1957-03-08

RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES

[Stage Direction]
Fifth and sixth reports of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. *-Mr. McCulloch (Pictou).


Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that the United States and Canada have agreed on March 19 as the date for a preliminary meeting in Ottawa on the subject of waters crossing the boundary. The meeting will be to establish the agenda and the framework for the discussions.
The U.S.A. group will be headed by a representative of the corps of engineers of the United States army, and it will include three or four officials of the state department.
The Canadian group will be headed by Mr. E. A. Cote, assistant deputy minister of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, and will comprise two officials of the Department of External Affairs, an official of the Department of Trade and Commerce, and Mr. Lloyd MacCallum, the legal adviser to the international joint commission.


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: May I ask the minister whether any provision is being made for the province of British Columbia to have at least an unofficial representative at this meeting?


Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, I wired the text of this statement to the premier of British Columbia this morning, and told him that I would get in touch with him immediately after the meeting. This is a preliminary meeting to establish an agenda and the framework of the discussions.


Howard Charles Green: Would the dominion government have any objection to the province of British Columbia having a member on that committee?


Jean Lesage: That is not contemplated at the present time.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: should like to direct to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources a question based on the statement he made a few moments ago. Has the government of British Columbia made any request that a representative of that province attend the forthcoming meeting on the question of international rivers?


Jean Lesage: I have had discussions with the premier of British Columbia as to the role that representatives of the government of that province might play in the discussions, but there has been no definite request for representation for the purposes of this preliminary meeting dealing with the agenda and the framework of the discussions.


Mr. Fulton:: May I ask the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra wishes to ask a supplementary question.


Howard Charles Green: I will wait.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the
minister if the officers from the external affairs and trade and commerce departments have yet been named and, if so, would he inform the house who they are?


Jean Lesage: I am not too sure about the representatives of external affairs but I believe the official of trade and commerce will be Mr. Firestone.


Howard Charles Green: Has it not been the understanding throughout that there would be representatives of the British Columbia government participating in the negotiations-


Jean Lesage: No, Mr. Speaker.


Howard Charles Green: -and if not in the preliminary negotiations, certainly in the actual negotiations as the result of which it is hoped that some agreement will be reached?


Jean Lesage: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Bell:: Will New Brunswick and the Saint John river be involved in these discussions?


Jean Lesage: No, Mr. Speaker.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I have in my hand a transcript of a question which was asked on the

Proposed Legislation
orders of the day by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell). His question was as follows:
Will New Brunswick and the Saint John river be involved in these discussions?


Jean Lesage: No, Mr. Speaker.
On reading the transcript I realized that there might be two interpretations placed upon the question asked by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert. If the hon. member was inquiring whether the government of New Brunswick would have representatives on the Canadian group, the negative answer which I gave was correct. On the other hand, if the hon. member wanted to know if discussions would bear on the Saint John river, an affirmative answer would be in order because the discussions should be quite general on the topic of rivers crossing the boundary.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT


Hon. W. E. Harris (for ihe Minister of Transport) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 210 (from the Senate), to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



WINDSOR HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS


Walter Edward Harris: the first reading of Bill No. 224 (from the Senate), to incorporate the Windsor harbour commissioners.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



EASTERN ROCKY MOUNTAIN FOREST CONSERVATION ACT


Jean Lesage: the first reading of Bill No. 225 (from the Senate), to amend the Eastern Rocky Mountain Forest Conservation Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister tell

the house the stand of the Canadian government on the latest blackmailing move by Nasser that only ships paying tolls to Egypt will be able to use the Suez canal?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government knows of no recent blackmailing move by Mr. Nasser. There have been many reports in the news dispatches and over the radio about the reopening of the canal for the passage of ships of not more than 500 tons and about the immediate resumption of work for the removal of the last obstacle in the canal but we have no official information to confirm or to contradict these newspaper reports.


Howard Charles Green: What is the stand of the Canadian government with regard to ships not being able to use the canal unless they pay tolls to Egypt? I ask that question because, as the Prime Minister knows, there was a proposal that half the tolls would be paid to Egypt and half would be paid to the world bank pending settlement. Where does Canada stand in this regard?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Canada
stands here in the House of Commons at this moment, Mr. Speaker. We know that a proposal by the principal users of the canal has been submitted to the Egyptian government and there has not yet been any answer to that proposal.


Howard Charles Green: What is the position of the
Canadian government? What does the Canadian government think should be done about this question?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not
believe that what the Canadian government thinks matters very much until some Canadian ship is required to pass through the canal. The Canadian government does think that the proposal made by the principal users is a reasonable proposal. It is now before the Egyptian government and there has not been any answer yet from the Egyptian government.


Howard Charles Green: Does the Prime Minister not
think the fact that Canadian taxpayers have already paid $1 million-


Mr. McCann:: They loaned it.


Howard Charles Green: -to help clear this canal and also the fact that about one-fifth of the members of the United Nations emergency force are Canadians make it important to the Canadian people what stand the Canadian government takes on this question rather than waiting for a Canadian ship to try to get through the canal?


Mr.   Si. Laureni@Quebec Easl: The Prime Minister thinks that the Canadian government has taken a very wise course in making the sum of $1 million available as a loan to the United Nations for the expenses that have been incurred by the United Nations to hasten the clearing of the canal, and the Canadian government feels that it was an extremely wise move to supply the members of the United Nations emergency force that have been supplied; but the Canadian government does not think that force has gone there to wage war against anyone. It has gone there to try to prevent the resumption of hostilities in the region.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps the Prime Minister
will now let us know the stand of the Canadian government with regard to the proposal that no ship may pass through the Suez canal unless it pays tolls to Nasser?


Mr.   Si. Laureni@Quebec Easl: The Canadian government knows of no such proposal. I have just asserted that the proposal of the principal users has been submitted to the Egyptian government and there has not yet been any answer. I do not know whether these news dispatches which have been broadcast this morning are true or untrue. We have no official information about them.


Mr. Alislair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: May
I ask a supplementary question. Will the Prime Minister inform us whether the ships of Israel will have free access to the canal?


Mr. SI. Laurent (Quebec Easl):: I do not
know. All I know is. what the hon. gentleman knows. There have been news dispatches that all ships that pay tolls to the Egyptian authorities would be allowed to pass.


Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: But not those of Israel.


Mr.   Si. Laureni@Quebec Easl: There was another dispatch, not from the same source, that the ships of Israel would not be allowed to pass. In the face of all these contradictory and unconfirmed reports there is no statement that the Canadian government thinks it is proper to make at this time.


NOTIFICATION TO MILLERS CONCERNING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and I regret I have not been able to give him very much notice. Would the minister inform the house what notice was given to the flour mills and by what means they
Inquiries of the Ministry were notified that a subsidy of 8 cents a bushel on wheat would be in effect for March 4 only, and how were such millers advised so they would be in an equal position to bid competitively on the export of flour for that day?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the action taken was taken by the Canadian wheat board. The Canadian wheat board were good enough to advise me and I assume they advised every flour miller in the country regarding the special price arrangement established for that day only. The special price arrangement for the next day may have been different but in any case the wheat board would undoubtedly keep the millers informed each day as to the daily discount on wheat milled into flour for various markets. It is not the same for all markets; it is 8 cents for one particular market; it is 2 cents for another market; and there is no discount for many markets. That information is supplied by the wheat board in the usual way and I do not think my hon. friend need worry about the subject any more.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Would the minister discuss with the wheat board what means they used to advise millers in British Columbia that the discount would be in effect for that day only? I understand, and I believe my information is correct, that they were not given notice and therefore were denied an opportunity to compete for that market.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If my hon. friend will write to me and give me the details of a specific complaint I will forward his letter to the Canadian wheat board. When I receive a reply from the Canadian wheat board I will forward it to my hon. friend. I suggest that a much quicker way of obtaining the desired information would be for the flour mill that is complaining to write to the wheat board instead of to my hon. friend.


REPORTED INCREASE IN IMPORT OF NAILS FROM JAPAN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Miller Bell: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will the minister state why there has been such an increase in the import of nails from Japan recently, when at least one Canadian factory in Saint John is on part-time production?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I was not aware that there had been an increase in the import of nails, but I will look into the question and make a statement later.

Inquiries of the Ministry


REPORTED EXPORTS FROM UNITED STATES UNDER CANADIAN BRAND NAMES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Castleden (Yorklon):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In order to protect Canadian flour standards, is any action being taken to prevent Canadian flour exporters from filling their orders with United States flour under Canadian brand names?


Clarence Decatur Howe: 1 did not know that Canadian exporters of flour were filling their orders in such a manner. They were, for a time, but the action taken by the wheat board was intended to make that action unprofitable. There is no way in which the government of Canada can regulate shipments of flour from the United States. The owners of the brands can protect their brand names if they wish to do so, but there is no action this government can take to prevent shipments of American flour from the United States to customers outside Canada.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Charlton (Brani-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the government yet made any decision regarding amendments to federal marketing legislation as requested by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, following the supreme court findings announced in January?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that the Ontario government have made representations to this government as to what may be required. I understand that some amendments are before the Ontario house, and we are considering possible amendments here.



CHEESE AND SKIM MILK POWDER-RECOMMENDATIONS OF FEDERATION OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Have any steps been taken by the government to carry out the recommendations of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture presented on February 14 last relating to the importation of Cheddar cheese and dry skim milk powder from Australia and New Zealand?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, there is a general understanding with regard to the importation of cheese either from New Zealand or from Australia which I think has been very well lived up to. That continues, of course. Under that understanding it is intended that before any importation is made into Canada there will be discussions between either of these countries and Canada, and undue importation has been taken care of during the last two or three years.
So far as powdered milk is concerned, not very much has come in up till now. There are discussions with regard to whether more should come into Canada, and ways and means of dealing with the situation are under consideration.


John Alpheus Charlton: Will the producers be in on any meetings held in this regard?


James Garfield Gardiner: The producers have been very much in on any meetings up to date. They have been here on three or four occasions and they will probably come again. I am not too sure about that.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: The minister has mentioned certain agreements between the governments of Canada and Australia and New Zealand with regard to the importation of cheese and skim milk powder. Can the minister tell us what sort of agreements these are? Are they in the nature of gentlemen's agreements or are they written agreements?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I said that there was a gentleman's agreement between those two countries and Canada with regard to cheese but I did not say there was any gentleman's agreement or otherwise with regard to powdered milk.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Agriculture. Could the minister indicate to the house how long this gentleman's agreement to which he refers between Australia, New Zealand and Canada with regard to cheese has been going on? Has it been going on for some time or is it a new arrangement?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, it has been going on for some time.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: I should like to put a question to the hon. Minister of National Revenue arising out of some questions that were asked yesterday. Will the

minister, until he has given the whole matter full and earnest study, keep an open mind on the subject of whether the dividends announced by the Alberta government last week are to be considered as taxable income and, rather than prejudge the matter, will he carefully consider that this dividend might be a return of capital or, possibly, be in the same class as certain co-operative payments to shareholders that are free from income tax?


James Joseph McCann: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we will be very glad to give the whole matter consideration, and I am not in any way prejudging the matter at all.


Solon Earl Low: May I ask if the minister's
statement yesterday, to the effect that these dividends were certainly income to the recipients, was not prejudging the matter?


James Joseph McCann: I am afraid you are not quite right on that. I was asked the question "If they were income...," and I said "If they were considered as income or as a gift they would come within the taxation law as it presently exists." But I just want to say this-I have notice of another question from the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hahn) with reference to the same matter and I think, probably, the one answer will cover the questions asked both by him and by the leader of the Social Credit party. This is a very highly technical matter, and it will probably be promulgated either by statute or by order in council or by some regulation. In the case of Alberta, my information is that it has so far been only a declaration in the speech from the throne.
As I said, this is highly technical; the basis of payment will have to be determined upon review of the provincial legislation or regulation authorizing payment. As yet, we have no copies of the legislation, but the matter will be considered when that information has been received. So we are holding an open mind; and it is just that it is the business of the national revenue department to keep constantly before them matters such as this as they proceed.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister say whether Mr. Victor Bartram has yet resigned his directorships in certain
Inquiries of the Ministry companies which have an interest in Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited as the minister indicated he would do following his appointment last July as general manager of the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can announce that Mr. Victor Bartram resigned as general manager of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines because of ill health. His resignation took place about a month ago. I have not concerned myself too much about his directorships. I presume the hon. member will not mind what he does now that he is no longer associated with the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister indicate to the house, either today or Monday, who are now the several directors of this crown corporation, and also what officials have been appointed by the government?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The names of those serving on the new board of directors were announced a few days ago-two nominations of the government of Ontario, and two nominations of the government of Canada, with Mr. Golden, who has been president of the company since its inception, continuing in that office.



TRANS-CANADA PIPE LINES    ACQUISITION OF RIGHTS OF WAY IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a further question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is it correct, as reported in the prospectus of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited, that that company is acquiring the rights of way for the pipe line to be built by the crown corporation in northern Ontario? Was it not set out in the agreement of November 21, 1955, that the government would cause the crown corporation to acquire such rights of way in its own name?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the crown corporation retained the engineering staff of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited to undertake that duty, the reason being that the funds of the northern Ontario pipe line company were partly on loan to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited and the purpose was not to make commitments outside that one agency until the loan had been refunded. The survey of the northern Ontario section has been made by engineers of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited under agreement with the crown company and the work of acquiring the right of way has been undertaken by
2010	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited working with representatives of the crown.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in whose name will these rights of way be held?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They will be held in the name of the Northern Ontario pipe line company.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I make a correction. They will be held in the name of the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Was this decision to engage Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited to do this engineering and other work made this week? The minister realizes that I ask that question because last Friday he told me that this matter was not to be decided until after a a meeting of the crown corporation to be held on Tuesday of this week.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, anything that the hon. member has read in the prospectus refers to happenings that took place before the prospectus was written. I said that the new board of directors was taking over for Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation. That board met last Tuesday for the first time. Whether or not the new board made any decisions at that time I do not know. However, the arrangement mentioned in the prospectus now being referred to by my hon. friend was made some months ago.



INQUIRY AS TO RAISING OF FLOOR PRICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Victoria, Onl.):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Since he has been considering in the department the raising of the floor price of eggs for some four or five weeks, will he now tell the house whether he is going to raise the floor price of eggs?
High! Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, the policy in connection with the floor price of eggs is announced each year at the end of the calendar year. It was announced in December, and that policy is continuing.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to follow up the question I asked the Minister of Agriculture. He did not answer it very clearly so far as I am concerned because three weeks ago he said-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: -that he was considering raising the floor price of eggs.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: My question is this. Is he just considering it or is there going to be any action?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall ever having said that we were considering raising the support price of eggs. I said that we were taking the eggs for 38 cents and we added one cent for oil dipping, and we are still doing that.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Mr. Speaker, if the minister looks up Hansard I think he will find that he said on two occasions that he was considering it.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice. When may a decision be expected in the James Carey case?


Hon. Sfuari S. Garson (Minisier of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, a decision may be expected as soon as the very great amount of work that has to be done in connection with the consideration of the case has been completed and it has been considered by the cabinet.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Hamilion (Notre Dame de Grace):: Does the Minister of Finance intend to bring down further supplementary estimates for the current fiscal year? If so, when?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is customary to bring down further supplementary estimates toward the end of the fiscal year, but no date has been fixed for doing so.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT 333. Departmental administration, including an amount of $250,000 to defray the expenses of the 1957 congress of the universal postal union to be held in Ottawa, $2,091,516.


Mr. Regier:: Mr. Chairman, there are just a few remarks I would like to make, and I

was hoping that I might get an answer from the minister to a number of problems before we pass item 1.
One matter on which I should like to get a little information is this. It seems odd that a $2 million tunnel is being built from the C.P.R. station in Vancouver to what I understand is a new $10 million post office.
I was wondering why a tunnel should be built from the C.P.R. station. Why not a tunnel from the C.N.R. station as well, or in place of this one? I was just wondering what the economic arguments are in favour of such a huge expenditure on a tunnel at all. If we take the sum of $2 million even at 4 per cent it amounts to $80,000 a year, and $80,000 a year Mr. Chairman, it seems to me would pay for a lot of trucking of the mail. I am saying this in the light of the fact that nowadays I understand all first class mail is supposed to be taken in by air anyway, and it seems to be merely a matter of a $2 million tunnel to take the newspapers and other second class mail from the C.P.R. station to the new post office. It seems a large sum to the people in the lower mainland, and I am hoping the minister will be able to give the public some of the thinking behind the $2 million expenditure.
I wish to call the minister's attention for one moment to something he said on March 6, as reported at page 1949 of Hansard. I must say, before I put this sentence on the record, that I heartily endorse this sentiment. The minister said:
I was also pleased to hear some hon. members express their satisfaction at the decentralization program which was embarked upon a few years ago and which appears to be working out very well indeed. I might say it is intended that this program be developed further with a view to bringing decision and action as close as possible to the local public.
Now, I do not know what areas of Canada the minister had in mind when he made that statement because I am afraid we in the lower mainland of British Columbia are experiencing the very opposite of what the minister had to say there. We would welcome seeing the implementation of that attitude of decentralization. It seems to us that now that the city of Vancouver is getting a $10 million post office the policy of the department seems to be that all other post offices in the surrounding countryside are supposed to lose their identity and disappear in order to make maximum use of this new Vancouver post office.
The people who are employed in the post offices around the city of Vancouver do not feel at all happy with the trend as they see it developing. Not so long ago the postal employees of New Westminster had to throw
Supply-Post Office
in their lot with the postal employees in the much larger centre of Vancouver. I understand that some representations were made against this policy to the minister, and included among the representations was one representation from the city of New Westminster.
The minister may be able to satisfy certain officials in the city of New Westminster very readily, but there is a good deal of concern over the fact that the post offices around Vancouver are intended to disappear just as rapidly as the services can be replaced by the city of Vancouver. The employees like the personal relationship that exists in the smaller unit. There is no doubt about it that the relationship in the New Westminster post office over the years has been a most happy one, indeed, and we had there loyal and devoted civil servants carrying out their responsibilities, and they did so very ably. Current speculation even is that after the present postmaster and the assistant postmaster there retire New Westminster may even have to do without a new postmaster being appointed.
It is a situation that is causing a good deal of concern. We wish the Vancouver post office well, but we certainly do not like to see all services channelled through that post office, and I must honestly admit that the services we have been getting in mail delivery in the lower mainland since 1953 have declined. I think practically everyone connected with or using the post office will admit that. We found on occasion during the Christmas rush that several blocks of people were denied any mail at all and the only answer they could get was that help simply was not available. First class letters have taken as long as two weeks to arrive at my home from Ottawa. I have those letters on file, and I shall be pleased to send them to the minister. They were properly addressed as Burnaby 1 but were returned with the notation, "Improperly addressed, please re..." or whatever that particular stamp is, that they put on the envelope.
There is another point besides this policy of decentralization that I wish to raise, and that has to do with the size of the four-cent letter rate area. We find it a little difficult to understand why some of the post offices represented in this house by the Minister of Fisheries, which are far removed from the city of Vancouver, should be granted the four-cent letter rate when such relatively nearby places as Port Moody and Port Coquitlam are still being denied the advantage of the metropolitan four-cent rate.
The minister also confirmed our fears in regard to centralization when he replied to the hon. member for New Westminster the other

Supply-Post Office
day. The minister said in regard to the parcel post office service there, as reported at page 1975 of Hansard of March 7:
As I have stated, the idea was to operate throughout the entire Vancouver postal area on a per item basis.
We have been satisfied over the years with the parcel post service as it was supplied to us in New Westminster. I might tell the minister that practically the entire staff in the New Westminster post office is disappointed in the efforts of his department to centralize the whole parcel post delivery service for the entire greater Vancouver area through one Vancouver contractor, namely the Pony Express. I know there may be western politicians who may look with envy at some of the other large Canadian centres where such huge contracts are awarded to only one individual. We see no reason why the parcel post men of New Westminster should not be encouraged to form their own company and submit a bid of their own for that portion of the area they have been serving hitherto. We feel it is not in the interests of good government to award on a contract basis the entire service to one individual who will in turn hire his employees.
I also noticed that the minister seems to be well aware of the offer that was made by the Pony Express to these men at New Westminster, because he supplied us with all the details, not only the minimum income of $1.74 per hour as listed but also some of the conditions of work. I observe that one of the conditions offered to these men was a paid annual vacation of one week in the first year of service. If Mr. Hatch is going to be employing these men I do not see how he can avoid provincial labour laws. He should definitely be subject to the labour laws of the province of British Columbia which call for a minimum of two weeks' holidays with pay. I do not see how he could possibly attempt to offer them only one week paid annual vacation in the first year.
These parcel post carriers do not like to become a part of a big machine nor do mail letter carriers. There is too great a tendency in the world today to make of human beings mere cogs in machines. The postal set-up we have in New Westminster which employs several hundred men is much more satisfactory than when you build up a hierarchy and centralize power in the city of Vancouver.
I realize that my remarks are not going to please the hierarchy of the Vancouver post office because it is only natural that they feel their position is enhanced by the increased number of employees they have and the larger volume of mail they handle and I can well imagine it might be in their own

interests if they could abolish all post offices within 50 miles of that city.
This is a serious matter. I hope the mere fact that the mayor of the city of New Westminster happens to be of the same political affiliation as the government will not be taken as expressing the sentiments of the residents of New Westminster, Burnaby, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody and so on. I do not see any hope for Burnaby at the present time and I trust the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond has more heartening news than I have concerning our eventually obtaining our own post office.
I realize that this thought will be bitterly opposed by the Vancouver post office but we feel that a municipality with between 80,000 and 90,000 people is entitled to a post office. Regardless of the political affiliation of members of parliament who are elected to represent Burnaby in the future, I can assure the minister he is going to continue hearing that demand for at least as long as he is the minister and until he grants our reasonable request.
We have a sub-post office in North Burnaby and one in South Burnaby which are giving very good service, but some of the functions of the sub-post offices have now been moved to the main Vancouver general post office.
We have long asked for a post office in the Edmonds area of East Burnaby. I must thank the minister for the consideration he has given to my previous requests. I used to live in a house on Government road in the Edmonds area in the woods of Burnaby. I wrote a letter and asked for a sub-post office and within a few weeks one was established within a block of my home and so of course I had to write in and thank the minister because I knew it was serving a useful purpose; however, that was not the kind of post office we wanted to see in East Burnaby. Some time later I purchased another home in the outlying area of East Burnaby and I made a similar request. Lo and behold, the Post Office Department obliged and again established a subpost office in East Burnaby only a block from my new home. The people in the Edmonds area of East Burnaby where masses of the people live still do not have the facilities of a sub-post office and I wish that matter would be looked into.
I have in mind another small matter which may not be important to the minister but which is extremely important to the people who want to use the services of post offices. I wonder what kind of arrangements for customer parking have been made at the new Vancouver post office and also at the new post office in New Westminster.

Private concerns erecting buildings in commercial areas of Vancouver or New Westminster nowadays do not receive a building permit unless they make adequate arrangements for parking space to serve the needs of the enterprise or the building they are about to put up. I am afraid the new Vancouver post office will prove to be a severe handicap to automobile owners unless there is adequate parking space adjacent to the building. I think the $2 million that is being spent on the tunnel might more properly have been devoted to arranging for parking space for the customers of the post office.
Concerning the new post office in New Westminster I hope the outside exit door now meets the regulations of the fire marshall and opens to the outside and not to the inside as was the case when the building was opened for business.
The new New Westminster post office has also been built in the centre of a busy commercial area and no parking facilities whatever have been supplied. There are parking metres out in front, of course, but it is rather difficult to find a place to park in a busy area like this and it is a great handicap to people driving automobiles who wish to use the facilities of the post office.
I hope the minister really meant what he said on March 6 when he advised that the post office department has now embarked on a policy of decentralization. This is a most welcome announcement and I hope it will apply all across Canada. I can assure him, however, that on the lower mainland we have seen only more and more centralization and we are much afraid that this tendency will continue unless Ottawa sends out word to Vancouver that decentralization and not centralization is the theme.


Mr, Goode:: Mr. Chairman, in discussing these estimates it is usual for the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and me to co-operate.
In this case I wish to say something concerning my own part of Burnaby and before I do I would like to express to the minister my sincere thanks for the co-operation that I am receiving from the officials of his department.
I think I can say there has been some contradiction of the views of the deputy postmaster general expressed in this house from time to time, but I am not one of those who subscribe to such views.
I have found that if I make a factual presentation of the requirements of the people whom I represent, although I might not always get an affirmative answer I at least am
Supply-Post Office
given a respectful audience and if it is possible for him to co-operate he does so. That is all a member of parliament can expect from a civil servant.
I should like to direct the attention of the Postmaster General to the situation in South Burnaby. As his officials know, we presently have in service there a postal station which is leased by the department. This was leased over seven years ago at a rental of some $600 or $700 a month. At the time that agreement was made it was quite satisfactory to the people whom I represent in this house. It was something new as we had never had the service before. We got that service through the good offices of the Postmaster General, but with our present increase in population today we believe, having reached the point where there are something like 50,000 people in the southern part of Burnaby, we are entitled to better facilities.
I suggest to the officials of the Post Office Department that a new building be erected there on federal account. This need not be in the same location. The officials of the department would have to indicate their requirements, but a building should be erected on federal account so that the people of South Burnaby may have an adequate postal service, at least for the present.
The situation in Burnaby is a little different from what was outlined by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. We have to take a long-term view of our postal service requirements. I hope the Postmaster General will consult with his officials and give me an answer to this question. We must consider the situation in Burnaby on the basis of what conditions will be 15 or 20 years from now. I visualize a large public building in central Burnaby to serve the people represented by my hon. friend and me and which could be augmented by postal stations in the three areas, North Burnaby, South Burnaby and what is now known as Burnaby 3 or East Burnaby. My hon. friend and I both had hoped that a postal station would have been provided in the east parts of Burnaby long ago. It has not been done and I hope it will be done this year.
As far as this large federal building is concerned, I would point out to the Postmaster General that there are about 90,000 people in Burnaby. This is the second largest area of population in British Columbia. It seems to both my hon. friend and me that as far as postal services are concerned we are being treated as a poor relation of the new general post office in Vancouver. That is not good enough. Our people have municipal pride and they have postal pride. We think it is about time that a long-term view was taken of the Burnaby situation and proper arrangements were made. I do not expect that it

Supply-Post Office
can be done this year, but certainly the matter should be looked into and a requisition made to public works for a large federal building in central Burnaby to house the sorting facilities and to provide full postal services for the area. As I say, the time is long past when we could be considered as a poor relation of the city of Vancouver. In saying that, I am sure I speak also for my hon. friend.
There are two things I want to ask of the minister. One is that postal plans for Burnaby be considered on the basis of requirements for the next few years, on the understanding that a postal building on federal account will be built in Burnaby at the earliest possible moment. I do not expect the Postmaster General to have this post office in 30 or 60 days, but he should make arrangements for the purchase of the land through public works at the earliest possible moment. I would hope that that could be done this year. I would suggest to him that we do not pay too high a price for the land to speculators who will be most anxious to sell to the federal government. I can assure him that he will receive full co-operation from me in this regard. The land should be expropriated in the first instance.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam mentioned a matter which is dear to the hearts of both the hon. member for New Westminster and myself. I refer to the arrangements for the delivery of parcel post. I am quite willing to listen to any facts that may be presented in this connection as I realize that at times members of parliament may not have all the facts. However, it has been represented to me by a delegation representing the men who have been doing this work over the years that they are being put out of work or placed in a different category of possibly working for someone else. Apparently the Post Office Department considers that the Pony Express people in Vancouver can do the job better, but I doubt it. If they can do it more cheaply and more satisfactorily, then I am willing to go along with the idea, because I am of the opinion that even though the Post Office Department has a large surplus they should try to save money. Are the officials of the Post Office Department sure that the Pony Express people are the people to do this work? Are they saving us money? Is the department sure that it is getting the work done better and for less money than it could be done by these little people who have bought cars with which to do this work?
Suggestions were made to me by the delegation representing these men that they can do the work better and for less money than the Pony Express. I hope to have an answer on this matter from the minister. He made a statement in the house some time

ago that the work was being done to the satisfaction of the department and that it was expected that money would be saved. If that is true, then I would certainly support the minister. If it is not true, then I think they should take a second look at the matter and study the needs of these little people who are being hurt most severely.
These men are taxpayers in my riding and in the riding of my hon. friend. Their families are there and they have made considerable investment in facilities to provide the services required by the Post Office Department. Then all of a sudden, without more than two months' notice, they are thrown out of work or told that they can work for some monopoly down in Vancouver. I doubt that anyone in Vancouver can service the New Westminster-Burnaby area better than people who live in New Westminster and Burnaby. As I say, it may be that the facts are entirely different from what I understand them to be. If that is so, then I will go along with the department if they can assure me that they will get better service and will save money. In that case I would have no argument and that is what I have told these people. But I want to be assured by the department that what is being done is in the public interest.
May I go from Burnaby for the moment to the municipality of Richmond. I have no complaints to make here, but I do want to ask a question. I want to say to the Postmaster General that what has been done for this municipality in the postal sense is most satisfactory. One of the finest postal stations on the lower mainland of British Columbia has been provided for these people. I presented this case to the deputy Postmaster General, he took a long look at it and then decided on the advice of his officials that this needed to be done in the public interest. This is a very fine building which is a source of pride to the municipality and I congratulate the department upon what they have done.
Some time ago I wrote to the department regarding rural routes in the municipality and the decision they reached was in conformity with the request I had made that the name of Richmond, British Columbia, should now be the official address of these rural routes.
I am not too sure whether that now applies to the whole municipality in regard to letter carrier rates. If it does, I think the Postmaster General will say so in his reply; and if he does I will be most happy about the whole thing.
I do want to say again that this municipality of Burnaby, represented by my hon.

friend and me, has reached the point in its growth where the Post Office Department has got to take a long look at what has been happening there. They have got to realize, as we do back home, that it is no longer a poor relation of the great city of Vancouver on the coast. We believe we are entitled to be a separate postal entity entirely. We believe that our carriers should work out of Burnaby alone, without any connection with Vancouver at all. The post office officials in Vancouver will argue that the service will not be as satisfactory as it is now, but I would find it most difficult to be persuaded that that is true; I believe we would get just as good delivery, just as good service, if we had our federal building in central Burnaby to service the two constituencies. I believe federal money should be spent in that regard, and that the thinking of the post office department, especially in Vancouver, should be changed. You know, Mr. Chairman, Vancouver is not the hub of the lower mainland of British Columbia; Burnaby is, and we want our recognition now.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to delay the committee unduly, but the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond have again introduced a subject which every one of us from that area is very interested in. In respect to the letting of' contracts, yesterday the minister made a statement which raised one or two questions in my mind, and I have a question to ask in respect thereto: has the contract for the whole metropolitan area been allotted as yet and, if so, when was it allotted and when was the contract submitted for tender?
Another question was raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam having to do with the post office in New Westminster and the possibility of its becoming a part of the whole centralized area of greater Vancouver under the jurisdiction of Vancouver post office. As I understand it, on November 28, 1956, the Postmaster General indicated to the city of New Westminster that it was not the intention of the Post Office Department to make New Westminster a sub-post office at this time. His exact words were: "New Westminster is still a staff post office as it was prior to the creation of the Vancouver metropolitain postal area." There is one word in that sentence which disturbs me. It is the word "still". That word would suggest that there is an indication that in the very near future, possibly on the retirement of the present postmaster who is due to retire, I understand, next year, or on the retirement of his assistant within a year or two,
Supply-Post Office
there is a possibility that the New Westminster post office might become a sub-post office of the Vancouver post office, and under its jurisdiction.
I would like the minister to give some assurance that such will not be the case. I realize we have a beautiful building being constructed in the city of New Westminster at this time-a portion of it is already in operation-but it does cause us some concern in the city itself to feel this work might be interpreted to mean that in the not too distant future a change will take place.


Mr. Jones:: I would like to ask the minister if he would supply the house with information I think we should have, namely, the gross amount in respect of contracts last year between the department and the Canadian National Railway, the Canadian Pacific Railway, T.C.A. and C.P.A. for their mail carrying services including, of course, parcel post.


Mr. McCullough (Moose Mouniain):: Mr. Chairman, I have watched the minister get to his feet on many occasions to answer questions, and I have noticed that since last week he has been flooded with representations and questions. On Wednesday, I think, I made certain representations to him which were probably of not much significance as far as the financial side is concerned but which do affect my constituents, and I hope, Mr. Chairman, that before we leave this first item the minister will at least answer my representations in regard to the Torquay mail service and also in respect to the post office accommodation at Maryfield.


Mr. Lapointe:: Possibly, Mr. Chairman, I could deal with the two points which the hon. member has raised, because I know he has been expecting an answer for the last two days. He did mention to me the question of the postal accommodation in Maryfield where we at present occupy floor space rented by the public works department. Last year we did ask the public works department to find more suitable accommodation-to secure larger quarters-because we had established the fact that the present accommodation is not sufficient to cope with the volume of business. The last report I received from the public works department, which was dated in January of 1957, was to the effect that they had endeavoured to secure accommodation but were meeting with much difficulty. However, they had one of their field men out again trying to make arrangements to secure better accommodation.
As regards the Torquay station where mails are received by train from Estevan on Monday, Wednesday and Thursday, and dispatched on Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday,

Supply-Post Office
we are making inquiries at the present time to see whether a truck service could be established so that mail could be delivered on the days when the train does not provide this service.
The hon. member asked me about the case of rural route No. 1 at Manor. I am sure I will have to look into this further. The route is a long enough one; it covers about 39 miles, with only 51 boxes along the route, which makes a very low average of boxes for such a route. However, the whole matter will be looked into together with many other rural routes, as I have already announced to the house.


Edward George McCullough: I
wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the minister would give further consideration to the representation I made in respect to the Maryfleld station? I pointed out, I think, in a letter, and also in a recommendation the other day, that this is a two-rail centre. They have the problem there of sorting a great deal of mail for sending on to other points, and while I will admit that according to the formula generally used, namely, revenue returns, perhaps the situation does not justify a federal building at this time, I hope the minister will give some consideration to that rather than enter into some makeshift arrangement which would have to be changed again; and that we will have a federal building there, or suitable accommodation.


Mr. Maiheson:: It occurred to me while the two hon. members from the Burnaby ridings were speaking, and also while the hon. member for New Westminster was speaking, complaining, as we do, and criticizing the lack of service we receive, that perhaps it is only right we should acknowledge the great improvement in accommodation which has taken place.
Perhaps it is only right that we should acknowledge a great improvement in service and accommodation. I have in mind now the new post office accommodation in Charlottetown, our capital city, which is in my riding. We waited for some time for the new accommodations which, incidentally, include a large federal building housing most federal government offices in our province. In this connection I want to thank the Minister of Public Works for listening and acting so promptly on the suggestions I made when I came into the picture.
In some sense at least the building serves not only my riding but the whole province. We are very proud of it. I have never heard anybody criticize it and I thought I should express our appreciation. I am a bit at a loss to know just where we are now but it is my impression that general matters should be

discussed on the first item. There are several other things I wish to talk about but I think I will leave them until the next two items.


Mr. Hansell:: Mr. Chairman, I do not rise to register any particular complaint about the Post Office Department as far as my own constituency is concerned. I think the services are generally good and I do not receive very many complaints about the Post Office Department. There are, however, one or two things I should like to point out to the minister and ask his co-operation with regard to them.
First of all, may I thank the minister, together with the Minister of Public Works, for the new public building in the town of Claresholm. We worked for some time on that matter. The post office is not yet open but it is pretty well completed now, with only the finishing touches yet to be done. I am sure that the people of that community will be appreciative of the new building. There are other points in my constituency that I hope will have similar buildings in the not too distant future. However, I think I can say that the government has been fair with that constituency compared with many others.
There are two matters that I rose to speak about particularly. One concerns one of the rural routes about which I have no serious complaint to make but only wish to say that some people oh the route want the service extended. I do not think I should take the time of the house in explaining the matter in detail. I think the best thing I can do is to put the details on paper and let the minister have them. However, it appears that this particular route runs within two miles of some families, one of which is a family of two very aged people. They have to walk two miles to collect their mail from their box on the rural route. Naturally weather conditions sometimes prevent them from getting their mail and they do complain that they fancy that at times it has been tampered with. I do not know whether we should call on the post office officials to extend the service or reroute the route, but I simply ask the minister's co-operation in having his officials look into the problem inasmuch as there is a humanitarian aspect involved in it.
The other matter I want to bring to the attention of the minister is rather important. The minister may have to recollect somewhat the geography of southern Alberta. If he looks at his map he will see that there is quite an area south of Calgary. A railway line runs from Calgary to Lethbridge via what is known as the Alderside branch. There are quite a number of communities and fairsized towns on the Alderside branch,

one of which is my own town of Vulcan, a very substantial community. A lot of business is done there.
Any mail addressed to Edmonton posted in any of these communities along that line somehow or other takes two to three days before it is delivered in Edmonton. The mail used to be picked up by the train but since a more rapid train service is now given by what is known as the Calgary-Lethbridge dayliner the mail is now transported by truck. It is picked up along that route and taken to Calgary. The difficulty seems to lie in the delay of the mail from Calgary to Edmonton. The truck apparently arrives at Calgary late in the day with the mail from all these towns.
We will say, for instance, that the truck arrives in Calgary on the evening of a Monday. It is less than 200 miles from Calgary to Edmonton, but if the mail from all these communities reaches Calgary on the evening of a Monday it is not delivered in Edmonton until Wednesday. That seems to be too long a delay in delivering the mail from these communities addressed to the rather large city of Edmonton. I do not know exactly where the delay occurs but there should not be such a delay.
I can tell the minister that there is what is known as the Canadian Pacific midnight train which leaves Calgary for Edmonton every night. It does not leave at midnight but at 10.30 or a quarter to eleven. I do not know whether it carries mail but if it does not it could. There is no reason why the mail from these communities could not be dispatched on that train which arrives in Edmonton around six o'clock in the morning. Consequently, the mail could be delivered in Edmonton that day. I wish the minister would have his officials look into that matter with a view to remedying the delay.
While I am on my feet, there is one other matter I wish to mention. It does not affect my constituency in particular but does affect second class mail coming to eastern Canada from the west. I think what I am about to say may perhaps be true of most second class mail posted in western Canada. There seems to be quite a delay in its delivery in the east. Not long ago I received some second class mail that took a week less one day to reach me here from the time it was posted in Alberta.
I inquired about that matter of one of the postmasters in Ottawa. I was told that that was second-class mail. I explained to him that the slowest train takes only three days in coming and that I could not quite conceive of any reason why even second-class mail should not be delivered here in three to four
Supply-Post Office
days. He said, "Well, there is sometimes a glut in this second-class mail; it comes with very heavy loads. It may lie over in Winnipeg for a day or two, it may lie over here in Ottawa or it may lie over there." I was told that I must not be surprised if second-class mail does not reach me in three or four days. Well, Mr. Chairman, it might be three days or it might be four days but a matter of nearly a week less one day is, I think, a little bit too long. I am just wondering whether that second-class mail service could not be speeded up on these long hauls.
I will leave those matters with the minister. I want to thank the minister, his officials and his department right down to the lower-salaried civil servants for what I think is a good job being done throughout Canada. It is very seldom that I receive any particular complaints with respect to the post office service. If I receive any complaints, I pass them on to the appropriate officials and they are dealt with. I do not know that I always get all the satisfaction that I should like to get; there are always problems. However, I am thankful for the reasonable services we are getting from this department. I will ask the minister to look into those matters for me. I see that the minister nods his head. His head nodding does not get on Hansard. I just make that remark because I will be sending one or two of these Hansards out to the people who have talked to me about those matters.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Which way was he nodding?


Ernest George Hansell: Up and down; affirmatively.


Mr. Ellis:: There are several matters that I should like to draw to the attention of the minister at this time. As the minister knows, the city of Regina has been undergoing tremendous growth in recent years; all sections of the city have enjoyed considerable expansion. We have been faced, of course, with the problem of providing mail delivery service to some of these new areas. A considerable length of time has been taken in satisfying the needs. In some sections of the city there has been-and I think justifiably so-a certain amount of criticism about the failure of the Post Office Department to provide daily mail delivery service.
I understand that there are laid down by the department certain requirements which must be met before delivery service can be commenced. However, I would draw to the minister's attention the fact that, until that mail delivery service is instituted, citizens must go to the main post office and secure their mail through the general delivery wicket. Of course, apart from the fact that

Supply-Post Office
this requirement imposes a great inconvenience on the recipients of mail, it provides a serious bottleneck in the post office itself.
I can recall occasions when I have personally gone into the post office and have noticed a great number of people lined up to get their mail through the general delivery wicket. In most cases these people are lined up simply because the Post Office Department has not seen fit to institute a daily mail service in a particular area. Upon inquiry I have been informed that some of the people in the area have not met the requirements, that they have not supplied their homes with the proper letter boxes and so on. The situation therefore is simply this. A few delinquent people in a district are able to hold up mail service to the majority of the people in the district who have cooperated to the fullest extent. Rather than penalize all the people in the district because of the delinquency of a few, it seems to me that some other method might be used.
If mail service were commenced in a district and there were a number of householders in that district who did not get their mail because they did not have the proper mail boxes on their houses, I am quite sure they would get those boxes on. In other words, if they themselves knew that they were being penalized because of their own neglect, I think the desired results could be obtained. But the present regulations simply mean that a few people in the area who apparently have not met the requirements of the Post Office Department with regard to post boxes and so on are able to hold up the delivery service for the majority of the people living in the area. That is one matter that is of great importance in my constituency.
I have made some inquiries of the minister's department and I must say that I have been a little bit disappointed with regard to the length of time I have been awaiting a reply. I wrote to the Post Office Department some time ago-as a matter of fact, on February 14-requesting information just in order that I would be up to date. Since I have been absent from the city for a few months, I desired to get information as to the present status of some of these outlying areas. I asked what areas are now in receipt of daily mail service and when they may expect to commence receiving daily mail service. To this date 1 have not received a reply from the minister's department. I had hoped that information would be forthcoming before the estimates were brought down.
There is another matter that I took up with the department some time ago-over a month ago, as a matter of fact-and it is something
[Mr. Ellis.1
about which I felt the Post Office Department could have supplied me with information. It seems to me that if I were to make inquiry of one of the services and were to ask for the same sort of information, I would get a reply back in a number of hours. Anybody in the Q.M. stores could give me the information. I wrote to the minister's department on February 5 requesting information. I received from the minister an acknowledgement saying that he was looking into this matter but to this date I have not received any reply. The information I sought was simply this. I asked the Postmaster General if he would be so kind as to inform me as to the issue of clothing and equipment to letter carriers, postal clerks and other classifications of employees within the Post Office Department-it seems to me that there should be some scale of issue-together with the frequency of issue of clothing issued to various personnel in the Post Office Department. I have made a thorough check in my office and I find that to this date I have not received a reply.
It seems to me that is something about which the Post Office Department should have been able to supply information almost immediately. Certainly there must be some basis upon which clothing to letter carriers is issued. I am concerned about this matter because I feel that every letter carrier, every postal clerk and every other classification within the Post Office Department should receive, each and everyone, what he or she is entitled to receive. I have received a number of complaints concerning this matter. I am not satisfied that the scale of issue, such as it is, as laid down by the Post Office Department has been met in all cases. I am anxious to see that every letter carrier and every postal dark receives those articles of clothing to which he is entitled and that we do not have them waiting around for months and months, in some cases for a year or more.
I asked for the information first because I wanted to make sure of the facts. If the minister's department had any information to the contrary, if the reports which I have received were not in accordance with the facts, then I want to give the minister every opportunity to give me the information in order that I might check and ascertain the facts. I have received no reply to my inquiry and to this date, of course, I am not clear in my own mind just exactly what those employees are entitled to. I am anxious to find out. Moreover, I am very anxious to find out whether employees are receiving those items of clothing to which they are entitled.

I think this is a very important matter because it affects the working conditions, the well-being and the morale of the Post Office Department. There are a number of other matters, which I should like to bring up at a later time. But I am anxious to impress upon the minister the importance of facilitating the commencement of daily mail service in those new areas in the city of Regina. I am sure a similar situation exists in other cities in Canada, especially in those cities which are enjoying a great deal of growth.
I am anxious to see something done to facilitate the service to those people. Moreover, I am anxious to know that the post office is doing the right thing for its employees with respect to clothing and equipment to which they are entitled. I wish the minister would bring me up to date and give me the information I have requested in order that we might be able to pursue this matter further.


Mr. Philpott:: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of small points. I may say I have less trouble about post office affairs in my constituency than I have with any other department. The only suggestions I have ever heard from a good many of my people are that they think that the local delivery, or the regional delivery, is too slow as compared with air mail delivery. We can all get letters from Ottawa faster than we can get them from New Westminster, or Bur-naby-Coquitlam, but that is a minor thing. Of course, the major suggestion I hear is that they would like restoration of the two-a-day delivery.
There are two points I wish to raise. One might seem like a trivial affair. It is this. What training is given to the new postmen in the way of how to get along with the dogs in the neighbourhoods? As I watched over the years I have noticed that about nine out of ten postmen seem to be able to go down the street and be on good terms with all the dogs in the neighbourhood, but one postman I remember, not in the city in which I now live, seemed to be bitten by every dog as he went down the street. I was wondering whether the post office gave any kind of special training to new postmen when they are taken on to teach them how to get along with the dogs.
The second question has to do with a much different matter. We heard some discussion in the committee yesterday about the amount of alleged profit on first-class mail, and I know the Postmaster General will have something to say on this particular point. But over the years, and once again last [DOT]
Supply-Post Office
year, in this house we have had the question raised of the cost to Canada of delivering American magazines in Canada. I know this is a very long-standing and very controversial question. I know that when the Bennett government came in they tried to redress this extra cost to Canada of delivering American magazines, and they put on a very unpopular and unwise magazine tax which was immediately taken off by the Liberals when they came back into power, iri 1935 or 1936. Could we be brought up to date as to the relative cost to Canada? We all understand how the general post office arrangements work out under which each country pays its own costs and hands the mail over to the other country and by and large the other country delivers it. That works out very well in almost all categories of mail except in regard to magazines as delivered between Canada arid the United States, because practically none of our magazines are delivered in the United States, and a great flood of American magazines are delivered in Canada. I would appreciate it if the Postmaster General at some suitable time under this item would let us know what is the present situation in regard to the two countries with respect to magazines. How much is it costing Canada in the way of service cost to deliver their magazines over and above what we get in the way of receipts on magazines that we ship to Canada?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Mr. Chairman, I believe
we are still on the first item. I rather think the minister is anxious to get the first item passed and get on with the rest of the business. Most of my remarks will be on the transportation on rural mail routes. I notice that now we are talking on everything from soup to nuts, and even the last member had to bring in a little bit of political talk about what the Conservatives did and what the Liberals did. It brought to my mind the fact that when a fellow gets up to speak he has to have something to dote on.
I have to thank the minister and his officials for bringing down a requisition for a new post office in Haliburton. I hope the Department of Public Works will give us a building some of these days. I will talk about rural mail deliveries when we come to that item.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, so that we can pass the first item and so that there will be no misunderstanding, I propose to ask the Postmaster General for a breakdown of the franking allocation

Supply-Post Office
as between departments, the House of Common's and other agencies of government. I presume it would be appropriate to ask that question under operations.


Hugues Lapointe: Yes.


William McLean Hamilton: We
can discuss it there as well. I do not think there is anything else that I have that cannot be discussed on operations


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the item
carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
334. Operations-including salaries and other expenses of staff post offices, district offices, railway mail service staffs, and supplies, equipment and other items for revenue post offices, also including administration, $93,819,562.
William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, would the Postmaster General care to outline for us the allocation' of the sum of $5 million which the estimate assumes is represented by franking between the various departments, agencies of the government, the House of Commons and other things.


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, I find that
I do not have the figures broken down between the various government agencies or
departments. I have a total. That total is broken down between first-class letter mail, second-class mail and third-class printed matter, and I can give my hon. friend these answers.
The total number of pieces of mail franked was 161,683,200 for a total weight of 11,770,300 pounds at an estimated cost-that would be revenue lost because postage was not applied-of $5,541,075. As I say, I do not have that figure broken down by departments but I have it broken down as to the class of mailing matter, first, second and third class. Does my hon. friend wish me to give that breakdown under the heading of number of pieces of mail, total weight and estimated revenue lost?


William McLean Hamilton: I
think it would be interesting to have it tabled. Perhaps we could have it inserted in Hansard at this point.


Hugues Lapointe: Surely, if it is agreeable.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is it agreeable that these figures shall be inserted in Hansard at this point?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hugues Lapointe: The table is as follows:
FRANKING AND FREE MAIL MATTER For the Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 1956
Total 161,683,200 11,077,300 lbs.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, when the committee on estimates was discussing the estimates of the Post Office Department last year the following question was asked by the hon. member for Kootenay East:
Is there any breakdown with respect to the various departments and the House of Commons and so on?
This question appears at page 667 of the minutes of the committee on estimates of

Thursday, May 10, 1956. The hon. member was referring to a previous statement regarding franking and the Postmaster General at that time replied:
I have not got a breakdown here but we can get it for you. The amount as we have it would include the various departments of government, the Governor General, the Speaker, the Senate, the members of the Senate and of the House of Commons during the period in which they are entitled to franking-[DOT]
And he continued in that vein. .

There is an intermediate discussion of the subject and referring to the same subject the Postmaster General asked:
Would you like us to get you a breakdown of that?
The hon. member for Kootenay East replied:
Yes, I would like to have a breakdown as between the various departments and the House of Commons.
The Postmaster General then said:
Yes.
Is the Postmaster General now in a position to supply us with this same information which he agreed to supply to an hon. member of his own party last year? It was my understanding that if information was made available at the request of a committee member it should be made available to the committee as a whole.


Hugues Lapointe: My hon. friend is quite right. We can secure that breakdown. I do not have it here because we do not keep it as a matter of record but we certainly can break it down. As my hon. friend knows, this would possibly not give a true picture of the cost to the government of the mail by the various departments because some departments and government agencies use mail meters and do not use the frank. However, I will attempt to get these figures broken down as soon as possible and provide them to the committee.


William McLean Hamilton: Well, Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Postmaster General if he made good his promise given to the committee last year and had the job done at that time?


Hugues Lapointe: I am informed that it was worked out.


William McLean Hamilton: Then why should any delay be necessary beyond sending for the files of the department to procure that information for this committee?


Hugues Lapointe: We could start inquiries and make an estimate through the Ottawa post office but I would have to ask them to do so now and they would do it. We do not keep these figures up continuously separated in that way as a matter of record.


William McLean Hamilton: Perhaps I am rather dense in that I cannot understand the position of the Postmaster General or perhaps he has omitted to give me some piece of information which would be helpful. We have a situation in which this question was asked before the estimates committee last year. At that time the Postmaster General agreed to give the reply, a reply such as I am now seeking. That information
Supply-Post Office
was not tabled before the committee; however, the Postmaster General a few moments ago told us that he did work out this information and present it to the hon. member for Kootenay East at that time and that answer is on Hansard. I then asked for that information, which should be a matter of public record, to be made available to us here in order that we may have it to guide us in our discussion of the estimates. At that point the Postmaster General went back and said he would have to perform a complete analysis and ask the Ottawa post office to do the work all over again.
If this breakdown was made at the time it was asked for in the estimates committee last year, as the minister said a moment ago it was, and if the information was made available to an hon. member of that committee, why is the minister not able to provide it within a reasonable period of 15 or 20 minutes during which he could send to the department to get the file on it for the purposes of this committee now?


Hugues Lapointe: I did give the breakdown last year and said that the cost of franking mail of government departments amounted to $5,280,000. Braille books for use by the blind together with bank statements mailed to Ottawa amounted to $116,600. The figure for the Senate and House of Commons was $103,400. That comprises what I said was an estimated postal value of $5,500,000. That is the information I undertook to give to the committee last year and I gave it.


William McLean Hamilton: Would the Postmaster General care to give me the reference in the proceedings of the committee where I could find those figures?


Hugues Lapointe: I am sorry but I do not have the proceedings of the committee before me. I know this information was gathered at the time the question was asked in the estimates committee last year. This is what was asked of me. I am giving the figures now but I am quite sure they were given either to the committee or to the House of Commons at a later date. The figures were secured for that purpose.


William McLean Hamilton: What information was procured at that time in order to answer the question which the Postmaster General promised to answer with relation to the breakdown of these franking costs as between the various departments of government?


Hugues Lapointe: The mail goes through the post office in Ottawa coming from all departments. To obtain a breakdown for the departments would involve keeping a daily record; that is, the post office itself would

Supply-Post Office
have to keep a daily record of all mail coming from a department for outside delivery. I do not know whether or not the departments keep records of their own mail but it is probably so and I believe they do. The post office as such keeps a record of all the mail that goes through from all the departments and is franked, and it passes through the Ottawa post office.


William McLean Hamilton: Has
the Post Office Department given consideration to asking the various departments to assume the cost of their own postage so that it can be properly assessed? Each year the report of the Post Office Department contains an item, and for the last two years an amount of $5 million has been indicated as the amount of revenue being denied the Post Office Department because of the exercise of the franking privilege. This item is easily subject to misinterpretation because the average individual in this country has the idea that the franking privilege is largely restricted to members of the House of Commons and of the Senate. We now find that only a small portion of this item of $5 million, an amount of $103,000, can be chargeable against the 265 members of the House of Commons and the 100-odd members of the Senate. It would seem to me that it would be a much sounder practice and one more in accord with a true distribution of cost if each department would include in its budget an item to cover the cost of postage and then pay that to the Post Office Department. May I ask, as I did at the beginning, what consideration is being given to working out such a plan?


Hugues Lapointe: As I mentioned before, some of the larger departments do pay for their mail, but the Post Office Department does not attempt to make a breakdown of the total volume as between all departments. All we want to know is the total amount of mail which is franked by government departments, and whether one department uses the franking privileges more than another does not affect our over-all operations in any way. I am told that the franking machine used by some departments is quite expensive and the purchase of such equipment by smaller departments or agencies would hardly be justified.


William McLean Hamilton: Is
it not a fact that practically all mail from government departments, even that which is franked, is put through a postage meter of one kind or another?


Hugues Lapointe: I am told that that is not so.


Mr. Hamilton (Noire Dame de Grace):: But
a good deal of it is?


Hugues Lapointe: Some of it is.


William McLean Hamilton: Is
the Postmaster General in favour of continuing this franking privilege for the use of departments of government?


Hugues Lapointe: The franking privilege is provided by the Post Office Act. By that act parliament has decreed that franking privileges shall be granted under certain circumstances. No matter what opinion may be held by the Postmaster General or the officials of the department, there is the act as enacted by parliament.


William McLean Hamilton: We
can return to that subject later. Would the Postmaster General consider asking his cost ascertainment section to look at this matter so that we may know what is represented by the franking privileges exercised by the various departments? An amount of approximately $5 million is being spent by departments and agencies of government and we have no idea to what extent the individual departments are using these franking privileges. That represents a lack of a substantial amount of information which would be of interest in assessing the operations of the various departments. Therefore will the Postmaster General take steps to see that a study of the franking privileges is made?


Hugues Lapointe: If anything of that sort is to be done I suggest that it be done by the respective departments. Our main concern is to get out the mail to its destination as quickly as possible. If the Post Office Department through the Ottawa post office was required to make such a breakdown it would result in considerable delay in delivering the mail. Whether it should be done by the individual departments is a matter of opinion.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, since it is about one minute to one o'clock and as I am anxious to question the Postmaster General regarding the electronic mail sorting machines, I am sure he will require more than one minute to answer.


Hugues Lapointe: I will take one minute to answer if that is all the hon. member wants.


William McLean Hamilton: In
fairness to the committee I think it would be better if the Postmaster General took more than one minute to explain an expenditure which is now over one million dollars.
Progress reported.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
William McLean Hamilton: Would the Postmaster General care to give us a statement on the present situation as regards the electronic sorting machine?


Hugues Lapointe: Well, Mr. Chairman, I can say briefly what the situation is at the present date. I told the committee last August that it was expected that the machine would be installed for actual operation in Ottawa in January. At that time I explained, also, that certain components of that machine were being manufactured by different concerns. What did happen was that one of the components-a component which, in fact, is probably the most important part; it is referred to as the electronic brain-is being manufactured by Feranti an electronic engineering firm in Toronto. The employees of that firm were on strike for a period of nearly four months-I have forgotten the exact date- with the result that the production of that particular component was delayed during that period, with the consequence that the whole program had been delayed. But I have had assurances from the manufacturers that by the end of this month-I think it is by the 29th, as a matter of fact-installation will be started in the Ottawa post office, and that the machine will be in actual operation early in April.


William McLean Hamilton: Has the department, then, changed its plans? At the time of my last inquiry I understood that the machine was being developed here in Ottawa. Has there been any change in that respect?


Hugues Lapointe: What was being developed here in Ottawa, in the laboratory, was what I might refer to as a working prototype. What is being manufactured in Toronto is what I may refer to as a production prototype, and that is the one which is being installed here in Ottawa by the end of this month.


William McLean Hamilton: Can the Postmaster General give us any idea of what the cost of this has been to date?


Hugues Lapointe: Yes; $1,428,062.


William McLean Hamilton: Is this essentially a Canadian development, Mr. Chairman?


Hugues Lapointe: It was a completely Canadian development. The only component which was made by a firm which is, basically, an American firm, was the printer component of the machine, and that was carried out by Pitney-Bowes who, I understand, made it through their Canadian plant.
Supply-Post Office


William McLean Hamilton: Did the department not procure from American sources, apart from Pitney-Bowes, certain advice for certain development work done in connection with this machine?


Hugues Lapointe: No, I am told not. But Pitney-Bowes, as the hon. member knows, is an American concern which has a plant here in Canada and it is quite possible that within the framework of this company there might have been some work done with regard to some component in the whole machine. But I am told that as far as the electronic sorting machine is concerned that is not the case.


William McLean Hamilton: Would the Postmaster General please explain why it was that in the fiscal year ended March, 1956, the department paid a corporation in Washington, District of Columbia, known as Reed Research Incorporated, the sum of $195,022 for expenses in connection with an electronic-


Hugues Lapointe: That was for a facing-up machine which is not part of a sorting machine, and those are the explanations that were given to the committee last year. That is a completely different development. The machine was manufactured, it is quite true. It was brought here and tested, and it was found to be satisfactory except as to speed, and certain modifications are being carried out here in Canada in order to make that machine suitable to our needs.


William McLean Hamilton: I would like to say in passing, Mr. Chairman, how difficult it is for this house to follow the estimates of a particular department properly and to study the operations of that department, when we find that the information contained in the public accounts is not in accord with the information which comes to us from the minister.


Mr. Lapoinie:: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry but I think I must interrupt the hon. gentleman. I do not think he can find any information in the public accounts which differs from the information I gave to the house. If he means to imply that I am not giving the true facts as they are reflected in the public accounts, the hon. gentleman is quite wrong. He is referring, as I pointed out before, to two completely different matters.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I am quite sure the minister is doing his very best to inform the house, but I must depend upon both the minister and the official publications of the government for information in studying these estimates. A moment ago the minister told

Supply-Post Office
us that the expenditure with regard to Reed Research in Washington was absolutely- and I think these were his words-formed absolutely no part of the electronic sortation project. If those are not the exact words, they are very close to them. He did tell us that this expenditure had no relation to this electronic sortation project. When I turn to page S-4 of the public accounts of Canada for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1956, I find the following starting with the third line and explaining an item in these accounts:
Expenditures included:	Payments to Beaconing
Optical and Precision Materials Co. Ltd., Montreal, $92,110, Ferranti Electric Ltd., Toronto, $73,392, Pitney-Bowes of Canada Ltd., Toronto, $27,375, J. L. Richards and Associates, Ottawa, $8,063 and Reed Research Inc., Washington, D.C.,	U.S.A.,
$195,022, for expenses in connection with electronic sortation project . . .
The balance of the paragraph refers to certain other expenses which are followed by the words "for security express services". What at this point am I to conclude; that the minister is wrong and the public accounts are right, that the public accounts are wrong and the minister is right or, as a colleague suggests, that they are both wrong? I assume that the public accounts are based, as they would normally be, on information procured from the minister's department and I would be grateful if the minister would explain the apparent discrepancy.


Hugues Lapointe: I can give no other explanation than was given to members of the committee last year. I repeat that this reference to expenditure is for the development of a facing up machine, and in the committee last year it was explained that this was being done separately. It is no part of the electronic sortation machine. It is a different machine. It will be used possibly in conjunction with the sortation machine, but it is a different thing altogether. In other words, the facing up of letters to be fed into the sortation machine will be done by this development but it is no part of the over-all electronic sortation operation.


William McLean Hamilton: I am not going to pursue the matter any further. I think it has been brought to the attention of the house, and I would repeat, that it is a highly unsatisfactory situation when we find that the details in the report of the Auditor General and the information given us by the Postmaster General in the house are directly contradictory with regard to certain expenditures of the government.


Hugues Lapointe: That is not correct, Mr. Chairman.
[Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace) .1


William McLean Hamilton: The
minister's observation that this expenditure was no part of the electronic sortation project can be placed right alongside the report of the Auditor General which says that it was, and one can draw whatever conclusion one wishes.


Hugues Lapointe: I do not know whether the Auditor General has a better knowledge of the operations of this machine than I have but I can tell the house that what I am giving the house are the facts.


William McLean Hamilton: I am
not disputing that for a moment.


Hugues Lapointe: Oh no!


William McLean Hamilton: am merely pointing out that as we have proceeded through these estimates we have found such instances time and time again. It was apparent yesterday, it was apparent this morning in connection with the information on franking and it is apparent again now that the minister at least is not aware in detail of what he has said previously, the commitments he has made previously and the information he has supplied at sessions of the committee. He is making rather heavy going of it for those of us who have studied his department as carefully as we can.


Hugues Lapointe: I am doing nothing of the sort.


William McLean Hamilton: Would the minister care to tell us what the current situation is regarding the Transorma machine in the Peterborough post office which was still almost under trial at the time of consideration of these estimates last year?


Hugues Lapointe: I do not know what my hon. friend wants to know but I am informed by the officers of the department that the Transorma machine is now giving good service. When a new machine of that type is adopted by the department in a particular office there is, of course, a period of training of the personnel in the use of the machine and during the first few months, while the period of training is under way, sometimes difficulties arise. But I am informed by the officers of the department that that period is now completed and that the machine is giving satisfactory service.


William McLean Hamilton: What other major projects is the research department working on at this time? Can the Postmaster General tell us that?


Hugues Lapointe: I am told that the electronic sortation machine and the facing up machine are the two main projects at this time. I am told there is another small project. This

may satisfy one hon. member who asked a question about it. We are working on the development of stools to be used by sorters in post offices according to a model developed in the United States on which we are experimenting ourselves.


Mr. Dufresne:: They are going to be able to sit down from now on.


John Borden Hamilton: What is the cost for next year of operating the research department of the post office?


Hugues Lapointe: The amount is $990,000. This amount, as in the case of any development project, may not be fully expended. As I explained, we are going to instal a sortation machine here in Ottawa, and the installation of that machine, plus the increase in the number of coding desks which are to be used with the machine, will account for part of that expenditure. When the machine has been in operation here it is planned that the next office where such a sortation machine will be installed will be Montreal and after that the Toronto office. We would like to develop this for the Montreal office first in case some problems might arise in regard to there being a big volume of mail addressed in French and another volume of mail addressed in English. The experts have thought that the Montreal office would be particularly suitable for the installation of a large machine, and the amount which I have mentioned covers this proposed development. But, as I say, the actual expenditure will depend on the work done and the amount of time we will experiment with the actual operation of the machine here in Ottawa.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to direct the attention of the Postmaster General to a situation in my own city. I do so at this point because I regret to say that I have not been able to arrange a satisfactory adjustment by correspondence with the officials of the department. About a month ago or a little more I received a request from the letter carriers' association local in Kamloops that the inspection of the walks be conducted immediately.
That would be early in February. I was informed that semi-annual inspections were scheduled for March and August in Kamloops and it was their feeling that an inspection carried out in March would not reflect the winter conditions in that area and therefore would not give a proper impression or check of the difficulties encountered by the carriers in winter. The one in August would be a reasonable one for spring, summer and fall; but the one in March would not give 82715-128
Supply-Post Office
a proper impression of winter conditions. They therefore asked that the check be made immediately.
When I passed the request on to the officials of the department, with a summary of the reasons such as I have just given here, I was informed that since the check was to be made in March it was not considered appropriate to advance it by a few weeks, which would have been the difference between the March check and the February check then being requested. I replied that even although it was only a few weeks, in our particular area winter is virtually over- that is the real winter-in early March. The back of winter is broken then, whereas in early February when this request had been originally made we do encounter some quite adverse winter conditions. In the last few years particularly, our worst winter conditions have been occurring from about the middle of December to about the middle of February. We sometimes have blizzard conditions, deep snow drifts, thaws, followed by freezes creating ice, slippery conditions and so on, which are not prevalent during March or at any rate not after the middle of March.
I therefore still feel that if an average impression of the conditions to be encountered by the letter carriers in Kamloops is to be obtained, there should be one check made in mid-winter and one in mid-summer or fall, as the case may be; and that to get a proper impression of winter conditions and a proper check of the time it takes the carriers to get around their routes, a check made in March is of no value. I suppose it is probably too late to do anything about the matter this year because we are now into March, but I urge upon the Postmaster General that he have the matter looked into and discussed with his officials because I am confident that, if a practical look is taken, they will arrive at the conclusion that in order to get a fair average cross-section of the difficulties encountered and the time consumed on these routes, a check should be made in the middle of winter rather than in the middle or at the end of March.


Hugues Lapointe: I am glad the hon. member brings up this question because it is one that I have discussed with the officers of the postal employees association themselves. The system which has been followed up to now is that a check of the routes is made in March, that is during one week in March, and one week in August. Those weeks are chosen because generally speaking they are indicative of the conditions in the winter and in the summer. One week is chosen by the department and the other by the employees' association. The week in March was chosen

Supply-Post Office
this year by the employees' association, and we will pick a week in August.
In the representations which they made to me they pointed out that in their opinion there were some localities where such a check did not give an accurate picture. We did discuss various modifications and I am sure we will come to an understanding which will be satisfactory to the postal employees. It was even suggested that certain routes could he picked specially and a check for the whole year made on those routes. However, we will be working on it and I believe an arrangement can be arrived at which will be satisfactory to the letter carrier.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am glad to hear that last remark of the Postmaster General. I was in fact informed by the officials of the department that the check in March had been suggested by the association. I do not know how these things are arrived at, but I can well imagine that for the coastal area, which is the most heavily populated, March might be the most appropriate time. But I raise the point, why is it necessary to have them all in the same week? Could not local conditions be considered, and the time varied? I am sure that my colleagues who come from the interior of my province would agree with me that January or February would be a much better time in which to gain an impression of winter conditions than March. They have very little snow on the coast; in fact they regard it as an exception, and in their case March might be perfectly suitable.
The minister has stated that discussions will continue and I hope satisfactory arrangements can be worked out. Will he let me know whether it is possible to vary the time as between different localities? It would seem to me that a week could be picked which would be suitable for the coastal area and another week could be picked which would be more suitable for the interior.


Hugues Lapointe: We will take it up with the association and try to work out an arrangement. Possibly some of the officials are not aware that there are parts of British Columbia where it is not summer all the year round. We have considerable propaganda to that effect.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I have made several inquiries of the minister before lunch and I had hoped to receive answers, but there are one or two things I should like to say in connection with this item. There was some discussion about the cost of sending out mail from the various departments. The thing which interests me is that in viewing the operations of the Post Office Department we should consider the services which that department renders for

the other departments of government. Various departments send out mail under their franking privileges and apparently the minister is not prepared to indicate the amount of service rendered to the various departments. I think that should be taken into consideration when ascertaining the surplus of the Post Office Department at the end of the year.
While it is true that this may be only a bookkeeping entry, while it may be only a matter of taking money out of one pocket and putting it into another as far as the government is concerned, I submit the Post Office Department should be credited with the value of the services they render just as though they were handling mail for the general public.
The value of the services rendered to the various departments in the carriage of mail should be credited to the Post Office Department. If that were done I think it would be found that the department would have a sizeable surplus. The difficulty is that when the question of salaries is raised the Post Office Department is prone to say to the employees, "We are not in a financial position to do more for you in the way of wages, overtime and working conditions."
I feel that the only way in which you can arrive at the actual cost of running the department as compared with the revenues of the department is to credit to the Post Office Department the actual amounts being spent on behalf of the various departments of the government. If you do that you will be in a better position to assess the policy of the Post Office Department and pay better wages to the employees of that department.
There is one other matter that I am interested in. In common with many other cities in Canada, we in the city of Regina had a new post office opened just recently, and I am particularly concerned about the facilities within that post office. From what I have been able to ascertain and from my own personal observations I have gathered that while a new building was constructed, to a large extent the old equipment was simply moved from the old post office to the new post office. In other words, while a new building was put up, we are not making the best use of that new available space. Equipment which is out of date, equipment which has been used for many years, was simply transferred to the new building. It seems to me that when new facilities are set up to handle mail, when a new post office is built, if you are to make the maximum use of that new facility you should see that the facilities within the building are in line with the building itself.
While I am subject to correction, I should like to hear from the minister; I should like

to know whether what I say is correct and whether, in line with the new building itself, the facilities within the building are adequate to deal with the dispatch of business within the new post office. As I say, I have simply concluded that to a large extent the old equipment in the old building was simply moved down to the new building and we are perhaps not making the best use of the new facilities in the new post office building in Regina. I should like the Postmaster General to comment on that.


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that I do not quite agree with my hon. friend. We hear comments from the other side of the house sometimes about government expenditures and now we hear the theory expounded that when one sets up a new building, provides new accommodation for a department of government, everything that was contained in the old building should be thrown out and done away with. As a matter of fact, in the Regina post office-


Alfred Claude Ellis: No, I did not say that.


Hugues Lapointe: That is what my hon. friend suggested. As a matter of fact, in the Regina building new mechanical equipment is being installed. As far as sortation tables, sortation desks, the use of racks and so on are concerned, the same equipment which was in the old building can be used, and I think it is a very realistic policy to make use of that equipment while it is still good.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Chairman, I want to make this statement. I did not say that I thought all the old equipment should be thrown out. I made no such assertion. I simply asked the minister to make a statement and say whether in his opinion, in view of the enlarged facilities, the old equipment was satisfactory


Hugues Lapointe: What does my hon. friend refer to as "old equipment"? Will he tell me what he considers to be old equipment that should be replaced?


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Chairman, I would simply say this. When you have a building which by all standards was considered to be inadequate to serve the need and you move into enlarged quarters, I would simply suggest that obviously if you are going to make the best use of the new facilities you must have additional equipment. That is a far cry from the minister's assertion that everything that was used in the old building should be eliminated.


Hugues Lapointe: I did not say so.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I want to have the minister's assurance that in his opinion and in the opinion of the department the facilities within that building were perfectly adequate. If the 82715-128J
Supply-Post Office
minister is prepared to make that assertion then, of course, I am going to have to accept it.


Hugues Lapointe: I did not say anything of the sort, Mr. Chairman. But I suggested that when we did obtain new accommodation in a new public building that was set up for the purpose of providing better working space in order to cope with the volume of business that goes into that office and provided bigger public lobbies for the admission of the public to the office, to suggest, as my hon. friend did, that the postal equipment that goes into the building for the employees to work with should be replaced by new equipment simply because the building is new is a most unrealistic approach to the problem, just as much as if I should suggest that if my hon. friend changes his home and moves from his present home into a newly acquired home he should get rid of everything in his former home and replace it with new equipment simply because he has acquired a new house.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Chairman, the minister insists that I suggested that.


Hugues Lapointe: You said it; I did not.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I made no suggestion that the equipment would have to be replaced. My assertion is simply this, and I think it is a quite logical assertion. When you move into larger quarters, naturally under normal circumstances you would expect that you could make better use of additional equipment. I repeat, my question to the minister was simply to get his assurance and the assurance of the officers of this department that the equipment and the new and enlarged postal facilities are adequate in terms of the modern plant set up there. The only reason I rose at this time was to correct the statement made by the minister that you have to replace the old equipment. That is a far cry from the point I made. The point was that if additional space is required and larger facilities are required I want to make sure that is done. That is my only point.


Hugues Lapointe: I did say that the mechanical equipment that was put in was new. I am assured by my officials of the department who have a working knowledge of the inside of a post office that it will be quite adequate for the new building.


Mrs. Fairclough:: I wonder whether the Postmaster General would explain the manner in which insured mail is handled? Perhaps I had better explain. I am now given to understand, to my surprise, that no signature is required from the recipient of an insured parcel. Is that true? If that

Supply-Post Office
is true, how can the post office be sure that an insured parcel has reached its destination and is not lost?


Hugues Lapointe: Well, I am told that is the practice that has always been followed, and that the losses have been so few that it has not been found necessary to obtain signatures. When there are losses affidavits are taken from the intended recipient as to the fact that the parcel was not received, and an affidavit is taken of the one who mailed the parcel. But generally speaking, there have been so few losses that it has not been found necessary to change the practice.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: In the event of an insured parcel being delivered to its destination, is any care taken to see that that parcel is actually handed to an individual or placed in a box, or is it perhaps just thrown on the doorstep? How is it delivered?


Hugues Lapointe: No. The carriers have
instructions that it must be handed to someone in the household. I know there have been cases where carriers, finding nobody at home, just left the parcel there, and they [DOT]were disciplined. But their instructions are that they are to hand the parcel over to someone in the house.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It seems to me this is an unsatisfactory way to handle insured mail. Obviously the dispatcher of a parcel does not place insurance on it unless he wishes to make sure that it is going to be delivered.
The very fact of having insured it places in my estimation some onus on the department to prove delivery. The reason I refer to this is because I had a case just recently where much to my surprise I asked the postmaster whether a parcel had been delivered, fully expecting that he could refer to his record and tell me whether or not it had been delivered.
I received word from him, as has been corroborated by the Postmaster General today, to the effect that they do not keep a record of insured parcels and yet the receipt which I have from the department has a number indicating that there should be some sort of system whereby this could be followed through. At the moment I am in the peculiar position of not knowing whether or not the parcel was delivered because I am unable to get in contact with the consignee.


Hugues Lapointe: The means provided by the post office to make sure of delivery into the hands of the receiver is registration. Insurance is given for compensation in case of loss. As I understand it, the number on the receipt referred to by my hon. friend would permit tracing for the purposes of making a claim for loss.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am still somewhat at sea about this matter, Mr. Chairman. You say the number is for the purpose of tracing, but how can you trace if the postmaster at the point of destination has no record of it?


Hugues Lapointe: As my hon. friend knows, we charge no fee for insurance up to $50 and the fees for any higher amounts are very low indeed whereas for registration we charge 20 cents for the first $25, 30 cents for amounts over $25 and up to $50 and so on in a gradual scale. For the fee we charge for insurance we could not very well guarantee delivery. We can meet the losses, which are very few as I mentioned before, but we could not provide assurance of delivery. This is operated on a very low fee indeed.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It seems to me if a shipper is sufficiently interested in the delivery of a parcel to insure it he would be quite willing to pay a small fee to have insurance placed on it to be assured of its safe delivery.


Hugues Lapointe: He can do so by paying a registration fee.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: But that is not explained to the person who places a parcel with the post office for delivery.


Hugues Lapointe: Most shippers know that.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I did not know it and I think I am reasonably well informed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I rise for just a minute or two. Last Friday in the course of the discussion of the estimates of this department my friend the hon. member for Quebec West placed on the record at page 1784 of Hansard of March 1, 1957, an editorial from a newspaper published at Ste. Foy. It included this sentence:
(Translation):
A few years ago, that same Post Office Department at a stroke of the pen crossed out the name of St. Boniface, a small French-Canadian town, near Winnipeg.
(Text):


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Hear, hear. Pretty good
French, Monsieur Knowles.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If I understand that sentence correctly-and I have been able to confirm it by looking up the official translation-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Harkness:: That is one way of making certain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -the words "une petite
ville" mean a small town.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It has been confirmed by
one who is perfectly bilingual. I rise as a resident and representative of the greater Winnipeg area to point out that St. Boniface

is not "une petite ville" but a large, well-established and thriving city.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: That was written by a
very modest writer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But my hon. friend quoted
it with approval. As I say, St. Boniface is a large and thriving city, one of three cities which we have at the conjunction of the Red and Assiniboine rivers.
(Translation):


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, in connection with item 34 now under consideration, I wish to draw the minister's attention to an unfair situation which seems to be materializing in Montreal and which, if the precedent is established, will be most detrimental to all Roman Catholic employees of the department. I want to be fair to the minister and tell him right away that I am convinced he is unaware of the decision taken by the postmaster of Montreal and that, as soon as he is informed of the fact, he will take such steps as become imperative in such a case.
I do not know whether it is by way of a regulation or in accordance with a tradition but I understand that in the past Roman Catholic postal employees in Montreal had always been granted a period not exceeding three quarters of an hour to attend mass on Sundays and feast days of obligation.
I understand too that as this was considered too short, representations were made to postal headquarters in Montreal in order to have this time extended. Following this request, the postmaster is said to have advised the Catholic employees by letter to "Please note that, starting Sunday, March 10, no more time will be given employees to attend mass, and that the working hours will be the same as usual."
I repeat what I just said, Mr. Chairman.
I am convinced that the hon. minister is entirely unaware of this situation and that, as soon as he finds it to be so, he will see that instructions to the contrary be issued.
Every citizen is generally given a paid two hours' leave to enable him to do his duty to the state by voting on election day. In a spiritual matter, it seems to me that there should be particular attention given, and I do not know why it should not be possible with regard to those employees to reinstate at least the three quarters of an hour period which they had been allowed before, inadequate as it was. If this rule is ever applied, Mr. Chairman, I say that it will be the most reprehensible discrimination to which any government employees will as yet have been submitted.
Supply-Post Office
There is no doubt that this was excessively officious,-I would even say shockingly officious

on the part of an employee.
I therefore ask the hon. minister, in the name of those employees who, as from March 10, will be deprived of the necessary time to do their religious duty, to correct this position and, knowing his fair mind, I trust he will hasten to give the necessary instructions to reinstate the time that was being allowed to all those who practise the catholic faith, and, if possible to extend the period by 15 minutes.
(Text):


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Chairman, I am not really certain whether my question is in order at this point but I cannot find any other place to ask it. It deals with a really small town, I may say, in this case. It deals with the small town of Duncan on Vancouver island where I believe we are to have a new post office. I understand that plans are drawn for it. I was wondering whether the minister can tell me what is to become of the old post office or to what use it is going to be put?


Hugues Lapointe: No. I am afraid I cannot do that. Whenever we vacate accommodation such as an old post office, the building falls into the hands of the Department of Public Works. The use to which it may be put for any further government purpose or disposal is a matter that is in their hands. The post office as such does not own or look after buildings.


Colin Cameron: I was merely asking that question because there has been a great deal of discussion as to what is going to be done with the old post office at Duncan, and I was just wondering.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I wonder if I might ask the minister if he would state as briefly as possible the policy of the Post Office Department with respect to payment of overtime. You will recall that in former years we had something to say about this whole question of overtime payment for postal employees who are required to work overtime. There has been criticism which has been levelled in the past with regard to this whole question of time off later for overtime work, for instance, during the Christmas rush. I would appreciate it greatly if the Postmaster General would now make a statement outlining the attitude of the post office towards this question of overtime.


Hugues Lapointe: I did that last night, Mr. Chairman. However, I can repeat briefly what I said last night. I then said that

Supply-Post Office
the regulations governing overtime are set by the civil service commission and that postal employees are subject to those regulations as are employees of all other departments; but that at the present time the civil service commission, I have been informed, are in the process of reviewing those regulations and that a revision of them might be expected. That is as much as I know about it.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I appreciate the statement made by the minister. I was in my constituency for several days and just arrived back in the city last evening. That was the reason why I desired to make this inquiry. Notwithstanding the statement made by the minister, however, I feel that some decision should be made with regard to this very important matter. It is all very well to suggest that this matter is in the lap of the civil service commission,-


Hugues Lapointe: It is.


Alfred Claude Ellis: -and that they will take the matter under advisement and so forth. I feel that this is a matter which should receive early consideration. I am not satisfied that the policy, as it affects post office employees, is satisfactory. As a matter of fact, I would suggest that it is far from satisfactory. I simply urge upon the minister that he use his good offices with his colleagues in the cabinet with a view to bringing about a better over-all policy through the civil service commission on this very important matter.


Hugues Lapointe: An interdepartmental committee is working on that matter at the present time.


Neil Alexander Matheson: I have a question on the matter of permanent appointments. I am wondering whether the minister can tell us what are the determining factors when an employee becomes permanent. My own understanding is extremely vague. I know that he must give a year's satisfactory continuous service in the post office. There is one case in particular about which people have been writing to me. I am told-this may or may not be right-that the person in question has given a year's continuous service. Yet I am told by a reliable source that he is employed in a casual capacity only and is not filling a permanent position in the establishment. Could a person be employed for any length of time in the government service in a casual capacity? It is my understanding that up to perhaps a year or a year and a half ago there was a quota system in effect for each post office. I am told that that has been eliminated but there must be some limitation upon the number of permanent appointments that can be made.


Hugues Lapointe: With the last changes in the Superannuation Act the status of temporary employees in relation to permanent employees has been changed completely. Previous to those changes being made each department had a quota of permanent employees and any other persons employed were considered to be temporaries. Since the change in the act was made there is no difference between the two and a temporary employee becomes permanent after one year if he proves to be satisfactory. He must qualify under civil service examinations to become a permanent employee.
If my hon. friend would let me have the details of the case he has in mind I would be glad to get the facts. There may be instances where someone is taken on temporarily to replace a permanent employee who is sick and when that permanent employee returns to work the temporary employee is placed on the eligible list and will be called when the next vacancy occurs.


Neil Alexander Matheson: I will discuss any further developments in this connection with the minister or his officers. Is there such a thing as a departmental examination in addition to the competition set by the civil service commission?


Hugues Lapointe: Yes. Postal employees of different classes must pass examinations each year to retain their rating.


Neil Alexander Matheson: That is within the department?


Hugues Lapointe: That is within the department; it has nothing to do with the civil service commission.


Tom Goode: There were two questions I asked this morning which I should like the Postmaster General to answer. Is "Richmond, British Columbia" an official address, and what are the intentions of the department with regard to a new building in South Burnaby?


Arthur-Joseph Lapointe: Richmond can be considered as an official address. I understand that public works are now giving consideration to building a new post office in South Burnaby.


John Borden Hamilton: Some hon. members remarked earlier about the prompt way in which correspondence with the Post Office Department was handled, and I must say that that has been my experience generally. Perhaps I can refer particularly for a moment to my own riding. Would the Postmaster General comment on the possibility of opening another postal service in the area around the intersection of Walkley and Somerled? On November 13 I wrote to one of the senior officials of the department,

and I received an acknowledging letter on November 15 which stated that immediately a full report was obtained they would write to me again. That was almost four months ago and I am just wondering if it has been overlooked.


Hugues Lapointe: I am told that this matter is being looked into at the present time, but we have no final report on it. It is quite possible that some development along the lines suggested by the hon. member may take place, but I could not give him any definite information because my officials say they have not a full report as yet.


William McLean Hamilton: Does it normally take four months, may I ask?


Hugues Lapointe: Sometimes it takes much longer.


Jean Lesage: It takes a lot longer than that in government members' constituencies.


William McLean Hamilton: Is
the Postmaster General aware of any proposed plan which is now under consideration for the installation of a postal station in that area?


Hugues Lapointe: I am not personally aware of any at the present time, but I am told there is something going on at the present time. I would have to draw the file to answer the hon. member. I would be pleased to give him the information at a later date.


William McLean Hamilton: Sitting immediately in front of the Postmaster General at this particular session is the deputy postmaster general and other senior officials of the department. Might I suggest to the minister that he lean across and talk to these gentlemen and ask them what the situation is? One of them, and I am anxious to mention which one, has had this matter under study for four months. The Postmaster General has just told us that something is being planned for that area, and I think we as a committee are entitled to know what it is.


Hugues Lapointe: I can give no other answer, Mr. Chairman, than the one I have just given. I have not this case before me, and I am offering to let the hon. member have the information he is seeking as soon as I have the file. He refers to the fact that I have officials in front of me. There are also 12,000 postal stations in Canada, and I think it can hardly be expected that from memory they can recall the exact situation with regard to each of them.


William McLean Hamilton: In
that case would the Postmaster General dispatch a messenger for the file?
Supply-Post Office


Hugues Lapointe: No, Mr. Chairman.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, do I understand, then, that the Postmaster General is not prepared to give this information to the house?


Hugues Lapointe: I have not the information with me, and I do not see that it would make any difference whether or not I brought it in now. I have told the hon. member that I was informed by my officials that they have asked for a report, and that they do not have the report on hand as yet. The hon. member asked if it was usual that it should take so long. I said yes, it was usual. He can complain about the delay and say how much better it would be if he were looking after it, but these are the facts and there is nothing more I can add to them.


William McLean Hamilton: have complained about the delay. That complaint has been made. I am now complaining about the Postmaster General's refusal to give certain information to this house, or to send out-


Hugues Lapointe: I am not refusing. I would draw to the attention of the hon. member that I have never refused to give any information. I am saying that I have not the information on hand; the report has not yet come in, and is not available for me to give to the hon. member.


William McLean Hamilton: moment ago the Postmaster General told the house that in order to know what the circumstances were in connection with this particular subject he would have to draw the file. That I can understand. I then said to him, would the minister please see whether we could get this information while this subject is under discussion-send for the file-


Jean Lesage: But not to give it to you after what you did once.


William McLean Hamilton: -
and at that point the Postmaster General said no. Then he stands up and says he does not know, the report has not come in. He runs all round the subject, but the fact remains that the Postmaster General has refused to give this house certain information which he previously admitted was available, because it is in the department.


Hugues Lapointe: I did not. What the hon. member is asking for is not information but for a decision, Mr. Chairman; and whether or not I get the file up here he is definitely not going to get a decision from me this afternoon on that particular point.


Jean Lesage: Hear, hear.

Supply-Post Office


William McLean Hamilton: The
record will speak for itself.


Hugues Lapointe: It certainly will.


William McLean Hamilton: Can
the Postmaster General inform the house how many urban routes there are with one delivery a day and how many with two deliveries a day; how many rural routes there are with one delivery a day, three a week and one a week; in other words, a breakdown of his delivery system?


Hugues Lapointe: I have that information and I will give it in a second. I have left my book upstairs.


William McLean Hamilton: wish the Postmaster General had sent with equal speed for the other information I requested.


Hugues Lapointe: No. This I have on hand.


William McLean Hamilton: While we are waiting for this information, perhaps the Postmaster General would like to deal with another question?


The Chairman:: Shall the item carry?


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, the Postmaster General has sent out for certain information. I just said that while we were waiting perhaps he could deal with another question.


Hugues Lapointe: I can answer that question on the next item, since it concerns transportation and not operation.


William McLean Hamilton: I did
not receive any further reply, so I thought the minister was just waiting. Now I will ask my next question.


Hugues Lapointe: Aren't you cute.


William McLean Hamilton: Last year before the estimates committee, dealing with the post office, we had some discussion regarding temporary Christmas help in the Montreal area, help which was hired on the recommendation of members of parliament in that area. Perhaps the Postmaster General will remember that approximately two-thirds of the people taken on were engaged on such recommendations. At that time he told us that this was not in accord with departmental policy and that the department had instructed its people a number of times that they should not ask for recommendations from members of parliament. Can the Postmaster General inform the house if there has been any further action in this regard, and whether any statistics are available in connection with it?


Hugues Lapointe: No, Mr. Chairman, and I do not recall using exactly the words which the

hon. member has put into my mouth. If he would read them I think it would be found that we handled it in a different way. We have not any statistics. I do not know who sends letters of recommendation. I know I receive them from a lot of people in Montreal and I bring them to the attention of the postmaster and, if they concern veterans, I point out their service so they can be given preference.


William McLean Hamilton: What is the policy of the Post Office Department with regard to the closing of post offices on Wednesday afternoons in areas where that might be the common business practice?


Hugues Lapointe: I am told we follow the practice of the local community in which the post office is situated, and where most shops are closed on Wednesday afternoons we close on Wednesday afternoons.
Now I have the information for which the hon. member was asking. The number of rural mail delivery routes by frequencies is: six deliveries a week, 4,574; five deliveries a week, 5; four deliveries a week, 19; three deliveries a week, 405; two deliveries a week, 349; one delivery a week, 4-a total of 5,356.


William McLean Hamilton: Now
would the Postmaster General please give us the other information I requested regarding the urban routes? How many are one a day and how many are two a day?


Hugues Lapointe: With regard to letter carrier service, perhaps I might give the figures on the basis of the number of routes and the frequency of delivery. The figures are: Five times a day, which would be in the downtown business sections, 68; four times a day, 14; three times a day, 341; twice a day, 317, and once a day, 3,829.


William McLean Hamilton: Are
there only 317 routes in Canada on which there is twice a day mail delivery?


Hugues Lapointe: There are 317 on which there are two deliveries a day, but there are also 341 where there are three deliveries a day, 14 where there are four and 68 where there are five. To get the true picture one should add all these routes to see the difference between one delivery and more than one delivery a day.


William McLean Hamilton: Yes, I agree with the Postmaster General on that. I think it is a fact that these figures show that the great majority of the urban routes are served on the basis of once a day, and that the great majority of rural routes are also served on the basis of once a day. There has been considerable argument here that rural routes should be given improved service

and increased from perhaps two or three deliveries a week to one delivery a day.
I want to say at this point that I agree completely with that. That was the purpose of asking for these figures, and it would not represent a great deal of effort on the part of the Post Office Department to bring these rural routes up to the standard of the other 4,000 which now enjoy one delivery a day. Actually, on the basis of the present service being given by the post office the great majority of city dwellers enjoy a mail delivery service almost exactly comparable to that of people living in the country-


Mr. Weir:: Oh, no.


John Borden Hamilton: *-and the reverse is also true, that the great majority of the people living in the country enjoy the same delivery privileges as the people living in the cities.


William Gilbert Weir: No, they do not. You had better go out west.


Hugues Lapointe: I am afraid I do not agree with my hon. friend. I should like to point out here that when I made my remarks the other day I was not trying to pit the rural areas against the urban centres, but one must take into consideration that there are a great many people in the rural districts who do not get mail once a day, while there are no cities where mail is not delivered once a day. Furthermore, there are now many small centres immediately surrounding the cities where letter carrier service is not yet provided. What I meant the other day was that I felt that the efforts of the Post Office Department should be directed toward providing as much service as possible to everybody before entering upon a large expenditure to double deliveries in the cities, and that we should try to extend the service so it will reach as many people as possible in this country.


William McLean Hamilton: think we can all agree with that philosophy. Before we leave the subject, would the Postmaster General care to assure the house that the subject of twice a day delivery is now under active consideration at the cabinet level?


Hugues Lapointe: The matter is always under consideration by the department, and it is always considered by the cabinet. No extension of letter carrier service is made without the approval of the governor in council, so that every time we extend letter carrier service in a community the whole question is looked into.


William McLean Hamilton: I was
interested in passing in establishing some 82715-129
Supply-Post Office
relationship between the Prime Minister assuring delegations that this was being seriously considered, and doing so in such a way that it made newspaper headlines across the country, and the Postmaster General rising in the house the next week and saying it was not being considered. I thought possibly we should try to get the Postmaster General's assurance on that point.
Last year when we were before the estimates committee there was considerable discussion regarding the grading of those in charge of postal stations as between Montreal and Toronto. We did not refer to those two cities particularly, but as an example of the fact that the department was meting out different treatment to people in different parts of the country. The Postmaster General told us at that time, as I remember it, that they were working on a formula with the civil service commission which would automatically establish the grading of a postmaster in relation to his postal station. I am wondering whether that formula has been completed and is in operation and, if so, what the formula is.


Hugues Lapointe: As I told the committee last year, that work was started by the civil service commission and it is still continuing. It is not something that can be done automatically; it is very difficult indeed, because the survey team of the civil service commission analyses all the work performed in the postal station or post office. One cannot determine a salary in relation to responsibilities carried by a postmaster simply by comparing his situation with that of another postmaster in another city. I know that at that time my hon. friend had in mind that at postal stations in Montreal the grading was, generally speaking, lower than in postal stations in Toronto.
The matter is still being looked into by the civil service commission and I understand there have been some changes or recommendations made for some changes. However, it must be remembered that in Toronto there are 18 postal stations while in Montreal there are 29. Hence the volume of business of each postal station in Toronto is on the average, larger than the postal stations in Montreal. Generally speaking the operation is bigger and the over-all post office income in the Toronto area is larger than that in Montreal. This does indicate the volume of business handled by the post office.
However, the survey of the civil service commission is still continuing. There have been some adjustments made and there will possibly be some more. We are continually

Supply-Post Office
following up the matter with the civil service commission, but they find it a long and very difficult job.


William Gilbert Weir: Mr. Chairman, I think the attitude of the minister and the Post Office Department is to be commended with regard to what the minister has said about instituting two services a day for ordinary mail In the larger towns as against improving the rural mail service. I do not know what experience is in eastern Canada, but I know that many rural routes in western Canada only have service twice or three times a week. They are not complaining unduly. They are very grateful for the service. But if there is going to be any extension of the delivery of ordinary mail, apart from delivery to business districts, then I think consideration should be given to the rural areas not only with regard to the matter of rural routes but the many localities that are limited so far as mail delivery is concerned because they only have train or bus service perhaps three times a week.
To say that we should institute twice a day delivery service in the larger centres and leave the rural areas with their limited service I do not think is quite reasonable at this stage. I agree immediately that the situation has changed considerably since the introduction of radio and television whereby country people, for the most part, are able generally to get the news in which they are interested even if they must be delayed in getting their newspapers and letters.
However, in the area from which I come there is another thing that has happened which has also upset the mail service to a considerable degree. I may say that I do not think anything can be done about it. It has to do with the taking off of trains and the Post Office Department being obliged to provide other service different from the service that has been provided for those communities over a long period of time. People perhaps get set in their ways. They are accustomed to going to the post office at regular periods. When they find that the train is taken off and the mail has to come in by some other means it is, quite frankly, rather disturbing.
As I say, I do not know what the Post Office Department can do about it, but when we are considering these things and the services that are provided by the Post Office Department for all of Canada, I think we must keep in mind the type of service that can be provided for these areas whose mail services are quite limited, even with the rural mail services or with the train service to certain communities that are not dependent on rural mail services, but which nonetheless

are just as anxious to have their mail delivered to them regularly and frequently as any other section of the community. As I started out to say at the beginning, I commend the attitude of the minister and the department in keeping in mind the needs of these rural areas.
I am in the happy position this afternoon of being able to say something of a complimentary character to the Postmaster General and his department. I wish to express my gratitude for a little bit of added service, a little bit of added courtesy, that the departments instituted last year. I come from an area, which each year holds a plowing match. It has become the recognized institution of that kind in the province of Manitoba, and it compares favourably with the international plowing match in Ontario.
As a little added incentive last year, in order to work up interest in this plowing match, the association having to do with it approached the department with the idea that they would bring in some historical incident to be associated with this plowing match, and asked the department to provide for a special mail delivery to the plowing match and to have a special stamp placed on the letters so delivered. They had the letters addressed to old Fort La Reine, established by La Verendrye in Manitoba in 1738, on the banks of the Assiniboine river. A special coach was arranged for, with four in hand horse delivery to deliver this mail some seven miles out to the plowing match. In this coach they provided a little of added colour by having the premier of our province and his charming wife dressed up in the clothes, used in the early days, of the stage coach, and they rode in this coach to deliver the mail.
Incidentally, as an added attraction the more sporting boys of the community got the notion that the stage coach should be waylaid along the road. They gathered up a few steeds and on horse back proceeded to overtake the stagecoach. However, they did not have any guns, and there was no shooting. Nevertheless this was a very attractive little bit of added colour to that incident.
I am here this afternoon to say to you, Mr. Postmaster General, that the Portage la Prairie plowing match is extremely grateful to the department and to you for the interest you yourself took in this matter and for making it possible to have this little bit of added colour associated with the provincial plowing match of Manitoba. On their behalf I want to express the appreciation that is felt.


Mr. McBain:: I have one or two suggestions I want to offer this afternoon. I may say that they concern my home city of St. Thomas. The people in that area are pleased to see under way the construction of a new public building. I may say that I think the contractor who has the contract for tearing down the old building has done a remarkable job, having regard to the speed with which he has taken down the old building which it was necessary to remove before the new construction could take place. I wish to commend him for his speedy work in that regard. I might say that if the speed with which the demolition of the old building has been carried out is continued in the construction of the new building, we can expect the opening of the new building much sooner than we expected.
The removal of the old building has necessitated a temporary office located some distance from the former building. This has created some inconvenience, especially to the older people of the area. They now are obliged to go several extra blocks in order to make their purchases of stamps, money orders and so on. I wish to suggest to the minister and the department that they take into consideration the establishing of a subpost office in the vicinity of the former building, so the general public may be able to purchase stamps and money orders and possibly dispatch small parcels. We had a stamp vending machine in the old building but of course that was taken over to the temporary quarters. I think possibly another stamp vending machine might be located somewhere in that same vicinity. I hope the department will take these matters into immediate consideration and see whether something can be supplied for the people of that area.


Hugues Lapointe: I shall be pleased to look into the matter.


William McLean Hamilton: Will
the Postmaster General give us comparative figures, say for the last two or three years, on the turnover of his staff, particularly the letter carrier staff?


Hugues Lapointe: I am afraid I have not those figures here. I can get them, but I have not them here.


William McLean Hamilton: Would the Postmaster General agree with me that the turnover has been growing steadily?


Hugues Lapointe: I am told that the turnover in the Post Office department is normal, in fact that it is lower than in the civil service generally, excepting Vancouver and Toronto.
Supply-Post Office


William McLean Hamilton: That perhaps applies to the post office as a whole. However, my specific question related to the turnover of the letter carrier staff.


Hugues Lapointe: That answer applies to that staff too, I am informed, except in those two cities I have mentioned, namely Vancouver and Toronto.


Mr. Kickham:: I should like to congratulate the Postmaster General and all his officials on the efficient administration which they have given to all postal matters.
I wish to mention an instance in my constituency this winter. Owing to the fact that we had a very severe winter in our province it was difficult to have our mail transported by motor vehicle. We asked the authorities of the Postmaster General's department, who are now in Saint John, New Brunswick, to give us an alternative service, which was asked for by town councils and boards of trade in my constituency. The authorities in Saint John were most co-operative, and are now giving us an alternative service in the transportation of mail by motor vehicle and, when that is not possible, by rail service.
Before taking my seat I wish to ask the minister whether it would not be possible to have the authority over postal matters restored to the city of Charlottetown. I understand that two years ago the authority was transferred to the city of Saint John. Personally I have no complaint whatsoever because, as in the instance which I have just mentioned, the Saint John authorities were most co-operative. But I have many requests that the authority be again restored to the city of Charlottetown.


John Borden Hamilton: Can
the Postmaster General give us the average number of householders, on an urban delivery route in three or four major cities of Canada, say in Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver? I think this is information that is on record.


Hugues Lapointe: The average is between 500 and 600. I think in Montreal it works out to about 586. This may vary from somewhere around 100 up to 900, depending on the route. In the busy downtown business district where there are three and maybe more deliveries a day there are not so many calls. In the heavily populated areas there may be a great number of calls but the volume of mail carried there is not as great. The routes are based on an eight-hour day, and the number of calls are determined by that eight-hour day. That is the basis of operation but, as I mentioned, it works out from 100 right up to 900.

Supply-Post Office


William McLean Hamilton: Am I
to understand that the average number of householders per route is almost exactly the same in Montreal and Toronto?


Hugues Lapointe: No, the figure I gave was for Montreal. I am told they would vary. Actually, the number varies in every city according to the topography of the city and the types of buildings. I have not the average worked out in Toronto or Vancouver as such. I will have it in a second.


Mr. Mclvor:: What difference would it make?


John Borden Hamilton: The
hon. member asks "What difference would it make?" I suggest, Mr. Chairman, it would make a great deal of difference if a letter carrier is asked to serve 400 or 500 houses or if, as in the case of routes in Montreal, he is asked to serve 1,100 or 1,200 householders. I believe that occurs in isolated cases. The hon. member for Fort William, who asked the question, is known to be fair, and I think he will agree that it is a fair thing to examine in this house. I notice that he now nods his head. I hope he regrets having interjected his unfortunate remark.
The Postmaster General said he would have the information in a second. Is he now able to give it?


Hugues Lapointe: I will give it on the
transportation item.


William McLean Hamilton: right. Last year we were told that the department had given some consideration to a system of priority mail which, with the payment of special postage, would have carriage and handling superior to that of any other type of mail. Have those studies been pursued and, if so, is such a system now contemplated?


Hugues Lapointe: I am sorry; the figures I had I thought referred to the letter carrier service; they refer to the rural delivery service. I have not the figures for the cities mentioned by my hon. friend. But I should like to point out that what determines the amount of work is not necessarily the number of calls, because the carrier works eight hours a day regardless of whether he has 300 calls or 900 calls a day. If he has a route on which there are 300 calls, that route serves that number of calls because of the volume of mail to be carried and the time taken to sort and deliver it. Similarly, if he has double that amount it is because the volume of mail is such and the time taken to cover 600 calls is eight hours.


William McLean Hamilton: Has
the department been successful in reducing its overtime in the Christmas period in the last year or two?


Hugues Lapointe: No; this year there has been more overtime paid at the Christmas season than in the previous year.


William McLean Hamilton: 
Hugues Lapointe: That is continuously under study. Of course my hon. friend realizes that the quantity of overtime in one particular office at Christmas time is predicated on the volume of mail that might come to that particular office as compared with the volume of mail in the previous year.


William McLean Hamilton: Will the Postmaster General assure the committee that a special study will be made of this Vancouver situation, because my understanding is that the volume of mail in Vancouver in the Christmas under consideration was somewhat greater than that of the preceding year?


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, I noticed when we were on the first item of the minister's estimates that he did not see fit to reply to my representations, or to those of the hon. members for Burnaby-Richmond and Comox-Alberni. I realize it might take several minutes to obtain the information, but I would like to have the minister answer my questions concerning the parcel post delivery service now in existence in the Vancouver postal area. I would like to know what is the cost of delivery on a per item basis of all parcels delivered by the pony express.

The men in New Westminster have been turned down when they have asked for this information. I think this is a matter of public record, and that those men are entitled to a reply as to what the pony express is receiving as the cost of delivery on a per item basis in the Vancouver area.
The minister said these men were offered working conditions that were more favourable than those under which they are presently working. I have here a Post Office Department pay sheet which indicates that these men have been receiving $2.50 an hour. The minister said the other day that the working conditions at $1.74 an hour were superior to those at $2.50 an hour. I have now obtained some of the information I required.


Hugues Lapointe: May I point out to the hon. member that we are still on operations. The reason I did not reply on the general item is that we passed it, and as I pointed out I intended to give the information when we reached the discussion of transportation. We are still discussing operations.


Erhart Regier: I extend my apologies to the minister. I thought this matter would come under operations and not under transportation.
With reference to my previous remarks, the postal service in the lower mainland of British Columbia over the past three years has been getting worse instead of better.
I have here a letter from the clerk of the corporation of the district of Coquitlam which I intend to send to the minister. In his letter the clerk says:
I am enclosing a copy of communication received this day from Vancouver, reporting the time lag of postage deliveries from the district of Coquitlam at Westminster post office to Vancouver of five days.
We must remember, Mr. Chairman, that this represents a distance of about a dozen miles, yet it involves a time lag of five days. The letter continues:
This spring we had a case of a letter mailed in Sapperton being delivered to the district of Coquitlam in four days.
The distance or space lag involved in this instance is about half a mile. The letter continues:
This is passed to you for your information if it is of any assistance in bringing a better service to the people of western Canada.
Attached to the letter of the clerk is a letter from a company which has lost a considerable amount of money because of the failure of the post office to deliver mail within a reasonable length of time.
I have here the envelope of a letter mailed in New Westminster on December 17 to
Supply-Post Office
1202 Morley Street, Burnaby 1. According to the minister's own statement of a year ago, Burnaby 1 is the legal address of 40,000 people. Stamped on this envelope are the words, "Subject to delay due to incorrect addressing. Your postal address is South Burnaby, B.C." I forget whether it was the present minister or his predecessor who announced that Burnaby 1 was the proper address. This letter addressed to Burnaby 1 and mailed on December 17 was not delivered until December 27, ten days later. I have another letter mailed on December 14 at Vancouver and delivered 13 days later on December 27. I might point out that a distance of only a few miles is involved.
In case the minister thinks only Christmas cards may be subject to delayed delivery might I inform him that the first year I was in this house my wife regularly received the copy of Hansard for Monday on Monday of the following week. Both last year and this year she has had to wait up to three weeks for her copy of Hansard. I have here a copy of Hansard of Thursday, November 29, 1956 which was mailed the following day and delivered on December 17.
I have a first class letter in my hand which was mailed in the House of Commons post office on December 19 and delivered ten days later, on December 29. I have another second class letter mailed in New Westminster on December 11 and delivered to an address in New Westminster seven days later, on December 18. In this case the addressee lived in the same area where the letter was mailed and it would be handled by the same post office.
I feel that the people back home have taken almost as much as they can stand, and that includes all the business firms which rely on the mail service for a portion of their earnings and much of their success in life in terms of business transactions conducted by mail. The mail service is letting them down in the worst possible way.
I would like the minister to produce one small scrap of evidence to show that his announced policy of decentralization is taking effect in the lower mainland of British Columbia. As I have pointed out before, in that area it is a policy of centralization which is being followed at the expense of service to the general public, and there is no policy of decentralization whatsoever.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The hon. member-for Vancouver East.


Erhart Regier: Just a moment, please, Mr. Chairman. I do not think the minister should sit in this house and allow the hierarchy in the post office at Vancouver to get

Supply-Post Office
away with these things year after year. The situation is growing worse, and it is of immediate concern to business firms in Burnaby some of which have assets worth millions of dollars. Despite this the minister refuses to accept any responsibility.


Hugues Lapointe: I am not refusing to accept any responsibility, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member made a statement of fact based on letters of which he has knowledge, and I believe the facts are true. After the hon. member has made a statement of fact the best I can do is to look into the situation and report on it.
I might point out that we do receive inquiries and complaints about delays and nondelivery, and we follow them up. An investigation is made of every case about which we are told. In many instances it is found that the delay is due to some error on the part of the Post Office Department, but in many instances it is due to something outside the control of the Post Office Department. During the last year the number of complaints which were registered with post offices throughout the country and examined into amounted to 167,000.
When one realizes that we handle 1,680,749,000 letters annually I think he will realize the proportion of complaints is not out of the way. I am sure that any business firm which could show the same percentage of correct operations would be quite proud of its record. I am not giving that as an excuse, but I do say it is difficult to trace every one of these errors. The departmental officials are endeavouring all the time to prevent these errors being repeated.


Erhart Regier: I appreciate the difficulties
facing the minister and the department, but the fact is that this is the fastest growing area in the whole dominion. I met a local mail carrier and he told me that he had 600 homes on his route. I appreciate the difficulty the post office is working under. Several years later he tells me, "They have taken on new men, but even so I still have many more homes to cover than I should have." I realize the predicament the minister is in.
I realize that the standard of living is higher in British Columbia than in other parts of Canada, and that the wages the minister is offering to mail carriers is such that while it may attract many applicants in other areas, in our region the wages are considered comparatively low and the minister is always short of applicants for the positions he is advertising. The wages offered are not regarded as being anywhere near sufficient to permit a married man to maintain a family. The result is that today the department is always short of employees.

I should like to see the day when the wages offered will be sufficiently high to attract enough applicants so the department can be brought up to date, and not have all its mail carriers overburdened by having to service more houses than they should have to service.


Hugues Lapointe: As I have explained before, the civil service commission sets the rates of pay of our employees. I have asked that commission to give special consideration to areas where wages generally are higher than in other parts of the country and where this condition has created a shortage in the supply of personnel for the Post Office Department.
Going back to the comments the hon. member made previously, may I say that of the letters he sent me three carried only 2 cents postage. In other words they contained circulars, and were sent as third class matters. As the volume of mail increases at Christmas priority is given to first class mail, and delays of from two to five days may occur in the delivery of third class mail.


Mr. Winch:: Is there a potential increase in the wages of postal employees in British Columbia?


Hugues Lapointe: If the commission agree to our request there will be. We have asked them to give consideration to it.


Harold Edward Winch: Have you recommended an
increase?


Hugues Lapointe: We have pointed out to the commission the difficulty we are experiencing in getting certain classes of workers in these areas because of the higher wages that are paid in other lines of industry, and have asked the commission to take this into consideration in determining the rates of pay for our employees.


Harold Edward Winch: That recommendation has gone from you to treasury board?


Hugues Lapointe: That request has gone to the civil service commission.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, I am going to make only one further statement at this time in the hope of eliciting a reply from the minister. I should like to place on record the fact that the minister has not yet said whether his policy of decentralization has been implemented in the lower mainland of British Columbia.


Harold Edward Winch: How long after a recommendation for an increase is made to the civil service commission does it take to get an answer whether they have accepted or rejected it?


Hugues Lapointe: I think the only true answer I can give would be that my hon. friend's

guess is as good as mine. There are times when a request of this kind is made and the commission can process it immediately because they have the staff available to do so. We get an answer from them and a recommendation to treasury board follows quickly. In other cases they find that in order to determine the proper rate for an establishment in one office they must make comparisons with many other offices. It is absolutely impossible for me to tell the hon. member how long it will be before we get an answer to such a request.


Harold Edward Winch: Can you say when you anticipate an answer?


Hugues Lapointe: The Post Office Department has no control over the civil service commission, which provides us with our employees.


Alfred Claude Ellis: The minister has suggested that the civil service commission has not up to this time taken under advisement the matter of salaries of post office employees.


Hugues Lapointe: I am not suggesting that.


Alfred Claude Ellis: The minister is suggesting that we are starting from scratch, that they have not had time to consider this matter. This question has been brought to the attention of the minister during former sessions, and I submit the civil service commission should have been taking this matter under consideration some considerable time ago. It is difficult to understand why there should be any delay in arriving at a decision on this extremely important matter.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Mr. Chairman, I shall try not to take up too much time, as I think the minister has had a fairly good grilling today. However, I want to make a few remarks in connection with matters pertaining to my own riding. I have no requisitions to make and 1 know the minister and his officials will be happy to know that. I have made all the requisitions pertaining to my own riding that I think are necessary to be made. I feel that if I had not made them I would not have been doing my duty as a member of parliament. However, in connection with those requisitions I must say that at times the department has shown a lack of speed. I admit that members of parliament always like lots of speed in the servicing of requisitions and that sort of thing.
The change-over from train to bus service has been working very well in Victoria and Albert counties.
I must say that the service is right on time, and that a letter posted in Toronto the night before is in Haliburton at the end of the mail route at two o'clock the next day.
Supply-Post Office
There is, however, one little difficulty about rural mail deliveries in this area. Mail to Minden and Haliburton should be sorted and delivered over the rural mail routes the same night it arrives. I wrote to the department about this a year ago-I have forgotten the exact date-suggesting such an improvement. I know the department would probably receive some complaints from the rural couriers and perhaps from the postmasters, but at the same time I am sure this could be done, that it would not cost the post office any more money, and that everyone concerned would be home in time for dinner at six o'clock, which is not too late in the day. If the rural couriers don't want to deliver this mail, then let the department advertise and they will find lots of people who are ready to take the job.
I might say that our couriers are doing a good job, though, and there is only one fault I can find with them-they are all Liberals. I am just wondering, Mr. Chairman, if, in doing that work it is legal for a mail deliveryman to carry election material in the van in which mail is carried. That has happened in the past. I don't object to it a great deal, when people see that going past the door they sometimes vote for me. It happens I don't know whether or not the Post Office Department feels it is ethical; I am not complaining.
I think probably the Post Office Department had complaints last year from some of the tourist houses in Haliburton with regard to discourtesy shown them by individuals on the post office staff. That could quite easily happen, because in the Haliburton office there is a good deal of congestion. They should have had a new post office five or six years ago. New mail routes have been added, and I can quite understand that discourtesy may have been shown by some of the employees since they are so handicapped by lack of room. Mail is piling up there, and the most difficult time of the day is probably the time a customer wants a special favour. I hope the Post Office Department will not pay too much attention to this sort of thing until a new post office is provided for Haliburton. I am sure when the congestion is relieved a lot of tempers will be relieved, too.
Now, Mr. Chairman, with regard to these requests for "shoe leather" increases on the rural routes, I would say first of all that I think there should be an increase of 15 per cent over the whole service. In present circumstances men sometimes hesitate to ask for an improvement for fear it will endanger their jobs. In many cases those who are employed cannot do much else, but still it is a living. Sometimes they feel that they are entitled to some small increase, and it

Supply-Post Office
often takes a long time before the department decides to grant it. I recall the case of a man 70 years of age, though very able, who when his time was up, was replaced by someone else. However, I do not think the man who is carrying the mail now gives any better service. I believe that was a mistake as far as the department is concerned. I do not know whether he applied for an increase or not.
Another case comes to my mind of a man who was asking for an increase of $1 a day for carrying the mail; he has to supply a truck and draw the mail from the station to the post office, which is nearly half a mile away. If it had been me I would have asked for at least $2 extra. There is no reason why there should be a long delay in reaching a decision on requests like this. The department ought not to spend two minutes considering it; they should not have to send an inspector out on an issue like this, When it gets down to a question of $1 a day.
I would like to refer next to the couriers in the town of Lindsay and the complaints which have been made over a long period of years with regard to their scale of pay in comparison with that of others who are employed in that town, particularly since a number of industrial plants have located in the area. There are only eight or ten of them. I do not remember the exact number, but I do know that they are handicapped in comparison with other workers.
Then there is a mail route that someone has asked for at Brechin. The people at Brechin have been asking for this rural route for 50 years, I think. They are sure they have it coming to them. It may lack one or two boxes to come up to post office requirements, but I think it is only fair that these people should get this extension.


Hugues Lapointe: Is that in Lindsay?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: No, in Brechin. Your
officials have all the requests before them. A request was made last year in this particular case, and the year before. I think it has been made for about 15 years.
However, I do believe that on the whole the post office in my riding is, in general, performing a very good service. I would only point out, once again, that the mail delivery out of Minden and Haliburton should be dealt with the afternoon it arrives at the post office and dispatched on the rural routes. That can be done without any extra expense to the department, and as we are a great tourist area it is very necessary that we should have the mail that night.
I think that is about all I have to say.


An hon. Member:: Carried.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Don't say that or I will talk for another 30 minutes. I am as anxious to get this through as you are.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Before lunch I asked the minister whether he would comment on the question of the issue of clothing and equipment to personnel of the Post Office Department. I would like, among other things, an assurance from the minister that employees of the post office are in receipt of all they are entitled to. If that is not the case, would he give an assurance that he will look into the matter and see it is taken care of?


Arthur-Joseph Lapointe: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I want to apologize to the hon. member. I can assure him it was not due to any delay by officials of the department that he did not get a reply to his letter. Rather, a report was sent to me and it was in my office that it was delayed. I can give the hon. gentleman a whole list of the equipment issued to various employees of the department. It is quite a long list.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I would like that information privately, but now I am interested in an assurance from the minister that he will consider this matter and ascertain that the employees are in receipt of what they are entitled to, and that if they are not he will see that action is taken.


Arthur-Joseph Lapointe: I will be very glad to give the hon. member that undertaking, and I will send him a list of all the issues made to the different types of employees of the department.


Harold Edward Winch: The Postmaster General will remember that I spoke to him yesterday about the matter of the non-payment of overtime, and his answer was that the cheques were going out this week. In view of the fact that it took about two months to get out these overtime cheques for the employees of the postal service, I should like to ask him this question. I understood the minister to say that certain recommendations have been made for increases in salaries on a regional basis. Will it take the same period of time to get those increases through because of red tape and procedure?


Arthur-Joseph Lapointe: I have no answer I can give to that.


Harold Edward Winch: That is the point.


Arthur-Joseph Lapointe: My hon. friend is asking me how long it would take for me to get an answer to a request, demand or letter that I have addressed. The time within which the answer may come back does not depend upon me.


Harold Edward Winch: That is the very question I am raising, and I think it is time it was explained. The government believes in private enterprise and its efficiency. If a person makes a mistake with respect to anything owing to the federal government, that person is up against the law and is charged interest. Under provincial laws, if you do not pay a man his wages inside of two weeks you are caught. Yesterday the minister admitted that the cheques are going out this week for Christmas overtime work in the post office service. The employees in Vancouver will get them about the middle of March.


Hugues Lapointe: They already have them.


Harold Edward Winch: They are out?


Hugues Lapointe: They are already there.


Harold Edward Winch: The minister told me yesterday they were being sent out.


Hugues Lapointe: Since then I find they are there.


Harold Edward Winch: I do not mind the minister trying to excuse himself for two or three days. The money was earned in December. The employees are getting the cheques now. This afternoon the minister said, and I compliment him for it, that he has made certain recommendations for regional increases in salaries in the post office service. Do we understand that these increases have to go through all the red tape, treasury board and God knows where, even on the recommendation of the Postmaster General, before these people get the increases to which the minister now thinks they are entitled? Is that the minister's idea of the operation of an efficient business? If that happened in private enterprise the people responsible would not last very long, would they?


Hugues Lapointe: That is a matter of opinion, and certainly my hon. friend is entitled to his own opinion.


Harold Edward Winch: I say I am also entitled to ask how long it takes increases in salaries to go through on the basis of a recommendation by the minister with regard to something he thinks is correct.


Hugues Lapointe: I have already answered that, and there is nothing I can add to what I have said.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to note that under the next item the minister is going to answer my question as to the cost of delivery of parcel post on a per item basis in the Vancouver area by means of the Pony Express. However, dealing with operations, we have in the outlying
Supply-Post Office
areas of the city of Port Coquitlam a longstanding demand for red letter boxes. The city council has ascertained with some accuracy that those looking after the rural routes based on that city are prepared for a very small fee to pick up the mail from such red letter boxes and take it to the main post office in the heart of the city.
The answer of the department is that red mail boxes cannot be supplied until door to door delivery is instituted in a city. That is the over-all regulation. However, here we have a city that is rather widely spread out, and one red letter box at each end of the city would cost the department almost nothing. In one reply I received from the department it was said that these people have to go to the post office every day anyway to pick up their mail, so there is no reason why they should not take their letters with them and mail them at the main post office every day. However, there are hundreds of old age pensioners in the city, most of whom live in the outlying areas. They do not go to the post office every day for their mail. I daresay that some of them go there only once a week. Yet they are denied the little extra convenience of a red letter box in which to mail any letters they may happen to write. In my opinion that is a ridiculous interpretation of a regulation by the Post Office Department.
I know it is supposed to be the statesmanlike thing at this stage of the game to throw all kinds of bouquets at the minister and his department, but I do not consider that to be part of my responsibility. After all, there are over 170 members on the government side of the house whose sole responsibility, it seems, is to throw bouquets; and if they cannot throw enough bouquets to re-elect the government, then heaven help the government. That is not what I am here for. That is not what I am getting paid for.
I was very pleased to hear the minister say that the Post Office Department has no control over the civil service commission. That is our main worry in British Columbia at the present time. Over the last 15 years or so we have been getting away from pork barrel patronage. I know full well there are certain sections of Canada where it still is the popular thing for politicians to engage in such patronage. However, we in the west take a great deal of pride in the fact that both our provincial and federal civil service are rapidly becoming free of the evil of pork barrel politics. We are very pleased indeed to hear the minister say that the Post Office Department has no control over the civil service commission.

Supply-Post Office
That is our worry when we express concern about the centralization of postal operations in one post office in the city of Vancouver, I can assure the minister that no amount of pork barrel politics will help reelect the Minister of National Defence, in whose riding the central post office happens to be. He is beyond repair in the riding of Vancouver Centre.


Pierre Gauthier: Take care of your own riding first.


Erhart Regier: If the minister is exercising anything of that kind in the operation of his department he might well pay some attention to the hon. member for Burnaby-Rich-mond. It might do the Liberal party some good there, but it will not do them any good in Vancouver Centre. We are supposed to offer positive suggestions as well as make negative comments respecting the affairs of the department.
I should like to recommend to the minister some ways in which the Post Office Department might raise a little more revenue in the coming year in its operations.
One of my recommendations has always been that they raise the postage on second class mail and third class mail. I feel that the rate being charged for first class mail might very well be reduced in Canada. As to the extremely low rate being charged for second class mail and for third class mail, while it helps me as a politician in sending out my campaign literature, I realize that in the main it only helps some of the silly and superfluous advertising that is being done in Canada. At the present time our mail carriers are being overburdened with this low, vacuum-cleaner type of advertising all across the dominion at no benefit to themselves. Some of the more reliable advertisers such as Eatons, Woodwards and so on do not even use the post office. They hire their own people to do the delivering of their catalogues. There is one place where the post office might get more revenue.
Another source of additional revenue which the post office might look into is the special delivery letter fee. I understand that for an additional 10-cent fee a man will leave the New Westminster post office and deliver a letter to my home in East Burnaby. When the Vancouver hierarchy gets through with its plans it will mean somebody leaving the Vancouver main post office and going some 18 miles to my home for a 10-cent fee to deliver a special letter. I feel that is another case where the post office is missing a bet. The special delivery service is not advertised and is not as well known as it should be.

However, it may be just as well in view of the extremely low rate the post office is asking.


Harold Edward Winch: It was yesterday on these estimates that I rose in my place and told the Postmaster General that in my estimation the Post Office Department were gyps and exploiters of labour. The Postmaster General took exception to what I said. He did not like it. Hence last evening and this morning I have been going over what I said and the reason I said it.
Standing here now, Mr. Chairman, at five minutes to five, I say to the Postmaster General, "Your Post Office Department are gyps and exploiters of labour". My mind has not been changed whatsoever and I have not yet found any answer in anything said by the Postmaster General not on the charges made-we do not make charges in this House of Commons-but on the information supplied to him.
I want to say to him-through you, of course, Mr. Chairman-that after having checked my records I find that I was completely correct in what I said yesterday, as far as the city of Vancouver and the province of British Columbia are concerned, namely that the department under his jurisdiction as minister is employing a great many people, calling them temporary help, and paying between 50 per cent and 65 per cent of the usual payment to those employed on a permanent basis. I am going to repeat what I said, namely that there are many who have been in the post office service for from six to twelve years, many of them working eight hours a day, who are still classed as temporary help and being paid as temporary help.
The minister said yesterday that they had peak hours. Of course in the post office business they have peak hours. You could not possibly have any different situation. But it is definitely my information, backed up by the employees in the postal service, that the postal service is exploiting the situation and is paying far less money than it should pay. I repeat-I know I am bad in regard to the matter of repetition; I will admit that-that there are people who have now been working for over 10 years in the post office service who are still classed as temporary help and are paid on the basis of temporary help. This means a much lower money return in the way of salary, without the benefits of the civil service as far as pension or superannuation are concerned.
I am going to ask the Postmaster General if he will not re-examine the entire situation with regard to so-called temporary employees

and place them, if they are permanent, in the status of full civil servants; and if he will not give consideration, if they have been in the employ of the government as so-called temporary employees but permanently em,-ployed, to giving them the right to superannuation and all the rights otherwise exercised under the act.


Hugues Lapointe: I shall be glad to look into the matter. However, there is nothing I can add to the answer I gave yesterday. I am informed that none of these people work the regular eight-hour day as my hon. friend just indicated. But if there are any-and this is what we will look into-of these people who over a period of time seem to be fulfilling what would be a normal full-time position, then the establishment should be changed and they should become permanent.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. It being five o'clock, shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again this day or next sitting, as the case may be?
Progress reported.



PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I notice that orders No. 29 and 30 are private bills in committee; that orders No. 31 to 139 inclusive are divorce bills in committee and that orders No. 140, 141 and 142 are further private bills in committee. Shall orders 29 to 142, inclusive, be committed in one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that I do leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole on all these bills?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ALASKA-YUKON PIPELINES LIMITED

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 105, to incorporate Alaska-Yukon Pipelines Limited-Mr. Simmons-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On section 1-Incorporation.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, there is one question I should like to ask the hon. member for Yukon who is sponsoring this bill. I followed the debate on second reading, but I did not take part in that debate. However, I notice that the first person named in clause 1 of the bill is Joseph Theodore Sparling, executive, of the city of Edmonton in the province of Alberta. The hon. member is probably aware that there appeared in this morning's Montreal Gazette a Canadian Press dispatch, date-lined Edmonton, under this heading:
Alaska-Yukon holders take court action
Private Bills
Perhaps I might read the first paragraph.
A court action that would nullify all business transacted by Alaska-Yukon Refiners and Distributors Limited since January 20. 1956, has been filed in Alberta supreme court by two Alaska-Yukon shareholders, it was learned here.
I want to say I recognize that this press dispatch relates to a different company, namely Alaska-Yukon Refiners and Distributors Limited; whereas we have before us a bill to incorporate Alaska-Yukon Pipelines Limited. However, I understand that Alaska-Yukon Refiners and Distributors Limited is the parent company of Alaska-Yukon Pipelines Limited. In any case, Mr. Joseph Theodore Sparling seems to be the No. 1 man in both cases.
I assume that my hon. friend has read this press dispatch which suggests that Mr. Sparling has been trying to force or persuade two of the shareholders of the first company to dispose of their shares to him. I gather that he has taken action against them and they have entered a counterclaim against him, which seems to put the affairs of this parent company under a question mark, to say the least. Since this matter has come up since this bill was debated on second reading, and since it was discussed in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, I wonder what comment the hon. member has to make about this press dispatch?


Mr. Simmons:: I read the article referred to by my hon. friend which appeared in the Montreal Gazette, and I have made inquiries. As a matter of fact I have a telegram from the company's solicitors in Edmonton, Messrs. Field, Hyndman, Field, Owen, Blakey and Bodner, which reads as follows:
Have analyzed counterclaim Herzog and Weertz. In our considered opinion there is absolutely no foundation for their claims made against company to set aside share allotments or any other company transactions.
I went further than that, Mr. Chairman. I have been in touch with the parliamentary agents for the company here, and it appears that the action in the Alberta courts referred to in the Montreal Gazette story of Friday, March 8, is a private dispute between three shareholders of Alaska-Yukon Refiners and Distributors Limited. It is worth noting that Mr. Sparling instituted the action, and that the defendants Herzog and Weertz apparently thought fit to drag the company into it. As the solicitors say, there is absolutely no foundation for this.
It may well be that Herzog and Weertz are trying to embarrass the company in the hope that pressure will be brought on Sparling to withdraw his suit. Only Sparling is one of the applicants for the incorporation of the present bill, and no reflection can be cast on

Private Bills
him for attempting to enforce what he considers to be his legal rights. In any event, the refining company is a separate legal entity from the pipe-line company, and the latter is in no way involved in the action.
It is improper to comment on the merits of the case once it is placed before the court. Nevertheless there is apparently nothing to this. It is just a matter of a private dispute among three of the shareholders, and does not affect this proposed pipe-line company. In any event, I have been given the opinion by counsel for the company that the counteraction of Messrs Herzog and Weertz does not affect the company in any manner. It is obvious that they are resorting to unethical tactics, probably in an endeavour to get Mr. Sparling to withdraw his action against them. I think that answers the hon. gentleman's question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I just put one other
question. Probably the answer to this came out in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. Is it clear that before this company can commence any active operation it would have to get the approval of the board of transport commissioners of Canada.


James Aubrey Simmons: The hon. member is right. After the bill becomes law, then they can make their application to the board of transport commissioners; but until that time they cannot do anything about building the pipe line. The pipe is on order, of course, and the company would like to see this bill put through so that they can get an early start this spring.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 203, respecting the governing council of the Salvation Army, Canada East, and the governing council of the Salvation Army, Canada West -(Mr. Dinsdale)-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Repeal.
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, when this bill had second reading on Monday afternoon last I was not able to be in the house; therefore at this time I crave the indulgence of the members of the committee to add one further word in the discussion of what I regard, as

the sponsor of this bill, as an important piece of legislation in the interests of the operations of the Salvation Army in Canada.
First of all I should like to express appreciation to all hon. members from every group in this house who, without reservation, supported the principle of the bill we have before us. Nothing I can say at this time I am sure would add to the general appreciation that is felt by people from all walks of life in all parts of Canada for the religious, charitable and social welfare work of the Salvation Army.
As was pointed out by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, who so ably presented this bill in my behalf the other afternoon, the Salvation Army commenced its operations in Canada in the year 1882. It has been a vital part of the religious and social life of the dominion almost from the commencement of the life of this nation in 1867. It is perhaps coincidental that the Salvation Army had its beginning in Canada just at the time the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway commenced, and it followed across the country in the wake of the C.P.R., reaching the remote parts of northern Canada during the Klondike gold rush. There under the extremely difficult conditions which prevailed it offered spiritual solace to the men who took part in that particular aspect of Canadian development.
The Salvation Army has always been the very essence of practical Christianity. I think its work can best be summed up in the phrase that is often used with regard to it, "soup, soap and salvation". That gets right down to the crux of the matter, particularly when faced with the disturbing social conditions that existed during the pioneer phase of Canadian national development.
More recently the Salvation Army has had larger responsibilities placed upon it as a result of the industrial revolution through which Canada has been passing. As a matter of fact the major reason for the bill before the house at the present time arises from the attempt of the Salvation Army to meet the challenge of the new spiritual and social welfare problems arising out of the impact of rapid industrialization and urbanization.
I can speak with some considerable knowledge of this subject, because my own family has been intimately connected with the work of the Salvation Army since the year 1906, when my father as a young English immigrant to western Canada was befriended by this organization.
There is only one further comment which needs to be made at this time, Mr. Chairman, and it relates to a question that arose on Monday last in the remarks made by the hon.

member for Vancouver East. I noticed in the press that this particular query appeared in the form of a headline. I believe the words were to the effect that a ruling of the Department of National Revenue could kill the Salvation Army.
I believe that particular interpretation and indeed the question itself arises from a misunderstanding. Actually in terms of the definition of the Salvation Army as a charitable and eleemosynary institution there is no uncertainty at all concerning its classification for income tax purposes. It is true, as is the case with other welfare organizations of this kind-the Y.W.C.A., the Y.M.C.A. and other similar organizations-that in some cases the Salvation Army makes a nominal charge for services rendered. This is particularly true in instances of hospitals operated by religious organizations. In the case of the Salvation Army in some instances a nominal charge is made for temporary accommodation in hostel institutions. This is done not as a money-making measure but rather to present a challenge to the individual receiving this particular type of aid, where he might have his self-respect further undermined if the assistance offered him was placed on a purely charitable basis. I do not think there need be any uncertainty at all concerning the clear definition of the Salvation Army as a charitable institution in relation to the activities of the Department of National Revenue.
The hon. member for Vancouver East suggested that some legislative formula might have to be devised, but I am quite certain that the work of this organization has become well established in the minds and hearts of the people of Canada, and that there will be no further need at this time to determine that status by additional legislative measures.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


William Alfred Robinson: Orders No. 31 to 139 both inclusive. May these be dealt with as one bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Henderson:: Mr. Chairman, before we deal with the bills I would like to deal with order No. 117. I might refer to page 1821 of Hansard of March 1, 1957 where the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre raised certain objections to the wording of this bill. I might say I believe the people involved in the petition and we in this house and in the
Private Bills
committee appreciate the diligence and investigation of the hon. member.
As the result of his inquiries I am pleased to say I have been informed by the Senate committee branch that they are amending the file of Senate proceedings on the above-mentioned bill to correct a clerical error in the minutes of proceedings of No. 1 subcommittee on divorce. Thereby the final paragraph of the minutes of proceedings of No. 1 subcommittee on divorce will be amended in the typewritten record as follows:
In the last paragraph of page 6 of the printed proceedings, in line 4, delete the words and figures ''paragraphs 6 to 8" and substitute therefor "paragraphs 1 to 8", and,
In line 5, delete the words "respondent committed adultery" and substitute therefor ''marriage was not consummated".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, just to have it clear, because I did not quite hear what the hon. member was saying, do I understand that he has the assurance of the officials in the other place that the permanent records of the Senate concerning Bill No. 177, which is today's order No. 117, are being corrected so the charge that was going to be on those permanent records will not be there?


William James Henderson: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am very glad to hear that, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Herridge:: I would just like to make a brief comment, Mr. Chairman. I am very pleased that the investigation with respect to the terms of this bill as the result of the diligence of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has resulted in the action indicated by the hon. member for Kingston, and that the serious injustice has been corrected. This also contradicts entirely a statement made by an hon. member of the other place outside of the other place to the public that hon. members interested in these bills simply select them at random for timekilling purposes.
Bill No. 17, for the relief of Dorothy Amelia Ashmore MacDonald.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 74, for the relief of Frances May Cousins Stone.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 84, for the relief of Lorna Claire Bianchi Shields.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 85, for the relief of Edna Hall Powell Tannahill.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 86, for the relief of Marion Ruth Bronfman Hoffer.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 87, for the relief of John Fraser McLean.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 88, for the relief of Rene Dauray. -Mr. Henderson.

Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. 89, for the relief of Clarence Ronald John Emberg.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 90, for the relief of Elizabeth Joyce Cole Fraser.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 91, for the relief of Joseph Rolland Forest.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 92, for the relief of Bessie Holmes Saunders.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 93, for the relief of Sarah Spiegel Wigdor.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 94, for the relief of Joyce Western Dolan.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 95, for the relief of Christina Muriel Jean Leard Kowal.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 96, for the relief of Pauline Marguerite Dastous Bourgon.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 97, for the relief of Marie France Jose Therese Fasbender	Rousseau.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 98, for the relief of Mary Klodin Freeze.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 99, for the relief of Zigurds Berzins. 

Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 100, for the relief of Tobia Betze van Lier Franken.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 101, for the relief of Marthe Brais Laurence.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 102, for the relief of Miriam Fridman Herszlikowicz.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 103, for the relief of Cleo Joseph Ladouceur.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 107, for the relief of Elizabeth Mabel Freestone Lachance.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 108, for the relief of Marion Campbell Stewart.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 109, for the relief of Jean MacRae Barnett.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 110, for the relief of Anita Roberge Fournier.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. Ill, for the relief of Louise Yvette Ruth Dumais Jacobson.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 112, for the relief of Noella Jacques Primeau.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 113, for the relief of Joan Perl Finfer Weber.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 114, for the relief of Jacques Alfred LeGault.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 115, for the relief of Rina Cirl Reich Nutovic.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 116, for the relief of Harold Ernest Woodrow.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 117, for the relief of Winnifred Matthews Forrester.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 118, for the relief of Clara Price Kimmel.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 119, for the relief of Margaret Nelson Sime Jackson.-Mr. Henderson.
[Mr. Herridge.l
Bill No. 120, for the relief of John Howard Burland Webb.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 121, for the relief of Katharine Puobis Dynes.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 122, for the relief of Edward Kotapski.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 123, for the relief of Julija Rinke-viciute Strelis.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 124, for the relief of Samuel Weniger.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 125, for the relief of Marie-Yvette Laurette Petit Levesque.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 126, for the relief of Lennard Gordon Spurrell.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 127, for the relief of Marjorie Edwina Elizabeth Eke Stanley.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 128, for the relief of Joseph Jacques Robert Mackay.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 129, for the relief of Sylvia Slutsky Steinhart.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 130, for the relief of Margaret Frances Dearmond Bonner.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 131, for the relief of Alice Katherine Sorensen Engel.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 132, for the relief of Deirdre Joan Lang Srb.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 133, for the relief of Lily Brigham Hall Fallon.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 134, for the relief of Margaret Cameron Brown Gravenor.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 135, for the relief of Naim Shaul Goorji.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 136, for the relief of Roxcina Viola McPherson Lippiatt.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 137, for the relief of Lillian Annie Wagner Fahy.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 139, for the relief of Pauline Jean Stoakley Ramsay Porter.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 140, for the relief of Allan Graham Bennett.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 141, for the relief of Chana Paya Trifskin Cupchik.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 142, for the relief of Victor Edward Drembo.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 143, for the relief of Doris Silver-sides Harper.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 144, for the relief of Lily Claiman Neiss.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 145, for the relief of Abraham Sztajnhart, otherwise known as Abraham Steinhart.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 146, for the relief of Elizabeth Hill Silver.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 147, for the relief of Gaston Bedard.-Mr. Henderson.

Bill No. 148, for the relief of Mary Tuske-wich Gashler.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill	No.	149,	for	the	relief	of	Muriel
Gamache McCrea.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 150, for the relief of Maitabel Horwitz Johnson.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 151, for the relief of Laurette Lacombe Paradis.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill	No.	152,	for	the	relief	of	ClaudeChristopher	Richard Luard.-Mr.	Henderson.
Bill No. 153, for the relief of Joseph Elie Claude Lacelle.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill	No.	154,	for	the	relief	of	Muriel
Audrey Connor McLeod.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 155, for the relief of Margaret Ragna Erickson Hunt.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 156, for the relief of Francois Richer LaFleche, otherwise known as Francois Pierre Patrice Joseph Richer LaFleche. -Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 162, for the relief of Florence Helen Leslie Redston.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 163, for the relief of Jeannine Thauvoye Pastuszko.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 164, for the relief of Ellen Catherine Norma Hogan Liddell.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 165, for the relief of Abrasha Brainin.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 166, for the relief of George Henry Eaton.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 167, for the relief of John Bernard Finucane.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 168, for the relief of Anne Marie Marguerite Victoria Melchers Harwood.- Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 169, for the relief of Estelle Frances Demaio Parr.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 170, for the relief of Helmut Josef Wagner.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 171, for the relief of Therese Filion Robert.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 172, for the relief of Elizabeth Mary Gnaedinger Johnson.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 173, for the relief of Peggy Mary Trim Bodaly.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 174, for the relief of Arthur John Chatham.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 175, for the relief of Margaret Louise Martin Bowden.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 176, for the relief of Margaret Joan Carol McCurley Decaire.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 177, for the relief of Jean-Paul Audette.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 181, for the relief of Donald Edmund O'Neill.-Mr. Henderson.
Private Bills
Bill No. 182, for the relief of Joseph Robert Gilbert Croteau.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 183, for the relief of Eve Giasson, otherwise known as Lucien Giasson.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 184, for the relief of Ingrid Malten Prokopp.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 185, for the relief of Edward Douglas Taylor.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 186, for the relief of Jacqueline Waite Chew Keen.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 187, for the relief of Stanley Smith Wilson.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 188, for the relief of Marjorie Alice Holdron Thorbergson.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 189, for the relief of Irene Kluch-nyk Shyshko.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 190, for the relief of Beatrice Lillian Sidaway Mudry.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 191, for the relief of Bernard George.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 192, for the relief of Helen Rose Bickerdike Ovenden.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 193, for the relief of Catherine Violet Mooney Leger.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 194, for the relief of Laurice Michel Malouf.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 195, for the relief of Helene Vic-torine Monseur Sharpe.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 196, for the relief of Kenneth Franklin Hallas.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 197, for the relief of Joan Betty Mae Barnard Laframboise.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 198, for the relief of Lemuel Alvin Henry Ward.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 199, for the relief of Joseph Raoul Guy Felix Labelle.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 200, for the relief of Gene Koklyte Gedvila.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 201, for the relief of Lillian Martin Cyr.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 202, for the relief of Ange-Aimee Jacqueline Lacoste Paquette.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 204, respecting Alliance Nationale. -Mr. Richardson.
Bill No. 205, to incorporate The Kings Mutual Insurance Company.-Mr. Nowlan.
Bill No. 207, respecting Canadian CoOperative Credit Society Limited.-Mr. Studer.



SECOND READINGS-SENATE BILLS

Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps the sponsor would permit Bill No. 211 to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There are a number of bills up for second reading on the order paper, being orders Nos. 143 to 156 inclusive.

Private Bills-Divorce


William James Henderson: I would agree to allow this bill to stand.


Mr. Nicholson:: Is it understood that we will discuss it later this day?


William James Henderson: Yes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that Bill No. 211 be allowed to stand until later this day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William James Henderson: Mr. Speaker, may I refer to the bill appearing on the order paper as No. 156. The subject matter of this bill was referred to the committee on miscellaneous private bills and the evidence that was deemed necessary to be heard was heard by the committee. The objection to this bill was raised in the house by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch). As the sponsor of this bill may I say that those objections were well taken. The private investigator apologized to the committee for the error that had occurred in the proceedings during the hearing before the committee in the other place.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am glad to draw to the attention of the house for the second time the work of some hon. members of this group and the further evidence that their efforts have resulted in another correction of a mistake made in other quarters.
Bill No. 212, for the relief of Thomas Jeremie Foulds.

Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 213, for the relief of Evelyn Gladys Douglas Fox.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 214, for the relief of George Johnstone Gray.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 215, for the relief of William Ross Macdonald.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 216, for the relief of Marie Therese Ibbotson Collins.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 217, for the relief of Donna Ruby Stallworthy Black.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 218, for the relief of Mildred Edith Shaw Boulard.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 219, for the relief of Shirley Edythe Fairlie Scarif.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 220, for the relief of Lily Stall Dixon.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 221, for the relief of Hazel Gladys Rees Webb.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 222, for the relief of Violet Kert Hausman.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 223, for the relief of Angelina Szpilakowska Rzasa, otherwise known as Angela Szpilakowska Rzasa.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 44, for the relief of Francoise Yip Lim Lesage.-Mr. Henderson.



JOSEPH ADELARD GERARD LECLAIRE

William James Henderson: the second reading of Bill No. 211, for the relief of Joseph Adelard Gerard Leclaire.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, in rising to discuss some of the details in connection with this case I am sure hon. members will not expect me to represent that the parties involved are saints.
However, this is a case which was contested, and it would appear to me that it would be right to give this matter the same treatment that was given to Bill No. 44.
It would appear that trouble in this family developed a number of years ago. The husband appeared, and on being questioned by his own counsel was asked how the marriage had gone. His reply was that in 1947, ten years ago, he had been away working for a lumber company, and when he came home he found, in his own words:
When X came back from that trip my wife was away and the house was empty, and the furniture moved into a garage and she had moved with all the clothing and small articles. There was nobody in at that time.
Some of the questions asekd were:
Q. Did she take the children with her?
A. No, sir.
Q. Have you had charge of the children ever since?
A. Yes.
Q. The four children?
A. Yes.
Q. I understand the children are older today?
A. Yes. Twenty-two, 21, 20 and 17.
Then follow some further questions about the children. But when counsel for the wife cross-examined, he asked about these details, whether in fact the husband had been looking after the children. He was a bit evasive. He said he had, but that he had had some help. He said, "When my kids were on vacation-" I am sure that if the hon. member for Saskatoon were here he would be objecting to the use of the word "kids" in referring to children. The hon. member for Saskatoon had occasion to censure detectives in committee on a number of occasions for referring to children as "kids", and I am sure he would wish to do so in this case with regard to the use of this term before a Senate committee.
But in cross-examination it came out that the social welfare organization in the city of Montreal had been required to take care of the children. So in fact the petitioner in this case would in my view be guilty of perjury, in that he represented that he had care of the children when in fact he had not. I think at some point the Minister of Justice should have a look at this case and decide whose responsibility it is to check these cases

Industrial Relations
of perjury. But when the wife in the case was being questioned by her counsel in connection with the break-up of the home she said, when asked what had happened, that her husband used to come home "at all hours of the night." She said:
He was drunk and that used to get on my nerves. He left me to go to live with another woman.
Well, Mr. Speaker, there is a good deal of conflicting evidence here. The husband said the wife's accusation was not true. Then there was a witness who appeared and who also gave some information which was contradicted very shortly afterwards. When questioned by counsel for the petitioner this woman said that a certain suite had been engaged by a couple. Later when cross-examined this witness said she had not said the suite had been rented by the couple.
I admit there was some evidence submitted by the son on behalf of the father which would indicate, as I said at the beginning, that neither of the parties in this particular case could claim to be a saint, but the point I wish to make is that for five years after these people separated, indeed for ten years, no effort was made by the husband to secure a divorce. It was only last October or November, after the wife had been able to get an appropriate court in the province of Quebec to award her $15 a week, that the husband decided it was time to get a divorce. And it is significant that no effort was made to secure any recent information. The husband gives information that goes back to some time in 1952. He was not sure of what month it was, or what date. He alleges that he found his wife where she was keeping house in the early morning. The wife denies that, of course. The son also alleges that five years ago-he was not sure when it was-he went to visit his mother, but he was somewhat vague in his evidence.
It appears to me, Mr. Speaker, that if you have to go back five years; if there was no attempt made by this husband between 1947 and 1952 to institute divorce proceedings, and if it was only after a Quebec court had awarded the wife $15 a week that action was taken, we should have a look at this case before we decide that a divorce should be granted.
Sometimes when motions of this sort are presented it is argued that passing them would kill the divorce. But I would just refer to Bill No. 44, when a similar motion was carried after the hon. member for Vancouver East had discussed it briefly, and the bill was referred to the appropriate committee as to subject matter.
So I move:
That Bill No. 211 be not now read a second time, but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if this motion is carried the members of that committee should examine the evidence very carefully and consider whether there has been perjury in connection with this evidence and, if so, what action should be taken. All the evidence would indicate that a great deal of contradictory information has been placed before us.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Nicholson moves, seconded by Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):
That Bill No. 211 be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private biDs.


William James Henderson: Mr. Speaker, as sponsor of this bill I would say that every one of these petitions, whether granted or not, must depend entirely on the facts as outlined in the evidence. This is not by way of establishing a precedent, but if the evidence in support of this particular bill is as the hon. member for Mackenzie has stated, then as sponsor of this bill I would have no objection at this time to having it referred to the committee, and I would be very pleased to have the hon. member who has just spoken appear in the committee to examine this evidence prior to the recommendation that this bill be returned to the house.
Amendment (Mr. Nicholson) agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore the subject matter will be referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. Knowles for the second reading of Bill No. 2, an act to provide for annual vacations with pay for employees.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the resump- , tion of the discussion on the adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. Knowles for the second reading of Bill No. 2 be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.

Canada Elections Act INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS



PROVISION OF STATUTORY HOLIDAYS WITH PAY FOR EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. Knowles for the second reading of Bill No. 3, an act to provide for pay for statutory holidays for employees and for pay for work performed on statutory holidays.
Mr. Speaker:: Is there agreement to allow the resumption of this debate to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Mr. Ray Thomas (Weiaskiwin) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 138, to amend the Canada Elections Act (ballot papers).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the second time I have introduced this bill in the house. As I stated at the time of introduction this session, the purpose is to have the political affiliation of the candidate placed on the ballot paper. The reason for this is to do away with some of the confusion that has been apparent on many occasions when we have had two or more candidates appearing on the ballot paper with similar names. I will not mention any specific cases. I think it is common knowledge to all members that there have been many occasions in the past when there has been a great deal of confusion.
I	understand that in one constituency where candidates have already been nominated for the coming election, not only their names but their initials are absolutely similar. This can give rise to a great deal of confusion. The last time I introduced the bill it was pointed out by a good many members that in the House of Commons we have no political affiliations, that we are all members of parliament, and political considerations should not be taken into account. I should like to point out, as I have done on previous occasions, that not only are we listed on the seating plan of the house according to our political affiliation but we also sit in the chamber in groups according to our political affiliation. At the back of Hansard every Wednesday we find that the names of the members are .listed with their constituencies and political affiliations.
I am not going to say any more on the bill. I do not think it needs further explanation. In my opinion a good deal of confusion could be done away with in elections if this amendment were made in the elections act.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Wetaskiwin said when he rose to move second reading, this is the second time he has introduced this bill. This is also the second time I have risen to say a few words in support of it. As I recall, last year when the bill was before the house there was a good deal of suggestion that when one gets into the theory of parliamentary tradition, political parties do not exist. That may be perfectly true, but what I failed to see at that time and what I fail to see now is why that should contribute a valid objection to the designation of party affiliation on the ballot if the candidate desires to have it there.
As far as I know there is nothing in our constitutional procedure that specifies that members of parliament shall have a certain occupation, but provision is made on the ballot paper for specifying the occupation of the candidate. Rather than this being a matter of grave constitutional concern, I feel it is a question of simple convenience for the voting public, so they may be able to identify and understand who and for what they are voting when they cast their ballots.
As I am sure most hon. members are aware, a similar provision has been incorporated in the election acts of at least some of the provinces with, as far as I can see, no resulting disintegration of the accepted parliamentary traditions under which the legislatures of the provinces operate. I know it certainly is a cause of serious complaint on the part of many electors in the province of British Columbia every time we have a federal election that the voters are unable to identify the political interests of the candidates from among whom they are called upon to choose. I think that is perhaps of greater concern in large, scattered electoral districts, where many of the electors simply have no opportunity to become acquainted personally with the people who are on the ballot paper.
In some of our constituencies it is almost a physical impossibility for the various candidates to visit all the polling areas or centres. I feel it would be a sound step if provision were made to have, at the request of the candidate, the appropriate political label appear below the name on the ballot paper. I think the point made by the member for Wetaskiwin that confusion can arise when two candidates have similar names is quite valid, but in my opinion there is an argument that is valid even where that is not the case. It certainly has become apparent to me that the voters in my area at least would approve of the same system being followed on federal ballot papers as has been followed now for a good many years on ballot papers in provincial elections.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words in support of the previous speaker and the mover of the motion. In the province of British Columbia we have had for several years now as part of the election act a provision that there should be designation on the ballot paper of the political party one represents. We all believe in democracy and the democratic expression of opinion. A great many people in Canada, and rightfully so, want to vote because they support an individual and not a party. If so, they know the name of the person they want to support. There are also those who want to support a party, and that is also a democratic right and privilege. It very often happens that they do not know the name of the official candidate, and upon occasion we have seen two identical names.
If people want to support an individual as an individual, then they know the person. If they want to support a party and do not happen to know the name of the candidate, they should have the right to learn from the ballot paper who is the representative of that party. That principle has been in the election act of British Columbia now over a number of years, and I have not heard any objection to it. I think it gives truer freedom of expression on the ballot paper.
As far as I am concerned I am most certainly in support of the principle of this motion.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, this is of course a much-debated bill and one on which there has been a great deal of discussion and investigation in the past. We even had a discussion recently as to whether ministers of the crown were entitled to distinguish themselves as such on a ballot paper, in that form, by way of distinction from their ordinary occupation, and in that way perhaps indicate their party affiliation. But to put on the ballot paper anything which would affix to a prospective member of parliament, as all of them would be, a party designation would in all probability leave the impression not only that he was supporting the particular party but that he would continue to support the party under most circumstances, perhaps even, some might think, until the next election.
This may seem to be a long bow to draw, but it is not when you consider the fact that when a party member chooses to leave one party to affiliate himself with another he very seldom resigns his seat in the house. In fact I cannot remember it being done in recent years. Rather he makes the change and then appeals to the public at the next election under the new affiliation he has made.
Canada Elections Act Mr. Knowles: Sometimes he changes his constituency at that time.


Walter Edward Harris: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I was talking in general terms. The only difference between us is that I am confident that the hon. member concerned will be back in the House of Commons.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We will make our comment after the election.


Walter Edward Harris: The point I was trying to make was that if a person does not feel that having been elected as a supporter of a party imposes on him an obligation either to support that party or to offer himself again for election if he chooses to support another party, he would not be quite as well supported in the public mind if at the time of voting he is distinguished on the ballot paper as a member of that particular party. I am not going to suggest that it would be incumbent on any member of the house to resign if he felt he could no longer support the party under whose auspices he had conducted the last election. Indeed, I would sugest the contrary; and I am not thinking of any recent event in any manner whatsoever.


Harold Edward Winch: It is the ballot paper with which we are concerned, not what they do afterwards. It is for the voter to know.


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, I am coming to that matter. There have been many instances of change of party affiliation, not so many in Canadian politics perhaps at the federal level, although there were instances of quite a wholesale change particularly after the first world war. But in recent years there has been little of that, though there have been some instances. In the United Kingdom there was also a wholesale change of party affiliation after the first world war and not a great deal since, though the transfer of support in the House of Commons from the Liberal party to the Labour party extended over quite a lengthy period of time.
There never has been, I suggest, much of a case to be made for a member feeling that because he was elected as a supporter of party A, when he chose to change that position he should submit himself again to the electors rather than wait until the next general election. My point is that whether or not that is the practice, which I think is founded on the well-understood fact that even if, as the sponsor of the bill has said, we do sit in the House of Commons by party affiliation and we obey our party whips on most occasions, though not on all of them-


An hon. Member:: Not always.


Walter Edward Harris: No, not always. The opposition seems to feel it is a virtue for the government

Canada Elections Act
members not to obey the party whips, but that in their own case it is some kind of black crime if they do not obey their party whips. But even if, as I say, we have all the appearance of party support, every member of the house acknowledges that his representation in the house is the representation of a constituency without regard to party affiliation in any form, and that he is free in the house to do just precisely what his conscience and lis good judgment dictate that he should do.
Under these circumstances I am not at all convinced that the affixing of a party label on the ballot would do anything except to some extent detract from that independent position which we acknowledge hon. members have in the house when they reach here.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: Does that apply to the provinces that already have it?


Walter Edward Harris: I am not familiar with that, since I live in a province that so far has not done this.


Charles Edward Johnston: Some provinces have it.


Walter Edward Harris: I am speaking about the situation in the House of Commons. I have always tried to stay out of provincial matters, though I know that some hon. members opposite feel that in addition to representing a constituency, they are called to represent provincial governments here. I have never taken that view.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You don't have one to represent.


Walter Edward Harris: I have been here when there was a Liberal government in the province of Ontario.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: You were very young then.


Walter Edward Harris: Very young.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And more innocent than you are today.


Walter Edward Harris: Perhaps what I am saying is said out of experience rather than out of innocence. On the other point, as to whether this would aid the elector in distinguishing the person to whom he ought to give his support when he has the ballot-


Harold Edward Winch: That is the only point of the motion.


Walter Edward Harris: All right, then; for six minutes I may have been out of order if you are correct in what you say.


Alfred Claude Ellis: You have until six o'clock.


Walter Edward Harris: I do not want to go to six o'clock. I want unanimous permission to revert to motions before we come to that point.


Harold Edward Winch: You have not a chance.


Alfred Claude Ellis: It is six o'clock.


Walter Edward Harris: On the point my hon. friend has made, that this would aid in a better discrimination between candidates because there is a party label-


Harold Edward Winch: Say "understanding", not "discrimination".


Walter Edward Harris: I used the word "discrimination" in the sense of choice, not ill-choice. It seems to me there is no question at all that those persons who feel that supporting the present government is the proper thing to do, they being the majority, I think, of the Canadian people at the moment-


An hon. Member:: Less than 50 per cent.


Walter Edward Harris: I said "at the moment".


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Walter Edward Harris: May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, you made it.


Walter Edward Harris: Then I should like to ask for unanimous consent to revert to motions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What for?


Mr. Speaker:: It might be advisable for someone to move the adjournment of the debate.


Walter Edward Harris: I so move, Mr. Speaker.
On motion of Mr. Harris the debate was adjourned.



SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES. 1956-57

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting further supplementary estimates (3) for the financial year ending March 31, 1957, was presented by Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.

[Stage Direction]
A message from his Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1958, was presented by Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the custom that has grown up I wish to announce government business for Monday should private members' time be exhausted.
We shall take first second reading of the bill to amend the Territorial Lands Act, in the name of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources; then in the committee of the whole again on the salmon fisheries agreement; then the resolution in the name of the Minister of Transport with respect to
Business of the House
the appointment of a special committee, and then the resolution in the name of the Minister of Trade and Commerce with respect to the Prairie Grain Producers Interim Financing Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask if that would be the order of business for Tuesday?


Walter Edward Harris: It would be generally, though perhaps not in that order.


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

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Campbell: 1.	What Indian bands are included in the Battle-ford agency?
2.	What was the population of these bands in 1935, in 1956?
3.	How many of these Indians are in the age groups 6-14 and 16-21?
4.	(a) How many unmarried mothers are there in these reserves and how many children have they?
(b) What assistance, if any, other than family allowances is given these women?
5.	(a) How many acres of land are in each of these reserves?
(b) How much of this land is arable?
6.	How many cattle, horses, sheep, swine and poultry are there on each of these reserves?
7.	What are the average earnings of the heads of families on these reserves?
8.	How much relief has the government provided to each of these reserves during each month of 1956?
9.	Has the department any work and wages programs in these reserves and, if so, what are they?
10.	Are there schools on all of these reserves and, if not, which ones lack schools and what is being done to educate their children?
11.	Have any technical or practical training schemes been put into effect to prepare young Indians to take their place in the labour market?
12.	How many farm instructors are employed by the department on these reserves and what are the qualifications required?
13.	How many Indians on each of these reserves have been able to borrow money for the purpose of buying (a) farm machinery; (b) trucks; (c) housing, and has repayment of these loans been good or bad?
14.	How many homes have been built on these reserves by the department, and are these houses charged to band funds?
15.	How many houses will be built on each of these reserves in 1957?
16.	What provision is being made for the building of roads in each of these reserves in 1957?
17.	What constitutes a ration and how often are rations provided for Indians?
18.	What sanitary facilities are there?
Answer by: Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):
1.	The following bands are included in the Battleford agency: Little Pine, Lucky Man, Moosomin, Mosquito-Grizzly Bear Head, Poundmaker, Red Pheasant, Saulteaux, Sweet-grass, Thunderchild.
2	and 3. As the departmental census of Indians is taken every five years, data for the years 1934 and 1954 only are available.
From From
Bands	7 to 16	17 to 21	
	inclusive inclusive		Population
Little Pine ..	. . 41	19	174Lucky Man .	. . 2	1	12Moosomin . ..	. . 29	15	149Mosquito-Grizzly	Bear Head .	.. 27	6	136Poundmaker	. . 40	15	191Red Pheasant	.. 53	21	220Saulteaux ...	.. 25	25	178Sweetgrass ..	. . 39	9	166Thunderchild	.. 47	17	2271954	Bands	7 and	16 and	under 16	under 21	PopulationLittle Pine ..	.. 65	27	305Lucky Man .	.. 2	1	13Moosomin ...	. . . 58	29	202Mosquito-Grizzly	Bear Head	... 31	21	183Poundmaker	. . 52	35	268Red Pheasant	. . . 65	13	283Saulteaux . ..	.. 20	8	126Sweetgrass ..	.. 59	26	298Thunderchild	... 90	33	328
4. (a) It would be difficult to give accurate figures and it is felt that the Indians would not wish to have such information published.
(b) Food, fuel, clothing and other assistance as necessary, are supplied by the department to unmarried mothers and their children. In the event the mother is unable to provide for the children, they are placed in foster homes at the expense of the department at rates similar to those prescribed by the provincial welfare department for the area.
Legal adoptions are arranged, as for non-Indians, through the resources of the appropriate provincial department of		government.
5. (a) and (b).		
	Total	Approximate
Reserves	acreage	acreage ofPoundmaker	19,135.84	arable land 6,939Little Pine-Lucky Man 	15,989.10	5,600Moosomin	17,349.64	6,939Red Pheasant ...	24,320.00	8,502Mosquito-Grizzly Bear Head	31,540.63	12,624Sweetgrass 	42,262.24	25,406Thunderchild	16,846.69	3,273Saulteaux 	9,621.089	9006. The following	is a statement of the	cattle, horses and	poultry on	the variousreserves in the Battleford Indian agency.	There are no sheep or swine on these reserves.	Reserves	Cattle	Horses	PoultryRed Pheasant . ...	
102	65	Mosquito - Grizzly	Bear	Head 	
80	28	-Sweetgrass 	
43	38	100Thunderchild ....	
77	33	-Moosomin 	
101	54	-
Questions
Reserves	Cattle Horses Poultry
Saulteaux	
33	11	-Poundmaker	
32	90	-Little Pine-Lucky Man 122	1157.	Information not available.8.	See table following:
RELIEF FOOD, FUEL AND CLOTHING (in dollars)
-	Red Pheasant	Mosquito	Sweet- grass	Pound- maker	Little Pine-Lucky Man	Thunder- child	Moosomin	Saul- teauxJanuary	. 3,068	2,000	3,158	1,130	1,469	1,033	689	420February	. 3,049	1,988	3,040	1,226	1,405	1,072	664	416March	. 3,145	2,078	3,136	1,338	1,467	1,121	731	424April	. 2,962	1,986	2,997	1,148	1,393	1,060	503	412May	, 1,988	1,785	2,423	489	388	640	514	320June	. 1,450	1,275	1,242	160	160	237	233	183July	. 1,417	1,080	1,254	158	235	243	213	172August	. 1,433	1,290	996	162	186	232	235	191September	. 1,476	1,489	1,009	193	271	256	205	173October	. 1,830	1,304	976	192	238	319	229	173November.. ..	. 2,159	1,631	1,506	283	348	232	258	195December	. 2,177	1,935	1,735	469	587	252	269	226*(800)	*(150)	*(2,000)	*(2,460)	
* Figures in brackets indicate amounts paid from band funds included in figures above.
9.	Wherever possible Indian labour is used in the building and repair of roads, houses, schools and other buildings. During 1956-57, the cost of repairs and maintenance to agency administrative buildings was approximately $2,250. In addition, $6,700 was set aside for road repairs and maintenance on the Little Pine-Lucky Man, Sweetgrass and Red Pheasant reserves, most of which will be expended before March 31, 1957.
10.	No. In some cases a band may have several reserves set aside for its use, some of which are either not permanently settled or have insufficient children of school age. In other cases, schools will serve one or more reserves located in close proximity. For these reasons, schools have not been provided on the following reserves:


I. R. 110 I. R. Ill I. R. 112A I. R. 112E I. R. 112F I. R. 113A I. R. 113B I. R. 115C I. R. 115D I. R. 159
[Stage Direction]
Grizzly Bear Head Lean Man Moosomin Moosomin Moosomin
Stick-him-in-the-back
Sweetgrass
New Thunderchild
Thunderchild
Saulteaux
Eight day schools are in operation in the Battleford agency and another is to be constructed in 1957-58 on the Saulteaux reserve. The school population is also served by the
Prince Albert, Duck Lake and Onion Lake residential schools, which enrol some 138 pupils from this agency.
In addition, the department pays tuition for all Battleford agency pupils attending nonIndian schools.
11.	During 1956-57, courses in home economics and industrial arts were given to residents of the Thunderchild, Little Pine-Lucky Man, Poundmaker, Sweetgrass, Moosomin, Mosquito and Red Pheasant reserves. In addition, instruction was given in carpentry, power machinery operation and homemaking.
At the request of the department, a short course in agriculture and homemaking was offered at Prince Albert by the university extension division of the University of Saskatchewan, in co-operation with Prince Albert agricultural society, which was open to residents of Saskatchewan reserves, including the Battleford agency. The cost was borne by the department, whose officials assisted in developing the program. Assistance was also offered to enable students to attend vocational training courses provided under other than departmental auspices.
12.	The department does not employ farm instructors as such, but assistants, Indian agency, are located as follows:
1 assistant grade 3, Indian agency-responsible for the supervision of the Red Pheasant, Sweetgrass and Mosquito-Grizzly Bear Head reserves.
[Stage Direction]
Questions
1 assistant grade 2, Indian agency-responsible for the supervision of the Pound-maker and Little Pine reserves.
1 assistant grade 2, Indian agency-responsible for the supervision of the Thunderchild, Saulteaux and Moosomin reserves.
Desirable qualifications for assistants are a high school education, knowledge of agriculture and stock raising acquired through formal education or practical experience; ability to supervise the Indian population in the operation, care and repair of farm and other machinery and ability to deal with administrative matters related to the affairs of the Indians.
13.	Although section 69 of the Indian Act provides, among other things, for loans to Indians to purchase farm machinery and trucks, loans under this section are not available for housing on reserves at the present time.
As a result of recent amendments to the National Housing Act and the Indian Act, Indians will in future be able to apply for N.H.A. loans for housing construction.
Since January 1, 1930, 18 loans for farm machinery under section 69 have been granted, four on the Red Pheasant reserve, 10 on the Sweetgrass reserve, two on the Little Pine-Lucky Man reserve and two on the Poundmaker reserve. Of these, eight loans have been paid in full, eight are in arrears and two are in good standing.
Few bands in the Battleford agency have sufficient of their own funds available for loan purposes. However, band funds are used to provide housing, seed, feed, etc., to Indians.
14.	From 1950 to 1956, inclusive, 67 houses were constructed on Battleford reserves and of these, 17 were paid for from band funds.
15.	Until the 1957-58 band budgets are received, information respecting construction of houses chargeable in whole or in part to band funds is not available.
The following new housing units will be constructed in 1957-58 by the department. In addition, funds will be provided to assist in the construction of houses where V.L.A. and band funds are also available. Funds will also be provided for the repair and maintenance of existing units.
(a)	Red Pheasant	
1(b)	Little Pine-Lucky Man	
1(c)	Poundmaker	
1(d)	Mosquito	
1(e)	Sweetgrass	
1(f)	Saulteaux	
1(g)	Thunderchild	
1
16. The following is an outline of the proposed road construction program for 1957-58 in the Battleford agency.
Reserve	New con-
	Repairs	struction
Little Pine-Lucky Man	$500.00	-Poundmaker 	500.00	$1,000.00Sweetgrass 	500.00	1,000.00Red Pheasant 	
Mosquito-Grizzly Bear	500.00	1,000.00Head 	500.00	-Thunderchild 	-	1,000.0017. The following is	the list of	foods suggested for one person for one month, assuming availability of country foods:
Flour (vitamin B) ..
Rolled oats	
Baking powder ....
Tea	
Sugar	
Lard	
Beans	
Rice (or potatoes up to equivalent value)
Cheese	
Meat or fish	
Salt	
Matches	
Tomatoes or tomato
juice	
Milk	
24 lbs.
1
2
5
1
[Stage Direction]
10 cents or 15 cents per month per family 10 cents or 20 cents per month per family
nine tins (28 ounces) One pint of milk or equivalent in evaporated or powdered form per day for each child of an indigent family 12 years of age and under.
This list of foods is neither all inclusive nor rigidly applied in every case. It is merely a guide. Substitutions and alterations of individual food items which do not entail increased cost or affect nutritional value may be made in accordance with individual needs and local conditions.
By reason of ill health, provision is made for supplementary diets of foods other than those on the standard list upon the recommendation of the local medical authority.
18. Indians on these reserves have outdoor toilets.

Mr. Pommer: What was the total tax collected in each province for the fiscal year 1955-56, by the federal government: (a) individual general income tax; (b) corporation general income tax; (c) tax on undistributed income; (d) non-resident tax collections; (e) succession duty collections?
Answer by: Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE Taxation Division
Net tax collections by provinces during the fiscal year 1955-56
General income tax and
-	old age security tax		Tax on undist. income	Non-resident tax	Succession duties		Grand total
	Individuals	Corporations					
$	$	$	$	$	$Newfoundland	
13,235,430.28	11,878,035.08	-	465,040.19	309,811.21	25,888,316.76Prince Edward Island	
1,634,967.59	817,263.47	8,100.00	112,888.41	557,351.16	3,130,570.63Nova Scotia	
21,625,133.09	15,157,576.16	215,526.12	271,378.79	2,268,429.24	39,538,043.40New Brunswick	
17,018,341.53	13,279,332.20	194,604.98	132,470.92	898,072.01	31,522,821.64Quebec	
264,863,564.60	316,424,089.57	2,470,271.65	21,987,690.32	21,763,528.10	627,509,144.24Ontario	
660,209,785.19	521,147,636.00	3,666,125.59	37,321,997.20	27,718,819.07	1,250,064,363.05Manitoba	
60,250,750.33	39,036,595.90	253,892.89	1,762,767.66	2,803,618.95	104,107,625.73Saskatchewan	
31,067,713.54	6,751,963.07	88,133.97	203,284.42	1,287,896.65	39,398,991.65Alberta	
79,290,513.39	40,168,628.04	246,633.14	1,017,455.48	2,890,666.07	123,613,896.12British Columbia	
136,834,172.39	107,959,556.62	865,756.92	2,855,104.64	6,096,823.57	254,611,414.14Yukon	
2,069,352.44	426,096.82	-	45,611.10	12,010.00	2,553,070.36CANADA	
1,288,099,724.37	1,073,046,772.93	8,009,045.26	66,175,689.13	66,607,026.03	2,501,938,257.72
1st March, 1957.

Questions

Questions


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY, NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Buchanan: 1.	Has the government of Nova Scotia requested the federal Department of Public Works to agree to include a bridge across the Bras d'Or lake as part of the trans-Canada highway?
2.	If so, what decision has been reached?
Answer by:	Mr. Bourgel, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Public Works:
1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
[The following item was passed in committee of supply]:


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
[Stage Direction]
333. Departmental administration, including an amount of $250,000 to defray the expenses of the 1957 congress of the universal postal union to be held in Ottawa, $2,091,516.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 11, 1957