as we have always done in the past in the same circumstances.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Postmaster General has referred to the words of the Minister of Finance. The statement of the Minister of Finance was made on December 8. The Postmaster General introduced his resolution on January 14, and he did not rely on the statement of the Minister of Finance. He did not

Post Office Act
say: That is the basis of it. He did not quote it and then sit down. He gave his own explanation as to why this legislation was sought, and I am asking him about his words, not about the words of the Minister of Finance. What other interpretation can be placed upon his words-"We propose to get those funds by means of this increase"? Those are his words. It is on the basis of that statement that I say, sir, that this practice is most reprehensible, that the bill now before us should be withdrawn, and that the situation should be laid before us fully and frankly so that the house may have the advantage of all information before being asked to make up its mind on this proposal.


Alcide Côté: I think my hon. friend should know that the statement I made is absolutely in line with the discussion of the bill, and when he realizes that the increase on postcards represents, I repeat, only a very small fraction of one per cent of revenues he will understand that when I said we needed this increase in revenues I meant the whole amount of the increase necessary. What I have said today should not come as a surprise. It has always been the practice in the past that when there was an increase in the postage tariff there was an increase-


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the minister-


Alcide Côté: Will my hon. friend let me finish, please? I think his mood will become quieter in the discussion of this matter if he will look at the past history of the postal administration. He will find that every time there has been an increase we have also kept the rate of postcards in line by increasing it. This is done by virtue of the rule cited by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and I did not say anything about it on the bill because the purpose of the bill is only to increase the postal tariff.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister was so eager to tell us, wasn't he?


Alcide Côté: No, no, no-


Mr. Pearkes:: No, no-that is right.


Alcide Côté: It had already been said in the statement by the Minister of Finance. Wheni we were discussing the bill some of my hon. friends on the other side went a little outside it. We did not object but we thought this discussion should be limited to the bill and we still think so. We are now discussing the clauses of the bill, and I am ready to do so. I have no objection at all to stating what we are going to do. As a matter of fact, I think I was answering a question asked by a member on the opposite side and I misunderstood

the question. I said there would be a general increase. I believe he was asking me about second-class mail and I misunderstood him. If you will read Hansard you will see what I said at the time. I said there would be a general increase because that has always been done in the past. There is nothing to be surprised about.


Mr. Philpoll:: One point has been raised this afternoon that seems to me to require a few more words. Reference has been made to casual labour, and we have to make a decision on what basis we are going to use casual labour. I do not think the average member of parliament is competent, without more information, to say whether we would be better off to employ a whole extra permanent shift, but if we are going to have casual labour working one day a week then surely the inference that has been drawn, that students are somehow or other not as competent as other labour, is most unfair to those who are students. I know that in my part of the country, and I am certain it is the same elsewhere in Canada, there are thousands of people who are able to obtain a high school or university education only because they are able to work in their summer holidays, their Christmas holidays and part-time during the week. I for one think it would be a very happy outcome if, as a result of changing the postal law so as to grant the five-day 40-hour week to all permanent postal employees, a large number of students were enabled to obtain work and thus helped to pay for their higher education.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us get back to the other question. The Postmaster General suggests that this is just a routine change that comes about automatically. If that is the case, I think it is passing strange that he did not make a routine reference to it in the course of one of the several speeches he has made on this question. He also tries to make the point that when rates on first-class letters go up rates on postcards also go up automatically. Naturally I have not had a chance, since this bombshell was exploded this afternoon, to check the history to see whether that is the case, but I draw this point to the attention of the Postmaster General. At the present time a two-cent rate applies on postcards and unsealed letters, and on Christmas cards in-


Charles Delmar Coyle: Unsealed letters are not first-class mail. It does not apply to unsealed letters.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am saying that at the present time the two-cent rate applies on postcards.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Three cents.


Alcide Côté: Three cents.


Stanley Howard Knowles: One of the disadvantages of the franking privilege is that we do not always remember how much these things do cost. The point I am making stands in any case.


Alcide Côté: There are two different kinds of postcards.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are some items that go for two cents and some for three. The three-cent postcard rate is to be moved up automatically to four cents. The Postmaster General says that is routine. But he has to do it under section 6 (d) of the Post Office Act. In other words, he has to pass a regulation which it is within his competence to do.
I am glad he is not automatically making the same increase in the two-cent rate. He might have done it. Surely, if one says that one rate goes up automatically and the other does not, that is hardly being consistent.
How do we know that next December the Postmaster General will not make a regulation increasing the two-cent rate? People would then find they had to pay three cents or four cents to mail their Christmas cards. Nevertheless, that can be done by regulation under section 6 (d). The Postmaster General, with the assistance of the Minister of Finance, is trying to make a great deal out of the fact that the Minister of Finance made a covering statement on December 8, 1953. I have quoted it two or three times, so the minister did not help the Postmaster General by drawing his attention to it.
My point is that the statement did not convey to the people, in fact I doubt if it conveyed to ten people in the House of Commons outside of the cabinet, the realization that it included an increase on postcards as well as on letters. He said there would be an increase of one cent over existing rates. My point is that we were entitled to think that since the bill referred to only one matter, that is what the Minister of Finance meant by his statement of December 8.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I did not refer to letters in my statement; I referred to first-class postage rates.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister is technically correct. He could take the matter to court and prove that he did not say anything that did not cover the extent to which the government has gone in its proposals. I suggest that, even though the Minister of Finance and the government could show they were technically correct, they have not played fair with the House of Commons or the Canadian people in this whole episode.
Post Office Act
Let me go back again. I was trying to prompt the hon. member for Kamloops when he referred to the Postmaster General's statement on January 14, 1954, at page 1102 of Hansard. This is what the minister said; these were his opening words:
Mr. Chairman, this resolution proposes an amendment to the Post Office Act to increase the rates of postage in the way indicated in the resolution itself, namely:
Then, he quoted the resolution, and the resolution mentions nothing other than an increase in the rate on first-class letters.
I read again what he said:
. . . this resolution proposes an amendment to the Post Office Act to increase the rates of postage in the way indicated in the resolution itself, . . .
Later on in that same column, after outlining the deficit which, according to his calculation, would amount to $13,500,000, he said:
Expected net revenues from the increase in postage rates will be approximately $14 million, . . .
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that all of us in the house had the right to assume, when the Postmaster General said he proposed to increase the rates of postage in the way indicated in the resolution itself, and when he said he proposed to raise $14 million by means of that increase, that all that was being talked about was an increase in the rates on letters.
Then, as the hon. member for Kamloops has pointed out, that statement is underlined again in the words of the Postmaster General as recorded on page 1107 of Hansard for January 14, 1954, when he said:
We propose to get those funds by means of this increase, . . .
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that if there were any way of securing a poll of Liberal members we would get the opinion from them that all the way along the house was led to assume that what was being talked about was an increase on letters only. It is hardly playing fair with the house for the Postmaster General or the Secretary of State to say now that no reference was made to this on the resolution stage because there was no occasion for it. I have looked over the speech delivered by the Postmaster General on the motion for second reading. He went all over the lot and dealt with most of the arguments advanced on this side in considerable detail. There was ample scope for him to tell us, if he cared to do so, that along with this increase that was being made by a change in the statute, there would be this so-called automatic increase in the rate on postcards.
He did not choose to do so. I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that in the 12 years I have been here I have seen this house treated this way

Post Office Act
a good many times, but seldom have I seen a proceeding which seemed to me to be quite so unfair. The minister says it is routine; it is automatic. It is not even that. Under section 6(d) of the Post Office Act the Postmaster General has to make a regulation. I am looking at the section to see whether or not he has to obtain the approval of the cabinet. He does not even have to do that. Talk about wide powers! Where is the member for Prince Albert? The Postmaster General can simply make a regulation. It does not follow automatically because parliament has approved of this bill, if it does so against the violent protests of the opposition. It has to be done by an overt act of the Postmaster General. I submit, if he is not prepared to agree to the suggestion being made from this side of the house, that this bill should now be withdrawn, at least he and his colleagues should get together and make a categorical statement to this house that they will not exercise the powers conferred upon the Postmaster General under section 6(d) of the act to raise rates of postage on postcards.
The minister says it is only a small percentage of the total, but that does not remove the insult to this parliament nor the unfairness to the Canadian people. 1 think the least that should be done is for the government to say that that increase will not be made.


Alcide Côté: I should like to refer the hon. member to Hansard for January 15, 1954, page 1161. Iam referring to a question asked by the hon. member for Dauphin, and I quote:
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?
Then, I answered as follows:
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.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't stop there.


Alcide Côté: That is the end of the answer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, it was not. Read on.


Alcide Côté: The point I want to make is that there is no bombshell, even in the mind of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, because if there were any bombshell he would not ask the question.
[Mr. Knowles.!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will leave that to the people.


Alcide Côté: You may make all the fuss you want-


Stanley Howard Knowles: But who can stop you?


Charles Delmar Coyle: -but that information has been available since January 15. The surprise hon. members are evincing now is not justified if one refers to the answer I have just quoted. Of course, I misunderstood the question the hon. member put, but the answer is there. I thought he was asking if there had been a general increase and I was answering that question. Following my answer, the hon. member said:
Either the Postmaster General did not understand my question or I did not understand his answer.
He was right, but I was right also in my answer to the question because I thought he was asking another question. And then I said:
I do not understand what my hon. friend is saying. Does he ask whether we are going to increase the postage rate on newspapers?
Then the hon. member for Dauphin said:
Anything which would fall within the definition of second-class mail.
To that I answered no. I am reminded that on January 15 in reply to a question which I understood referred to implementing a general increase, I answered yes; and it is right there in this answer. My hon. friend, whose talents I admire, is certainly today overdoing it a little. He is not so much surprised as he is claiming now, because he had an answer to the very question he is asking today.
He knew before, or he should have known on January 15, if he understood well the statement made by the Minister of Finance a long time before. The principle is that it is a general increase in the rate all along the line. We always considered that in the past. There is no surprise to be felt at these facts, because one is made by statute through a bill. The resolution is introduced only to introduce the bill, and the increase in postage is made through the rules and regulations he has just cited to the house.
I think the question is very clear, and we should be most surprised by the surprise shown by my hon. friend.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us get this straight. The hon. member for Dauphin on January 15 was not asking about postcards. At one point the Postmaster General misunderstood him, and thought he was. And I give him full credit for this: he did not give a false answer; he gave a correct answer to what he thought the hon. member's question was.

I was here at the time. None of us realized that in the minister's mind the question of postcards had come up, because we knew that in the mind of the hon. member for Dauphin the whole question related to newspapers and periodicals. But immediately the hon. member for Dauphin got the Postmaster General back on the track with respect to the question then at issue, newspapers and periodicals, and the Postmaster General made it clear that there was to be no change with respect to them.
Frankly, I remember the exchange very well, and I thought it was just a case of confusion, because the Postmaster General was talking about an increase of one cent all along the line, and then said that there was no increase for newspapers. So I simply wrote off that statement that it was an increase of one cent all along the line, as being a bit of confusion in the mind of the Postmaster General.
He can now quote it to show that at no time did he give a false answer to a question. But it just shows the position, that until today there had never been a direct question specifically naming postcards and asking as to what would happen to the postage rate thereon. And when that direct question has been put to him we have an answer which I submit is something of a bombshell not only in terms of the one cent involved, but in terms of the relationship between the government and parliament.


Douglas Charles Abbott: If my hon. friend is interested in postcards, why does he not ask about them, in this long debate.


Mr. Coldwell:: I understood it is the intention of the department to carry all first-class mail by air. Is that right? Is first-class mail to be carried by air? What is the position?


Alcide Côté: Yes; where there will be an advantage in delivering, and where-


Major James William Coldwell: Then that is right?


Alcide Côté: And where the service is available, of course.


Major James William Coldwell: I understand that. And may I ask this question: is it the intention to carry postcards as well?


Alcide Côté: Yes.


Major James William Coldwell: That has not been so in the past, has it?


Alcide Côté: Yes.


Major James William Coldwell: Have postcards been carried, where delivery could be made, by air?


Alcide Côté: Christmas cards were carried by air, in tremendous volume.
Post Office Act


Major James William Coldwell: I understood it was only letters.


Alcide Côté: No, postcards as well.


Major James William Coldwell: That is news to me.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: On that question: is it not true that formerly what was carried by air mail was first-class one-ounce mail?


Alcide Côté: First-class mail will be carried, not third-class.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: You mean the new regulations say that all first-class mail shall be carried by air, where that is deemed advantageous?


Alcide Côté: Yes.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: But, prior to this, what has been carried by air mail was all first-class one-ounce mail. Is that correct?


Alcide Côté: First-class mail up to an ounce, previously.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Then, to go back again to the earlier deal-


Stanley Howard Knowles: "Deal" is right-and from the bottom of the deck.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Apparently I was right the first time. I am referring to postcards which go for two cents, or which carry only a greeting-I think the regulations stipulate five words or less. Is that classed as first-class mail?


Alcide Côté: Third-class.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: And then, I take it, all circular mail is third-class, all unsealed?


Charles Delmar Coyle: Yes.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Not to be increased under these rates?


Alcide Côté: No.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I wish to follow up the question which was put to the Postmaster General, since my name has been brought into the discussion. I submit he should have continued the quotation from Hansard at page 1161, because the last part is the important part. The Postmaster General quoted certain questions and his replies, but I suggest he should have gone farther. I shall put it on the record. I said:
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?

Post Office Act
To this the Postmaster General replied:
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 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.
Those are his words. On January 15, replying to my question after he understood what was behind it, he undertook of his own volition to make an inquiry and to report in detail on every item. That was on January 15.
Since that time the Postmaster General has spoken on at least three or four occasions in this debate, perhaps more than that, and he has never given the house, item by item, a report on what would be affected by the proposed increase-not only what is proposed in the present bill but also the other matters which entered into the discussion.
I submit the Postmaster General had plenty of opportunity. He was not asked; he made the offer himself to make this detailed report on every item affected. He has not done that. Today the matter was brought up by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The minister tells us that he has authority to make an increase in the postage on postcards, without reference to this bill-which is correct. But certainly he should have followed out his own suggestion or his own undertaking made on January 15 to give the house every item which would be affected, so far as the increase is concerned.
I believe there is no way the minister can talk his way out of this spot. I think the gracious thing would be to admit that he has made a blunder, and to take the house into his confidence. It is not too late. Let him give the committee now a full report, item by item, of what is being contemplated, so that we will have the whole picture. I do not think it is fair to hon. members to have to wheedle out every piece of information, one piece at a time, and to have it given almost grudgingly by the Postmaster General.
In view of the fact that the Minister of Finance and the Secretary of State have also entered into this debate from time to time, I believe it is time they got together and drew up a detailed report of what is involved in this whole matter. Let them take the house into their confidence, and tell us what is involved. Otherwise there can be no other impression than that you are trying to hold back as much information as it is possible to hold back and disclose it only when you are being backed into a corner. There is no

getting away from the fact that the five-cent stamp is taking an awful licking and the minister is stuck with it now.


Mr.   Coie@: The hon. member for Dauphin has indicated at least another time where I mentioned that there was to be an increase all along the line. He read it himself. And I repeat that the increase we are asking will be made all along the line on first-class mail. I said it previously: "However, we may take it for granted that it is a general increase of one cent all along the line". I do not think that either my hon. friend or the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre should be surprised, since it is all in Hansard. If my hon. friend was waiting for a general report, why the surprise?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: May I ask a general question on this point? I was not the one who indicated any surprise.


Alcide Côté: At least I am satisfied that you are not surprised.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: A number of hon. members have already shown surprise, and I could not improve on the language they used. Is it not a fact that on January 15 the minister did undertake, in his own words, to give a detailed report to this house item by item as to what this will involve? Had he followed out his own undertaking, which he had ample opportunity to do, he would not find himself in the position in which he is at the present time. That is the whole point. He has failed to carry out his own undertaking to inform this house as to what is involved in this increase.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is but right to point out that surely the Postmaster General's own words were not accurate on that occasion, as I understand them, because this increase is not being carried out all along the line. I think the Postmaster General has just said that there are some types of postcards the rates on which obviously will not be increased.


Douglas Charles Abbott: First-class mail will be
increased.


Alcide Côté: First-class mail. I think my hon. friend is a little confused by the other kind of postcards which belong to the third-class mail.


Mr. Mclvor:: There are two things that I have been thinking about. When this bill was being debated it was said on several occasions that the rate was being increased in Canada but not in the United States. I find in the Globe and Mail today that the United States administration are seeking an increase of $240 million in the postal rate. They are increasing the first-class mail rate

by one cent, the same as we are. They are increasing the air mail rate by one cent and we are not. The other thing is this. As I listened to the hon. member tor Winnipeg North Centre tell of his wonderful discovery in finding out that the rate on postcards was to be increased, this thought came to my mind. If it is a wonderful discovery, it is not to the discredit of the minister; it is to the discredit of the opposition that they did not find it out when they let the bill go through.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I should like to pursue a matter which I raised earlier with the minister. There may be some confusion here, but I must admit it has me baffled. He told us that the percentage of revenue for first-class mail was 46 [DOT] 9 per cent. He did not tell us what percentage that was of and perhaps that is the reason for the bafflement. Then he went on to tell us that the cost was 45 * 2 per cent, which would leave a profit of 1 [DOT] 7 per cent. Then he goes on and figures out that profit which would be about $2,200,000. Well, if $2,200,000 is 1-7 per cent, obviously 100 per cent would be about $130 million in revenue from first-class mail. We know that the revenue from first-class mail is certainly not $130 million. That is the total revenue of the Post Office Department. I have worked out the figures on first-class mail in one case on $2 million and in the other case on $130 million. It all depends which figures one is taking the percentage on. If the minister would give me what figures he is taking this on, then we shall know precisely what profit we have made.


Charles Delmar Coyle: I think that was done. Instead of 45 per cent it was 44-9 per cent.


John B. Stewart: I will take 45 per cent. What is that the percentage of, if I might ask? What are the figures?


Charles Delmar Coyle: The first one is the percentage of all the revenue; the second one is the percentage of the total cost.


John B. Stewart: When my hon. friend says "of all the revenue", is that $129,268,000 or $129,268,000 plus other receipts, or the figure which is shown on the first part of his report, which is $129 million less $17 million, which is the figure my hon. friend is using?


Charles Delmar Coyle: You may take $129 million.


John B. Stewart: Then it is 46-9 per cent of $129 million and therefore 45 per cent of-


Charles Delmar Coyle: It is 44-9 per cent of the total cost.
Post Office Act


John B. Stewart: Of $105 million.


Charles Delmar Coyle: The difference is 2 per cent. If you take 2 per cent of $129 million it gives you $2,580,000.


John B. Stewart: I can translate that 2 per cent into $5 million.


Charles Delmar Coyle: Five per cent?


John B. Stewart: I can translate that 2 per cent into $5 million. What I have been trying to find out is, what is the profit made in the operations of that part of the post office dealing with the transport of first-class mail? I submit that the profit is about $5 million not the $2 million which was suggested.


Charles Delmar Coyle: Would my hon. friend give me his figures?


John B. Stewart: Yes, I shall be very glad to.


Charles Delmar Coyle: It would be easier for me to follow him by looking up the figures.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Take $129 million; 47 per cent of that is roughly $60 million. Is not that right? Then we take $105 million, which is your costs, your expenses.


Charles Delmar Coyle: What is $105 million?


John B. Stewart: The $105 million is that which is shown on page 1 of the report of the Postmaster General under the total expenditures.


Charles Delmar Coyle: Yes; I think you are taking two different figures.


John B. Stewart: I want to find out what I am taking.


Charles Delmar Coyle: You must be taking not only the gross revenues but the net revenue. There is a little confusion there. You must not take both at the same time. You cannot take net revenues and gross receipts or vice versa.


John B. Stewart: I agree with the minister. I said that. Do I take $129 million or $129 million after the deduction of the $17 million, which would bring it down to $112 million?


Charles Delmar Coyle: You may take $112 million, but you have to follow suit.


John B. Stewart: I want it treated in the way you treat it in your report.


Charles Delmar Coyle: You may take it either way, but when you consider gross you must take gross on both sides, revenue and costs, and the same thing with net revenue and net costs.

Post Office Act


Alistair McLeod Stewart: My hon. friend is quite right, but he must admit that I am taking it as it is shown in the report. Let us work this out. On the basis of these figures, the Post Office Department might be making a profit of $7 million or $8 million. Is that right? I want to be sure I have the right figures. I do not want to do the minister an injustice.


Alcide Côté: I do not know. You are suggesting that we must do this and that. It does not come from the air. Can my hon. friend explain where he gets this?


Alistair McLeod Stewart: It comes from the report of my hon. friend at page 1 where he states that the receipts for the year amounted to $129 million. Is that right?


Alcide Côté: Yes; that is gross revenue.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Thereafter, in the same section, it states that certain payments were deducted amounting to $17 million, which brings it down to $112 million. Is that correct?


Alcide Côté: Yes; I follow you.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Then on the same page there is an item of expenditure, other than those paid by statutory authority, etc., totalling $105,553,000. So we take 47 per cent of $112 million and 45 per cent of $105 million, and on that basis I submit there is a profit of $5 million.


Alcide Côté: Just a moment.


Mr. Hansell:: While these two gentlemen are figuring this out-they will not want to listen to me-I am going to suggest to the Postmaster General and that he and the hon. member for Winnipeg North have dinner together.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will you pay for it?


Ernest George Hansell: I was going to say that I would be glad to accompany them. They could then get together and figure this out and the minister can tell us the result at eight o'clock. I am suggesting this because if a constituent in any part of the country read today's Hansard I am quite sure he would be completely in the woods. With so many figures being thrown about he would not know what is happening.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I have worked the figures out and I believe the profit is around $5 million. I am simply trying to find out what the profit is.


Charles Delmar Coyle: I would be glad to invite the hon. member to dinner, but before I do so I think we should get together and use the
(Mr. Cote.]
same figures. If my hon. friend will be patient I shall try to determine whether we are using the same figures.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Does the minister agree I am using the correct figures?


Charles Delmar Coyle: I cannot tell you offhand.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: If I give him his own report perhaps he can tell me.


Charles Delmar Coyle: If I understand you correctly you are using the figure of $17 million, which is also an expenditure.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: But you
cannot have it both ways. You take these expenditures off revenue.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: 
Charles Delmar Coyle: I do not believe-


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That means that on first-class mail you have a gross profit-


Charles Delmar Coyle: May I suggest that you sit with the hon. member for Winnipeg North and try to have your figures agree with his, and then I will take you both out to dinner.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Add the two together and you will probably get the correct figure.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, in connection with these figures before us I wonder if the Postmaster General can explain why his annual report a year ago showed a revenue on first-class mail of 46 per cent with expenditures at 29 per cent, which means a profit of 17 per cent. Why in one year's time should there be such a difference? Last year he had a very interesting chart in his report which showed the revenue from each branch. If he looks at that chart he will find the figures I have mentioned. On that basis I worked out, from last year's report, a profit of $20,700,000. Could the Postmaster General comment on that?


Charles Delmar Coyle: We have to charge first-class mail with the cost of air transportation. Only first-class mail is delivered by air to distribution points.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: In your report a year ago you show the figure of 46 per cent for revenue and 29 per cent for costs. Can you explain why in one year there is such a difference

between the two figures? I might add that it is very difficult to obtain this annual report, but the Postmaster General was good enough to make it available to me in his office.


Charles Delmar Coyle: If my hon. friend will look at this chart which I am sending him-I hope he will send it back to me afterward-I think he will understand the problem.


Mr. Regier:: Mr. Chairman, being a new member of this house I think it will be understandable if I express some surprise. I am amazed to find that after four days of discussion on the relative cost and revenues of first-class as against second-class mail we are still in the position that the Postmaster General, complete with his assistants, is unable to answer approximately how many millions of dollars we made on first-class mail.
However, the early part of this afternoon's discussion revealed another and to me a very serious matter. We are told this increase is necessary because of the 40-hour week. Can we take it that under the 40-hour week business will go on in an efficient manner? The minister indicated before that when business reverted to the 40-hour week it just locked up shop. There is no need to lock up shop. One business after another keeps open on this basis. When a business goes on a 40-hour week it gives the same efficient service on Saturday that it gives on Thursday. The service is equally efficient on each of the six days of the week. Is the hiring of so-called casual labour going to give us six days of efficient postal service?
What is worrying me is the type of service we are going to get. Overtime was mentioned as a possible solution. I am wondering what a unionist would think if, upon being given a 40-hour week, an employer announced at the same time, "We would like to see you work overtime." I am wondering whether this is going to be a bona fide 40-hour week.


Charles Delmar Coyle: We never said anything of the kind.


Erhart Regier: One thing that has me especially worried, and I have not yet got the answer, is whether the 40-hour week is going to mean that the post office wickets are going to be open only 40 hours a week.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I certainly do not want to interfere in the discussion any more than the committee feels is necessary, but I believe that only the cost of the mail service is applicable to the clause we are now dealing with. Discussion relating to rates on letters is in order, but changes in working hours or other matters affecting operation
Post Office Act
which are not necessarily a part of this question should be held over until the Postmaster General's estimates come before the house. If I may be permitted to say so, there must be other matters for discussion relating to this particular clause.


Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: I think the Postmaster General himself said that on account of this 40-hour week this increase in the rates was necessary.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I would not want the committee to think I was endeavouring to steer them away from costs in relation to the 40-hour week. I understood the questions which were raised by the hon. member were as to the salaries that would result to the workers on the implementation of the 40-hour week, a subject which I do not think is pertinent to this matter.


Alcide Côté: If I may answer my hon. friend who just spoke, I may say that there will be no restriction in the services by implementing the five-day 40-hour week.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I just want to ask the Postmaster General a few questions. I understand that these increases are only in connection with first-class mail. Will there be any increase in connection with registering a letter? There will be, of course, with this increase from four cents to five cents, an increase of one cent but will there be anything else?


Charles Delmar Coyle: There will not be any further increase for registered letters.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: As to special delivery letters, will there be anything extra?


Charles Delmar Coyle: No.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: And as to
C.O.D. parcel post or postal notes?


Alcide Côté: No.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister says there will be nothing extra there. All right. There is another matter that has been brought to my attention and it is this. On account of the increase from four cents to five cents, many people are going to be rather stuck owing to the fact that with the five-cent stamp at the present time, if it is put about two feet from the average person's eyes the figure "5" on the stamp cannot be seen. That same remark applies, of course, to both the three-cent stamp and the two-cent stamp, as well as to the four-cent stamp, although the "4" is a little bit plainer. But as to the five-cent stamp, I defy anyone, from a distance of two feet, to say just what it is. I wonder

Post Office Act
whether the Postmaster General has had complaints with regard to that matter, and if so, what is going to be done about it.


Alcide Côté: I quite agree with my hon. friend. We have trouble with the stamps. If one looks at them from a distance of two feet, it will be found that they are hard to distinguish. However, I may assure my hon. friend that we are now working on new stamps and are endeavouring to provide for better stamps whose figures can be more easily seen.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I have another question. The Postmaster General has mentioned the fact that extra help will be brought in for Saturdays. Who are employing that help? Will that be the postmasters in the various localities, or will that be done under the patronage system? I heard somebody around me here give a little snicker-


Edmund Davie Fulton: They know the answer.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They certainly know the answer.


Alcide Côté: Since my hon. friend has raised this matter may I say to him that we are not proceeding under any patronage system in the figurative sense or meaning of that word. As a matter of fact all the members of the House of Commons are coming to my office recommending somebody.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Oh, no.


Alcide Côté: Oh, yes.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I never have.


Alcide Côté: My hon. friend who said "no" might be one of the first who does it.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I do not.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I think it will be the consensus of the committee that the matters which should be discussed are those involving cost and finances on which the rates of postage can be based. It is my opinion that the methods of appointing personnel-whether they are correct or not- are not subjects for discussion under this section of the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words patronage is out of order, and it is about time it was.


George Randolph Pearkes: I want to ask a question and make an observation with regard to postage areas which are referred to in this bill. When the Minister of Finance was speaking he told us that the application of the so-called drop letter rate to rural routes, as is now usual in the cities, will be extended; that is, that rural routes will be placed under the same

conditions as if the letters were being delivered along a walk, in so far as being posted in one post office is concerned.


Alcide Côté: That is right.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am pleased to hear that. No doubt the Postmaster General will remember that I recommended that procedure just a year ago. I am pleased that he has taken this step, although I did not expect that he would raise the rate on drop letters in order to conform to the rates along the rural mail routes.
There is one anomaly which I want to bring to his attention, and it is this. In those areas adjacent to a large city, many years ago there sprang up a number of small, independent, accounting post offices. I do not refer to the sub-post office of the main post office in the city but rather to separate, independent, accounting post offices on the fringe of the large city area but outside of what has been the ordinary three-cent mail area.
Many of those post offices receive their letters for distribution from the rural mail courier, who having dropped the letter bags there then proceeds on up his route and distributes the letters in the ordinary mail boxes along the route, returning and again picking up the letters at that independent post office in order that they may be taken to the main post office for distribution. As a general practice no letter boxes in which the rural mail courier places the letters are permitted within a limited distance-a quarter of a mile-of the post office.
The situation arises that where there is one of these fringe post offices, for anybody within a radius of a quarter of a mile from that post office to receive a letter there it will have to have five cents put on it, whereas if you go on a mile or two miles further, that letter will be delivered by the same man who brought the letter out to these independent post offices. For four cents he will deliver a letter right at the door of the people living along the road. That situation does not seem quite right.
1 can give you an instance in my own constituency. No doubt the officers in the minister's department will be able to look it up. I refer to the post office at Colquitz. On one side, within a quarter of a mile radius, is the city of Victoria where patrons will receive letters at their doors for four cents. On the other three sides there are rural mail routes, R.R. 3, Victoria, where the people will receive their letters for four cents. But in that small island surrounding

Colquitz post office, everybody will have to pay five cents, both those who send a letter out and those who send one in. Quite obviously that is an anomaly which perhaps has not occurred to the Postmaster General and which I feel should be corrected.
I happen to know that in some of these post offices in the fringe area they issue as many as 100 two-cent postage-due stamps every month because letters have not had adequate postage placed on them.
It is a very serious problem for people living in such areas as I have described. Some of these rural routes are quite extended. In my constituency there are rural routes covering a distance of at least 20 miles. It is going to be a great benefit for people living at the' end of the 20-mile route to receive their mail at the same rate. But I have other independent post offices in the fringe or suburban area who are much closer to the main post office in Victoria. They are within five miles of it.
Let me mention another post office, Royal Oak. People there will have to pay five cents, yet they are surrounded by areas where people will only pay four cents on letters posted in Victoria. I would ask the Postmaster General to consider some way by which people living in the fringe areas may receive the same benefits as those living along rural routes. If a rural mail courier carries mail and drops it at a post office, whether it is a sub-post office of the city or an independent post office in the same area, and then proceeds along his normal rural route it seems to me that the people living in what I have referred to as a five-cent island should be treated in the same way as those who live farther out along rural routes.


Alcide Côté: My hon. friend will understand that this was a concession given to the rural routes, and I presume that he agrees we did right in extending this privilege to rural routes. On the other hand, it must be admitted that there must be a line of demarcation somewhere. Otherwise there will not be any administration at all. The fact that we are allowing a four-cent rate on these rural routes does not justify us in extending the same privilege to those who have a still better service and who should pay five cents for the carrying of their letters from one independent post office to another. While I am on my feet, may I say that the estimated revenue increase on postcards is $83,000 per annum.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am not satisfied with that answer, because it is not a question of extending facilities farther out. It is simply a case of taking in everybody who lives along
Post Office Act
the rural route. Privileges have been extended to people living on the rural routes at a greater distance than those living in the immediate vicinity of the small post offices. The courier goes right through the area. He is not allowed to deliver letters within a quarter of a mile of the post office. If he could deliver letters along the way right up to the post office, well and good, but there is this five-cent island.


Mr.   Coie@: Would my hon. friend suggest that we apply the five-cent rate to rural routes?


George Randolph Pearkes: Of course not. I am suggesting the very opposite. I have already said that I recommended the granting of the same rates to rural routes as to drop mail, but these post offices on the outskirts of the city are actually on the rural routes. That is the point I want to make. The stores in which these small post offices are located are right on the rural routes. Up to a point a quarter of a mile from such stores residents along the routes will receive their mail for four cents, but within a quarter of a mile of such a local post office the people will have to pay five cents. When you go on another quarter of a mile the people again get their mail for four cents. The thing is ridiculous.


Alcide Côté: My hon. friend is basing his argument on distance. We do not charge on the basis of distance. We charge on the basis of handling. If, for instance, a letter is sent from here to Halifax there are many handlings.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am not talking about
Halifax.


Alcide Côté: My hon. friend will understand that there must be a place where we should stop, and if we cannot put a line of demarcation somewhere, no administration is possible. We have extended the privilege of the four-cent rate to rural routes, with which I understand my hon. friend is wholly in agreement, but he must accept the consequences of the implementation of the four-cent rate on rural routes. Again I must tell him an argument on the basis of distance is not one which we can consider. On the contrary, the matter is decided on the basis of handling the volume of mail involved.


George Randolph Pearkes: The only thing I can say is that the privilege should be granted for the whole of the route. Do not leave islands along the rural route where people will have to pay five cents.


Alcide Côté: This is not part of a rural route.

Post Office Act


George Randolph Pearkes: It is a rural route. It is right on a rural route. I have given you the name of one post office and I can name half a dozen more.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Perhaps by now the minister has had a chance to refer to his figures about which I was speaking earlier, and possibly I may be able to help him. On page 2 of his report there are figures for revenue and figures for expenditure. The revenue figure is $129 million and the expenditure figure is $122 million. I take it those are the two figures to which the percentages had reference. Am I right?


Alcide Côté: I want to make the point clear. My hon. friend is drawing my attention to the year 1952, expenditure $115,629,816.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I beg your pardon; I am drawing your attention to 1953 where the expenditure is $122 million and the revenue is $129 million.


Alcide Côté: Oh, $122 million. The surplus there is $6,471,000. We do not now have that surplus, because we lost it through the abolition of the excise tax. Therefore we have to start anew. You cannot take that surplus into consideration because it has entirely disappeared through the abolition of the excise tax. To start with, I want to draw my hon. friend's attention to that point.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I would agree with the minister but I think he is in the wrong portfolio. He ought to be minister of fisheries because he is drawing so many red herrings across the trail. All I want to find out is this. The minister has given me a percentage, 46 [DOT] 9 per cent of the total revenue. Does the 46 [DOT] 9 per cent have reference to the $129 million? I am trying to find out what profit is made on first-class mail. I submit that the figure is about $5 million a year. Am I right?


Alcide Côté: The profit is of the order of 2 per cent of the gross revenues.


Hazen Robert Argue: What is the gross?


Alcide Côté: $129 million.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: It may be in the neighbourhood of 2 per cent of the gross revenue, but when you start breaking down the percentage which the minister has given us and applying it, I still maintain that it comes to about $5 million. But at least we know there is a profit made on first-class mail. 1 say it is about $5 million, and the minister says it is about $3 million. The minister has said already that there is a loss on second-class mail of $15 million. My

question is, why penalize the users of first-class mail another 25 per cent? Why should it be the goose who lays the golden eggs who has to take a 25 per cent increase; why not the users of second-class mail?


Alcide Côté: I understand now the point to which the hon. member is referring. Let me tell him first that I do not want to start a debate within a debate. In 1951 the rates on second-class mail were increased. In every country in the world today second-class mail is carried at a deficit. According to the arguments submitted in 1951, of which there has been some repetition during this debate, it is impossible to have second-class mail pay all the costs of its transportation and distribution.
As I have said, we have a deficit of $15 million, but if we were to make second-class mail pay its way these little publications could not last a day. The publications which could do so would use other forms of transportation and probably keep on doing business. We would then lose the amount of revenue we have from that source, and there would be no advantage to us or to the other parties.
Without going into the details or discussing the principle which has inspired all the countries of the world to disseminate culture and to publicize information, I would say that from a practical standpoint it is impossible to have second-class mail pay for itself. Some of these publications would not last a day, and others would use some other means of transportation. I think I have made myself clear on that point, and I do not want to debate it any longer.


Edmund Davie Fulton: A remark was made in answer to the hon. member for Winnipeg North upon which I should like to comment. I want to say that this is the first time I have ever heard the Toronto Daily Star described as culture. I was not rising to deal with that point, however, as I want to deal with the matter of accounting in the Post Office Department. The minister has told us that one of the reasons we require this increase in rates is the $7 [DOT] 5 million loss of revenue resulting from the cancellation of excise stamps and stamps on cheques and notes. He has used the figure of $7-5 million a great number of times as the anticipated loss in a year.
I point out to him that in the introductory passage of the post office report, in the letter of transmittal from the deputy postmaster general to the minister, it is stated that the

expected loss of revenue resulting from this factor may exceed $5 million before the end of the fiscal year.
Now, there is quite a difference between $5 million and $7-5 million. I am not suggesting it be tied down exactly to $5 million. The words used by the deputy postmaster general did not limit it to $5 million, but that is the figure he used and he suggested it would be in that neighbourhood before the end of the current fiscal year. The report is dated August 17, 1953. If he thought it was going to be $7 million why did he not say it was going to be $7 million? I am pointing out the substantial difference between the figure of $5 million and the figure of $7-5 million which the Postmaster General gave.


Alcide Côté: That was the end of August, 1953.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, but he says to the end of the fiscal year, which is March 31, 1954. The budget was introduced on February 19, 1953, and as I recall it stamps on cheques were eliminated immediately. The elimination of those stamps will have been in effect for a full year by the end of this fiscal year. What the deputy postmaster general is saying is that he estimates the loss of revenue within the 12-month period resulting from the cancellation of the stamps on cheques will be at least $5 million. The Postmaster General told us that the loss of revenue is expected to be $7-5 million.
What sort of accounting is there that makes it impossible to know how many stamps were sold for use on cheques in that year? In other words, do they have to wait for a year after the stamps are cancelled to ascertain how many they are not going to sell? Surely they know how many they sold in the year before and can state what the loss in revenue will be. We have a difference of $2 million now.


Charles Delmar Coyle: We have no records which would indicate what the deficit will be. We have to wait until the end of the year. In August of last year the deputy postmaster general stated it would be at least $5 million. He was right, because as time has gone by and we have learned more about the whole situation we have found that the deficit will be between $7 and $8 million.
Another aspect of the question asked by the hon. member is that no one informs us whether they are using blue excise stamps or postage stamps on cheques. We do not know. We had no records at all. If we had known we could have said so at the time the deputy postmaster general issued that
Post Office Act
report. We do not know as yet exactly what it will be, but we do know it will be at least $7-5 million.
We have to face this fact, and there is no other way out. This will at least result in a deficit of over a million dollars at the end of this year. We have to face the facts and report them as we find them. No one holds a record indicating how many people were using blue excise stamps on cheques and how many were using postage stamps. The only possibility of finding out exactly is to wait until the end of the year. So far we know we are going to lose at least $7-5 million.


Edmund Davie Fulton: So the minister has admitted it was known at the time of the budget last year that there would be a resultant loss of revenue to the Post Office Department.


Alcide Côté: Everybody knew we would lose something, but not the extent of it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: During the earlier discussion of this bill I invited certain of the ministers to tell us why, if it were known there would be a loss of revenue at the time the budget was introduced last February, the people were not told it would be necessary to impose an additional tax to make up for that loss in revenue. You will recall that on February 4 the Minister of Finance had just returned from a conference in Australia, and as reported on page 1792 of Hansard I said:
... if he is prepared to say he did not know what the loss of revenue was going to be then we would all be glad to hear from him. I do not hear from him and therefore I assume he did know what the loss of revenue was going to be. It would be interesting to know why he did not say before the election that it would be necessary to make up for this loss of revenue after the election by the imposition of an additional tax on the users of the letter service of Canada.
I want the Postmaster General, if he will, to be kind enough to listen to this, because he may remember I asked him a question, and he said he would deal with it. I went on to say:
I still do not hear from the minister so I assume that the only explanation that occurs to us is the correct one, namely that he did not want to tell the people of Canada before the election that this tax concession was a mere phantasy, that it was introduced for election purposes only, and that the government knew at that time that they were going to demand from the people of Canada after the election that they make good that loss of revenue which was held out to them as an additional bait in the pre-election budget which the minister himself introduced.
Then I indicated that I would be very glad to give up my position in the debate at that stage to the Minister of Finance, if he indicated any willingness or desire to offer

Post Office Act
an explanation of why the government took off a tax before the election and put it back on after. I said:
Does the minister want to explain that?
The minister did not indicate any readiness, and the hon. member for Prince Albert pointed out that you cannot explain the unexplainable. Then I asked:
Does the Minister of Trade and Commerce and Acting Prime Minister want to explain it?


Charles Delmar Coyle: Is my hon. friend reading or is he-


Edmund Davie Fulton: -and the only answer I got was from the Acting Prime Minister:
We would like you to get on with your speech.
Then I asked:
Does the Postmaster General want to explain it?
And the Postmaster General replied:
When I close the debate I will be glad to answer my hon. friend, and I think it will be satisfactory to him.
We have had no explanation as yet as to why the government did not tell the people of Canada why they took a tax off before the election, when they were going to put it back on after the election; and we will be glad to have that explanation from the Postmaster General as to why they did not tell the people of Canada the facts.


Alcide Côté: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is a little puzzled. Last year when the abolition of the excise tax was brought about we did not know, and I did not know, that we were going to pay $7 million for increased salaries, beginning December 1953. Last year we did not know, also, that we were going to pay $5 million to implement the five-day 40-hour week. So my hon. friend should know, and I am repeating it, that I did not know and he did not know-nobody knew at the time- that the five-day 40-hour week was to be implemented. That was not known until recently. We do not know even now if we shall be in a position to implement it on the 1st of April, if we do not receive the necessary information. But we want to do it.
This is some further evidence that these additional expenditures were not known a year ago. I know my hon. friend is trying to build up a little political case, but this is a factual case. I quoted dates for the implementation of the five-day 40-hour week, the date when the salary increase began-that is the general increase in the postal department on December 1-and certainly these additional expenditures, plus an increase to the rural carriers amounting in all to $13,500,000, have to be paid. If only we could have obtained a "paper" surplus of $6 million, which we were expecting, instead of having a deficit of

$7,500,000, then we could have gone on. But eventually we would have had to pay the $13,500,000, which everybody in the house agrees we must pay.
So this repetition of the argument used by my hon. friend does not amount to anything, except that we are still facing the fact that we must pay $13,500,000.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The point is that the minister-


Mr. Brooks:: Mr. Chairman-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I would like to follow this up.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It has been followed up for a long time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It has been; but the explanation, I regret, has not been satisfactory yet, nor has it dealt with the actual merits of the situation; because the minister has kept on saying that one of the reasons we must have this increase in the postage rate is because we are now anticipating a loss of revenue or a reduction in revenue of $7,500,000 resulting from the elimination of the stamp tax on cheques and notes.
That is offered by the minister as one of the reasons for the necessity of increasing the postage rates. But what he has not denied is that they knew at the time of the stamp tax being taken off cheques that they would lose revenue. The minister has not denied it; he said he did know they would lose revenue.


Douglas Charles Abbott: May I shorten this debate-


Edmund Davie Fulton: After I have finished. He advances as one of the reasons we have an increase in postage rates the fact that the revenue was reduced by $7,500,000 owing to a concession which was made in the last budget when, at the time of the last budget, it was never indicated that that concession might have to be made good. I say that does not seem to be a valid argument in support of this increase.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I said clearly in my last budget speech that I expected the loss of revenue from the abolition of the stamp tax on cheques would be about $12 million. We knew what that figure would be, because we knew what cheque clearances were. With all due respect to my hon. friend the Postmaster General and his competent officials, they cannot tell today how many postage stamps were used on cheques, and what their lost revenue is. They have estimated $7,500,000. My personal view is that that is high.
In any case, when the budget was brought down and the stamp tax on cheques was eliminated it was not anticipated that the Post Office Department would show a deficit.

I made it clear what the gross loss would be. Everybody knew there would be some loss of revenue to the Post Office Department in connection with the stamps used on cheques.
So far as I am concerned-and I am sure this applies also to my colleagues-there was no thought of misleading the public in connection with the abolition of the stamp tax on cheques. If it comes out of the Postmaster General's revenue, that revenue has to be made up. That in itself would not have necessitated an increase in postage rates; I am convinced of that.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Now that this matter has been cleared up, I am sure to the satisfaction of the government but not to the satisfaction of the opposition, I would like to ask a question. I understand this increase in rates is to provide funds for the 40-hour five-day week in certain cities of this country, and also to provide funds for rural mail carriers. I think that is correct.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Plus higher salaries.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: In listening to the questions this afternoon it was clear to me that certain cities and perhaps some towns in which industries were using the five-day 40-hour week would receive the benefit. I would like to ask the minister whether post office employees in those cities and towns that have not the five-day 40-hour week in industry will receive the same pay. That is, will the mail clerks and mail carriers in those cities where they are going to get this increase receive the same pay as those who are doing the same work in other cities and towns where the increase is not being provided for? Is there to be a discrimination between cities and towns, so far as hours of work and pay are concerned?
If such were the case it would be very unfair to have the increase in certain sections of the country and not have it in others. Would the minister answer my question?


Alcide Côté: I am a little confused by the double question asked by my hon. friend. All employees received a general increase of approximately 8 per cent beginning December 1.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The point is that some of them will be working longer hours. Will the man who is working a six-day week, and who is not in these preferred areas, as we shall call them, get the same pay as the man working in the area where there is a five-day week?
Post Office Act


Alcide Côté: Yes. Actually I can say that there will not be any change in the annual payment.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Both will get the same pay?


Charles Delmar Coyle: I will not say that both will get the same pay. They might receive different pays, but there is no change in the annual salary.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is rank discrimination.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It seems to me the
Minister of Finance has really made a great contribution to this debate, because in the few words he uttered a few moments ago he merely substantiated our argument. All along the line we have maintained that the department does not know where it is. We have maintained all along that the minister does not know whether he is going to make money or lose money. They just simply pull these figures out of the air and say, "We are going to need this $7,500,000 because of the loss we have suffered through the removal of the stamp tax".
The minister does not know whether or not he will need $5 million to implement the five-day 40-hour week. He does not know what it is going to cost. He does not know whether he is going to get labour for $1 an hour or whether he will have to bring back the regular employees to work on Saturdays. He does not know where he is. We have said right along that he does not know and has no idea how much money the department is making. He does not know whether it will lose $12 million, as the Minister of Finance said in his budget speech last year when he removed the stamp tax. The minister does not know whether he will drop $44,500,000 or some other revenue in the Post Office Department, or whether he will lose $7,500,000. He does not know where he is.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, it is about time the Postmaster General withdrew this bill until we can find out exactly what the situation is in this country.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the clause carry?


Mr. Drew:: Before this item carries, Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with two points that came up because they have a bearing on the way in which this whole matter is being dealt with.
The thing that impresses me is the infinite capacity of the minister for inaccuracy. We had a perfectly clear statement as to the reason why this added charge was required,

Post Office Act
and now we have the statement of the Minister of Finance that there is nothing in it. We have the statement of the minister-


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, no.


George Alexander Drew: We have the statement of the Postmaster General-


Douglas Charles Abbott: If the Leader of the Opposition is going to quote me, please quote me accurately.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Minister of Finance said it was too high.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is a matter of opinion. I certainly did not say that there was nothing in it.


George Alexander Drew: The Minister of Finance said that the removal of the stamp tax on cheques did not justify this increase.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Will my hon. friend be
accurate? I said the increase would not have been made on that ground alone.


George Alexander Drew: I submit the minister said there was nothing in that argument. So far as the statements before us are concerned the Minister of Finance has said, with deference to the Postmaster General, that he does not think he knows exactly what the figures are.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No one can; it is obvious it can only be an estimate.


George Alexander Drew: We agree with the Minister of Finance 100 per cent. We are certain that the Postmaster General does not know, and those who are advising him do not know. We have had an ample demonstration of it this afternoon; but I want to pass on to one or two other things that have been said because they have some bearing on this whole question. They simply drop figures before the house and say now, be good boys and girls and don't ask questions; just assume that this all-wise government knows what is right and pass this bill without being too much of a nuisance. That is really what the whole contention amounts to. We have had nothing more solid than that come before us since this bill was introduced.
The minister said he dealt with the statement that savings of $377,000 be made by terminating the service of the post office savings bank. He used these words: "The repeated suggestion that there would be a clear saving of $377,000." It is not the repeated suggestion; it is the positive, unqualified statement of J. D. Woods and Gordon that is placed before the house. It was not a suggestion of any member of this house; it was the unqualified statement of J. D. Woods
fMr. Drew.]
and Gordon after reviewing the whole operation of the post office savings bank, the number of depositors, the number of inactive accounts and various suggestions as to considerations that should be borne in mind. J. D. Woods and Gordon then said:
If it is decided to wind up the post office savings bank there would be an estimated annual saving of $377,000 per annum, and the field organization would be relieved of much detailed work.
There may be many reasons why the Postmaster General does not think the post office bank should discontinue its service. There may be good reasons why that should not be done, but I submit that the Postmaster General, neither in his own words nor in words that he finds in any other source, should place before this committee the idea that it is only a suggestion that $377,000 could be saved.
What I was pointing out, and what others have pointed out, is that before we are asked to give approval to what amounts to extensive increases in the cost of first-class mail we should know in clear and understandable terms exactly what the government propose to do in relation to these positive recommendations, and why they will or will not accept them. Certainly the suggestion made by the Postmaster General-and it is no more than a suggestion-that there is some other figure that should be borne in mind is not consistent with the findings of people who are highly regarded as accountants and business experts by this government and others.
Then may I refer to the Postmaster General's suggestion that there is nothing in the possibility that he might encourage the posting of mail in other places? Rather lightly he suggests that I engage in other reading than "Alice in Wonderland". Mr. Chairman, I will admit that "Alice in Wonderland" is much more sensible reading than anything I have heard from the minister here this afternoon. It would contribute much more to the understanding of this problem than anything we have had by way of direct answer here this afternoon. The minister knows perfectly well that I said we did not want to see a situation where anybody was mailing letters written in Canada outside of Canada. The minister, however, knows perfectly well that there is no specific law that would be offended by a Canadian posting mail in the United States, and there are thousands of Canadians doing that all the time perfectly legally.
The minister refers to one general provision in regard to international agreements. Mr. Chairman, we have not yet reached the point when a mental interpretation of some term of that kind establishes an offence which

will prevent somebody doing a thing of this kind. There is no law on the statutes which directly affects this situation. All I was doing was offering an illustration of the kind of thing that can result from neglecting the ordinary economic pressures when too high a tax of any kind is imposed.
I would hope that in this case again the Minister of Finance would come to our help and point out to the Postmaster General what his experience was when he put too high a tax on cigarettes. He found that there is some point beyond which the people will not go without being encouraged to follow methods that none of us might approve, but which did avoid increased expenditures. It was in that light, and in that light alone, that I raised this possibility. I am mentioning it only because it illustrates the marked difference between two countries lying side by side, where the general economic conditions are the same. I was seeking to emphasize, and I repeat that what is now proposed places us on a higher cost basis than the United States in regard to a similar service, at the very time we are being urged from all quarters to keep costs down. The Postmaster General has repeated over and over again what it will cost, but we know he does not know, because the Minister of Finance has said so.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I said no such thing.


George Alexander Drew: I take the words of the Minister of Finance, and I am prepared to accept them as they appear in Hansard.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Do that.


George Alexander Drew: The Postmaster General knows there will be an increase, but the Minister of Finance makes it quite clear than in his opinion he does not know the exact amount and that-


Douglas Charles Abbott: No. What I said was that I was sure he did not know the exact amount of loss of revenue from the sale of stamps for cheques.


George Alexander Drew: If he does not know the amount of loss he does not know the amount he needs and consequently what the exact increase should be. If he does not know one way he does not know the other way. The fact is that if he does not know how much the loss is we should not be asked to make up an amount he does not know. That is exactly what we are being asked to do on the basis of the statement of the Minister of Finance.
The Postmaster General says there are going to be these increases, and they can only be paid for in one way. But that is not 83276-119i
Post Office Act
so. These increases can be met in other ways. They can be met by increased efficiency, by the introduction of new methods, and by a number of devices which are employed with success and result in great increase in revenues in other countries. If the Postmaster General would only start a policy of having the kind of stamps printed that would appeal to those who are interested in stamps, and encourage the buying of stamps for that purpose as well as for the ordinary postal services, he could find new sources of revenue.


An hon. Member:: The empire games is an example.


George Alexander Drew: If he would look at stamps coming from countries one-third the size of Canada and even smaller and see how they introduce attractive new issues, beside which some that have appeared in Canada recently compare very, very unfavourably, he would see ways in which encouragement can be given to new sales of stamps.
In any event, Mr. Chairman, I do not think anything has been said by the Postmaster General which would indicate that any serious attempt has been made to explore the new possibilities that are now before us. The Postmaster General says that the Toronto area accounts for one-fifth of all mail. I would like to know the percentage of mail handled in Quebec, the Montreal district, the Winnipeg district, the Regina district and the Calgary district. I would like to know the percentage in each of these cases so we may know what general effect on savings may be brought about.


Charles Delmar Coyle: Mr. Chairman, I shall not take up the time of the committee in order to deny or contradict the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition. I am doing the best I can to explain the situation to him, but he does not appear willing to accept my explanation. On January 15 he said, as reported at page 1151 of Hansard:
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 3 cents apiece and sending them into Canada at the reduced rate, . . .
I told him that that would be illegal. He came back again and said it would not be illegal. I then quoted the postal act and explained to him that it was illegal, but he again insisted that this was not so. The hon. member's official called my office this morning asking about this matter and, according to information I have received from my officials, they informed him that it would be illegal.

Post Office Act
I would advise my hon. friend to call my department before he makes any similar statements, not after.
The Leader of the Opposition has suggested that we might increase revenue by catering to philatelists. In actual fact we are already doing so. I will not pretend that we have the world's most attractive stamps, certainly not in regard to the last issue. I know it is only human to err, but you cannot hold the postal department responsible for all the mistakes made concerning the issue of stamps, particularly as regards the last issue. Philatelists already consider our stamps worthy of collecting, and we are already making money in that field. In 1952-53 we made approximately $282,000 in that way, and we are redoubling our efforts in that regard. We hope that in the near future you will see some evidence of the interest the department has displayed in this field.
The Leader of the Opposition wishes to know the varying revenues of post offices. I shall read a few. For example, Abbotsford, B.C.-


George Alexander Drew: I asked for definite places.


Alcide Côté: I have the amounts here. The figure for Abbotsford is $43,416.


George Alexander Drew: I asked for percentages. You gave the percentage in the case of Toronto.


An hon. Member:: Abbotsford is a village.


Alcide Côté: I presume the hon. member will be able to work the percentages out for himself if I give him the totals. Amherstburg $29,290; Amos $40,580; Antigonish $47,177; Arnprior $33,007; Arvida $38,931, and I will go on-


Frank Exton Lennard: Mr. Chairman, the minister has not mentioned one place referred to by the Leader of the Opposition.


Charles Delmar Coyle: Quebec city $2,482,655; Montreal $15,722,772. May I ask my hon. friend what other places he had in mind?


George Alexander Drew: Yes, Winnipeg.


Alcide Côté: Winnipeg, $6,713,897.


George Alexander Drew: Since the minister has given these figures, what is the figure for Toronto?


Alcide Côté: Toronto is $23,883,460.


George Alexander Drew: What was the total?


Alcide Côté: For what?


George Alexander Drew: For the whole of Canada.


Alcide Côté: $129 million.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


George Alexander Drew: Just before this is carried, Mr. Chairman, may I say this. I am not going to labour the matter beyond this, but I am

going to get this point quite clear. The minister has said that someone called his office to find out what provision in the act dealt with the possibility of mail being posted in the United States, and this is what was given. This is section 5, subsection (j) of the Canada Post Office Act. It reads as follows:
Subject to this act, the Postmaster General shall administer, superintendent and manage the Canada post office, and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing may
(j) make and give effect to any postal agreement or arrangement with the government or postal authorities of any country or independent postal administration and pay out of postal revenue any remuneration or indemnity thereby provided;
Does the minister know of any other provision in the act that applies to this subject? That is the one he quoted in the house the other day. Is there any other one?


Alcide Côté: No. This is the section which gives the power to the Postmaster General to enter into arrangements with different countries.


George Alexander Drew: Yes.


Alcide Côté: And all the countries belonging to the universal postal union make an agreement. We made this agreement. In the circumstances we would not apply the section of this agreement. The United States would. They would return the letters sent that way in bulk, or ask for an increase in the rate.


George Alexander Drew: That was exactly the point I am going to make. All this agreement provides is that the postmaster may do certain things. In this case the postmaster who would have to do it would be the postmaster in the United States, and there is no such provision at the moment. I repeat what I said before, namely that at the moment, as the matter stands, this is not a specific law dealing with this subject. In view of what the Postmaster General has said, I can only say that no matter how genially he may present this subject, if his advice is that this constitutes some law that would make it an offence to follow this course, then he had better get some other advice.


Charles Delmar Coyle: No. I think my hon. friend is confused. I am very sorry to have to repeat to him that there is a signed agreement between Canada and the United States; both countries belong to the universal postal union and they have signed an agreement. That is exactly what I am trying to tell my hon. friend and have been trying to tell him since the debate first started. I am not doing it just to be disagreeable to him. It is the truth.
I am very sorry to tell him that he is in error when he says that it is not illegal. I hope I have made myself clear. It is not

that I want to be disagreeable to my hon. friend. It is because we have an agreement with the United States of America. The United States is a country belonging to the universal postal union, as is Canada. Both have signed this agreement. Both having signed this agreement they must abide by its terms, which forbid exactly what my hon. friend suggests.


George Alexander Drew: Unless the minister misinformed us unintentionally the other day the agreement does nothing of the kind, because he told us that the agreement deprecates this practice. That was the word he used and it is the word to which I refer. If that is all the agreement says, there is no law against this practice.


Alcide Côté: I also said "specifically provided", and explained what I said today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before this section is voted on, there is one other point I should like to draw to the attention of the Postmaster General. I hope it does not take as long as the point I raised earlier this afternoon. Indeed, if the minister will assure me that he will have this matter looked into, he will be pleased to find that I will accept that assurance.
As matters stand, it seems to me that if the rate of postage goes up as is provided in this bill, certain business firms in this country are going to experience an even greater increase than the increase in the postage rate itself. It is not often that I take the time of the house in bringing to the attention of the government a point affecting business, small or large, but when something has been brought to my attention which seems to be unfair, it matters not to me who is suffering, I think that case should be brought out and any injustice corrected.
I understand that Pitney-Bowes of Canada Limited sells stamping machines to business firms of this country, small and large. The use of these machines by business firms obviously saves the Post Office Department certain costs because actual stamps do not have to be supplied. When a firm buys one of these stamping machines from Pitney-Bowes of Canada, I understand that is not the end of the story. After buying the machine the firm finds that it has to rent from Pitney-Bowes a meter; it cannot buy the meter, but it must rent it. I find further that Pitney-Bowes charges these business firms not only the rental for the meter but also 6 per cent of the amount of postage used over a certain point.
The minister can see right away what the result of the change in postage rates is going to be. For instance, here is a firm that does
Post Office Act
a certain amount of business in terms of dollars and cents at the present time. The postage rate goes up 25 per cent. That means that if they do the same amount of mailing, their costs will be 25 per cent higher as to the postage but they will pay 6 per cent more on that increase by virtue of this arrangement with Pitney-Bowes.
It has been represented to me that this arrangement has the approval of the Post Office Department. I should like to ask the Postmaster General if he will have that arrangement reviewed in the light of this increase in postage which, as I say, is going to be pyramided so far as these business firms are concerned. As I say, I am relying on information that has been brought to my attention. If the minister tells me that the Post Office Department has not approved of that arrangement, particularly of that 6 per cent charge, I suggest that the Post Office Department has a responsibility to see to it that the matter is reviewed so that a firm is not allowed to pyramid an increase for which the government is responsible. That is carrying exploitation too far.
There is one other aspect to this matter. The Postmaster General is pretty smart if he can carry on all these conversations with his officials and listen to me at the same time.


An hon. Member:: Go ahead.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is one other aspect to this matter. Some time ago-I am not just sure how long-I understand the Post Office Department used to allow the business firms that used the stamping machines a 2 per cent reduction on the cost of postage, representing what the department saved in not having to supply the stamps. However, I am told the 2 per cent discount-and "discount" is the word I should have used previously-was discontinued a few years ago.
My point is this. If the Postmaster General is powerless to review the matter of the 6 per cent rake-off that Pitney-Bowes charges on this extra postage, the Post Office Department is certainly in a position at least to reinstate that discount to firms which use these machines and thereby effect a saving to the Post Office Department itself.
I have tried to state this briefly. My request is that the Postmaster General have the matter reviewed, but I would be pleased to have any comments he cares to make now.


Charles Delmar Coyle: I am informed that at no time have we had anything to do with the relations between Pitney-Bowes and its clients. The only thing with which we are concerned is to see that the machines are not tampered with. As far as the 2 per cent discount is

Post Office Act
concerned, it was not a saving but what was allowed to vendors as a discount on stamp sales.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Explain.


Mr.   Coie@: I am informed this has been withdrawn because it would give Pitney-Bowes an advantage in selling this service, and we did not agree to that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As I indicated earlier, I will not take the time of the house to pursue the matter now. I realize that the Postmaster General has had to seek information from his officials rather than speak from his own knowledge. I still feel that the matter is worthy of further review, particularly in view of this increase, and remembering that the percentage this firm charges amounts to a pyramiding of the increase to a still higher amount. Rather than a negative statement from the minister telling me now that nothing can be done about it, I would prefer to have his agreement to look into the matter after the bill has been disposed of, and perhaps it can be dealt with again later in the session.


Mr.   Coie@: I have no objection to having another look at the matter, but these are services which are sold by a third party to a fourth party. Actually we have nothing to do with it except to see that they do not rob the department. If Pitney-Bowes wants to sell a service and somebody else wants to buy it they are entirely free to do so. However, I shall be glad to have another look at the situation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thank the minister for that, and I point out that the increase in postage helps the third party and harms the fourth party.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The minister says the Post Office Department has nothing to do with these postage meters, that it is a matter of agreement between second and third parties. But the Post Office Department does have regulations respecting the use of these machines. It prescribes that they may be used only in a certain way and by certain people. Therefore the relationship is not quite as remote as the impression left by the Postmaster General would convey.


Charles Delmar Coyle: Excuse me. If my hon. friend will allow me, I was talking about the matter of price as between the client and the vendor of the service. I know we have some regulations about the value of stamps sold in these meters, because we want to know what is going on; but when I was answering the hon.

member for Winnipeg North Centre I had reference to the price of the service as between the seller and the buyer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mainly with reference to the 6 per cent. That is what I want the minister to look into.


John George Diefenbaker: The other day I asked the minister whether or not the departmental officials had given consideration to the degree to which there might be a diminution in the use of the facilities of the post office by reason of the 25 per cent increase in the postage rates. Some years ago an increase was made from three to four cents, or an increase of 33J per cent, and if my recollection is not in error the income was considerably lower than had been anticipated on the basis of the facilities being used to a similar extent. The minister said there were statistics in connection with the application of increases in postage and the degree to which the law of diminishing returns applies with respect to such increases.
I should like the minister to give in detail the experience in the past and set out the anticipated income based on like use of the facilities, and the actual income in the year immediately succeeding such increases.


Mr.   Coie@: There is no actual way of ascertaining that. We cannot say what is in the minds of the people. Business will have to be done as usual, and we do not expect any substantial decrease on account of the increase in the postage rates.


John George Diefenbaker: Of course the only way you can determine your expectation is on the basis of experience, not on the basis of hope. I asked what was the estimate on the previous occasion of the anticipated increase in revenue by reason of the increase in the postage rate, and to what degree that hope was achieved in the final results.


Mr.   Coie@: The only information I can give is that at the time of the last increase in 1943 the revenue before the increase was $59,175,137, and in 1944 the revenue increased to $73,004,398. I wish I could give more accurate information, but the last time there was an increase in rates revenue rose from $59 million to $73 million.


John George Diefenbaker: Perhaps the minister
would explain it in detail so we can understand it.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. Bametl:: Judging by some of the discussion this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, this seems to be a day on which various members of this house are being surprised, shocked and horrified. I have to confess that I was rather horrified at some of the things I heard this afternoon, especially when the Postmaster General blandly admitted that on the one hand they were planning to introduce this five-day 40-hour week, and on the other hand they were going to sabotage it. I have to admit that I was somewhat horrified by that admission. I am referring, of course, to the suggestion that in introducing the 40-hour week, they were going to allow and encourage people to work overtime on the sixth day.
I am just wondering whether the minister realizes what a hornets' nest he is going to stir up when the news is let out that the Postmaster General is going to encourage this procedure. I am suggesting that if he does not seriously consider what I am saying, and consult with some trade unions in this country as to their opinion on this matter, the results may be serious. There are a few people in Canada who recall that the eight-hour day and the 40-hour week are matters over which blood have been shed, over which lives have been lost. They are not things to be taken lightly.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I should like the hon. member to believe that I have not the slightest desire to interfere with his argument if it can be helped, but as he knows the clause we are discussing deals with the rates of postage on letters and first-class mail. A discussion of the labour aspects of the Post Office Department would be in order on the Postmaster General's estimates. I would ask the hon. member to assist the Chair and the committee by connecting his remarks with the clause we are considering.


Mr. Barnett:: I would respectfully suggest that it was as a result of the suggestion of the Postmaster General that postage rates are linked to the introduction of the five-day 40-hour week that the discussion took place in the committee this afternoon. This matter was raised and was discussed. I would suggest that if this 40-hour week is going to be taken lightly or brushed aside, then one of the major reasons the minister has advanced for introducing this legislation will go by the board. I wonder if he realizes the significance of the suggestion that employees who are going to receive the benefits of the 40-hour week are going to be encouraged to
Post Office Act
work overtime. I wonder if he realizes just what a hornets' nest may be stirred up by this action.
I would suggest he might ask anyone who has had experience as a chairman of a plant grievance committee or as an industrial personnel officer, as to the nature of one of the major grievances. I suggest that the answer he would receive would be that this question of overtime, and of allowing people who are on a regular 40-hour week to do overtime work, is one of the biggest headaches they have. I must admit I was greatly disturbed to hear the minister suggest that practice was going to be encouraged with the introduction of the 40-hour week in the postal service. I wonder if he is aware of the insidious sort of pressure that can be brought to bear to break down the 40-hour week once it has been established.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I am going to ask the hon. member if he will, as I think the committee would desire him to, direct his remarks to the clause we are discussing. The merits and demerits of certain labour practices cannot, I submit, affect the cost of carrying first-class mail. The last thing I want to do is to restrict any fair discussion of the clause. I know our discussion has wandered far afield, but I would request the hon. member to come back to the clause we are supposed to be considering.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: It is not my desire to prolong this discussion unduly. Perhaps I have said enough along this line to indicate my views.
I was going to relate my remarks to the suggestion that was made this afternoon by the hon. member for Vancouver South concerning the hiring of casual employees at what may be lesser wages than would normally be paid. This would affect the cost of operation of the post office. I should like to say that efficient administration and general economy in the post office should cause the Postmaster General to look very carefully at this idea of introducing casual employees.
The minister tried to suggest that where the 40-hour week came into effect in industry everything was shut down on Saturday, so there was no parallel there. I would suggest to the minister that he might look at a good many industries which do not do that, where they have had experience in integrating around the clock operations into the five-day 40-hour week. I suggest that industries such as mining, where the concentrator plants work around the clock, and pulp and paper plants which operate around the clock, are industries into which they do not bring casual employees for the week

Post Office Act
end. There are also the power plants across the country where the same condition applies.
I would agree that in certain limited areas, such as university towns or something of that sort, there might be merit in the suggestion of the hon. member for Vancouver South that bona fide university students be considered for casual work. I would suggest to the minister, however, that the areas where such an arrangement could be efficiently introduced are very few. I believe he should give consideration, just as most industries do when they introduce the shorter work week, to creating an integrated operation with fully qualified employees.


Mr. Winch:: In rising at this stage of the discussion I want to say that in my estimation clause 1 should be opposed by all members of this house until such time as the Postmaster General shows evidence of need for an increase in the rates on first-class mail, and until he has carried into effect his own principle that those who use the mails shall pay.
I am not going to take up the time of the committee in reiterating previous arguments which have shown that millions of dollars have been lost on second-class mail, or because departments of government are not paying their share of the cost of sending their mail, which amounts to about $4,700,000. What I wish to discuss at this time is something I do not believe has been mentioned as yet in any phase of the discussion. My point is that clause 1 involves an increase in the postal rate on first-class mail, the only part of the postal operation that shows a profit; and I say that increase should not be allowed so long as the minister follows the principle he has stated, that those who use the mail should pay for it. He should not allow a condition under which some who use the mail do not pay anything at all.
The phase of the matter I should like to draw to the attention of the committee at the moment is this-and I am certain my information is correct-that under the present Post Office Act, or under the regulations, any weekly newspaper in any town of less than 10,000, throughout the length and breadth of the Dominion of Canada, can have its papers distributed by the Post Office Department completely free of charge.
I am certain that the minister, being a serious man, will recognize that this does not seem right. It is not right to ask the house to place an additional burden involving $14 million according to the minister's figures, on one part of the operation, while at the same time there are regulations allowing businesses to make use of the mails without

any charge whatsoever. I think if a study were made of weekly newspapers across Canada we would find that they are in a pretty good financial position, yet we find that first-class mail must subsidize another form of postal delivery that contributes nothing toward the cost of the postal service.
Not only is that the policy of this government; it has been the policy in the past. I know from personal examination of the records that about four years ago, I believe it was, a weekly newspaper in a town with a population of more than 10,000 was charged for its deliveries. However, the postal service gave an undertaking that if when the census was taken it was shown that the town did not have a population of 10,000, this weekly newspaper would receive a refund of all the money it had paid. When the census was taken it was found that the population was less than 10,000, and a refund was made. I have the records to show it.
I am not going to repeat arguments that have been made before. But this is a brand new one, and it is completely contradictory to the so often declared principle of the Postmaster General himself that those who use the mails should pay for them. Yet in every town of under 10,000 population the Postmaster General allows use of the mails for no charge whatsoever.
Until this phase of the matter is more carefully investigated, and until the minister puts his own declared principle in operation, we must oppose clause 1 of the bill which asks for a further increase in the only profitmaking endeavour of the postal service in Canada.


Major James William Coldwell: Is what the hon. member has said a correct statement?


Alcide Côté: It is in the statute; it is the law.


Major James William Coldwell: It is the law?


Alcide Côté: Yes.


Harold Edward Winch: Of course it is the law, and the law is laid down by parliament. It is also the law of the government. If the Postmaster General is sincere in his declaration of principle, then he should bring in an amendment to the statute and see that it is carried out. But, oh, no; he does not do that at all. He forgets second-class mail and this deficit. He forgets the use of the postal service made by these people for no charge at all. He just amends the law-and he is the man who can do it, of course. He just brings in an amendment to the law which will add a burden to first-class mail and postcards. I say it is not fair in any way whatsoever.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I would ask a question for purposes of information. I notice that in clause 1 it states these rates are to apply to letters posted in Canada for delivery in Canada. Does the same rate apply to letters posted in Canada for delivery in some other country? If so would the minister place on the record those countries which come under the rate stated in this clause?


Alcide Côté: I gave that information this afternoon. This bill refers to mail posted in Canada for delivery in Canada.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: But some letters mailed in Canada go to other countries. For example, some go to the United States.


Alcide Côté: As I said this afternoon, this domestic rate applies to mail posted in Canada for delivery in Canada, the commonwealth, the western hemisphere and France, if 1 remember correctly.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Is that the complete list?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Do I understand that when the bill says "Canada" it means the western hemisphere and commonwealth nations?


Alcide Côté: I think I have already given that information.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am just asking it.


Alcide Côté: I repeat that this bill concerns letters posted in Canada for delivery in Canada, and letters posted to the commonwealth, the western hemisphere and France.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask the Postmaster General why he is prepared to amend the law to impose an increase on this profitmaking part of the service, and will not amend it in respect of the law concerning those who are not paying anything at all?


Alcide Côté: I do not amend the law; parliament does that.


Harold Edward Winch: I am sorry; I did not hear that.


Charles Delmar Coyle: I said that I do not personally amend the law. It is parliament which is amending the law.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You bring in the bill.


Harold Edward Winch: If the Postmaster General can bring in an amendment, why does he not do it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: If the hon. member wishes to bring in an amendment, he can do it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of Trade and Commerce knows that it would be out of order. It is a money matter.
Post Office Act


Harold Edward Winch: On a point of order, can a private member in the House of Commons bring in an amendment which deals with revenue or expenditure?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Harold Edward Winch: Can I? I am asking. The Acting Prime Minister has said I can do it. This time I am asking you, Mr. Chairman, whether I as a private member have the right to bring in an amendment.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The hon. member should know that deciding points of order in advance is not within the competence of the chairman.


Mr. Ellis:: I should like to ask one question. Something was said today about the five-day week. This is one matter I do not think has been cleared up satisfactorily. The minister said the intention was to get casual help to deliver the mail on Saturdays. When I first learned the five-day week was going into effect I assumed that would mean that the Post Office would hire sufficient additional personnel to rotate the staff so regular postmen would be delivering mail each day.
I think this is a very important matter because, apart from the efficiency of the service, which would not be helped by bringing in people on a casual basis, the principle here is very important, as the hon. member for Comox-Alberni pointed out. I do not want to see this situation develop in the future that when postal employees ask for adjustments in wages they are told by the Postmaster General that if they want more money all they have to do is carry mail on Saturdays and work six days. I can see that situation developing. I think the five-day week means a five-day week, and that employees who are working a five-day week should be paid adequately for this period of employment.
I do not like a principle involved under which you are going to say to postal employees who work their five-day week that if they feel they want a little extra money they can come to work on Saturdays. I believe that as a general principle when overtime is worked it should be paid for.
The Depuiy Chairman: Order. I have tried to make it as clear as I could to the committee that in my view the merits or the demerits of the labour practices of the Post Office Department are not within the competence of discussion under this section. In so far as they bring about increased costs they are, but the results which may ensue to labour, in so far as labour practices are concerned, are not within the competence of

Post Office Act
a section which deals entirely with the rates on first-class mail. I think the committee as a whole would agree that that is a reasonable attitude to take, and I would ask the hon. gentleman not to follow that particular line of discussion.


Alfred Claude Ellis: You can understand what I was trying to get at, Mr. Chairman. One of the reasons advanced for the introduction of this bill had to do with the 40-hour week. Therefore I suggest that my remarks in connection with this matter are pertinent to the point under discussion. However, in deference to your ruling I shall not pursue this matter farther. But I do want to ask the Postmaster General this question and then I shall drop the matter. Is it the intention of the Post Office Department to continue indefinitely on the basis of employing casual help, or is it the intention of the Post Office Department, within a reasonable length of time, to recruit sufficient full-time personnel to institute the 40-hour week?


Alcide Côté: With deference to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, I may say to my hon. friend what I said before. This is a device that will permit every employee to have his Saturday off. The principle of the five-day 40-hour week is covered in this. Previously when people asked for it they thought that they should work only five days, 40 hours, and we are giving them exactly what they asked for; but to those who, having been granted this privilege, feel that they would like to work on Saturdays, we are not denying that opportunity.
Again I say that for the efficiency of the service it is more practical to hire some people who would work on Saturday only, because otherwise it would force every new employee to learn five, six or a dozen new walks every time. This would not be practical in the scheme I have outlined. I have already explained that the walks will be served by the same employees, except that on Saturday the employees taken on for that day will be accustomed to the walks and the efficiency of the service will not suffer.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Is the minister not aware of the fact that the normal practice is that where an employee is working a 40-hour week the time worked in addition to 40 hours is in effect overtime and should be paid for at overtime rates of pay, time and a half?


Alcide Côté: I shall not discuss that, Mr. Chairman. This is not a question of overtime. The principle of the five-day 40-hour week is that an employee should not work more than five days, 40 hours. He deserves a rest, and we are giving him a rest. The
[The Deputy Chairman.]
new employees who will come on will work the time necessary to do the job. I think I have said enough for my hon. friend to understand what I mean.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The Postmaster General
says this is on a voluntary basis. How can you call it a voluntary basis when the postmaster himself sends out questionnaires and says to his regular letter carriers, "Will you sign the enclosed questionnaire?" The questionnaire reads something like this: "Will you work on Saturdays for four hours? Will you work on Saturdays for eight hours at $1 per hour? If you will not work on Saturday you will be on call." Then there is a covering circular which says: "If you do not volunteer to work on Saturday, then you are at the call of the postmaster, and provided time can be made available to you to make up the time which you have given as overtime you will be compensated, but if not you will be paid." Is that a voluntary system?


Alcide Côté: Mr. Chairman-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I do not think I should allow the Postmaster General to answer the question, because it does not relate to the section we are dealing with. It is a question as to the way the Post Office Department treats its employees which, as I have said so often, will be open to discussion on the Postmaster General's estimates. I submit to the hon. member that the answer could not affect the rate charged on first-class matter, which is the subject we are discussing.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Nobody but the Postmaster General brought in the matter of the cost of instituting the five-day 40-hour week. The Postmaster General made a great point of the fact that this was the main reason for instituting an increase in rates. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that anything that is pertinent to the work of the employees is pertinent to this debate. And for a chairman or a Speaker to call members to order on a point which has been brought in by the Postmaster General is, in my opinion, distinctly unfair.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I hope I have made it clear to this committee before, and I shall endeavour to do so again, that any aspect of the 40-hour week which relates to the costs of the Post Office Department is certainly subject to discussion, but the treatment by the Post Office Department of its employees is not. I think the discussion we have had this evening and the long reply by the Postmaster General have shown to the committee that we have got a long way from the subject of increasing the cost of first-class mail.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, I think you are quite right. My remarks at the resolution stage were justified, when I asked the Postmaster General whether, when the rest of the civil service was given an increase in wages and was given the five-day 40-hour week, there was an increase in the charges for other services. The answer was no, there was not. But now the Post Office Department is instituting the five-day 40-hour week, and the word "cost" comes up. Now we must increase the postal rate because the post office must pay for this. That is all right. So the post office must pay for this, eh! We listened to what the hon. member for Vancouver East said tonight; and we have seen what this debate has shown, namely that there is a hidden subsidy to the T.C.A.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And to C.P.A.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: And to a good many others. There is the free postal service to departments that are dispensing all kinds of propaganda and departmental advertising to all and sundry, whether it is useful, whether it is welcome or not. Much of it finds its way immediately into the wastepaper basket, probably without even being opened. These are charges against the Post Office Department, yet the Postmaster General says that the post office must pay for this.
We said in the very first instance that the people of Canada do not expect the Post Office Department to pay for itself and in addition have to carry the huge load which it is being asked to carry, as has been shown by the debate so far.


Mr. Gillis:: Mr. Chairman, I want to say
a few words on this increase in the postage rates, with particular reference to the 40-hour week. The minister has based practically his whole argument for the increase in rates on the establishment of the 40-hour week, and he accepts the principle of the 40-hour week. It is hoped that the implementation of the 40-hour week will in no way impair the service; but the policy announced by the minister, and apparently agreed to by some of the critics I have listened to, is that the gap that will be caused by the establishment of the 40-hour week will be filled by casual labour or by students.
In my judgment the filling of the gap on Saturday with casual labour or with students will definitely impair the service. A survey conducted in the United States on the very same question led to the conclusion that it will take a casual employee twelve hours to do the work that is ordinarily done in eight hours by a regular 83276-120i
Post Office Act
employee. The object of the 40-hour week is to reduce hours, create more employment and at the same time in no way impair the efficiency of the service.
I wonder whether the minister would be prepared to do what was done in the United States under similar conditions, and what is agreed to by most of the people in the country I have heard express an opinion on this subject. That is, the post office should hire one person for every five walks there are in the postal department. After investigation in the United States this was the method they adopted to overcome the difficulty, and they found that their service was in no way impaired.
I think it is the answer to the difficulty in this country. The policy of putting in people who are not interested in the job, and who do not intend to stay there because they do not anticipate there will eventually be a place for them, will not meet the situation. On the other hand, if you hire one permanent employee for every five walks that you have across the country, a permanent employee who will be trained and will stay there, you will eliminate what I consider to be a waste of casual labour and so improve this public service.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, this will
be very brief. I wish to thank the Postmaster General for the offer he made this afternoon to take another look at the question of what happens in respect of these stamping machines that are used by various business firms.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Surely we have had that.
The minister said he was going to look into it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have as much time as
the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I was prepared to deal with this briefly, but if he wants to keep me going I shall be glad to accommodate him.
The point I wish to make, Mr. Chairman, is simply this. In my view the minister should take a look at this matter not merely because of his generous offer to do so, but because of something I have now found is in the act. On the basis of what I am going to read I believe those who drew this matter to my attention are perfectly justified in their request that the Post Office Department should pay more attention to the arrangements made between a company such as Pitney-Bowes and the firms who instal their stamping machines. In this connection I


Mr. Campbell:: In view of the statement made a few moments ago by the hon. member for Vancouver East I would like to ask the minister this question. Having regard to the fact that newspapers in towns with a population of 10,000 or under can send their newspapers free, what is the position of newspapers in small towns and villages which use fillers? Do they come under the same section?


Alcide Côté: Would my hon. friend please repeat his question? I am sorry, but I did not hear.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: What I want to know is if newspapers in small towns and villages, the ones which use fillers and have very little news except local items, can send their newspapers free.


Alcide Côté: I am sorry, but I do not understand what the hon. member means by "fillers". However, I may tell my hon. friend that if it is a regular newspaper with bona fide subscribers they are allowed free delivery up to 40 miles, but only when it is to a paid subscriber.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: May I ask the minister if that applies to weekly papers only, or does it apply to semi-weeklies?


Alcide Côté: Mr. Chairman, I think I can best answer the two hon. members who have asked questions on newspapers by quoting section 11, subsection 2, paragraph (c) which reads as follows:
(c) for those published once a week
(1) with a circulation of fifty thousand or more copies per issue, three cents for each pound weight or fraction thereof,
(ii)	with a circulation of less than fifty thousand but of ten thousand or more copies per issue, two and one-half cents for each pound weight or fraction thereof, and
(iii)	with a circulation of less than ten thousand copies per issue, one and one-half cents for each pound weight or fraction thereof,
[Mr. Knowles.1
Subject to the exception that two thousand five hundred copies per issue may be transmitted by mail free of postage within a distance of forty miles from its known place of publication in the case of a newspaper or periodical published in a city, town or village with a population of not more than ten thousand persons;


Frank Exton Lennard: Does that apply to semiweekly or daily newspapers?


Alcide Côté: Just weekly.


Frank Exton Lennard: Papers subscribed for.


Alcide Côté: There must be a bona fide subscription.


Frank Exton Lennard: And free distribution?


Alcide Côté: Yes, up to 2,500 copies.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: And that applies to semiweekly and daily newspapers?


Alcide Côté: No; weekly.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That is paid subscriptions only, is it?


Alcide Côté: Yes.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I should like to return to the matter I was discussing with the minister this afternoon. He has now had some time to consider what I was driving at. Perhaps he is now in a position to give me an answer.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Did you have dinner together?


Alistair McLeod Stewart: No. I think the minister was busy-at least I hope so- with this particular problem. You will recall that I wanted to know what the actual figures were of profit and loss in connection with first-class mail. This afternoon the minister was only able to give me percentages. Is he now in a position to give me actual figures?


Alcide Côté: I gave the percentage before dinner, namely 2 per cent. In money it would amount to approximately $2,600,000.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I disagree with the minister's calculation. Really, if the hon. gentleman can give me a percentage he can give me the figures, because that percentage is evolved from the figures.


Alcide Côté: I gave the percentage.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I am not
interested in the percentage; I want the figures. I am arguing that you are making a $5 million profit, and I am prepared to put my figures on the record. The minister says he makes $2 million profit. I ask him to put his figures on the record'. May I not have the figures?


Alcide Côté: I have already answered the question. If my hon. friend is not satisfied with the answer, I am sorry. I gave him 2 per cent; and the figure in money would amount to over $2,600,000.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Mr. Chairman, this 2 per cent is related to two figures, A and B. Let us be specific. I do not know what A and B are. I ask the minister this question. What is A and what is B? A-B is 2 per cent and it comes out at $2 million. What is A and what is B?


Harold Edward Winch: It sounds like the Social Credit A plus B theory.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the clause carry?


Erhart Regier: I am still looking for the reason this new tax is to be imposed on the Canadian people. We are given two supposedly good reasons. One was that the 40-hour week was to be introduced. We are now finding that it is only a Liberal 40-hour week, and has no relation to what is looked upon as a 40-hour week by those who are concerned. The other reason was that we were losing money because the post office is no longer in receipt of revenue from sales of stamps used on cheques. When the Postmaster General was asked why the house was not informed at the time the cheque tax was removed as to how much loss there would be to the Post Office Department, the answer was that they were unable to estimate the amount.
To me this situation seems odd, because we have figures available. Someone said to me there is no question that officials of our Canadian government cannot investigate and find answers to. However, leaving that point aside, we have statistics showing how many cheques are cleared through the banks each year, and we also have statistics showing the sales of regular excise tax stamps. Taking one from the other, it seems to me, should have given us a fairly accurate picture of how much money the post office was going to lose. I repeat that I cannot see an argument for this new tax.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the clause carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Those in favour-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, in closing the debate on second' reading the Postmaster General extended an invitation to me in terms which I must confess are not very clear.
Post Office Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: That has been true of this whole debate, as far as the government is concerned.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am interested in anything that might throw some light upon whether or not the Post Office Department could save money and thereby eliminate-to an extent, at any rate-the necessity for this increase. I was referring to a report made by the civil service commission some four years ago and referred to in the Woods and Gordon report. I asked the Postmaster General if he would allow me to go and look at it. I suggested that if he would not allow me to go and look at it I must conclude that the reason was that there were some things in it which the government wished to suppress.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You are entitled to your own conclusions.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In dealing with that request, as reported at page 1848 of Hansard, the Postmaster General said this:
I want only to answer one question which was directed to me by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). He asked me if I would extend to him the same courtesy I extended to the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace. He knows I always try and will always endeavour to extend the same courtesy to every hon. member in this house: but he will not blame me if. from now on. I am very cautious of those who come into my office with a dictaphone machine during my absence.
Now that I have the opportunity of following up that matter, I should like to know whether the Postmaster General would permit me-with or without a dictaphone-to go into his office, examine that report, make extracts from it and refer to the extracts in debate in the house.


Alcide Côté: Mr. Chairman, the house has already refused the tabling of this report for any hon. member. Therefore I do not think it would be fair, just or constitutionally legal to show this report to one member only and not to show it to all the members.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps the Postmaster General would extend an invitation to all the members of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The house has already refused production of the report.


An hon. Member:: The temporary Postmaster General.


Frank Exton Lennard: Now we know where we are.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not know why the Secretary of State raises that issue. I do not want to be out of order. The Secretary of State keeps raising issues which would make us get out of order. I am not asking that the report be tabled. I am asking whether I

Post Office Act
can go to the Postmaster General's office and see the report, or whether he wants to keep it secret. If the minister wants to keep it secret, I want to know why he does not want anyone else to see it.


Alcide Côté: The answer is no, because I have not the right or the power to show this report to my hon. friend.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is a new doctrine, Mr. Chairman. The government refused or indicated to the house that-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You did not speed things up last time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The house has already ruled that this document is privileged.


John George Diefenbaker: No.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend is now seeking to undo that ruling. With great respect, Mr. Chairman, I would say that he is out of order in pursuing this subject.


An hon. Member:: He is pursuing the minister.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Minister of National Health and Welfare is a good enough lawyer, I would have thought, to be able to appreciate the difference between the two projects. What I was asking on the former occasion was that the document be tabled in the house. The government took the position that it is a privileged document. I am not seeking to have that decision reversed at this time and the government, in fact, compelled to table it. But that does not mean to say the minister in whose possession the report is cannot allow an hon. member to go into his office and look at it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It would be most improper for him to do so.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is an entirely different matter. If the minister has reasons for not allowing us to look at it in his office, I should like to know them. What is there in the report that members of parliament should not see? This report was paid for with the taxpayers' money.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Maybe there are some horses in it.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The Minister of National Health and Welfare was certainly correct in raising the point of order, at least to the extent that the hon. member is reviving a subject which has been fully debated, and voted on in the house. May I point out to

the committee once again that, though not unanimously, the house passed the motion for second reading of this bill, thus adopting in principle the bill which we are discussing. Clause 1 of the bill, dealing with rates of postage on certain letters, is now before the committee for discussion.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is exactly what I am discussing. It was laid down at the outset of the debate that anything having a bearing upon the cost of the Post Office Department, the cost of giving service, was in order in discussing the reasons for the increase in rates that we are now specifically asked to vote.
In the course of the debate a report has been tabled which indicates that there is another report which recommends certain administrative changes in the Post Office Department. The terms of the Woods and Gordon report make it quite clear that in their opinion the implementation of this other report would have the effect of saving money. What I am asking is not that the house should reverse its previous decision as to the tabling of that report. All I am asking is whether a member of parliament can see that report, because it was compiled at the expense of the people of Canada. It deals with the administration of a department supported by the taxpayers of Canada, and I want to know what is in that report that the government and the Postmaster General will not let me see, and why it is that a member of parliament representing the taxpayers should not be allowed to see the report. There is nothing in those questions which seeks to reverse a previous decision of this house.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. The question having been raised as a point of order, it is my ruling, from which I would remind the hon. member that he may appeal, that the hon. member is asking for a report the production of which has been discussed and voted on at this session, and that therefore the subject is not one which can be discussed at this stage of our discussion of the act to amend the Post Office Act.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: With respect to the matter on which the hon. member for Winnipeg North tried to get some information, I now have the charts published a year ago in the annual report. One chart showing receipts gives the revenue from ordinary letters as 46 cents out of each dollar. Another chart showing disbursements has a figure of 29 cents for ordinary letters and 10J cents for air mail, in connection with which I note there is a loss. However, adding the figures in the chart of receipts of 46 cents for ordinary letters and 5f cents for air mail, I get 51J cents out of every dollar. If you add the

disbursement figures of 29 cents and 10J cents you get 39J cents. That means a profit of 12J cents on every dollar from the handling of first-class and air mail.
I wonder if the Postmaster General would explain why there has been such a deterioration in one year in the profit on the handling of first-class mail. On the basis of the figures presented a year ago it would appear that the handling of first-clag$ mail resulted in a profit of $14,997,148.10. I think it would be helpful if at some point the Postmaster General could explain what, if anything, was wrong with these figures presented a year ago, and why there should be such a change in the relative position of ordinary mail in one year's time.


Harold Edward Winch: Why is there a difference of approximately $12 million in just over one year?


Charles Delmar Coyle: If my hon. friend will consider the receipts according to the revenue and expenditure chart he will see that the 6-7 per cent revenue for air mail has now totally disappeared. It is all gone.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: But it would appear from these figures that there was a net of 12J cents out of every dollar on the handling of first-class mail and air mail combined.


Alcide Côté: But we are considering now conditions in the year to come, not in the year past.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: But why in one year's time-


Alcide Côté: Because we will not have these revenues in the chart to the right, the 6 [DOT] 7 per cent. Those will disappear altogether.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I understand that the figures the Postmaster General gave the hon. member for Winnipeg North were based on the last year available. My question involves going back one year more and taking the figures that were presented in the annual report a year ago. At that time post office first-class mail apparently earned a net profit of 12J cents on each dollar. The difference is about $12 million. I wish the Postmaster General could explain why the profit on handling first-class mail was reduced by $12 million in one year.


Charles Delmar Coyle: I simply cannot figure something that I do not have for the coming year and that I did have last year.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am using the annual report of the Postmaster General for the year ended March 31, 1952.


Charles Delmar Coyle: That is two years ago.
Post Office Act


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: It would appear that the net profit on first-class mail was $14,997,148.10. The figure the Postmaster General gave the hon. member for Winnipeg North apparently was something over $2 million on his basis.


Harold Edward Winch: Under the same circumstances.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Under the same circumstances.


Mr. Hamilton:: Mr. Chairman-


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The Postmaster General is trying to get an answer.


Charles Delmar Coyle: I can only reiterate the answer I have already given. The situation of two years ago does not apply because for the coming year we are losing entirely what we had two years ago.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: How did
you lose $12 million in a year on the same service? Is there something wrong with the Post Office Department that there should be a $12 million loss? I do not think so. The minister has not answered the hon. member for Mackenzie at all. The minister told me that for the past year the profit on first-class mail was $2 million. The year before it apparently was about $14 million. Why was there this drop of $12 million? We are dealing with what has happened and therefore with facts. We are not dealing with the future.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The annual report a year ago contained this chart of the breakdown of the Canadian postal dollar into receipts from ordinary letters, air mail, newspapers and periodicals, printed matter, parcel post both domestic and foreign, registration, money orders and others. Apparently the post office has an efficient accounting system and was able to determine two years ago how much out of every dollar of revenue was applicable to each of these categories. Likewise disbursements are divided into ordinary letters, air mail, newspapers and periodicals, printed matter, parcel post both domestic and foreign, registration, money orders, free mail and others.
I think there should 'be some explanation. The last annual report contains a comparison of annual financial results for the past 20 years, and in only two of those years did the post office show a deficit. When this report was published apparently the surplus was over $6 million. I think there should be some explanation of why there was this drop in one year's time. Receipts from ordinary letters apparently were 46 cents out of every dollar and disbursements were 29 cents. On that item there is quite a marked difference. With respect to air mail, the figure for receipts was 5| cents and for disbursements
18S6

Post Office Act
102 cents. But if you take the two together the figure for receipts is 51} cents and the figure for disbursements is 39J cents, or a difference of 12} cents which is profit. I have taken the figures on the previous page showing total revenue of $122 million, and if my arithmetic is not too far out it shows a profit of $14,979,000. There should be some explanation as to why that position has deteriorated by $12 million in one year.


Alcide Côté: I believe I have some figures which should satisfy the hon. member, if he recalls the chart which he saw before the recess. He will recall that we are going to lose between 46 and 47 per cent of the $7-5 million for excise stamps, which makes $3,600,000. We are going to lose also over 6 per cent of the whole revenue by dropping air mail fees which amounts to $7,930,000, making a total of $11,530,000.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The Postmaster General is not discussing my point. I am considering first-class mail, not the difference in regard to excise tax.


Alcide Côté: This all belongs to first-class mail, and in the breakdown it is all included in that.


John George Diefenbaker: I wonder if one might break in and ask the minister a question which possibly he would not have such difficulty in answering. This is one of the things that shows the advantage of such a debate. It gives the people an opportunity to ask questions. I have just received a telegram from Prince Albert which was sent at 5.59 p.m., and which reads:
Our information Prince Albert not included in 40-hour week. Please protest.
I want to vary the order of things, Mr. Chairman, by making a protest and at the same time trying to secure some information. I understand that the reason for this pronounced elevation in the price of postage is the fact that the 40-hour week is to be instituted.
That is a major matter. Why are certain communities eliminated from this proposal? I appreciate the explanation that was given this afternoon that certain cities are eliminated because of the fact that industry has not adopted the 40-hour week. But surely that is not a reason for this elimination. Is it a fact that in Prince Albert and in various other cities in western Canada, postal workers are to be denied the advantage of this 40-hour week because industry has not seen fit to introduce this measure? Surely you are not going to raise postage all over Canada in order to benefit only certain postal workers.

I wish the minister would give a full answer to this question. It is not a difficult problem. It does not require a knowledge of complex financial tables. It is a simple question. Why should the mail carriers and other postal employees in Prince Albert be denied equality in the matter of the 40-hour week? How many cities in Saskatchewan are in this position? How many in western Canada?


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is a chance for the Minister of Finance to extend that list.


John George Diefenbaker: After all, Mr. Chairman, this elevation in the rate of postage is caused, we are told, by the introduction of the 40-hour week. This is a major consideration. Why should the matter be determined on a geographical basis? I should like a full answer. It does not require any study of statistics or the manipulation of figures or a knowledge of vast amounts. It is a simple question. Is there this discrimination? If so, why; and is it going to be alleviated?


Douglas Charles Abbott: As an expert on the five-day week, Mr. Chairman, perhaps I might be able to enlighten the hon. member. As I have had occasion to say in this house on a number of occasions when announcing the introduction of the five-day week amongst the clerical grades of the civil service, the government's policy has been to introduce that practice in communities in which it is the prevailing practice amongst private employers; that is the rule. We do not lead the way in introducing the five-day week in communities, but we follow the practice of good employers there. This practice has been followed for the clerical employees.
The civil service commission and the personnel section of the treasury board are now studying the extension of the five-day week to post office employees. I am assuming a similar principle will be followed with respect to that class of government employees as is being followed with respect to clerical employees. I do not know about Prince Albert. I am hoping that the civil service commission will have at least a preliminary list available before very long. As I said before, it is a big administrative job to work this out for the post office. I do not know as yet whether Prince Albert is in or out. The principle is very simple.


John George Diefenbaker: It is a complete lack of principle. If labour is entitled to this, it is entitled to it everywhere in Canada. If the 40-hour week is to be established, then why should it be within the power of any board, any minister or any group to determine that it shall apply here and not there?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The civil service commission determines. It investigates and finds out what is the practice in the community.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not care whether or not the civil service commission determines it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: You said a minister did.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, sometimes I wonder whether some of these commissions do determine things without the assistance or connivance of a minister.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend can turn around as rapidly as anybody else.


John George Diefenbaker: That is quite all right.
I am asking the Postmaster General whether or not he adheres to this principle that the five-day week should apply only in those particular communities where it is the practice?


Alcide Côté: On the basis of prevailing practice, and as already explained by the Minister of Finance.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It applies to the post office the same as to other government employees.


John George Diefenbaker: I am asking on behalf of those employees who are requesting information. They ask why they should be discriminated against, why should it be determined that certain ones shall have this and not others, if the principle is good? I am asking the Postmaster General-after all, he is in charge of the department-whether or not he adheres to that belief or whether he is doing anything to assure that equality will be established in his department.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Is the Postmaster General going to answer the hon. member?


Alcide Côté: He has already been answered.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: If no further answer is forthcoming, Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks arising out of the statement made by the Minister of Finance.
I can understand that the minister would feel the government should follow the practice adopted in the various centres, without feeling that is necessarily fair to all employees in the government. Nevertheless, assuming that is the principle and that the government is following the lead of industry in these centres, I think that highlights a point which we made earlier today. If the government is following the lead of industry in instituting the five-day 40-hour week in the centres in which it is the practice, then why is it the government departs from the practice of industry and proceeds to make arrangements to hire casual labour to fill in the dead spot in the six-day week? Why
Post Office Act
not follow the practice of labour and rotate the staff, giving everyone an equal opportunity under this new scheme?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall clause 1 carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Colin Cameron: I have been feeling somewhat sorry for the Postmaster General for some time, but never so sorry as when the Minister of Finance came to his rescue. I wonder whether the Postmaster General has been saying to himself, "God preserve me from my friends", because we have been told by the minister that he must increase the postal rates, first because of the removal of the three-cent excise tax on cheques. The Minister of Finance says, "Nonsense; that has nothing to do with it."
The only other argument of the Postmaster General was as to the implementation of the 40-hour five-day week. The Minister of Finance gets up and tells us, "Nonsense; we don't know yet how far that will extend." So just what has been the basis for the Postmaster General's figures?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the clause carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.


William McLean Hamilton: There was another figure the Postmaster General used on February 4, when in his remarks he said:
-in presenting this report the firm of business consultants estimated that in terms of salaries and additional staff required, increased amounts of approximately $300,000 per annum at headquarters and approximately $400,000 in the field would be required if and when the recommendations were adopted-
That represents quite a sizeable amount in the post office budget. It might have a bearing on the increase. In the report to which the Postmaster General refers I can find no reference whatsoever to these figures. I was wondering whether the hon. gentleman would enlighten us as to where he got them, because I would like to have a chance to see whether they actually are available to the public generally.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall clause 1
carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace asked a question, and I think he is entitled to an answer. If the minister does not intend to answer him, there are several of us who have other questions to ask.

Post Office Act


Mr.   Coie@: If I may have a chance I will reply.


An hon. Member:: Give him a chance.


John George Diefenbaker: Do it yourself, without the help of the cabinet, or yoi* will not get along very well.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Several of the ministers over there have not helped you out yet tonight.


Mr.   Coie@: The J. D. Woods and Gordon report made a few recommendations. The amounts indicated are as follows:
Estimated cost (per annum)
1 Director of personnel at $10,000 $10,000
Clerical stenographer	 4,000

8	Chief superintendents at $9,000 $72,000 Engineering clerical assistance 8
at $3,000	 24,000

9	Additional superintendents at
$7,000	 $63,000
Building division, methods and time study division, inquiries division, motor vehicle division, verification division, statistical and office services, personnel division, employee services division, staff training division.
Clerical and stenographic assistance at $3,000	 27,000

2	Special	investigators	at	$6,500	13,000
Methods and time study division:
4 Time study analysts at $6,000 $24,000 8 Time study analysts at $5,000	40,000
Clerical and stenographic assistance 12 at $3,000	 36,000

Budgets	and	statistics,	motor
vehicle, personnel development and employee services divisions
15 at $3,000	 $45,000

Field service
60 Area superintendents	at $6,000	$360,000
3 Special investigators at $6,000	 18,000
10 Personnel officers at	$5,000	 50,000
(Other positions will be filled by existing mail transportation officers-
Public relations officers and inspectors.)	$428,000
14 Increase in salaries of district directors
at $1,000	 14,000

If my hon. friend goes back and reads the report again he will find that these figures are quite moderate. When J. D. Woods and Gordon said that in the long run we would make economies, they also said that we would have to spend a considerable amount of money in implementing these recommendations, and that only in years to come would we be able to improve the service and 
possibly make some economies. I presume that these details answer the hon. member's question.


William McLean Hamilton: I have been interested in the figures submitted by the minister. Are they his own calculations drawn from the report, or is this a statement that has been submitted to him by Woods and Gordon?


Alcide Côté: I shall quote from the summary of the report of J. D. Woods and Gordon. It states:
One of the first steps should be the appointment of a personnel director. He should be supplied with a small staff possibly borrowed from some of the other branches and immediately undertake a study of the following matters:
(i)	Personnel available for immediate appointment to the new positions.
(ii)	Personnel who, after training, would be suitable for appointment to the new positions and the training they will require.
(iii)	What positions will have to be filled from outside the department.
The various changes in organization suggested in the report are set out below by branches with comments as to the timing.
Operations branch
(a)	Chief superintendent-engineering-A man should be obtained from outside the service to fill this vacancy. It can be filled as soon as a suitable candidate is available. There is no need to delay any other moves in the interval.
(b)	Mechanical engineering division-This position should be filled either from outside the service or possibly by one of the engineers from the major post offices. The balance of the staff should be recruited either outside or from within the department but at least one engineer should come from one of the major post offices. This division can be organized as soon as personnel are available.
(c)	Methods and time study division.-
I could read the whole report. I think this should answer my hon. friend. I do not want to annoy my hon. friend by reading the report, but what I summarized in my report was taken from the summary of J. D. Woods and Gordon themselves. We have quoted the amounts of money according to the civil service commission schedules and proper figures for this kind of work.
If my hon. friend insists I shall keep on reading. I could read six pages-


William McLean Hamilton: I am trying, sir, to understand clearly the words the minister used on February 4 when he said that a firm of business consultants estimated something. As I understand the reply of the minister now, they included in their report certain figures. He has added them up; he has correlated them, and he estimates that this is going to be the result. If that is so, I should like to know it, because this is something which is directly opposed to what he said in his original remarks when he said that this firm made this estimate.


Charles Delmar Coyle: The firm set up the positions, as I have already mentioned. The money figures were not given by J. D. Woods and Gordon, but they are figures which correspond to the positions suggested by J. D. Woods and Gordon.


Mr. Noseworihy:: Before we pass on I
wonder whether the minister will answer the question raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton South. Has the department given consideration to hiring one full-time regular employee for every five walks instead of taking on casual help? Has that been given serious consideration, or will it be given serious consideration?


Charles Delmar Coyle: I do not know whether I am in order, but I will answer the question in this way. We always consider all sides of any question. I may add that the casual workers we are employing are giving satisfaction, and we hope we shall have satisfactory service given under the scheme of the department which we have talked about today.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I am not thinking so
much of the attitude of the casual employees as I am of the attitude of the regular employees. What will be their attitude toward the department? I want to tell the minister, from what I know of post office employees, that the post office is considered one of the poorest employers of labour in this country. Only a year ago the whole service was disrupted by the change in daily deliveries, and you are going to disrupt again if you are going to take on casual employees.


Charles Delmar Coyle: I am very much surprised by what my hon. friend has just said, because on second reading he complimented the Post Office Department in laudatory terms. I remember having thanked him at the time. He is saying something different now. He may rest assured that we shall not overlook any suggestion. We are considering all suggestions made, and this is one of the problems that has taken up a lot of our time. But so far we have decided to do as I have already explained today.


Mr. Hamillon:: Mr. Chairman, I return to my original question. I know you did not see me rise to ask one more question; but I heard the Postmaster General say that the figures are not the figures of J. D. Woods and Gordon but they correspond to those in the report. Was that what the minister said?


Charles Delmar Coyle: No, I did not say that, Mr. Chairman. I said that J. D. Woods and Gordon have indicated the positions which were to be filled. The figures are not the
Post Office Act
figures of J. D. Woods and Gordon but are figures which are mentioned which would correspond with the jobs done by people who fill these positions.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, the Postmaster General has just repeated his statement that the figures are not the figures of J. D. Woods and Gordon but they would correspond, and so forth. In other words, when the Postmaster General made the statement that the firm of business consultants estimated those salaries and so on, we now find that that was not strictly in accord with the facts. The Post Office Department took certain information and made their own estimate, Mr. Chairman, as I understand what the Postmaster General has just told us. I should like to know whether the hon. gentleman agrees with that, that he took certain figures from J. D. Woods and Gordon and made his own estimate. That is not quite what was said on February 4, at page 1765 of Hansard.


Charles Delmar Coyle: Mr. Chairman, I cannot give my hon. friend an understanding. J. D. Woods and Gordon indicated some jobs to be implemented in the Post Office Department. To those jobs corresponding amounts of money were assigned, which would have to be paid to fill the jobs. That is what I meant when I made the statement referred to by my hon. friend.


Frank Exton Lennard: I have a question to ask the minister in connection with third-class circular letters. Since they have been raised from one cent to two cents what is the profit or loss on the operation? I am not going to take my seat until I get an answer.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member expects a quick answer.


Frank Exton Lennard: While the minister is looking for the answer he is about to give, may I say that in the 15 years that I have been a member of parliament this is the first time I have ever seen from 12 to 15 cabinet ministers backing up a minister at this stage of a bill. It must be embarrassing. I might also say that every time one of them interjects something we go on for another 15 minutes.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order.


Joseph William Noseworthy: He needs their help.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is the
longest speech 1 have ever heard the hon. member make.


Frank Exton Lennard: If the minister stays here he might hear some more.
1S00

Post Office Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is even somebody in the Prime Minister's seat.


Frank Exton Lennard: I am not one of those long-winded birds, but I do speak occasionally.


Alcide Côté: I am sorry to have to tell my hon. friend that circulars are not segregated. We have only the entire amount for the whole third-class mail.


Frank Exton Lennard: What are these figures?


Alcide Côté: The revenues are 15J per cent and the expenditures are 12-25 per cent.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Oh, Mr. Chairman; first of all we get percentages. Then when we ask for a further explanation of percentages we get dollars and cents, and then when we try to figure out the dollars and cents and percentages we are told that we are off the beam; we cannot calculate our percentages. It goes all the way from the $13 million profit on first-class mail which I calculated on the gross to the $5 million which the hon. member for Winnipeg North mentioned, down to $2 million which the minister insisted on.
Now we are back again on percentages. Can we not get down to any kind of a reasonable medium here? The hon. member for Wentworth asked the minister how much he made when he increased the second-class mail from one cent to two cents. What does 12-7 or 15J per cent mean? How many dollars and cents?


George Randolph Pearkes: What is your grandmother's age?


Frank Exton Lennard: Apparently they made money right along the line. There has not been one classification which has lost money, from what 1 have heard today.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall clause 1 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, clause 1 has not been carried.


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member for Hamilton East-


Ellen Louks Fairclough: West, Mr. Chairman.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Go west, Mr. Chairman.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, we seem to be getting no place fast.


Alcide Côté: How right you are.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: In fact, there are so many tag-ends left dangling it is hard to tell exactly where we are. I suspect we are no place at all. The last answer which the minister gave to the hon. member for Wentworth is either purposely misleading, which I hesitate-
(Mr. Lennard.]


Alcide Côté: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member should withdraw the word "purposely".


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, I gladly withdraw. I am becoming so used to the thin skins of government members that I would hesitate to cause them any inconvenience or worry. If my remark does not meet with the minister's approval, then I am very sorry. I withdraw it. I must say, though, it amazes me-just amazes me-the things they can dish out and the things they cannot take. It seems to me we are getting-


Clarence Decatur Howe: It's wonderful to be a woman.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It seems to me we are
getting to be a very namby-pamby crew. When I read some of the Hansards of a few years ago-


An hon. Member:: Wait until you read tonight's Hansard.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: -when the speeches were enlivened by odd pungent remarks, and I reflect on more recent proceedings, it seems to me this house is losing its character, particularly when members cannot indulge in ordinary remarks which are likely to slip out in the heat of debate without being called to order. One is continually circumscribed-


An hon. Member:: Carried.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No, don't get excited. The last objection is just typical, Mr. Chairman. I have been called many things in the course of my life and I cannot remember ever objecting too strenuously to them. I remember a man a few years ago who invented an automobile-


An hon. Member:: A what?


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: -and many things were said about that automobile. People referred to it as a little "tin Lizzie" and talked about parking it under the kitchen sink; but when these many and various remarks were brought back to him he said: "Pay no attention. Every knock is a boost." I believe that is perfectly true, and I can see no reason why gentlemen who are supposed to have the necessary experience to fit them for cabinet posts in this government should be so sensitive to the odd remark passed in this house.
I have no intention of digressing further from the bill itself. Here we have a bill which sets out to substantially increase the postal rates. There has been a great deal of talk about the one cent increase, but section

10 (a) of this bill sets out the provision that for each letter for delivery within the postal area in which it is posted there will be a charge of four cents for the first ounce or fraction of an ounce, and two cents for each additional ounce or fraction of an ounce.
The old rate was three cents for the first ounce and one cent for each additional ounce, so in this instance we have an increase of 33J per cent on the first ounce, and on the second ounce we have an increase of 50 per cent in the postal rate. On the third ounce for local delivery we have an increase of 60 per cent. Now, Mr. Chairman, that is a sizeable increase which no one can shrug off.
If we go on to subsection (b) of section 10 we deal with letters posted within one postal area for delivery within another postal area. The rates here have risen from four cents for the first ounce plus two cents for each additional ounce to five cents for the first ounce plus three cents for each additional ounce. On the first ounce the increase in postage is 25 per cent and on the second ounce the increase is 33J per cent. On the third ounce the increase in postage is 37g per cent.
It seems very peculiar to me, Mr. Chairman, that on a simple little postcard, ordinary souvenir mail sent by many people to their friends as a token of esteem, there should be an increase in the rates of 25 per cent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: 
Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes, an immediate
increase of 33J per cent. Earlier this evening the minister many times mentioned the matter of subsidization. I think it is about time we asked ourselves quite candidly who is being subsidized. The minister stood up in this house the other evening and in virtuous tones and high-flown language decried the tendency of opposition members toward subsidization. But this evening we heard from the hon. member for Vancouver East with regard to certain classes of mail which go free of charge. We have tried hard to nail down the actual profit made on first-class mail which would, if we could discover the actual amount, disclose the subsidy which is paid in the case of second and third-class mail.
Once more I must bring to the attention of this house the subsidization of various departments of government in the matter of free mail. I have mentioned it several times, and I am sure hon. members are tired of hearing it. I am tired of saying it, but I shall have to say it so long as this debate continues. We have the subsidization of the carriers, T.C.A. in particular, yet the minister stands up and in righteous tones says we should not have a subsidized mail service.
Post Office Act
Mr. Chairman, if there is one section of our mail which is not subsidized, it is the first-class mail. The first-class mail is paying its own way. What happens to the rest of the mail I do not know. I have not been able to discover the answer to that question, and no other member of the house has been able to discover it. The fact of the matter is, however, that the first-class mail is paying its own way. Yet the proposal of this government is to increase the charges on the first-class mail in order to make it pay for the cost to the Post Office Department of the rest of the mail, the subsidy to T.C.A. and to all the other departments of government.
A couple of years ago the department decided to curtail the delivery service on residential walks, to one a day in urban centres. This curtailment was put into effect and we waited in vain to find out what the saving was. We never did find out whether or not there was any saving. As a matter of fact, in the first year of that operation it looked very much as though the government had lost money, what with the difficulties that were encountered, the extra equipment that was purchased particularly in the way of the storage bins which, I understand from the minister's remarks earlier, were confused with garbage tins, with the consequent result that mail was posted in garbage tins instead of in postage boxes; the adjustment of residential walks and the dislocation of business; the ultimate protests which came in and the endeavours to correct the situation, and subsequently the reversion in some areas to two daily walks. We never have been able to find out whether the department saved money or lost money. It is my opinion they lost money. It is my opinion that it was a glaring example of mismanagement. These are the things that we have known about and that have been thrown in our laps for some time. Now the department comes along and says, "We must have another cent an ounce on all first-class mail in order to pay the cost of the department". Why? Why on first-class mail?


An hon. Member:: Why not?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The first-class mail is the only mail which is really paying its own way, yet the department say they must have an increase with regard to that mail. Until such time as the Postmaster General has proved his case, and until such time as he can give the House of Commons the answers to questions which he has studiously avoided answering, I submit that we cannot support any increase in the rates on the first-class mail which is paying its own way. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we shall continue to oppose this bill just as we have opposed it right along.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the clause carry?
1S02

Post Office Act


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Coming into force.
William Alfred Robinson: Shall clause 2 carry?


Mr. Harris:: No. Was the minister not going to move an amendment?


An hon. Member:: He cannot move an amendment to his own bill.


Alcide Côté: Yes. We have received an application from the periodical press association. As the act now reads, the newspaper or periodical may mail a newspaper or magazine only at the place of its publication. It has been suggested to us-and some complaints have been received-that in some circumstances it would delay the reception of the newspaper or the magazine at some centres. For instance, if a newspaper in Toronto is ready for delivery at four o'clock-I am only giving a hypothetical example-and the train leaves at six o'clock, the paper would be delivered in London, for instance, or some other place, only very late that night or even the next morning. Hence the periodicals have made representations.
The last time they came to see us they asked if we could, in some circumstances, grant the right to mail at one or more points than the place of publication. It is another possible avenue of saving because we would, in these circumstances, be spared the transportation. We have no objection to the suggestion. I have had the officials of the department look into the matter and we would agree to the proposed amendment. Section 11 of the act now reads as follows:
11. (1) A newspaper or periodical that . . .
(d)	is posted by the publisher within the postal area in which the place of its office of publication is situated;
It could be amended by substituting for paragraph (d) a paragraph which would read as follows:
(d) is posted by the publisher within
(i)	the postal area in which the place of its office of publication is situated, or
(ii)	some other postal area approved by the Postmaster General upon his being satisfied that the posting of the newspaper or periodical within such other postal area will promote greater convenience in the distribution thereof and that the application of this section to the newspaper or periodical when so posted will not adversely affect the postal revenues; and
Of course it is my bill, but if my colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will move the amendment I shall be obliged to him. It does not involve any money at all. It is only a minor amendment. It would
'The Chairman.]
have the effect of speeding the delivery of newspapers and periodicals. We have no objection to it.


Walter Edward Harris: I so move. Will the minister circulate copies for the convenience of the opposition?


Alcide Côté: Yes.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: May I ask under which clause this amendment is being made?


William Alfred Robinson: Perhaps if I read the amendment it might be clearer to hon. members.
That clause 2 of Bill No. 168 be renumbered as clause 3, and that the following clause be inserted as clause 2:
2. Paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of section 11 of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(d) is posted by the publisher within
(i)	the postal area in which the place of its office of publication is situated, or
(ii)	some other postal area approved by the Postmaster General upon his being satisfied that the posting of the newspaper or periodical within such other postal area will promote greater convenience in the distribution thereof and that the application of this section to the newspaper or periodical when so posted will not adversely affect the postal revenues; and"


Stanley Howard Knowles: After the other things that have happened in the course of this legislation being put through parliament, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that it is a piece of impertinence to offer this to us at this stage. In the resolution preceding the bill we had no indication that anything like this would be included. We had no suggestion at any point in the remarks of the Postmaster General that anything like this was up the government's sleeve.
As a matter of fact, from this side of the house we have had many complaints-from the hon. member for Winnipeg North and other members of this group in particular- against the leniency, latitude and subsidizing which has been accorded by the Post Office Department to the publishers of periodicals. We have felt that if any change was to be made in section 11 of the Post Office Act it should be to reduce the extent to which the post office is subsidizing newspapers and periodicals, and subsidizing advertisers in those newspapers and periodicals.
Instead of some attention being paid by the government to the arguments that have been made on the floor of the house, the minister now stands up seven minutes before we are to quit tonight and tells us that there have been representations, not from members of parliament, not from the people's representatives, but representations behind closed doors to cabinet ministers that something be done to make it still easier for the publishers of newspapers and periodicals.


Charles Delmar Coyle: It would save us some money.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: We do not
have a copy of the amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Surely the minister's statement is one we should have the right to look into. The example the minister gave might be a case where some money would be saved. The Toronto Daily Star could use its own trucks to carry its papers to London, Ontario, or somewhere else, and I suppose the minister's argument is that the amount of handling by the Post Office Department might be reduced. But the result is that the Toronto Daily Star might be able to say to the people of London, Ontario, "We are going to get our paper to you that much quicker". Therefore they will be able to increase their circulation, and there will be more copies of that paper being put through a second post office at a subsidized rate. That is the kind of thing that can happen.
I submit that these newspapers are not making this request out of their desire to save money for the government, but are making it because it is something that will be to their advantage. I submit that it is an impertinence to present this amendment to the House of Commons at this stage of the debate. Did the matter just come to the minister's attention at supper time tonight? If not, why-


Charles Delmar Coyle: It was not requested by the newspapers at all. It was requested by the periodicals. It is merely a case of facilitating the circulation and transportation of the newspaper or magazine. As far as we are concerned it may be more advantageous to the department, because we will save some money. My friend should be logical. He suggested that we should save money on second-class mail. This is one case where he should see a way to save some money on second-class mail. This is a good occasion for him to indicate that he wants to save money on such mail. As far as we are concerned, we only want to facilitate and expedite newspapers and periodicals and at the same time not lose any money on transportation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Postmaster General says that this request comes not from the newspapers but from the periodicals. I think he owes it to the house to tell us what periodicals have made this request. He is still telling us that there will be a saving to the government. I repeat my assertion that I am perfectly satisfied that the newspapers or periodicals have not made this request by reason of their desire to save money for the country, but have made it because it involves an advantage to them.
Post Office Act
The Postmaster General tries to say that because we want to save money upon this class of mail we should accept his suggestion and the suggestion of the periodical publishers that this will do it. The hon. member for Vancouver East suggested one way in which this loss could be reduced. If the Postmaster General wants a further suggestion from me, may I say that I have read the whole of section 11 of the act, which is now before us if this amendment is in order, and there are rates in that section that should be increased. I contend that we are already losing too much in terms of post office revenue because of the way we are subsidizing newspapers and periodicals and in turn subsidizing advertisers in those newspapers and periodicals.
In view of the other things that have happened in the house today, and as no attention has been paid to requests from members on this side of the house with respect to section 11 of the act, I submit it is going a little bit too far at this hour to drag in such an amendment which is presented at the request of certain periodicals.
We are, of course, in a difficult position. My colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North has pointed out that we do not even have a copy of the amendment. The leader of the Social Credit group points out that they have not received a copy. The page boy said a moment ago that the Postmaster General had only two copies, and one had to go to Hansard and one to the chairman. Did the Leader of the Opposition get one? Well, he does get favours around here sometimes. But here we are being asked to discuss an amendment when only one or two people in the house have a copy of the amendment before them.
I submit that the very least the Postmaster General should do, the very least the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration as house leader should do-I see he is agreeing with me-is to agree to allow this matter to stand over until tomorrow. Perhaps I can move that the committee rise and report progress.


Walter Edward Harris: We appreciate the assistance of the hon. member, but I hope we are still capable of running the government and the house. Nevertheless I quite agree that it would not be fair to expect hon. members to pass on the amendment without having an opportunity to see it. Had we reached this period a little earlier in the evening, and had there been some time available to look at it during the past hour, I might have suggested that we do as we did the other day,

Post Office Act
pass it in committee on the understanding that third reading would not be called. But there is not time to do that now.
My hon. friend asked one question. As I understand it, he wanted a list of the periodicals that had made representations. I believe the Postmaster General was on his feet two or three times in an effort to read them to my hon. friend, but the hon. member felt that he had other things to say in the meantime. If that is the case, I suggest that the Postmaster General might read the list for the information of hon. members, and then we could report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Alcide Côté: Mr. Chairman, the requests were made by the periodical press association. Some of their magazines are Maclean's, New Liberty, Canadian Homes and Gardens.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The association speaks on behalf of the whole group, does it?


Douglas Charles Abbott: They have made representations to us for several years.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have been making representations on the floor of parliament for a long time.


Charles Delmar Coyle: Canadian Magazine, National Home Monthly-all the magazines which fall under the association.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Does it mention newspapers?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Life, Time, Esquire?


Alcide Côté: Those are not Canadian magazines.


Douglas Charles Abbott: They are part of the problem of Canadian magazines.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are we not to be given the entire list?


Mr. Maclnnis:: I think it would serve the purpose if the minister would have the list printed in Hansard and not read it in the house.


Alcide Côté: I will. It was the executives of the periodical association who came here. I think there were five or six of them. I could not give their names, but they were the executives of the periodical association.


Donald MacInnis: Give us the names of the periodicals for which they were making representations.


Alcide Côté: I will.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us get this clear, because we will have to deal with the matter tomorrow. These representations were on behalf of periodicals only.


Alcide Côté: Periodicals.


Douglas Charles Abbott: This is of no value to daily newspapers at all.


Alcide Côté: The periodical press association, agricultural press, business newspapers association and magazine publishers' association.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I point out that the terms of the amendment would extend this privilege to newspapers as well as periodicals.


Alcide Côté: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of Finance does not seem to realize that.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is of no benefit to
newspapers.
Clause stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, we shall call third reading of the amendment to the Senate and House of Commons Act first tomorrow. Then we shall continue with this debate. If we have concluded it by four o'clock, we shall call the amendment to the Salaries Act. If we have not, we shall go on with the resolutions in the names of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Fisheries, and follow the program I laid out on Friday night.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, February 9, 1954