1960-05-27

VETERANS AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on veterans affairs-Mr. Montgomery.


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate requested an up to date copy of the occupational counselling guide prepared for the use of the immigration branch of my department. I have furnished him with a copy, and I should like to table the latest copy of this guide at this time. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate will recall that on an earlier occasion I tabled a copy of the guide in the house in response to a request made by him on June 25, 1958.
The occupational counselling guide is a monthly report compiled by immigration officers throughout Canada, providing factual information as to employment conditions in different parts of the country. As its name implies, it is used to advise prospective immigrants with various kinds of occupational skills and to assist them in deciding where to settle. The guide does not purport to list specific employment opportunities in the various localities but indicates simply that on the basis of the assessment made by experienced immigration officers in the areas concerned an immigrant with a particular occupation will be better able to settle in one locality than in another, and that even though there may not be an immediate opening in a given area for his specific occupation, the prospects there are generally good for his eventual settlement.
The occupational guide is compiled on a monthly basis and contains for each locality and each occupational classification one of three designations, the letter "G" indicating good prospects for establishment in a particular occupation in a particular area; the letter "L" indicating limited prospects for establishment of immigrants with a particular occupation in a particular area, and a blank space indicating little or no prospects.
I should perhaps add that while it is the immigration branch of my department which
is responsible for the preparation and compilation of the guide, the material which is supplied for this purpose by our field immigration officers is obtained from many sources, including employers. Information is also available from local offices of the national employment service. We are continuing our efforts by every appropriate means to coordinate the information supplied in this way to our officers overseas.



REQUEST FOR FURTHER STATEMENT ON ILLEGAL ENTRY OF CHINESE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and ask whether the hon. lady has a statement to make on the Chinese situation.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to report yet.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence of which notice has been given.
Has the minister's attention been drawn to a report carried by a St. John's radio station yesterday to the effect that the United States government have decided to locate two Nike Hercules missile launching stations in Newfoundland? If so, would the minister comment?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, my attention was drawn to that report, and it is absolutely without any foundation at all. The United States cannot establish any sort of missile base in Newfoundland without obtaining the consent of the Canadian government, and that applies to the leased bases as well as to any other territory of the province of Newfoundland. No such application has been made to Canada.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposition):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister just stated that the United States government cannot

Inquiries of the Ministry establish a military base on the leased territory without the consent of this government?


George Randolph Pearkes: According to the original agreements, Mr. Speaker, no major changes can be made in the armaments at the leased bases, so I am informed, without consultation with this government.



NEWFOUNDLAND-REPORTED CLOSING OF STATION AT STEPHENVILLE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Ottawa West):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The same televised news item contained a reference to the closing of the station at Stephenville. Is there any truth in that report?


George Randolph Pearkes: The base is not being closed, Mr. Speaker. There may be some reduction in the number of personnel.


James Aloysius McGrath: further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister have any indication as to how substantial the reductions will be?


George Randolph Pearkes: No, I could not tell the hon. member the exact number.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. L. Morris (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as Sable island comes within the exclusive legislative authority of the parliament of Canada, and inasmuch as its inhabitants are my constituents under the Representation Act-


An hon. Member:: Including the horses?


Edmund Leverett Morris: The horses do not vote, but they are not on any payroll either. In view of what I have said may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Would the minister give a public assurance now that should a sale of these ponies eventuate through the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation every attention will be paid with respect to their removal in a proper, humane way?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. After consultation with the Department of Agriculture my department considers that the Sable island ponies should be removed from the island in their own interest. Conditions on the island, including limited forage often covered with snow in the winter, and brackish water have left these animals with stunted growth.
(Mr. Pearson.]
In severe winters they suffer hardship despite periodic attempts by the department to supplement their feed.
Accordingly the department asked Crown Assets Disposal Corporation to invite tenders for these animals. These bids are returnable on June 14, 1960. Bidders must undertake to remove these animals from the island under conditions laid down by the society for the prevention of cruelty to animals and the Department of Agriculture, and the regulations for the handling of horses and cattle at sea under the Canada Shipping Act.


Lionel Chevrier: They seemed to thrive under the former administration.


George Harris Hees: The hon. member should talk to them now. That is not what they tell us.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. D. Morton (Davenport):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Finance, who I understand is acting for the Secretary of State for External Affairs? Has he any statement to make with respect to affairs in Turkey?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Acting Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, news reports this morning have indicated that the government of Turkey has been overthrown by the Turkish army in a bloodless revolt. This development took place during the night and as yet we have received little information. The Canadian ambassador in Ankara, Mr. Benjamin Rogers, has kept the government fully informed in recent weeks. I expect that word will be received from him very shortly on this new development.
While it is too early as yet to comment on the international implications of this development, it is encouraging that the leaders of the revolt have apparently affirmed their intention to uphold Turkey's obligations as a member of NATO, and that they propose to arrange for free elections.
The government as yet has no information to suggest that Canadian citizens or Canadian property in Turkey are in any danger. The house will, of course, be kept informed as reliable information is received. It is reassuring that the Turkish army has promised to ensure the safety and security of all foreigners in the country.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Flynn in the chair.


[Stage Direction]
32.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $16,422,810.
The Chairman:: This item will be found on page 6 of the blue book and the details on page 120.


Mr. Regier:: Under this item may we have a progress report on the South Saskatchewan river project? The expenditure of $11 million on an undertaking as large as this does not seem to be very much money. I am wondering whether we might have an explanation as to why the fereal government is spending only $11 million on this large undertaking?


Mr. Cardiff:: This covers the amount of work contemplated this year; it will cover the amount of work under progress this year.


Erhart Regier: How much money is it estimated will be the federal government's contribution to this undertaking, and over what number of years is it planned to spread the work?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: It will amount to about $72 million, spread over six or seven years.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
33.	Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act including authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amount of the share of the province of Nova Scotia of the cost of the Annapolis river aboiteaucauseway project, $1,634,555.
Lionel Chevrier: Will the parliamentary secretary give some indication of the original cost of the aboiteau-causeway, and will he indicate the present position?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Will the hon. member tell me which one he wants?


Lionel Chevrier: Item 33, which reads:
Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act including authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amount of the share of the province of Nova Scotia of the cost of the Annapolis river aboiteau-causeway project, $1,634,555.
I should like to know the estimate of the cost and what is the progress report at the present time. How much is Canada paying and how much is the province paying?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Canada pays about 74 per cent, and the total amount is $2 J million.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
34.	Prairie Farm Assistance Act administration, $672,947.
Mr. Benidickson:: Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary secretary is well aware that in some of the prairie provinces, if not in all three, assistance of the inspectors of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act administration has been utilized in connection with assessments for 79951-0-270
Supply-Agriculture
entitlement under the federal-provincial agreement for payment of assistance with respect to more than 50 per cent of crops unharvested last year after snow came prematurely. I think it would be appropriate to have some report as to the payments that have been sought so far by the provinces under the 50-50 arrangement.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I am told that these people only work part time, and that the total payment to the provinces by the federal government amounts to $4f million up to the end of the year.


William Moore Benidickson: That is half the amount that has been paid? What was the date of the reckoning; up to what date?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: The end of 1959.


William Moore Benidickson: That would represent 50 per cent of the payments?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: It is up to the first of April of this year, I am told. We pay 50 per cent of the total amount.


William Moore Benidickson: I am not clear. Was the total amount $4J million or does that represent half of the total amount?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: It represents our half.


Erhart Regier: Can the parliamentary secretary advise us whether there are areas in Canada that still have to make contributions to the fund under this act, yet are not entitled to receive assistance in case of crop failure? I believe there were areas in the province of Manitoba where the people used to complain rather loudly that they had to make contributions to the fund yet were not entitled to receive any assistance.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I am told that they may pay in more than they receive, but as far as we know they are all eligible.


Erhart Regier: What happens in the case of areas that take advantage of the crop insurance legislation passed by the house last year? Are there areas in which the crop insurance scheme now applies and this measure no longer applies?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I can tell the hon. member that if they are not eligible for payment the 1 per cent is not deducted. There are at present four such areas in existence.


Erhart Regier: Are they all in the one region? Are they all in Manitoba?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: All in Manitoba.


Erhart Regier: Are any plans being made in order that either Alberta or Saskatchewan may take advantage of the crop insurance legislation that we passed last year?

Supply-Agriculture


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I am told that Saskatchewan have an act, but they have not put any plan into effect as yet.


Mr. Peters:: I notice that the amount in connection with this item has gone up. Would the parliamentary secretary indicate where the increase occurred, and also in what areas? I should like to know in what areas the emergency assistance legislation passed last year eliminated the operation of this plan, which otherwise would have been in effect in those areas.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I am told the emergency legislation had no effect on that.


Erhart Regier: I understand that there is a certain area in Manitoba, or rather four areas now, that are implementing crop insurance, and therefore those areas will not be eligible under this particular vote. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could indicate where the anticipated expenditures of the federal government can be found in connection with this crop insurance legislation. Are they included in these figures?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I am told it is only those farmers who take out insurance in those particular areas who will be affected.


Erhart Regier: As I recall the legislation which was passed last year it called for a contribution by the federal government, and I do not notice any item in the estimates for that purpose.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: It is a statutory contribution and is not in the estimates.


Erhart Regier: Even if it were, those statutory items are also listed. Even though they do not carry a number they always carry the letter "S". I do not even notice a $1 item listed in the estimates for this particular purpose. I was wondering whether the government expects to have to spend any money this year.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Oh, we expect to have to make some expenditures this year, and they will be covered by the supplementary estimates.


Erhart Regier: In that case I should like to ask whether any consideration has been given to the many representations that were made last year, or to the expressions of opinion that are to be found in the newspapers, to the effect that the cost of this insurance to the Canadian farmer is excessive. Has the government given any consideration to raising its contribution to the cost in order to make possible a lower premium to the farmer?

I believe the government must be disappointed in the lack of response so far to this crop insurance plan. I think one of the great stumbling blocks has been the high rates the individual farmers are asked to pay.


Mr. Smallwood:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, item 34 in the estimates covers the administration of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. I cannot see where crop insurance comes in under this item, because there is nothing for crop insurance in item 34.


Erhart Regier: If I may speak on this point of order, this is the item where we have to discuss this because this item is affected by the extent to which the crop insurance legislation is instituted. The more farmers who come under the crop insurance legislation, the less the amount needed under this particular item. I would like a reply as to what consideration is being given by the government to increasing its contribution under this legislation, thereby encouraging more farmers to take a greater interest in the legislation which we passed last year.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I am told that under the act the premium rates are self-supporting, must be self-supporting.


Erhart Regier: Is any consideration being given to amending this legislation?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I cannot tell you whether there is or not. That is up to the house. This is only a trial period.


William Arnold Peters: Would there not have to be in this item or in some other item in the estimates an amount to allow for administration costs?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: The administrative costs are provided for by statute and will be in a supplementary item.


William Arnold Peters: We have asked a number of times why in the main estimates there should be a $1 item, and we have always been told that the $1 was only a statutory requirement, to keep the statute alive, as it were. Why should there be a difference in this particular case?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: We had no scheme in force when these estimates were figured out; it was not in operation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Jacques Flynn: This completes the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I would like to thank the committee for their co-operation.


[Stage Direction]
304. Departmental administration, including Canada's share of the upkeep of the international bureaux at Berne and Montevideo, $1,926,670.
Mr. Denis:: Mr. Chairman, I will ask the Postmaster General whether he has any statement to make before we discuss the different items.


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Chairman, while it may seem a sweeping statement, it is nevertheless true to say that never since confederation has it been possible for a postmaster general to record in one annual report, as I will today, such a wide range of new development and progress both internally and in service to the public.
Just a few of the more sweeping changes and developments of the past 12 months have been reorganization within the department and the creation of a comptroller's branch; new equipment developments in stamp vending machines, mail mobiles, delivery carts, plastic mail boxes; extension of service to the public through new letter carrier areas and rural mail routes; improvements in service to the public in fields such as parcel deliveries, the delivery of mail to apartment residents and an increase in accounting post offices; progress in our electronic sorting machine and other equipment; trials of a new mail flow system; new philatelic enterprises and an organized plan to promote interest in Canada in foreign countries by philatelic means; a project to make new stamps available as an aid in the teaching process in Canada; advances in our internal training techniques; improvement in staff relations through closer co-operation with employee associations; plans for a postal history museum; new regulations covering an important category of mail known as householder mail; statistical evidence of improvement in our service as demonstrated by a reduction in complaints received; and various other matters, some of which I will deal with in my report and others which I will not even have time to mention.


Azellus Denis: Take your time.


William McLean Hamilton: As
a result, this year at some 11,270 post offices from Newfoundland to British Columbia almost 50,000 postal employees will handle close to 4 billion pieces of mail originating in Canada more effectively than ever before and with greater satisfaction to the public. If these 4 billion pieces of mail produced by Canadians were laid end to end, they would stretch to the moon and almost back again.
79951-0-270J
Supply-Post Office
If stacked neatly in a pile they would tower as high as 500 Mount Everests.
Members have received a detailed printed report giving complete information on our activities for the year ending March 31, 1959, and I do not plan to repeat this information because it is already available to hon. members. For the fiscal year which ended March 31, 1960 the final and exact figures are not yet available; but I have estimates for the house which will reflect the growth of the department's activities. In the first place, over-all mail volume increased by 100 million pieces to 3.9 billion items. Our estimated revenue for the year just ended is $193.6 million compared to $183,381,000 in the year preceding. Our expenditures are estimated at $191.8 million for the year just ended compared with $183,554,000 for the previous year.
Thus, as against a slight loss of $173,142 for 1958-59, we anticipate an excess of revenue over expenditure of something in the nature of $1.7 million for the year just ended. This reflects again my desire that whenever possible post office revenues and expenditures should be kept in approximate balance. Since we were also faced during the past year with substantial increases in some of our costs, notably those in transportation, the results I have reported reflect prudent administration and good management.
So the committee may be fully informed on our unit costs of operation, with the permission of the committee I would like at this point to insert in Hansard a table showing the cost ascertainment figures of the department for 1958-59, which compares exactly with a similar table appearing in Hansard for March 7, 1957 at page 1986.


Jacques Flynn: Does the committee give consent to have this table printed at this point of the proceedings in Hansardl


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William McLean Hamilton: might say that I will send one over to the hon. member for St. Denis so he can have the information before him, and will not have to look for it in Hansard.


Mr. Winch:: May we have one too?


William McLean Hamilton: will have another copy made for the hon. member and supply it to him later, Mr. Chairman.
[Editor's note: The table above referred to follows:]

Supply-Post Office


[Stage Direction]
Apportionment of total revenue, disbursements from revenue and appropriation expenditure over classes of mails and services based upon cost ascertainment tests made in May and September 1958
Revenue Expenditure Profit	Loss
Volume pieces cents	cents	cents	centsper piece	per piece	per piece per pieceFirst class ordinary	
1,943,798,566
Air mail-
Domestic	 844,443
Foreign	 39,299,744
Parcel post	 403,484
Second class-
Transient	 15,599,896
Publishers	 531,148,886
Third class-
Householder	 294,261,801
Addressed circulars	 823,694,834
Fourth class-
Domestic	 87,056,506
Registration	 15,520,190
Special delivery	 3,111,608
Insurance-
Paid parcel	 377,953
Money orders-
Notched	 18,656,397
Denominative	 35,089,653
5.185	3.358	1.827	-80.982	63.317	17.665	19.594	21.039	-	1.445153.117	238.522	-	85.4055.526	14.865	9.3391.165	5.249	-	4.0841.561	1.548	.013	2.177	1.994	.183	-23.962	24.825	_	.86320.543	47.799	-	27.25610.585	24.445	-	13.8609.535	173.346	-	163.81118.482	21.000	2.51811.240	14.320	-	3.080
During the year we opened 28 revenue post offices to serve small rural communities, and 97 sub-post offices to give local service in urban centres. We also established two new staff post offices, two new postal stations and two new letter carrier depots. Finally, and reflecting a substantial improvement in the housing of our postal activities, we occupied 105 new federal buildings.
Proceeding with our program to streamline our internal organization, which last year saw the creation of our engineering and development branch, we have this year created a new comptroller's branch. This brings under the immediate direction of one senior official, a man of wide experience in accounting practices and postal problems, the internal accounting systems of the department, the operation and control over budgetary arrangements and our purchasing and stores operations. Improved control of these operations will result in a substantial increase in efficiency in these fields.
Canada has recently played a much more important part in the international postal sphere by reason of her position as vice president of the executive and liaison committee of the universal postal union, and in addition we have concentrated much attention on our postal relations with the United States. Currently we are studying revisions to a postal convention between our two countries, a revision which is long overdue.

Our country has proportionately an extremely large volume of international mail, and since much of this travels by air we have made many changes to improve this type of service. The advent of jet aircraft on international routes is beginning to make a tremendous impact on the speed with which mail travels. To cite but one example, by this fall it will be possible for mail to leave London, England at 3.05 p.m. local time and arrive in Vancouver, B.C., at 11.15 p.m. local time, using the regular T.C.A. services. This gives some idea of the possibilities we envision for mail handling and transport by air.
At home, widespread increases and improvements in service have been inaugurated. During the year, for instance, letter carrier delivery service was established for the first time in five communities; Alma, Quebec and Stoney Creek, Georgetown, Whitby and Elliot Lake, Ontario. A total of 29 new walks were established in these communities to serve some 13,523 calls.
In addition to these new services, 306 letter carrier walks were placed in operation during the year to permit the extension of service in other communities already enjoying letter carrier service. A total of some 154,604 new calls, including about 78,360 additional calls on established routes, were added in this way. Beyond these letter carrier services, some 8,353 families were afforded service through group mail boxes

pending the eventual provision of door to door mail delivery when postal requirements have been met.
To improve delivery service in rural areas we have inaugurated during the past year 89 new rural routes and have also made 1,006 extensions to such routes.
In order to improve service after regular post office hours we have expanded our program of installing, at strategic points across the country, government-owned postage stamp vending machines which give full face value in stamps for the money deposited. Five hundred new machines were placed in operation during the past year, bringing the total number owned by the department to 2,026.
In the same field we also have under development at the present time a stamp vending machine designed to meet somewhat less rugged conditions when it is installed inside post offices. Through the use of this machine we hope to avoid some of the pressure on our wicket sales and reduce the occasional line-ups which occur, thus ensuring even better service to the public. We are also developing a completely automatic model which will be actuated by the mere depositing of a coin, so the patron will not have to pull a plunger or exert any effort whatsoever. I guess this is the limit of automation, short of providing the public with the coins to put in the machines, and we have no plans for doing that at the moment.
To improve the postal services available in smaller communities in Canada we have considerably extended the number of accounting post offices because at these it is possible to buy money orders in larger denominations than at non-accounting offices. In 1957-58 we changed from non-accounting to accounting status 66 such offices; in 1958-59, 113 and in 1959-60, 169. Hon. members can see the tremendous increase in this field of activity.
Last year at this time I announced that the department had undertaken an experiment with a three-wheeled vehicle called a mail-mobile for door to door mail delivery service in suburban areas. The original experiment was undertaken in British Columbia with a United States machine, and proved so successful that the original five machines have been augmented by a further 50 vehicles, including 15 which have been developed by a Canadian manufacturer. These are now undergoing extensive testing in other parts of the country.
We are now about to try yet another mobile piece of equipment; letter carrier delivery carts, to which I referred yesterday in answer
Supply-Post Office
to a question in the house. The best comparison I can offer for these are the twowheeled carts which one sees so often on golf courses to carry the golf bag of players. There is some considerable doubt that these are going to work out, and we can foresee a number of problems in their use. None the less, they deserve a trial in accord with our present policy-and I think I can almost say our new policy under this administration-of constantly testing new ideas and equipment which appear to have merit.
Among the most commented on pieces of equipment we have introduced this year are the new plastic letter boxes being installed, one or two to a city, in most of the major centres across Canada. Their design is most attractive and has been widely commended by a number of people, including even Mr. Alan Jarvis in a press article on the subject. The plastic material, with the colour impregnated, requires little of the upkeep or repainting which is now a costly factor in connection with existing metal boxes. While it is still too early to completely assess their potential, the probability is they will be most successful, and if this is the case we will introduce them widely across Canada as the older boxes are retired.
We have made many improvements during the past year in our service to the public. For example, we have developed a new procedure for the handling of parcels which we are unable to deliver because the patron is not at home when we make the first call. Previously these had been returned to the local post office, and the only course of action open to the patron was to call for them. While this course of action is still open to patrons, they have the option now of having the item delivered a second time at a prearranged time for a fee of 25 cents. Our trial of this service has been so enthusiastically received that we will soon establish the system on a regular basis throughout Canada.
Another of the several adjustments we have made to improve service to the public concerns the delivery to individual residents of apartment buildings of mail matter requiring direct personal contract. In the past, in many such cases the letter carrier was only permitted to leave a card in the mail box notifying the patron that such items could be picked up at the post office. Now these items, including such things as registered mail, short paid articles, C.O.D. packages and items too large to fit in apartment mail boxes, are delivered by the letter carrier to individual residents of apartment buildings in the same manner as for individual houses.
One way in which we control the quality of our service is through a very careful
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Post Office
analysis of all the complaints we receive. It is a measure of our constant improvement that despite a steady increase in mail volume -and hon. members will recall that I said it had increased by 100 million pieces this year-the number of inquiries or complaints dropped by more than 10,000 in each of the past two years, so that while in 1957-58 we had 112 inquiries or complaints for every million pieces handled, this dropped to 106 in 1958-59 and to 101 in the past year.
We are still trying to improve, but it is getting harder when one realizes that we have already reached the point where only one one hundredth of one per cent of mail handled resulted in an inquiry or complaint, and that in many of these cases investigation revealed the complaint to be unfounded.
I am sure that some ox my friends in this house will wish to ask me about robberies of post office vehicles and buildings, and to inquire as to what steps are being taken to safeguard the mails from depredations of this type. I would like to state that during the last two years or more we have built up a greatly increased security-mindedness on the part of postal employees at all levels. With the assistance of the Department of Public Works we have improved the security of our buildings and added to our protective equipment.
For comparative and statistical purposes within the department we list as losses by burglary the items on which we can place an accurate or approximately accurate monetary value, including cash, stamps, denominative money orders, and so on. The results of our efforts to reduce the loss attributable to burglaries are illustrated by the fact that we have reduced the net average loss per burglary from $1,262 in 1958-59 to $983 in the last fiscal year, and the total figure has dropped from $448,248 to $385,663.
However, it is important to realize that these loss figures for statistical purposes are actually greatly in excess of the loss to either the post office or the public treasury, because only the cash stolen is a complete loss. In many cases the postage stamps stolen cannot be disposed of by the thieves and are destroyed. In the case of money orders stolen, the picture is clear because they can be identified when they pass through the post office. In the last fiscal year, for example, denominative money orders having a potential value of $139,305 were stolen and included in the loss figures; on the other hand, the thieves succeeded in cashing only 20 of these at post offices and the total value thereof was only $201. In other words, a reported loss of $139,000 was in fact only a loss of $200.

More stringent regulations regarding the retention of cash in post offices have made possible the reduction of actual cash losses from an average of $84 per burglary in 195859 to an average of $70 in the last fiscal year.
Special attention has also been given to our methods of handling the dispatch of mail to ensure its protection in transit. In recent years, as you are aware, the railways have eliminated many of their trains and the post office has been forced more and more to resort to highway transport to deliver the mails swiftly and efficiently. Obviously the security problems of handling mail by truck are more complex than in hauling it by train. We have, however, recently developed new security measures for this purpose in co-operation with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the provincial police forces and the police staffs of the municipalities concerned. Unfortunately, to give details of these would merely provide information eagerly sought by prospective robbers and burglars, and I hope the committee and particularly the hon. member for St. Denis will not press me for such information. We cannot avoid every possibility of theft or of robbery on the highway, but in comparison with the general picture in this field throughout Canada our record is a favourable one, and reflects the results of the substantial efforts we are making.
Last year at this time I discussed developments in the electronic-mechanical mail sorta-tion system presently being developed by the Canada post office and destined for operational testing in the Montreal post office later this year. This is now undergoing the final stages of modification at the plant of Canadair Limited.
While we have great hopes and expectations for this particular equipment, which has been under development by the Canadian post office for a number of years, we can have no certainty as to the results until it has undergone extensive trials in actual postal operation. I feel, however, that the advances we have made in this direction during the past 15 months, since placing the development contract with Canadair, have been substantially greater than would have been the case had we attempted to undertake this stage of the work within the Post Office Department itself as was contemplated by the previous administration.
To operate the machine during its test period we are going to need a staff of specially trained people, and we are now well advanced on the training of supervisors and operators in this field. Also under construction for us at the present time in the United Kingdom is a unit of equipment designed to

mechanize the first operations performed on mail when it reaches a post office. These include the separation of letters and parcels, the facing up so the addresses are all in the same relative position and the stamps in the same place, the cancelling of the stamps and the initial division of the mail into that for local delivery and that to be forwarded to other points. The new equipment will be installed in the Winnipeg post office, probably in the first half of 1961, for evaluation under Canadian conditions, and it will represent a major step forward in the modernization of our operations, since previously the only one of the several operations it undertakes which was done by machinery was the actual cancellation of the stamps themselves.
We are also testing in Toronto at the present time a new mail-flow system by which, when the time arrives for mail which has been sorted to be removed from the sorting cases and dispatched, an announcement is made over a loudspeaker system and the sorter merely removes the mail and puts it on a moving belt underneath his table. Previously a considerable amount of pedestrian traffic was required since the mail was picked up individually from each case.
Our studies are continuing on possible methods of applying electronic data processing to the issue of postal money orders at post office wickets, and to the audit of these money orders at headquarters. Since we handle over 50 million money orders a year this is a field of considerable interest to us.
I must emphasize again, as I do each year when discussing these developments, that the programs on which we are working are not designed, and will not be allowed, to throw existing full-time postal employees out of work. However, they will bring about more efficient handling of our ever increasing mail volume without corresponding increases in staff.
About two years ago, after studying the whole question of improving post office operation through mechanization, I told the house that I felt it would take about five years to develop, install and test under operating conditions the necessary equipment and another five years following that to extend its operation generally throughout the postal service to all points where it could be effectively used. I see no reason to depart from this timetable which takes into account, on the one hand, the need for these measures and, on the other, the necessity that they be introduced at a rate which will enable the department to adjust to the changes without dislocation of staff or hardship to anyone.
During the past year probably no aspect of the postal service received more widespread publicity than our householder mail
Supply-Post Office
service, the system under which an advertiser may mail printed matter to all the householders in a given area without being required to have it individually addressed or stamped. The operation of this system has posed an increasing problem for some time, and the department has received many requests from various sources to make adjustments in it. Not the least of these pressures was from within the postal service itself, where both high-ranking officers and letter carriers complained that the mass of unaddressed mail matter was causing difficulties in maintaining a proper mail service. Another source of complaint on this subject was mail patrons themselves, many of whom resent such unsolicited matter in their mail.
As a result of these and other approaches the department carried out a full study of the problem from all possible angles. The resulting changes, first announced a few weeks ago, go into effect June 1. They will restrict the size of householder mail items, forbid irregular shapes and penalize heavy, bulky items. Generally speaking the new regulations have met with widespread approval, while at the same time Canada's advertising associations have accepted them without criticism or complaint.
During the year the post office produced five commemorative stamps. The subjects covered were the NATO anniversary, the Associated Country Women of the World, the royal visit, the St. Lawrence seaway and the plains of Abraham. In connection with the last, I should like to note that this stamp was recently named, by a well known philatelic journal published in the United Kingdom, as the best commonwealth stamp of the year, and one of the ten best stamps of the year produced by any nation.
Another very popular innovation of the past year has been the introduction of special cards, each bearing a number of our commemorative postage stamps to a total value of 50 cents, with a short outline of the reason for the stamp and the importance of the subject to Canada on the back of the card. These have been phenomenally attractive to tourists.
I have frequently expressed the view that commemorative stamps are, in effect, small billboards of Canada. To make sure that these billboards receive the widest possible distribution and attention, we have recently adopted the practice of sending first day covers of new commemorative stamps to prominent people and newspaper editors in many lands. I believe the number is between 50 and 60. We enclose a brief explanation of the event the stamp commemorates and other information about the background of
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Post Office
the particular issue. We have also adopted the practice of distributing information folders on each new stamp to teachers responsible for selected age groups in Canada's public schools. This we are doing through the active co-operation of all ten provincial departments of education, and first results indicate that the program has been both effective and appreciated.
We are also going to have in our new postal headquarters building, when it is opened next year, a postal history museum, and planning is now under way for this purpose. This will enable us to take out from our vaults and display to the public a great deal of material of interest to stamp collectors as well as exhibits and displays of material and equipment of wide general interest.
Another area in which we are attempting to streamline operations is in our office services. Here we have engaged in an extensive program of personnel training, and have introduced a uniform file control procedure throughout the department. Considerable savings also accrued to the department through the application of the incentive pay plan for typists and stenographers. Until recently, while the Post Office Department engaged in a very extensive program of training courses for its personnel, each course was directly related in a detailed way to some phase of postal activity. Such courses are very necessary and very valuable, but they have one shortcoming; while they increase technical proficiency they do comparatively little to develop the broad managerial skill of those participating.
As we progress in our development of post office operations there is a constantly increasing number of positions opening in our service where these same management skills are required, areas where new problems are concerned involving an intermixture of personnel relations, operating techniques and service to the public. To meet this challenge I asked that a management development course for some of our fairly senior personnel be undertaken and the first two groups, one in Ottawa and the other in Calgary, recently completed their work. At the moment it is impossible to pin down statistically the results of such training efforts, but there is every indication that the courses are of substantial benefit and are broadening and increasing the management ability of those who participate.
In any organization as large as the Post Office Department the relations between management and staff are of critical importance. We do not expect the employee

associations to see eye to eye with management on every matter, but I believe firmly that the more extended the discussions between the two groups, the more understanding and harmony there will be.
When I became Postmaster General such interchange of ideas was at a minimum. Today this has been substantially changed and there are regular full, free and frank discussions between management and the representatives of our staff associations on a wide variety of problems. We are not surrendering our right to make final decisions, and I have no intention of doing so; but now, unlike the past, before major decisions are made the views and observations of postal workers are taken into consideration, and this is a great help in arriving at the most satisfactory course for everybody concerned.
As a result of this and other changes I feel that staff relations within the department have improved substantially over the past three years, and one measure of this fact is the rate of turnover. Separations from the postal service continue at a level substantially below that of the civil service as a whole, and the rate for this year, in all categories, was 8 per cent.
During my term as Postmaster General I have had ample opportunity to study these men and women at their work. I have made a practice of dropping in unexpectedly and at odd hours of the day and night. I have been in offices at midnight; I have been in offices at 6 a.m., and I have been in offices at just about every interval between those two times. I never failed to be impressed with the employees' cheerfulness, their capability and their determination to do their work swiftly and well. I have found in the postal service a quality of devotion and integrity that is, perhaps, unusual in this day of materialism and mass production.
From the point of view of management, our changes and improvements in the past year add up to the most sweeping adjustment and development the Post Office Department has undergone since confederation. I have reviewed the reports of postmasters general for a number of years before 1957; none bristles as does the one I have just given with example after example of change, of adjustment, of improvement and of progress and, none the less, I have dealt with only some of our activities over the past year.
But mechanical equipment and advanced policies are not now, nor ever will be, the key to the operation of an efficient and successful postal service. The key to success is people, the 50,000 people who work at headquarters and in Canada's 11,500 post

offices; who drive courier trucks, walk letter carrier routes, ride our mail cars, operate our clerical services and, in more senior posts, direct postal activities generally. These are the men and the women who make Canada's postal service second to none in a field where service is a tradition and where that same tradition is very much alive.
(Translation):
Azellus Denis: Mr. Chairman, I think it is fitting that we express our satisfaction for the safe return of the Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton) from his recent trip to France; this has given us an opportunity to hear the enlightening speech he has just delivered. However, we have no congratulations to offer him for his success in Paris. I am sure he was not piloting the plane, because he would not have come back on his own power. Apparently, he is unlucky, and every time he attempts some new venture, it seems doomed to failure.
His failure in France has much in common with his failure in his own department. How can you expect the Postmaster General to convince various countries to vote for Canada as the site of the world's fair, when surely they are aware that we have a money-losing and strangely run Post Office Department, where it is considered good business and sound economics and finance to report a deficit. Fortunately, he had a second group with him in France to share his failure. I understand he had with him the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny), who played second fiddle, because even though French is the language spoken in France, the Postmaster General unfortunately did not want or did not see fit to let him play first fiddle. And that is why we heard no solo performance from the Associate Minister of National Defence. We listened very closely-
(Text):
I may observe that the minister has just made what I would call a jet statement, and has tried to prove that there is no disharmony in the Post Office Department. I note that he has said that everything that is good in the department is the responsibility of the head of the department. With respect to the routine orders, the regulations, and if there are so many men in the postal service in a certain area, because the population has increased, it has been found that this improvement is required. So far as government policy is concerned, the Postmaster General has
Supply-Post Office
said nothing about that. All he can be proud of and all he has told us about were the plastic boxes he has installed all over Canada. All he can be proud of is the experiments with mailmobiles. If I remember correctly, this experiment has been going on for two or three years. It is about time for the Postmaster General to decide whether we are going to have this kind of transportation in the postal service. It is time we knew whether we are to have the three-wheel scooter or the four-wheel scooter.
The Postmaster General thinks they have made a great advance in the postal service with these mailmobiles, but he did not say a word about their cost. He did not say a word about the origin of those scooters. He did not tell the committee whether those scooters could be bought in Canada in order to give work to our own citizens. As far as I can recall, those scooters are imported from the United States. I think the four-wheel scooter is imported from Italy or from some other foreign country, and some parts are brought here.
Anyway, all we can say is that we have no details about the cost of everything new brought out by the Postmaster General. We know nothing about the improvement of the electronic machines; we do not know how many kinds there are. We do not know the cost of each and every one of them. We are still, as some important persons said in another field-
(Translation) :
We are groping in the fog towards the unknown. I must conclude, from the very start of his remarks, that we have in Canada now, the most expensive Postmaster General since confederation and the Post Office Department with the steadiest record for operating in the red. If the minister thinks that this is the only right way to manage a department, I do not know what economy is, or what it is like to live according to one's means. It is all very well to make improvements in the Post Office Department provided one can afford to do so and so long as it does not prejudice this country's economy. If you look at those estimates and at what has been done in the past, you will see that the estimates of $132 million passed in 1957 under Liberal rule are now increased to $172 million which means a difference of more than $40 million.
May I also draw the chairman's attention to the fact that in 1959 returns were $10 million higher than in 1957.

Supply-Post Office
Consequently, I think that the Postmaster General might at least have told us why he is unable to balance his department's budget, whereas in 1957, though we did not have the same returns, we nevertheless found a way to get a $5 million and even $10 million surplus. I wonder what would happen if all government departments wound up with deficits. I do not think he was of any help to the Minister of Finance in budgeting for $13 million surplus. It is not in the post office estimates that he made any savings because those estimates are, I believe, increased by $5.5 million or so. Now that is quite different from what happened in the past and I do not think that the minister is responsible for the progress or improvements he referred to. I think these were routine activity, the result of departmental decisions and if new services have been inaugurated in rural mail delivery and mail carrier work, it was due to increased population or points of call in those areas. Therefore, I believe that, instead of telling us about the achievements of his staff the minister might have recalled the promises he made when sitting in the opposition and which have not been fulfilled after he became Postmaster General.
Mr. Chairman, just to refresh the Postmaster General's memory, let me remind him of what he had to say in 1954, when he was sitting on this side of the house. I quote from page 1119 of Hansard for January 14, 1954:
Summarizing what I have tried to set before the house today, may I say that, first, the government has used the post office to pile up huge surpluses in the past 20 years in direct contradiction of the policy of the Post Office Department in previous years.
I just wonder, Mr. Chairman, where the Postmaster General got that phrase "policy of the Post Office Department in previous years", according to which policy we have to have deficits. It is just beyond me, Mr. Chairman.
The minister went on to say:
-second, the government, for reasons best known to itself, has forced the post office to subsidize the operation of Trans-Canada Air Lines in order that Trans-Canada Air Lines might show a profit:
Mr. Chairman, if you look at the Postmaster General's report, you find that T.C.A. is making more money today than at the time the Postmaster General, sitting in the opposition, denounced the payments made to T.C.A., suggested that those contracts were made secretly and that no information was available about them. What particulars are we getting today from the Postmaster General? None.
The present Postmaster General also made this statement:

Third, the government, through excessive use of the franking privilege by its various departments, is burdening the post office with costs of other departments.
Mr. Chairman, I ask the Postmaster General whether he has changed that method of administration. He has been heading the department for three years. Has he made the change he was advocating when he used to sit in the opposition? I doubt it. Not only do I doubt it, but the minister said in 1957 that the then postmaster general was misrepresenting the revenue and expenditures of his department because the lands, buildings and equipment which were supplied by the Department of Public Works should have been included in the statement of profits and loss of the Post Office Department.
Has the Postmaster General changed this accounting system? I do not think he has. He even went further at that time when he said:
Fourth, users of first class mail are thus forced to pay more than their share of their services in order to subsidize losses suffered on other classes of mail which are quite legitimate, but which should be properly charged to the general revenue of government.
I think he was comparing first class mail with third class mail. Is the loss resulting from third class mail now entered under general government expenditures? I do not think so, Mr. Chairman. Therefore, what the Postmaster General then considered black he now finds white.
We also remember that he was opposed to higher postage rates. Have postage rates changed since the Postmaster General has been heading the Post Office Department? I do not think so. Indeed he now seems opposed to anything that could yield profits. As I said a moment ago, his department shows an increase in revenue of $16 million, and the minister tells us: "We only have a small deficit of $173,000". If, at least, the situation of the civil servants in his department had been improved.
We heard him a moment ago tell us about the good relations between himself and his officials. Now I have proof to the contrary. He stated that they are more and more satisfied with their positions. If the minister entertains that idea, I shall tell him that he has been at the head of the department for the past three years, but when the general election comes around, postal employees will know better days.
The minister spoke about the civil service commission. You wonder whether

people are pleased? It is a well-known fact that, throughout the country, civil servants, letter carriers, postal employees, are dissatisfied with the little concern shown for their claims and requests.
Having said that, I want to quote a statement from the 1957 Hansard, pages 1983-4, when hon. members of this government were on the opposition benches:
Has the minister ever made any recommendation to the civil service commission to point out the situation and the outcome which I think he will agree is peculiar to his department? Has he ever made any attempt to have the situation straightened out?
There is also that other statement, on page 2744 of Hansard dated July 26, 1958:
The hon. member for St. Denis suggested we should retain files of people who apply for work in the Post Office Department. I would however point out to him that this is entirely the responsibility of the civil service commission. They recruit people and we are not in a position to do their work in any respect.
That amounts to saying that everything connected with the salaries and working conditions of postal employees is the responsibility of the civil service commission.
When the minister was sitting in the opposition, he used to complain that the morale of postal employees was rather low, and I quote what he said-because it is important that we understand what happened in the past and what is happening today. This is from page 7532 of Hansard for August 13, 1956:
No company organization and no government organization can operate successfully for very long if their employees do not have a high level of morale. When one reads the publication of the post office employees themselves and when one hears from time to time through the press of certain happenings across the country, one is led to wonder whether actually the morale among the staff of the post office in its entirety is as high as it should be. I rather doubt that it is. For that condition I lay the responsibility at the door of the government because of situations such as the one I outlined to you a few moments ago.
If we compare the morale of postal employees today with that prevailing at the time, we note there is a great difference; so I say that the minister now doubly deserves the criticism he was making as a private member. That criticism I take pleasure in returning to him, and I ask him, in turn, to try to improve the working conditions of the employees and to satisfy their requests.
For the last year or so, newspapers have been filled with criticism and protests from postal employees, and the minister's reply is always the same: "This is a matter for the civil service commission."
Supply-Post Office Here is another article:
We are overloaded with parcels, but our salary Is frozen.
Another heading:
Postal salaries inadequate.
In another paper a heading says this:
Postal employees' reply to Mr. Fleming's refusal. A meeting of the association which represents more than 15,000 members:
Unions Promised Support for Postie Salary Bid. Mr. Diefenbaker will consider letter carrier demands.
Having met, the postal employees association sent an invitation to the minister himself who did not answer and did not even attend the various gatherings that were held over the past year by these people in order to submit their grievances to the minister and to the department.
Here are other headings from the Ottawa Citizen:
300 letter carriers from Montreal and Ottawa- Postal employees meet in Ottawa-
Postal employees voice protests-
1000 letter carriers join in protest against government-
I could go on quoting them by the scores. What is going on?
The only advantage gained by postal employees since the present government's assumption of office was due to a decision reached by the Liberal government before the Conservative government took over. Since then, there have been crumbs granted by the Minister of Finance: 50,000 civil servants out of a total of 130,000, got raises.
Furthermore, the raises are not even retroactive. That is unfair to the group of civil servants who have not yet got a raise. I ask the Postmaster General, who is here, how many people in his department have received the raise granted by the Minister of Finance?
It would be interesting to know whether the Postmaster General has been working in the interest of his staff, in the interest of his own civil servants.
I think the people have a right to know how many postal employees are included in the figure of 50,000 mentioned by the Minister of Finance.
I turn now to the matter of travelling expenses. We all know the minister is a great traveller, that he likes to learn about things, and to try his luck in various places. We have had proof of this in the case of the world's fair. I wonder whether some savings might not be effected with regard to travelling expenses.

Supply-Post Office
The minister will recall that, when he was in the opposition, he was scandalized because the Post Office Department showed an amount of $100,000 for travelling expenses. I am sorry I have to tell him this, but if we compare travelling expenses in 1957 with the current figure for his department, we find that in 1957 they amounted to $367,140, while in 1959 they reached $507,000. And the amount estimated for 1961 is $487,000.
On telegrams and telephone calls, in 1957 the government spent $129,500; in 1960-1961 the estimates amount to $154,000, that is $25,000 more.
The minister is fond of publicity; he advertises all over the place: "Mail early", "Mail often", well, instead of gadding about, he should write; he would be saving money; let him heed his own publicity. If it is as good as he claims it is, why doesn't he use it himself? His trip to Paris would have cost him 10 cents instead of some larger amount that I am not aware of. Let him write letters.
Of course, he probably does not dare to write. In view of the criticism he has received about the poor design of stamps he has been issuing, maybe he is afraid of that kind of publicity. At any rate, I suggest that he use the mail more often, rather than the telephone or telegraph.
I suggest that he write often and early.
Usually, when we use the telephone or telegraph, it is because we have not foreseen what could happen.
For instance, when I telephone home it is because I forgot something. If I send a telegram, it is because the situation is urgent, and I have not foreseen what could happen. Therefore, the amounts of money spent for telephone calls and telegrams are expenses that could be cut substantially, which might help the Minister of Finance achieve a surplus next year. The latter could perhaps rely on the Postmaster General to do so.
As regards correspondence, however, he has no complaint, because he is very satisfied with the way correspondence is being done in his department. He even took great stock in the compliment paid to him by the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. McFarlane), I believe, last year, to whom, according to the official record, he replied:
(Text):
This morning one hon. member was kind enough to congratulate us, and I am grateful to him-I think it was the hon. member for Kootenay East- upon the Improvement in our correspondence. Part of this is the result of the emphasis being placed

cn adequate correspondence. There is a great interest in correspondence within the department, more so because most of this correspondence goes across my own desk. I, personally, was dissatisfied previously with the type of explanation and the type of reason which I was given by the minister. X felt, when I accepted this responsibility, I was going to do something to improve this and see that members got adequate, complete and satisfactory answers. I say here, Mr. Chairman, if any member, Liberal, Conservative, C.C.F., sitting in this house is not satisfied with the amount of information given in a letter from my office, he has only to ask and we will try to get him every piece of information for which he could possibly ask.
That is the declaration of the Postmaster General, but let us look at the facts.
(Translation):
As soon as he was appointed Postmaster General, he wrote to the hon. members in substance: "If you have business with the Post Office Department, I will tell you where to direct your inquiries. But, in the list of officials he sent out, there is no mention of the minister himself. He passes work along to others and, in order to quote exactly the minister's words, may I read the letter he sent to all the hon. members in June, 1958:
To all the members of parliament:
I have often heard that businessmen and even members of parliament have trouble, when in Ottawa, finding the location of some government agency, or a particular division or official they would like to get in touch with, either personally or over the telephone.
As you can see, Mr. Chairman, there is no reference to the minister himself.
During the last session, I learned that certain members would like to deal personally with some matter or problem concerning the postal service and to be able to communicate readily with the proper official with whom they wish to discuss the matter.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that the Postmaster General has been here long enough to know that when a member has a request to make on behalf of his constituents, it is the minister himself he has to see and not his minor officials or underlings. The minister should give these matters his personal attention, for he gets extra pay to administer his department and to hear the requests of electors which are made to him through their representatives. Besides, instead of referring the members to different officials, he should have simply told us this: "If you need my services, I am entirely at your disposal."
(Text):


William McLean Hamilton: Would the hon. member permit a question at this point?


Azellus Denis: Yes.


Mr. Hamilton (Noire Dame de Grace):: Would he then explain why he found it necessary to call up one of my subordinate officials three or four days ago to ask for certain information?


Azellus Denis: Because I am a member of the opposition and want to check on the compliments the minister says he deserves when he tells us that correspondence goes across his desk. I have here some other correspondence which I have received from the minister himself. It is dated August 11, 1959, and it is in these words, in French:
(Translation) :
You probably remember that on June 22 last, in the House of Commons, you Inquired about an envelope of printed matter-etc.
Now, Mr. Chairman, just to prove the efficiency of the correspondence and of services rendered by the Postmaster General, here is a letter dated August 11 in answer to a request I made to him on June 22. Therefore, after a period of two months, one can hardly say that the minister was very anxious to be of service to us.
And what is worse, Mr. Chairman, is that every time we receive letters from the Post Office Department they are marked "personal and confidential". Here is a letter in which I am given for the benefit of my voters, information which I cannot let them have, for the Postmaster General mentioned, right at the start, that this was "personal and confidential".
I have here another letter likewise marked "personal and confidential", with regard to some information I had sought for one of my voters. Well, Mr. Chairman, that man does not know the answer, and has not got the information he asked for because of the Postmaster General's mania for marking his letters "personal and confidential". You would think he is afraid of what he writes, and does not want his words to get around. As a matter of fact, I think he would probably be the happiest of men if Hansard, which contains his promises made in 1955 and 1956, was of a personal and confidential nature. I have here another letter, a letter of invitation-


Jacques Flynn: I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Jacques Flynn: Does the committee agree that the hon. member should continue?
Supply-Post Office


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Chairman, I thank hon. members for their courtesy in allowing me additional time. Their gesture will probably enable me to go to the heart of the matter and recall to some extent what is going on in the Post Office Department as compared to the way things were when the minister was only a private member.
With his habit of marking his letters "personal and confidential", the minister was good enough to invite me to the opening of a bridge. However, I was unable to attend, for fear of betraying the contents of that letter. I am also of the opinion that, like your humble servant, several hon. members know about this obsession of the Postmaster General's. To my mind, it is time we had at least one file concerning the Postmaster General, in which we might put information supplied by the minister and which we might pass along to the public. In fact, I shall take this opportunity of asking the minister if I may give my voters some information for which I asked on their behalf.
Mr. Chairman, all this is for the public relations division. I know that the Postmaster General is fond of publicity. In fact, I think he has been the most photographed Postmaster General since confederation. I have never seen him in public but he was accompanied by a photographer. I had the opportunity of accompanying him many times and I thank him for it. I felt very proud of it; and every time he asked me if I would be so kind as to have my picture taken with him I had no objection, but I think that his mania for publicity is exaggerated. As far as his department is concerned, I suggest that the public relations expenses apply more to the minister himself than to his department, and that this publicity angle is really carried too far.
For instance, why advertise that there is a Post Office Department in this country? Why publicize well known facts? There is no competition in this field. Everybody knows that to send a letter to some nearby city, one has only to use the mails. There is no need for all those publicity charges mentioned in the item now under review. To give you an example of the increase in departmental estimates, may I point out to the house that in 1957, publicity expenditures amounted to $207,500, while during the 1959-60 fiscal year, they reached $270,000, or an increase of

Supply-Post Office
$63,000. I suggest that those publicity expenditures could be reduced without affecting the department's efficiency.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to turn to another subject which the minister was very fond of taking up when he was in the opposition; I refer to patronage. He used to complain that the Liberal government indulged in patronage, and he said that even for the hiring of extra staff for the Christmas rush, no recommendations should be made by members of parliament, and the selection of applicants should be left to the department itself. Here were his words, as recorded in Hansard for August 13, 1956:
This is not the way to have the best possible government service. The best possible government service arises from allowing the departments freedom to choose their people without being influenced and without forcing applicants into obtaining recommendations from their members.
What has he done? He has set up a flying squad. I think he is fond of flights (robberies). I have asked him many questions about robberies that were committed, and heaven knows the department has not been too fortunate in that respect under his administration. He set up a so-called flying squad, which employs people regularly, on a part-time basis, people who are called on the telephone and asked to work at the post office. I asked him a certain question about that, and here is the reply I got from the minister:
(Text):
If the term "flying squad" refers to casual part time employees, the answer is yes. These casual employees are women who are called for work when there are sudden increases in mail volume in order to avoid delays and the necessity of working regular staffs overtime. These casual employees are generally called by telephone two or three hours before their services are required and usually work only one or two days a week for three or four hours on each occasion, depending on the volume of mail to be processed.
(Translation):
However, we find there have been 68 appointments since the present government took office. Most of those appointments were based on recommendations from Conservative members now sitting in the house and who were not here before 1957. If, as he has indicated, those hirings had been made "prior to July 1957", how does he explain that the names of Monteith, Benoit Gonthier, Pierre Sevigny, Valade, etc. are on the list of people who recommended flying squads?


William McLean Hamilton: There are names of Liberal members too.


Azellus Denis: Yes, but only as window dressing. In fact, the Postmaster General was

kind enough to accept one, two, three, four and even five Liberal recommendations. But in view of his statement that people working for the Post Office Department should not be recommended by members of parliament, the minister's actions are contrary to what he preached when he was in the opposition. He told us those people worked three or four hours a day for two or three days a week. I have here a statement, which I got from a reliable source, to the effect that those people of the flying squad have worked 5 hours on April 27, 8 hours on April 29, 8 hours on May 2, 8 hours on May 3, and 8 hours on May 4. Therefore, when the minister says that those people worked a couple of days a week, two or three hours a day, I believe he is wrong and that he should see to it that the promises he made, when he was a private member, are fulfilled.
Those people take the place of casual employees, who have been hired for several years, perhaps also under recommendation of the minister, and who work but three or four hours each time, at the most; they are single women, or widows with or without children. The minister claims that those people are not interested because it is a temporary job. Now, these people, generally, work as casual employees because they need to work. They are widows, or elderly women who cannot get other jobs. If it is true that, from time to time, they change jobs, it is because they are not paid enough or because of their age or illness they have to quit.
I would say those flying squads are composed of people, most of the time recommended by the Conservatives, and that shows a disguised form of patronage. I would therefore ask him to have the matter looked into, in order that the regular employees, those who have passed their exams and who are on the waiting list may be treated more fairly. I respectfully submit that those flying squads set up by this government are causing an injustice to those who were successful in their examinations and who are waiting to be taken on the regular staff. We know that those people, if they are not called up for work during the year, after passing their exam, must take a new examination.
Therefore, people who are on those flying squads are filling jobs that could be filled by people who passed their test. So, these flying squads are detrimental to casual employees who have been working for years and who get employment for only three to

four hours at the most, while members of the flying squads, on the recommendation of our Conservative friends and the minister, get work for eight hours, not only once a week, but two or three times a week and even almost each day, as I indicated earlier.
I know that these casual employees are badly in need of work and that they would be glad to work six or seven hours a day; now they are told there is no more work for them. Here is what happens: their place is taken by those flying squads recommended by the Conservatives-


William McLean Hamilton: And
by the Liberals.


Azellus Denis: Yes, by one or two, to keep up appearances but the rest is made up of persons recommended by our Conservative friends from the province of Quebec.


William McLean Hamilton: And
by some Liberals like Pit Lessard, Jean Paul Deschatelets, J. G. Ratelle, Senator Jodoin, Gerard Loiselle, Azellus Denis, Guy Rouleau.


Azellus Denis: Naturally, the Postmaster
General is intelligent, and has seen to it that two and even three friends of the Liberals are included in this list. But all those people have been hired with the mention "No recommendation". They certainly do not fall from heaven. Do you think for a moment that they have not been recommended by our friends? A phone call does not show on the file, and a letter marked "confidential" cannot be removed from the file. In fact, when the minister is asked about the recommendations in the files, the "personal and confidential" letters are not mentioned in the reports submitted to the house. If he has decided that there will be no patronage, there should not be any. In answer to a question asked by the hon. member for St. Jean-Iber-ville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) who wanted to know-
(Text):
Have there been any transfers of post offices in Canada since the month of June, 1957?
The answer was yes. Do hon. members know what the number of transfers actually was? It was 2,541.
(Translation):
On this list, there are 78 dismissals. There are resignations by the hundreds, and I readily believe-although I have not figured them out-that at least 500 of those changes are due to the partisanship of this government.
Let's not hear any more about Grit patronage.
Supply-Post Office


Mr. Ricard:: Oh no.


Mr. English:: How many have you dismissed?


Azellus Denis: Mr. Chairman, we had been having peace since the beginning of my remarks; we had not yet heard the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard), and we were satisfied.
For my part, I thought he had gone to St. Hyacinthe-Bagot, to indulge in provincial politics, to busy himself with the big three, two of them dead, and the other one dying.
The years 1930 to 1935 were years under the Bennett regime, which was extolled if not by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot, perhaps by his father or his predecessors. The hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot very seldom refers to Mr. Bennett; I think he would rather just forget about him-so as I was saying, the things that were done under the Bennett government between 1930 and 1935 are being copied 100 per cent by the present government, which means that the present government will last no longer than five years. Coming back to what I was saying, between 1930 and 1935, the Tory government made 832 changes in the Post Office Department. Therefore, before raising cries of patronage against the Liberals, the hon. member should follow his own advice instead of dishing it out to others.
In his remarks earlier today, the minister referred to thefts. Do you know, Mr. Chairman, how many thefts there have been? The minister is lucky that the amount of the thefts has declined, but wait till next year and you will see an increase in both the number and the amounts of thefts.
The minister gives out the number and the amounts of thefts only when they are comparatively light. When the amounts are more significant, the minister deals with them in terms of percentage or average; and when they are too high, he even divides them by three. He always says, for instance, that the average is less now than at the time of the Liberals.
I have here the report of the Postmaster General himself, giving us an idea of the number and amounts of those thefts. Everybody is aware of it, and the Canadian people are aware of it. But, when one is as clever as the Postmaster General, everything is translated in small percentages and Canadians are given averages and proportional figures as an answer.
We see in the Potsmaster General's report, the number of thefts, receivings, irregularities, forgeries, etc.

Supply-Post Office
This is how the report reads. In 1957, the report mentions that there were 335 thefts and that the stolen amounts reached $110,500. In 1958, when we were already under the present administration, there were 355 thefts, and a stolen amount of $100,700.
Let me remind the house that the minister boasted last year that: "We had more thefts, but the amount of those thefts was much smaller".
Let us now look at the figures for 1959 in that respect. The number of thefts was 487. This is not the figure reported a few moments ago by the minister, when he said something that contradicts his own report. The number is 487.
Now, do you know the value of the stolen goods? It was $138,500, that is, an increase of $32,000 over 1957.
The minister cannot, therefore, contend that the amounts stolen were smaller. He even boasted that the then postmaster general was hiring thieves. Now, he will recall the recent robberies where employees themselves have stolen the contents of the trucks they were driving.
I think he might do well to read over again what he said on former occasions. He would be the happiest man in the world if the statements he made as a private member could be stamped "personal and confidential".
And what about the serious incidents that occurred recently? The latest important developments relate to the attitude shown by senior officials of his department who have been asking their subordinates to cheat-if I may use that word, which in fact is not too harsh -because in a circular, they instructed postmasters to accept as few American coins as possible, because at the bank, they would not get full value for it. As I say, they told the postmasters to accept as few U.S. coins as possible. Then they added, and I quote:
And if you accept any, try to pass it on to customers-*
-so that if there is any loss, it will be sustained by the customer, and not by the post office.
I see the minister shakes his head in denial. Let me read to him the circular on this point:
(Text):
A problem has arisen because of the volume of United States coins in circulation which have been accepted at par and on which a discount is now being charged by banks.

(Translation):
This is not what the minister said in the house, but it is what this circular states. And I continue:
(Text):
In view of this, the inclusion of United States coins in deposits or remittances should be kept to a minimum.
(Translation):
The circular does not tell postmasters to refuse U.S. coins and to accept only Canadian money. It says: accept as little as possible.
I continue:
(Text) :
Wherever possible, United States coins accepted at post offices should be handed out as change to other patrons.
(Translation):
That is one way of getting rid of something likely to bring about a deficit of some sort, because when this circular was being distributed, the banks were charging a certain discount on American coins.
I suggest that this procedure is not honest nor fair to post office patrons and I think that the Postmaster General should chastise the person responsible for the distribution of this circular instead of congratulating and commending that person as he did recently in the house. May I call it one o'clock?


Roland Léo English: Mr. Chairman, although it is one o'clock, I think the house would give unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to go on with his remarks so as to complete his magnificent speech.
(Text):


Jacques Flynn: Unless the hon. member makes that request I must call it one o'clock and leave the chair.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m. (Translation):
Azellus Denis: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take too much of the time of the house, because I understand it is the intention of the house to adopt the estimates of the Postmaster General as soon as possible. Although they are not encouraging, the minister enjoys such a majority in the house that, good or bad, his estimates will be adopted in any
case.

Mr. Chairman, before recess, I was dealing with the achievements of the Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton) who was boasting of achievements which belong exclusively to his subordinates and not to himself because, as far as the policy of the government is concerned, he will admit that to please the public and to say that such a policy has modernized and improved the situation, he must first say what that policy is.
When we hear the Postmaster General say he has ably administered his department, claiming he has had installed plastic letter boxes, I feel the people will not be content with such achievements, that they will rather want to know which promises he has now fulfilled that he made while sitting in the opposition. If the minister, who is intelligent, only thinks a little I doubt very much he will retain the confidence of his electors of Notre Dame de Grace, to whom he has so often promised two postal deliveries a day, and who have not yet obtained them after three years of administration.
I presume that at the time the minister did not expect to be appointed to that portfolio, and that the promises he was making had no importance whatever, because what was important for him was to be elected by making promises to his electors. However, I must pay him this tribute of having worked harder at getting elected than in running his department. In fact, as I said earlier, if he had tried as hard to get the world's fair for Canada as he did in getting elected, he would have started sooner and we could now be sure that the fair would be held in this country-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: It is only because he did not want to be out or order.


Azellus Denis: Earlier today, the minister made a series of statements, but I have just learned that the text of his speech was sent yesterday to the members of the press gallery. I have a copy here and I see that it is a word for word reproduction of the comments made in this house by the Postmaster General. That is why we heard him make his speech with such fluency and without any mistake. I don't mean to say that he read his speech, but on seeing that this is a word for word transcript, we are a little inclined to suspect he did. However, in view of the importance of his department, I forgive him for giving to the house the exact wording of a speech which will no doubt be carried in tonight's papers.
The only thing lacking is the minister's picture; but as he is so fond of publicity, I
Supply-Post Office
assume that every newspaper has a copy of it, either with a scooter or something else, and I feel sure he will be given all the publicity he has personally prepared.
Mr. Chairman, I was therefore discussing the details of the electronic machines he calls his own, and which were initiated by the former Liberal government.
I think the Postmaster General will recognize that long before his assumption of the office of Postmaster General, consideration had been given to installing electronic machines to improve the department's efficiency, with this difference that previously he used to describe those machines as monsters that did not work, and that the money voted for such experiments was between $700,000 and $1 million. Now today, Mr. Chairman, we no longer know how much money is being spent by the Post Office Department on this equipment. However, I am sure it is over $3 million. Furthermore, it has been three years since the Postmaster General took over his department and was placed in charge of that famous $700,000 monster. How much money has been spent on the monster? What expenditures were authorized by the present Postmaster General to determine whether the various rented electronic machines should be retained in Canada, or should be thrown out?
In his report, the Postmaster General took credit for developments in the department for which minor officials and departmental heads are wholly responsible. I dealt with that matter earlier and there is no need to come back to it. He did not say what the cost will be of the electronic equipment experiments, but we should like to know. Is the minister able to tell us how many electronic machines are now on trial in the department and how many of them were imported? Government members used to be shocked because those electronic machines were not put in permanent use. How can the minister explain after three years in charge of this department, that we still do not know how many machines will be installed permanently and how many are rented?
I see in the Postmaster General's report that not only are we interested in the installation of electronic machines, but that electronic machines are rented from abroad on a trial basis. In other words, British electronic machines are being tested not in England but here in Canada, and we are paying rather substantial amounts for the renting and testing of those machines. I refer

Supply-Post Office
to Univac 120 which is imported from England and used here at a rental of $1,885 a month. I would like to know if a three-year period is not sufficient to decide if this electronic machine is to be accepted or if we should continue to rent it or buy it.
On the matter of departmental expenditures I would suggest to the minister that, as far as the rental of postal equipment is concerned, in 1956-57, at the time of the Liberal government, this expenditure was only $25,432, while in 1960 it will reach $97,750, that is an increase of about $75,000 a year.
Are we to continue to rent electronic equipment indefinitely, or are we finally going to instal them permanently?
The minister claims that this will not take the place of employees. And in a later statement he claims it will affect only those who are employed on a part-time basis. May I remind him that out of the 50,000 employees of his department, 28,000 are part-time employees. The minister has a habit of making statements one day that he hastily denies the next.
I would therefore ask him whether, when he shakes his head, he means no, or something else. As I was saying, over half the staff will be hit by automation. Will automation have any effect on Canada's 700,000 unemployed? Will applicants who passed examinations and are awaiting regular employment have to wait indefinitely because machines are taking their places? I think we should look twice before completely mechanizing the Post Office Department, and we should look into the cost, too. Never in the past has the Postmaster General revealed to the house the cost of the experiments conducted with those new electronic machines. We do not know, we are walking in a fog. We do not know whether those electronic machines cost millions, or whether they represent an economy for the postal service. I say to the minister that it is up to him to decide if experiments on this matter are to be suspended or if we shall keep on employing Canadian labour as usual until business revives and unemployment decreases.
I now come to another sort of mechanization, scooters. I know they are a sort of obsession with the minister, because he has often been photographed with a scooter.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: think you are jealous.


Azellus Denis: No I am not jealous, I would rather see him in the newspapers than in

person, because newspapers do not lie- whereas, in person, he is from time to time inclined to say things which are a bit removed from the truth, and from the things he advocated when he was sitting in the opposition. Now, Mr. Chairman, what do we know about the cost of those scooters? Do we know how many are being used? Have we been informed of the date when those tests with scooters will end?
He has made much of the fact he tried three-wheel and four-wheel scooters. But have we been told how much they cost? No. Garages are needed for these scooters. Those machines burn gas. We want to know whether postal employees require a driver's licence and who is paying for those licences. We want to know if a person who is hired as a letter-carrier has to have a driver's licence, etc. Those are details he should be giving us.
I wonder whether, instead of scooters, he has not also tried out ordinary tricycles, which are cheaper, easier to handle, and which would allow letter carriers to get closer to their points of call. Tricycles would also be easier to lock with a chain, for these scooters now in use remain in the street, motor running, and are liable to being stolen, as are other vehicles at the present time.
If the minister wants to make improvements, it would be a good idea, not only as he suggested himself but as was the practice when we had a well organized government to experiment with a cheaper method of mail delivery in suburban areas by having letter-carriers use bicycles. Then, he could tell us the cost of this experiment, and just when this service would be permanently provided in our country.
How many other promises did he make, Mr. Chairman, when he sat in the opposition, not with the intention of misleading the people but because he was convinced that such improvements were necessary. Then, why did he not carry them out?
I challenge the Postmaster General to tell me which of the promises he made while in the opposition have been fulfilled since he has taken office. There are none. Everyone remembers he wanted two deliveries a day. I remember the Postmaster General's question: When will we, in Notre Dame de Grace, have twice-daily mail deliveries? Will the people of his beautiful constituency of Notre Dame de Grace be favoured with two deliveries a day? I doubt it.
How can he come back before his people and say: I lied to you; I was wrong. I was

talking through my hat. I think I know how he will wriggle out of that one. Perhaps he has already thought of a way out.
There is one quality of his that I admire- he is a hard worker. He should apply his great skill for winning elections to running his department.
Furthermore, whenever he is designated to represent Canada abroad, for instance to determine where the world's fair is to be held, he should prepare for it in advance, so as not to be taken by surprise, and in that way he could produce results.
The minister spoke at length of the twice a day mail delivery, but he has no intention of having it written into the statutes of his department.
As far as stamps are concerned, I have dealt with the matter. Everybody knows what kind of stamps we have had these last few years. They have been criticized throughout the country. Yet, the minister cannot stand his stamps being criticized. He gives lectures, and those who do not like his stamps, just to quote his own words, are labelled "dry tongues".
But when you are dealing with someone who manages things like a school boy, who lacks seriousness, and takes the liberty of lectures on the way to stick a stamp, of making visits, and who introduces himself with the words: "I am a visitor, I am your Postmaster General, and I am pleased to come to Nova Scotia"; when you are dealing with a man who thinks himself a good Postmaster General in the eyes of the Canadian people, because he has set up plastic mail boxes, I think we are entitled to tell him that he himself is a joker.
When, in philatelic exhibitions, we find stamps commemorating ancient battles which took place in Canada, in 1700 and even in 1600, between the English and the French, when everybody is looking for peace, we can say, I think, that the choice is in bad taste and that the minister should be more discriminating.
Printing costs for those stamps should be lowered. I would point out to the minister that those printing costs are not acceptable and that there should be some attempt at saving in that field.
As a matter of fact, the government of which the minister is a member, follows an economic policy of deficits and a cut in printing costs for stamps is called for.
As a matter of fact, the Post Office Department spent $686,000, in 1956, whereas today, it is spending $927,000.
27, 1960	4293
Supply-Post Office
(Text):


William McLean Hamilton: Because our stamps are so well designed and attractive.
(Translation):


Azellus Denis: No, Mr. Chairman, I was pointing out that the stamp itself has nothing to do with the printing cost, and if the minister wants to argue on the basis that the population is rising, I say it is a weak argument, Of course there are more people in Canada, as he says.
If he used postage meters to eliminate stamp printing costs, as suggested last week, I think he could save money.
Another promise had to do with postal savings banks. The postal banks have been competing with commercial banks. I think the Postmaster General will recall having stated that the former minister had no right to set up postal banks, because such a system competed with commercial banks and was unnecessary.
What did he do? Not only did he increase their number, but he encouraged that increase by raising the rate of interest payable to depositors.
Therefore, he did not abolish savings banks, but created more. There are 37 more. Either he was wrong at the time, or else he is wrong now.
Another promise made by the minister concerns the R.C.M.P., which was supposed to take over all security arrangements of the postal department.
Was that done, Mr. Chairman? No. Today, the minister says-and that is his reply- that the provincial police, in the various provinces, looks after the problem.
Now that problem existed at the time. When the minister was a private member he knew very well that there was such a thing as provincial police.
Why tell the people of Canada that if the Conservative government took office the R.C.M.P. would look after the security of the Post Office Department?
That is another promise which has not been fulfilled, another statement made by the minister to win an election. Nothing has been done since he has taken office.
I think the minister should mind his department more, as far as the policy of the government is concerned and I think he should not boast about routine matters that come exclusively under the jurisdiction of civil servants, to whom I should like once again to pay tribute. He should stop boast-

Supply-Post Office
ing at the expense of his own officials, to whom he has refused salary increases and to whom he is now denying better working conditions.
Today, much is being said about obscene publications, about advertising sent out through the mail.
I have here a letter which the minister must have received-because it was addressed to him-from Mr. Dennison, a member of the board of control of the city of Toronto.
(Text):
-the controller, Mr. Dennison, from the city of Toronto, and I want to read part of it:
I enclose printed material together with money-back guarantee directed to me by mail, which has been described by the better business bureau as a "phony".
Then a little farther down:
I think the Canadian government should take steps comparable to those of the American government to prevent the use of the mails for this type of fraudulent advertising and promotion. This company should be required to prove the validity of their claims before they are permitted to use the mails as a means of extracting from Canadians hundreds of thousands of dollars through this fraudulent advertising campaign.
(Translation):
Did the minister do anything to prevent the Canadian people from being misled by advertisements that are more or less senseless and which are condemned by the Better Business Bureaux? It was a civic-minded individual who wrote the minister on this matter, namely, Mr. William Dennison, commissioner of the city of Toronto.
Mr. Chairman, it is not the responsibility of a Toronto commissioner to hear those complaints and to remedy the situation. It is the exclusive responsibility of the Postmaster General and he should inform us of the answer he gave to this controller so that the Post Office Department should not be used for the distribution of obscene literature and fraudulent advertising.
Mr. Chairman, I had promised the Postmaster General that he could go back home in peace after the adoption of his estimates. Besides, government members are in the majority in this house.
I conclude my remarks by saying that, during his three years at the helm of the Post Office Department, the minister has kept none of the dozens of promises he had made. In view of his administration, of his past statements and his present attitude, we could hold a Canadian fair right here, even if we did not succeed in his efforts to bring the world fair to Canada.

So, I suggest that we could have a fair in this country to exhibit all the promises and achievements of the Postmaster General. For instance, we could have an exhibit showing the way to have a world fair. We could also have an exhibit of a "personal and confidential" correspondence system "a la Hamilton".
We could exhibit a collection of exclusive, unusual, bad and ill-designed stamps.
We could also have an exhibit showing the R.C.M.P. working for the Post Office Department.
We could have a chart of the Postmaster General's thrift, the ideal financial administration indicated by deficits. The Canadian postal service, haven of underpaid employees. The savings funds checked by the government. The $1 million electronic monster changed into a $3 million one.
We could also indicate the elimination of wastefulness, the controversial stamp issues, the increase of postal services by a decrease of post offices, because, since last year, 116 post offices have been shut down. The cutting down of thefts through their increase. The twice-daily delivery in Notre Dame de Grace. Patronage under the guise of flying squads. Conflict between the department's public relations and the minister's personal publicity. The smuggling of American coins. Letter carriers astride scooters.
Mr. Chairman, I ask once again that the minister reply to all the questions that we have put to him. We would like to know the details of government policy. We are not interested in knowing that his officials have done well because they are worthy of praise, but how the present Postmaster General, since his appointment to his important duties, has promoted the policy of that department, because we want to be better informed and learn something else than the mere fact that the government has installed plastic postal boxes throughout the country.
(Text):


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the political group I represent I would like to pay our respects, our compliments and our commendations to all the many tens of thousands of Canadians who are concerned in all these services rendered to us by the post office. I should personally like to express my appreciation to the minister for the prompt manner in which he has always undertaken to look into and to investigate each and every complaint or recommendation that I have made during the past year. We would especially like to extend our best wishes to the

newly appointed parliamentary secretary and we hope that his able services are going to enable the minister to pay even closer attention to the representations that we make.
The post office, Mr. Chairman, is an institution that in the main we regard as one of the most efficient in the Dominion of Canada. It is accepted as a necessary publicly owned institution by all parties in this house. Before any institution can be successfully publicly owned there must be established in the hearts and minds of all employees of that institution a feeling of pride and also a feeling of ownership in the institution; otherwise you will not have efficiency at its maximum when such a large enterprise is owned by the taxpayers as a whole. We are very pleased to note that almost without exception the employees of our post office regard their work with a high level of pride and realize that they are rendering a very necessary and much appreciated public service.
I feel that on taking up the estimates of the Postmaster General there is absolutely no need for partisanship. It is an institution the need of which we all recognize, and I see no cause for a party spokesman aiming to take political advantage of whatever weaknesses arise from time to time, because the larger the institution, very often the larger are the weaknesses to be found.
I find it very hard, therefore, to agree with the minister's conclusion in his report this morning that postal services are getting hard to improve. I feel that this will likely never be the case and I think the minister is being unduly optimistic when he expects there is very little which can be done to improve postal services.
I should like to call the minister's attention in the first place to the financial aspect. We are not opposed to the post office operating at a loss if that is necessary. I notice that since the minister has become minister he has now reported an operating loss for each of two succeeding years. I also noticed his statement that he hoped that this year he would have, I believe he said, a miserable $1.7 million of revenue in excess of expenditure. We all hope that the minister's expectations will be realized but I hope it will not be at the expense of a raise in wages of the employees to enable this expectation to become reality.
However, I feel that much of the subsidization of the postal services is not correctly represented in that the operating report does not include the cost of buildings and the depreciation thereon, which cost is borne
Supply-Post Office
by the Department of Public Works. When the minister replies I wish he would supply us with an estimate of how much more this deficit would have been had his department had the financial responsibility of putting up the buildings, with their consequent depreciation and upkeep. I believe when he supplies that answer we will realize that our post office as a department has never really made money for the taxpayers of Canada but has always on balance been an expense.
We hope very much that the employees of the post office will not have to help the minister in his endeavours to arrive at a net profit for the year by being asked to work at below average wage levels. I believe one other hon. member intends to speak in more detail on this matter so I am going only to say this. The minister underlined in his report that in the postal department there has been the lowest turnover of personnel among all employees of any government department. I think that is what the hon. gentleman said. Thereby, I believe, he attempted to indicate that morale was at a relatively high level. It is my opinion that among all civil servants the employees of the Post Office Department have about the lowest morale.
In all the meetings held last year after that black announcement of the Minister of Finance regarding civil service wages, the most annoyed of all the civil servants and the ones most anxious to take aggressive action in order to pursue their demands were the employees of the minister's department, and I believe the same situation prevails now.
My main reason for speaking today is to do what I can, in my humble way, to persuade the minister of the truth of my contention that efficiency in business is not necessarily enhanced by enlarging its size. There is a fundamental law of economics referred to as the law of diminishing returns, and I believe that when a post office begins to serve more than, roughly, a population of 100,000 the point of maximum return has been reached. Thereafter, inefficiency begins to enter into the picture to a growing degree.
Ever since the end of the last war we have noticed a tendency for the officials responsible for administering the postal service in our larger urban areas to express a desire to take over post offices in the smaller communities around those urban areas, to absorb them. The minister mentioned in his report that more and more post offices have been opened within the last year. I notice, however, in his latest annual report, at page 31, that in Canada on March 31, 1958 there were in

Supply-Post Office
operation 11,768 post offices. One year later, on March 31, 1959 there were in operation only 11,634. The number of new post offices established in that year total 116. However, the number of post offices which were closed amounted to 250, and we ended the year, not with more post offices to serve the needs of the people of Canada but with 134 less.
I realize that there are circumstances where the retention of certain post offices may no longer be worth while, and I do not want to condemn the department at all for locking up maybe half of these 250 post offices that were locked up. However, I feel that many of these offices were closed in order to enlarge the operations of urban post offices which had already exceeded their peak of efficiency in relation to size. I know that if you are a postmaster in a town, and you are classified as a grade 13 postmaster, for instance, it is very nice if you can persuade the administration to allow you to take in a number of surrounding post offices and place them under your jurisdiction. As a result, you might no longer be a grade 13 postmaster; you might become a grade 15 postmaster.
Our urban areas are growing rapidly, however, and I see no need of this process. I think the employees of the post office, especially the postmasters and the superintendents together with all the hierarchy of the post office should be prepared to wait for an improvement in their classification as the population of Canada grows within their respective areas. They should not advance themselves at the expense of surrounding post offices. I think that practice is very unfair to the suburban communities involved, and it is also unfair to the employees concerned, because they are very often handicapped after such a procedure has been undertaken.
The people in the southern area of Vancouver-those I know of, at least, and this may also be the case elsewhere-definitely feel that poorer service has resulted. These are not complaints from my political supporters. These are complaints which I receive each and every week end I spend at home. I can talk to my local bank manager or to the local lumber operator; I can speak to almost anyone engaged in business, and they all complain loud and long about the rapid deterioration of postal service that has taken place since these amalgamations have taken effect. Either measures will have to be undertaken to improve the service, or the department will have to pay attention to a process of decentralization of the existing service.
I know we have that monstrous new post office in the city of Vancouver, including a $2 million underground tunnel leading to the
IMr. Regier.]
C.P.R. station. What a horrible blunder that was in the annals of the Canadian post office, as I think the minister will readily agree.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Would the hon. member date the time that was decided on, please?


Erhart Regier: Yes. In order to keep the record right, this was decided on in the days of the Liberal government. We have a C.N.R. station and we also have a C.P.R. station. They decided to build one $2 million underground tunnel to connect the nearest railway station, if you please, to the post office. Five per cent interest on that $2 million would be sufficient to supply enough money to build one new $100,000 post office in the surrounding communities each and every year. In any case, the tunnel is not adequately used, because as everyone knows practically all first class mail comes in by air today, so the tunnel is only made use of to haul the newspapers and the advertising garbage that pours in. I hope errors of this kind and especially of this magnitude will not be repeated by the Canadian Post Office Department.
I should like to see the Post Office Department make a greater effort with regard to paying attention to municipal boundaries. I know that the orthodox reply one receives on making representations to this effect is that post offices simply cannot pay attention to municipal boundaries. I feel, however, that that is a wrong position to take. I will admit that the department cannot always pay attention to municipal boundaries. Whenever possible, however, the post office should make a policy to respect municipal boundaries. The city of Port Moody, for instance, should not have to receive one third of its mail via New Westminster while the other two thirds is handled in Port Moody. This is the situation in many other towns in Canada. I think that instead of relying on a principle laid down by some official many long years ago, the department ought to have another look at this thing to see whether a little more attention could not be paid to the interests of the communities concerned.
I would like the minister to explain why the progress made in building new post offices is so slow. I am afraid that in 1960 the number of starts may be less than the number in 1959. In the departmental report for the year ending March 31, 1959 the minister claims that in the preceding year 65 new buildings were completed. We have a total of 11,634 post offices in Canada. If we are prepared to build only 65 new buildings a year that indicates on the basis of my arithmetic that the government expects post office buildings to last roughly 200 years. That

is an odd rate of depreciation at this time when there is so much unemployment. I believe we should build at least 165 new buildings a year.
The condition of post offices in many parts of Canada is a disgrace to the federal government. It is time we embarked on a more ambitious program in this regard instead of curtailing our program to meet the aims of the Minister of Finance. I hope the construction of no necessary post office has been delayed because in the opinion of the government this is the year in which it had to arrive at a balanced budget.
Other hon. members in this group will say something about twice a day delivery as being necessary to the business community and a source of additional employment.
Would the minister tell us if in the larger urban areas wickets remain closed after a certain hour? If it is not the policy in Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver to have one wicket open around the clock, Sundays and holidays included, it should be. It is unreasonable to expect large urban areas to be served by post offices with wickets that close at five thirty or six o'clock.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Would the hon. gentleman keep that open all night or until 2 a.m.?


Erhart Regier: In Vancouver the demand would be great enough for one wicket to be open all night and the same would hold true for Montreal. There are many people in the modern business world today who have a need for postal services at odd hours of the day and night. Arrangements could easily be made for around the clock service and it would be in the public interest if this were done.
The requirement for door to door delivery in towns should be lowered. The required population for this service should be reduced by 50 per cent. People today no longer like to walk a number of miles to get their mail at the local post office. We have many growing smaller towns which could have this service if the requirement were lowered.
I often wonder why the operations of the post office savings bank could not be combined advantageously for both the people of Canada and the Minister of Finance with the annuities branch of the Department of Labour. They could operate as one unit. I regret that the balance on deposit at the beginning of the fiscal year continues to show a decline. There has been a constant decline from $39 million on deposit in 1954 to $34 million in 1959. Since 1954 there has even been a slight decline in the number of post office savings banks in existence. Only one
Supply-Post Office
out of every eight post offices in Canada offers this service. The objects of the service are to encourage people to save and to enable the government to use the savings of the Canadian people in the public interest while paying only a modest rate of interest. The money now on deposit enables the government to have a considerable amount in interest rates each year.
The Minister of Finance pays 5 per cent when he borrows money and he paid over 6 per cent last year. I do not know what interest is paid on the money deposited in the post office savings bank but I believe it is not in excess of 3 per cent and perhaps it is even lower. The minister might inform us about that.
The hon. member for St. Denis referred to the advertising expenditures of the minister. I recommend that some of the advertising revenue available to the minister be diverted to more adequately informing Canadians of the availability of the post office savings bank. It is very much in the public interest at this time that people be encouraged to save. It is also important that the Minister of Finance receive as much investment money as he can at the lowest possible rate of interest. This is an excellent medium of making money available to the government.
On the whole we are proud of the operations of the Post Office Department and its employees and officials. However, we are unable to agree with the minister that it is becoming difficult to improve. The financial aspects of the department could be improved. It could be put on a more self-sustaining basis than now. I plead with the minister to occasionally ignore the advice of some of his leading officials who urge the construction of larger post offices at the expense of the smaller surrounding communities. We hope he will adopt the attitude of the former minister of public works who expressed the feeling that bigness is not synonymous with efficiency and who lent a considerable hand in increasing the construction of new post offices in smaller communities.


Mr.   Carier@: Mr. Chairman, I should like to commend the Postmaster General on his efforts to improve the postal services of Canada and also to thank him for the personal interest which he has shown in certain individual matters which I have brought to his attention.
Before going on to some further matters which I wish to draw to his attention I should like to pay tribute to the staff of his department, particularly to the administrative staff both here and in my province. I do not think there are any more conscientious or

Supply-Post Office
dedicated public servants to be found in any government department than can be found in the Post Office Department.
Newfoundland has peculiar problems with respect to mail services and the success with which those problems have been overcome and the improvements which have been carried out are due in no small measure to the efforts and the calibre of the people in the administrative part of the Post Office Department in our province.
Personally, 1 want to tell the minister that I have received every co-operation possible, and all my problems have always been given very sympathetic consideration. The new post office which was opened in St. John's recently has contributed greatly to the convenience of the public and also to the improvement of the working conditions of the staff. In addition, it has made for more efficient supervision and administration.
There is room, I think, for some revision of policy in connection with the classification of post offices. I draw a distinction between the classification of postmasters and post offices. There was a time when the salary of postmasters depended upon the revenue of the post office itself. I believe that has changed now and a better basis has been found, which takes into account not only the stamps sold but the other duties which have to be performed, the pieces of mail handled, and so on, but the classification of the post office itself still rests, I think, on the basis of revenue. In my province this gives rise to some very peculiar problems.
In my own riding most of the post offices- practically 90 per cent of them-are small revenue post offices where the services of the Post Office Department and those of the Canadian National Telegraphs are carried out by the same employee. I have drawn attention to this on previous occasions and I had hoped that something would have been done before this because there is a special problem in respect of Newfoundland arising out of the difficulty in relating our previous policy before confederation to that of the federal government.
Prior to confederation it was the practice to build separate post offices in communities where it was felt they would be a greater convenience to the people. The places where those post offices were built had no relation whatever to the size of the place or to the revenue of the place, although in most cases they were built in the larger fishing settlements. Now the federal Post Office Department will erect separate buildings for post offices only when the revenue reaches a certain figure. But since it acquired those buildings which had already been erected prior

to confederation and has carried out the policy of repairing and replacing them when necessary, we now have a situation where a very small community may have a separate post office building, while a much larger community is not able to get one.
In communities where the population is around 300, 400, or 500 people it is not convenient to have a post office in somebody's residence; it is not convenient for the people in a one hundred family settlement to have to go to somebody's back porch to mail a letter or to line up and get their mail. I think something should be done to alleviate this problem and to eliminate the seeming discrimination between those settlements which were lucky enough to get a separate postal building before confederation and those which have now grown larger and more important but are still not able to qualify under the present policy of the government.
As I said before, this is a special problem in Newfoundland, and I think it deserves special consideration and special treatment. I am not at all sure that the present policy of the Post Office Department in putting the onus upon the postmaster to find accommodation for the post office is a good one or a fair one. It seems to me to be putting an unnecessary burden on the postmaster and it makes for discrimination between a postmaster in one settlement where such accommodation can be found easily and cheaply and the postmaster in another settlement where he would have to go to the expense of putting up a building himself. I know the fact that this allowance is rated as salary and since it will perhaps help the postmaster to get a little better pension on retirement it may look like an advantage, but looking at the over-all picture I believe it is not a satisfactory policy. Not only is it not fair to the postmaster himself but it is not fair to the public because the people in one community have the right to expect the same type of service that they can find in another community of similar size.
The Postmaster General will not expect me to sit down without saying something about the postmaster-telegrapher problem. I am not going to repeat what I have said on previous occasions because since I raised this problem here in parliament the Postmaster General himself has had an opportunity to go to my province and to get firsthand knowledge of this problem; but I do want to tell him that there are still many cases where an injustice exists. I am a firm believer in putting right whatever needs to be put right and if we cannot put everything right, then we should put right as much as we can, and there are still some cases arising

out of this situation which have gone on now for 10 years and are still getting worse instead of better.
I still want to impress upon the Postmaster General that I consider his department has a moral obligation to do something about those people because it was his department which entered into the agreement which brought this situation about.
I should also like to say a few words about the handling of mail. The minister has emphasized that there is not much room for further improvement as far as internal arrangements are concerned but there is certainly room for improvement in the handling of mail. 1 know it has been my experience quite often to receive publications, magazines and papers through the mail which have been mutilated in transit. Once in a while we have the experience of receiving a parcel which has been crushed or broken while passing through the mail.
I happened to be in Montreal one day about a year ago and while proceeding from St. Catherine street to the C.N.R. station I passed along a street where one of the Montreal post offices is located. I would not have noticed the incident except that while I was walking down the street a truck backed up across the street in front of me and I saw the driver pick up bags of mail and throw them from a high platform right onto the truck, a distance of some 30 or 40 feet. With treatment of that sort any kind of fragile parcel in a mail bag would be damaged.
I do not know what safeguards the minister can take to prevent that sort of thing happening but I can assure him that it does happen because I have seen it myself. I believe that some measures should be taken to reduce such rough handling of the mail to the absolute minimum.
The question of broken or damaged parcels brings up the matter of insurance. When the minister replies to the remarks that have been made I wish he would be good enough to tell us something about the conditions under which insurance can be collected for a broken parcel. I know of a case where an electric razor was sent through the mail and when it arrived the outside case had been broken and it was in a very damaged condition. When the person applied for compensation on his insured parcel he was unable to collect. I am not clear on just what grounds he was refused but I know that he was refused although he could provide evidence that the damage had occurred while the parcel was passing through the mail.
Before resuming my seat there is one small matter I should like to bring to the attention of the Postmaster General. It has to do with
79951-0-271
Supply-Post Office
notices as to the forwarding of mail. When a person moves from one postal address to another I understand that if he wants his mail forwarded he fills out a little card advising the post office where his mail is to be sent. But these cards are only good for three months, and in the case of people like myself who have to be in Ottawa for six or eight months it often happens that we forget the card is good for only three months and several weeks' mail will pile up at the old address without being forwarded. I do not think it would be asking too much of the Postmaster General if he would arrange to have a reminder sent from the post office indicating that the period has expired and asking for further instructions.


Mr. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that members of the committee were very interested in hearing some of the advances that are being made in the Post Office Department as outlined by the minister this morning. I particularly noticed that he used words such as automation, mechanization and electronic equipment. These are terms that are causing a good deal of concern to labour across the country at the present time and these matters have received the attention of the house on several occasions. There is no doubt that they constitute a very important problem.
Could the minister outline what studies he has made into the long term effect of automation in the Post Office Department, particularly what effect it is going to have on the staff? I think such a study could be very useful to parliament because here we have a very large government department faced with a problem that is confronting industry generally throughout the country. It seems to me we have an opportunity here to have a firsthand study of the effects of automation on the staff of a government department. I would ask the minister to outline what is being done with respect to studying the problem. I know he has told us that there is going to be no great disruption of employment in the department because of automation but perhaps he could go a little further and give us a general outline of what study has been made in that regard. I am sure it would be helpful to the committee.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, there are two or three matters I should like to raise under item No. 1 of the Postmaster General's estimates. May I first add a few words to the comments made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam with relation to the employees of the minister's department. I feel quite certain that all members of the committee will agree that in the vast majority

Royal Assent
of cases employees throughout the civil service are most efficient and loyal. There is no question about that whatsoever. But I want to emphasize particularly that I do not think there is a more loyal group of civil servants, who at the same time have had less attention, than those in the Post Office Department.
I refer particularly to the postal clerks and even more so to the letter carriers, a group of civil servants whose work is outside 99 per cent of the time. They have to start very early in the morning and carry heavy loads under varying weather conditions. If ever a medal were cast by the government of Canada for people who have to face problems I think it should be presented to the letter carriers because they render the highest degree of service that can be expected of any man.
I am rather upset that the postal clerks and especially the postal carriers have so far not been among those classifications that have received an increase in remuneration. I sincerely hope that the Postmaster General-


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. Since the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod has arrived at the door, the proceedings of the committee will be suspended for royal assent.


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, May 27, 1960
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Robert Taschereau. judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 27th May, at 3.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
E. Joly De Lotbiniere Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An Act for the relief of Marie Rita Dube Hould.
fMr. Winch.]
An Act for the relief of Stella Jean Margaret Newman Lamartine.
An Act for the relief of Margaret Estelle Eleanor Evans Lanese.
An Act for the relief of Jean Brasgold Martz.
An Act for the relief of Glafira Milczyn Sohn, otherwise known as Vera Milczyn Sohn.
An Act for the relief of Militza Anich Racette.
An Act to incorporate United Canada Insurance Company.
An Act respecting Montreal Life Insurance Company.
An Act to incorporate Canadian Reassurance Company.
An Act to incorporate Munich Reinsurance Company of Canada.
An Act to incorporate The College of General Practice of Canada.
An Act to incorporate Matador Pipe Line Company, Ltd.
An Act respecitng The National Sanitarium Association.
An Act respecting British Columbia Telephone
Company.
An Act respecting Eastern Telephone and Telegraph Company.
An Act to incorporate Adanae General Insurance Company of Canada.
An Act to incorporate Laurentide Finance Company.
An Act respecting International Loan Company.
An Act to repeal certain Fisheries Laws of Newfoundland.
An Act to Control and Regulate the Sale of Feeds.
An Act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act.
An Act to amend the Federal-Provincial TaxSharing Arrangements Act.
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1961.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Rea in the chair.


[Stage Direction]
304. Departmental administration including Canada's share of the upkeep of the international bureaux at Berne and Montevideo, $1,926,670.
Harold Edward Winch: Before we were called to proceed to the other place I was coming to the last sentence of what I had to say on the first point I raised in connection with the first item of these estimates. I will not repeat what I said previously, but merely conclude that section of my remarks by expressing the hope that the Postmaster General will use his position and influence to see that the postal clerks and the postal employees receive an increase in remuneration as speedily as possible, and that it be made retroactive to the first date upon which an increase was given to any civil servant during this session of parliament.

The second point I wish to raise is one in connection with which I admit I have not the fullest information. Her Majesty's mails are most important and I understand it is possible to send almost anything one wishes through the mails with the assurance of delivery. It is my understanding that for a long time it has been a growing practice among banking concerns to use the services of the post office either within a city or between adjoining cities for the purpose of transferring money, sums running into thousands of dollars or even hundreds of thousands of dollar. I am given to understand that this places a great burden upon the Post Office Department which the department was not originally intended to bear. If my information is correct, there are robberies upon occasions-and I am not referring to them in the same sense as the hon. member for St. Denis-but though the sums transmitted are covered by insurance I understand the banks do not put in claims. That is my understanding. I do know that in the past year or two there has been an upsurge in robberies of banks and post offices, as a result of which the department has had to take additional measures for its protection, and so forth.
I should like to hear from the Postmaster General whether he does feel that in principle it is the responsibility of the Post Office Department to accept huge amounts of money for transfer between banks either in the same city or in adjoining cities, and whether this matter has been taken up with the banks, possibly with a view to telling them that in the circumstances it would be only right for them to remove this burden from the post offices of our country and make other arrangements, perhaps with Brinks, to take care of this work. I should very much like to hear whether any consideration is being given to this question, whether there has been any consultation with the banks along these lines and whether any decision has been reached or, indeed, can be reached with the banks on this matter.
On the third point I wish to raise, we would appreciate hearing very much what consideration is being given by the Postmaster General to the costing of the services which are supplied by his department. We appreciated very much the information which was given to the committee by the Postmaster General when he introduced his estimates this morning. This question of costing is not a new one as far as I am concerned. I have been interested in it during the seven years I have had the honour of being a member of this house. I have spoken about it on more than one occasion in this chamber 79951-0-271J
Supply-Post Office
and also in the estimates committee when the estimates of the Post Office Department were before that committee two or three years ago. The postal service is a public service and it is under public ownership. I cannot understand why the policy of this and previous governments has been that a public service should subsidize commercial private enterprise. A question was put to the Postmaster General as reported at page 1641 of Hansard of March 2, 1960 in reply to which he stated that during the fiscal year 1958-59 the estimated excess of disbursements over receipts amounted to $21,690,000 for newspapers and periodicals.
I have briefly examined the information supplied by the minister this morning. In 1958-59 the Post Office Department handled 1,943,798,566 pieces of first class ordinary mail at a profit of 1.827 cents per piece. In that period it handled 844,443 pieces of domestic air mail at a profit of 17.665 cents per piece. It handled in that period 294,261,801 pieces of third class householder mail and 823,694,834 pieces of third class addressed circulars at a profit of .013 and .183 cents per piece respectively. Only in those services was the revenue greater than the expenditure. We can understand a loss on a public service such as money orders, notched and denominative and on special delivery mail, etc. But why should first class ordinary mail across Canada or domestic air mail have to assume what I maintain is a subsidy to private commercial firms?
On second class transient mail there was a loss of 9.339 cents per piece and on second class publishers' mail there was a loss of 4.084 cents per piece during the period 1958-59. Those who put magazines or newspapers through the mail are in a commercial business. Those who have what are usually called throw-aways are in the advertising business. Why should those who send first class mail be expected to subsidize those engaged in profit-making businesses of a commercial nature?
In 1951, two years before I came here, when there was some thought of changes being made in postal rates the Canadian Daily Newspaper Publishers Association protested the increase on grounds referred to by the minister in an answer reported at page 1675 of Hansard of March 2, 1960:
the proposed rates of postage would make it necessary for the publishers to charge a higher subscription price.
Surely it was not the intention that the post office as a public service should subsidize private commercial operations. When changes in the postal rates were last debated in this chamber the proposed increase on

Supply-Post Office
first class mail was such as to more than cover the loss on second and third class mail. Having heard the present Postmaster General and other hon. members of the cabinet speak on the subject when they were in opposition, we expected that a new evaluation might take place of the policies of the department, that for service rendered you shall pay. I thought that was a principle of free enterprise. It certainly is a principle of socialism.
The department made a profit in the past and now it has a deficit. A deficit is made up from the public purse. Perhaps the minister would tell us what studies have been or are being made on the question of the costing of the revenues and expenditures in connection with services rendered and in particular on the subsidy being paid by the average citizen on first class mail to advertisers, publishers and newspapers.
When the minister speaks will he tell us, clearly, honestly and bluntly, if he believes that private commercial enterprise should be subsidized by Canadian taxpayers in the event of a deficit in his department or by the users of first class mail? There is a principle involved and we are interested in hearing the viewpoint of the Postmaster General.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, perhaps at this point I could attempt to deal with some of the observations made during the course of this morning and afternoon and answer as quickly as possible some of the questions raised.
First, I would like to say this. Hon. members have charged me with saying in effect that there is little room for improvement in the post office. Now, this is a quick misinterpretation of something I said today. What I really said was-and I think this is the quotation-"We are still trying to improve, but it is getting harder". I pointed that out because of the fact that only one one hundredth of one per cent of our mail now results in inquiries or complaints and, therefore, if we are going to improve, we have to work on that one one hundredth of one per cent of the mail volume.
The first statement to which I take exception is that I implied that there was little room for improvement in our administration. That is the sort of self-satisfaction that I do not permit myself or my department to indulge in.
I will deal first with the remarks of the hon. member for St. Denis, Mr. Chairman, made during his speech of one hour and 35 minutes. I checked that for basis of comparison a few minutes ago while you were in the other place, Mr. Chairman. I was interested to see that he occupied more time

speaking on my estimates this year than he did in all of his efforts in the 22 years that he sat on the government side of the house.


Azellus Denis: Cheap stuff.


William McLean Hamilton: In
his opening remarks he said he felt there was a lack of success as far as the Post Office Department was concerned. I am not going to deal with that. I shall let my remarks which are on the record as to the things which have been done this year in the Post Office Department speak for themselves and refute that observation.
He said I am a Postmaster General-


Azellus Denis: Dealing with deficits.


William McLean Hamilton: He
said that I am a Postmaster General who believes in deficits. If he had listened to my remarks and had understood them, if he was listening, he would have found that in the year ended March 31, I960 we had a surplus of $1.7 million. It rather seems to me that a man who attempts for over an hour and a half to criticize the Post Office Department and does not know the difference between a surplus and a deficit is on rather weak ground in this field.
I should make this point very definitely. The basic philosophy of the department, as far as I am concerned, is to attempt to equate our revenue and our expenditures and to come out somewhere near even. Two years ago, in the first year under the administration of this department, our loss was $400,000. In 1958-59 it was just under $200,000. This year it is a surplus of $1.7 million, and when you are dealing with a total of almost $200 million you cannot come much closer to perfection.
The hon. member for St. Denis said that all our improvements are the responsibility of the deputy and the post office officials. I am not going to debate that with him at all. What I do say is that a reasonable portion of that which is going on in the department is the result of ideas which I have myself acquired in thinking about our problems and in my trips going around the country.


Azellus Denis: Which ones?


William McLean Hamilton: But
we work together as a team, and this is the important thing. I am not interested in debating who gets credit for what; I am only interested in giving this country the best possible postal service it has ever had.
The hon. member said I gave no details about the cost of anything new. He should have learned in his 25 years in the house that on your opening speech you give the general picture and then you proceed

to deal with details as they are required by the hon. members. To give an example of just the sort of thing he would have had me doing, he said, "You did not give any details about the mailmobiles". I have them here, the results of an official survey to determine our progress. The direct costs for the period April, 1959 to February 29, 1960, including chauffeur and vehicle licence, gasoline, oil, greasing, repairs, tires, storage and depreciation totalled $4,129.75. Direct savings through the elimination of certain parcel post and relay bundle deliveries, $2,545.32, and net savings in transportation, letter carriers, $650.40, for a total direct savings of $3,195.72, and indirect savings representing the salary of one letter carrier and additional relief on annual leave and on rotation days, $3,288.65, for a total savings of $6,484.37, as against a total cost of $4,129.75, or a net saving of $2,354.62. This experiment involved five mailmobile routes covering an area formerly served by six foot walks.
If the committee had thought this was the kind of thing I was going to put in my original statement without being asked the specific areas in which they were interested, may I say it was not my intention to burden it with such detail unless requested.
To continue with the remarks of the hon. member for St. Denis, he charged me with taking responsibility for salaries and working conditions of everybody in the post office. This is primarily the function of the civil service commission and the Minister of Finance. What I do take credit for, and what is our proper responsibility, are the regulations and the operating conditions under which our employees work and the relations, in so far as they exist-and there is an extensive area in which they do-between management and staff in the post office. In those areas, we have made progress, and those relations have been improved.
The hon. member for St. Denis referred to travel expenses and said they have gone up. The results are reflected in the drop in our inquiries and complaints and in improvements of service because in the last two or three years we have given much more adequate supervision in the field. In order to achieve this better service we have more area superintendents who are responsible for getting out and directly supervising activities in our post offices and we have a far greater degree of collaboration between our headquarters and the field. I am urging our headquarters officials all the time to get out to the field and supervise what is going on and know what is going on so that they come back with the information to improve service.
Supply-Post Office
The hon. member complained about the fact that I have sent out a letter to members giving them information on the way in which they could contact senior officials of my department in case they wanted information. He omitted to quote from that letter the following sentence:
It is not my intention to create the thought that you should not let me know of your problems, but simply that I realize that you may wish to get detailed facts or to talk over a situation directly with the official who has been previously handling the actual case.
I am delighted to have members come to me with their problems-unlike the previous administration, which tried to sweep everything under the rug; I know this because I encountered difficulty myself as a member in direct dealing with officials of the department. My predecessors wanted everything to go through the minister. It is my view that there should be access, and direct access, between hon. members of this house and officials of the department so that they can get information easily and efficiently.
The hon. member mentioned a letter in which there had been a delay of two months, I think it was, between his sending it and my reply. This is an unusual case, as he will agree. He came to me for the information he would have been told it was in regard to a piece of third class mail coming from the United States and that it was necessary, therefore, for me to write to the United States and obtain this information, and that was where the delay occurred, as he knows very well.
Then he referred to an exaggerated desire for publicity on my part. I think I may assume that it is not my fault that previous postmasters general have sat here in Ottawa or have been engaged in activities other than those of the post office. In the work that I have done I have travelled across this country to visit post offices and find out what is going on and people report those activities from time to time. I just want you to know it is easier to find me in a post office than on a golf course.
Let me return to the mailmobile for a moment. The hon. member raised the objection with respect to the mailmobile that we did not give adequate consideration to Canadian manufacture. The short answer to that is that we started with a United States item only because after canvassing 18 possible Canadian manufacturers we could not find one who had anything that would come anywhere near fitting our requirements. After they were in operation here in Canada and Canadian manufacturers had a chance to look at them they began to develop something which was suitable for our purpose.

Supply-Post Office
We are now trying out a Canadian machine which admittedly uses some imported material. But I am confident that as the use of these machines increases Canadian manufacturers will produce models entirely made in Canada and when that is done we will be delighted to use them if the price is right. But we cannot use non-existent machines as the hon. member for St. Denis would have us do.
As far as the flying squads are concerned, the hon. member claimed that they were instituted by the present government as a camouflage for patronage or something of that nature. If he read the parliamentary return which was filed for him he would know that they were instituted long before this government came into power. He claims they are unfair to part-timers in the post office. This is just a complete lack of knowledge and appreciation of how the department operates. I can understand this. There is no conflict between the two groups. We have thousands of part-timers in the major cities of Canada and they work on a regular schedule. The flying squads are only on an intermittent basis. The hon. member says that flyings squads are being used for six to eight hours at a time. I very much doubt this. The matter comes under the direction of the local postmaster who is not supposed to do this. I am having an investigation made.
The hon. member referred to the transfer of post offices and suggested that there was something terrible in this. In the course of a year, Mr. Chairman, we switch from 1,000 to 1,500 post offices, with the average figure being somewhere around 1,200. This has been going on year in and year out for a long time. There are perfectly legitimate reasons for it such as retirement under the provisions of the Public Service Superannuation Act, dismissals where a man is removed from office for cause such as misappropriation of post office funds, unsatisfactory management, etc., resignations where the postmaster has requested to be relieved of the postmastership, and replacements where the postmaster is changed under the policy that all postmasters in revenue offices are to be replaced upon reaching the age of 70.
The hon. member for St. Denis said this was a terrible thing and that we were firing all these people for political reasons. I deny that categorically. I remind him of the fact that when the Liberal government came into power in 1935 they proceeded for partisan reasons to fire 350 postmasters. That is on the record. We have had to remove eight or nine-I do not remember the exact figure- for partisan reasons, each one following a full inquiry and complete support of the accusation made.

The hon. member made one of his big plays, of course, on the basis of thefts. Very briefly the basic story and background on this subject are contained in my first remarks and show that the situation has improved. At one point the hon. member quoted prosecution figures and complained about them having increased. Goodness gracious, what does he expect us to do, not prosecute people? I suppose if we did not prosecute them he certainly would have something to say. I think this is an indication that he was not clear as to what he was talking about because I certainly have no desire or intention of reducing prosecutions for thefts and burglaries.


Azellus Denis: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I said it was a report from the Postmaster General himself and referred to all kinds of thefts, by people outside as well as people inside. If this report is accurate it is not the same report as the one he mentioned in the house today. If he wants me to repeat the figures I am ready to do so.


William McLean Hamilton: 
Erhart Regier: Is that the annual amount?


William McLean Hamilton: Yes, $20 million annually. Taking these figures into consideration, the situation actually is that instead of a deficit of $173,000 in 1959 the two figures bring us to a deficit of $13,673,000. I ask him to remember that historically accommodation and banking has always been accounted for on the same basis so these figures are not new in any way. They are not comparable with the direct figures for previous years in the report of the Post Office Department.
He asked about the reduction in the number of post offices. This, of course, reflects the extension of our rural routes, the extension of letter carrier routes in the cities, the growing movement of people to the cities and
Supply-Post Office
the decline in the small communities. In many cases, these communities just disappear completely. We do not deliberately close small post offices, but we do find-I appreciate the hon. member's views-that in most large cities we have not yet reached the point of diminishing returns so far as post offices are concerned. On the other hand, in some places we have. In Toronto and Montreal, for instance, this is certainly the case with our metropolitan post offices. However, we are not doing this to build up bigger post offices in the cities; I can assure him of that.
The hon. member claimed that post office buildings were not being proceeded with quickly enough. I think that he overlooked, in that connection, the fact that while we do have 11,500 post offices, actually 8,000 of those are small revenue post offices where the postmaster has the responsibility of supplying the premises in a part of his store or something of that sort. Then there are another 1,750 sub-post offices located in stores in large cities, and the remainder are semistaff and staff offices. These are larger offices, but even in the case of some semi-staff offices, the premises are rented. When we say we built 65 post offices last year and 105 this year, I believe that is a very good record. It certainly shows we are going in the direction that the hon. member wants with 105 buildings this year.
I do not believe it would be practical to keep the wickets open 24 hours a day as the hon. member suggested. The short answer to this is that in the major centres we keep the wickets open in a pattern designed to match the business which offers. If we could get adequate business until ten o'clock at night in the main post office in Montreal, it would be kept open. If we find there are only one or two people between eleven and seven in the morning, then we will not keep it open.
The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo spoke a little while ago, and I would tell him that the classification of post offices does not rest on revenue but rests on a unit of work basis. Then, in turn, the postmaster's salary is determined on the classification of the post office, not on the amount of revenue from that post office. He wants more government post office buildings in small communities. I can sympathize with him in that. Unfortunately we have to have a standard policy across Canada, and the one we have gives adequate weight to this particular consideration. I do agree with him that there has been inequities in so far as postmaster-telegraphers are concerned in Newfoundland. I do not agree with him that we have any responsibility for this, and I have made it quite clear to Canadian National Telegraphs that either

Supply-Post Office
they are going to do something about this or, alternatively, we just cannot go on being represented as their agents and taking responsibility for their actions. I think this is now fairly clearly understood. I must say I spent some time with the postmasters down there and I was very disappointed that they -not through any effort of the hon. member -seemed to have the idea that there was a measure of responsibility in the Post Office Department for this. I think they now understand the different situation.
Briefly, in closing, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway asked me about our attitude toward automation. I think perhaps I can sum it up this way. The issue on mechanization is the improved efficiency and handling of the mail, not the reduction of staff. The introduction of mechanical and electronic machinery will effect this in several ways: First, and most important, while it will not enable us immediately to reduce staff, it will enable us to handle more mail with the same staff. Second, its introduction will mean where we now use unskilled or semiskilled personnel in large numbers on a part-time basis, we will be able to introduce a lesser number of specially trained and fulltime postal employees. Finally, it will add substantially to our efficiency because in some of our larger cities, such as Toronto and Montreal, we are reaching a point where there are so many street names and divisions of streets to be remembered that the sortation process is slowed down by the inability of most of our staffs to memorize every division. Certainly there will be changes, and we know that this will mean a larger percentage of our total staff will be skilled, and more fulltime employees as opposed to part-time personnel.
Our full-time personnel are interested in this, and this is an encouraging thing. They are giving us, so far as I can see, support for it. We are not meeting any resistance. There are some who question this new development, although not the hon. member. There are some who feel there is an obligation on a government department, simply because it is a government department, to avoid improving its methods of operation so that by remaining inefficient an ever increasing number of jobs will be produced at the taxpayers' expense. This is not my view. If I may illustrate vividly how shortsighted and foolish such a policy would be, I would point out that within the memory of many people in the post office department letters from street letter boxes were picked up by men on foot carrying bags over their shoulders. I have no doubt that when the horse-drawn vehicles were introduced for this purpose

there were complaints that, in its search for efficiency, the post office department was threatening men with the loss of their jobs by departing from tradition. This is an attitude we do not have today.
I think that deals with most of the questions which were asked, and perhaps we might be able to proceed with the individual items.


Harold Edward Winch: Except mine.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have about ten seconds, perhaps I can get through with yours, too. The hon. member dealt, first, with the question of the remunera-ion of postal employees. He will understand, as a result of his long experience in the house, that he should really bring that to the attention of my colleague, the Minister of Finance. Then the hon. member dealt with money packages. The short answer to that is that in so far as adjoining cities are concerned, the banks are supposed to, and so far as I know do, transfer these by security transfer vehicles. In some cases, because of the distance between adjoining cities, 10 to 15 miles apart, they have been using the mails. We have had conversations with them, as the hon. member has said, urging them to eliminate this practice wherever possible. I take the view that money packages should go whenever possible by express or by security vehicle. On the other hand, I accept the fact that where there is no means of transportation except the post office, we have a responsibility to carry these packages. These are not the cases of which the hon. member was speaking.
Finally, so far as publishers' mail is concerned, the distribution of publications, I would merely say to him that this operation shows up as a loss on the operating statement of the Post Office Department. However, I take the view, and past governments have done, and I am sure succeeding governments will do, that we have a responsibility to enable the free and easy flow of information to all people in this country, and that magazines, books and newspapers, as well as other printed material of this sort, which helps to inform our people and raise the level of information, are entitled to consideration when postal rates are set.


Harold Edward Winch: I should like to continue this discussion when these estimates come up again. The minister cannot get away with that type of fast answer on this important subject.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: It being five o'clock, the house will proceed to the consideration of private and public bills, the former having precedence, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-48, for the relief of Joan Emily Wills Meehan- Mr. McCleave-Mr. Rea in the chair.
Charles Edward Rea: Shall we take these 47 divorce bills in one item?


William Arnold Peters: No, Mr. Chairman.


Charles Edward Rea: Then the committee will consider Bill No. SD-48.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, in reading this bill, which is the 57th report from the Senate, the divorce petition of Joan Emily Wills Meehan from Leslie Patrick Meehan, we again find the worst features of a certain television program which pointed out that in divorce procedures there can be many-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I must remind the hon. member that we are discussing Bill No. SD-48.


William Arnold Peters: In reading this particular bill we find that it has three features in it. First of all, the people cannot get along; second, it was a mixed religious marriage; third, there is the fortunate fact that there were no children.
The petitioner was represented by a lawyer. Two detectives were called as witnesses, Mr. Etheridge and a Mr. Brault. The petition was applied for on the grounds that adultery had been proven.
The clerk of the committee asked the following questions of the petitioner:
By the clerk of the committee:
Q. What is your full name?
A. Joan Emily Wills Meehan.
Q. Where do you live?
A. Verdun, Quebec.
Q. What is your occupation?
A. Typist.
Q. Are you married, and if so to whom?
A. I am, to Leslie Patrick Meehan.
Q. When were you married?
A. July 13, 1957.
Q. Where?
A. Montreal.
Q. By whom?
A. Father Walsh.
Q. What is your religion?
A. Protestant.
Q. United Church?
A. No, it was a Catholic church I was married in.
By the Chairman (Senator Roebuck):
Q. But you yourself are a Protestant?
A. Yes.
Q. What denomination?
A. Presbyterian.
79951-0-272
Private Bills-Divorce
By the clerk of the committee:
Q. And your husband?
A. A Catholic.
Q. I show you a document, do you recognize it?
A. Yes, it is a copy of my marriage certificate?
Q. Are the statements contained in it true and correct?
A. Yes.
The marriage certificate is then filed and marked exhibit No. 1.
Q. I show you a photograph of a male and a female, do you recognize either or both?
A. Yes, that is my husband and myself.
Q. Approximately when was it taken?
A. Two years ago.
Q. Does it remain a good likeness of your husband?
A. Yes, it is.
The photograph of the respondent is filed and marked exhibit No. 2.
Then the questioning was commenced by the petitioner's lawyer, in this case a Mr. Jacobs. He asked questions as to domicile and it was established that both the husband and the wife were born and lived in the Montreal area, that they intended to live in the Montreal area or in the province of Quebec for domicile purposes, and it was established by Senator Roebuck, chairman of the committee of the other place, that as far as they knew they were both going to continue to live and take up residence in the province of Quebec. Then Mr. Jacobs asks:
Q. Did you have any children by your husband?
A. No.
Q. How did you get along with him during your marriage?
A. Well, he used to sometimes,-I received calls from girls, and he used to phone them from the
house.
Q. Did you have occasion to take your husband to your minister to try to rectify the situation?
A. Yes I did.
Q. What was his reaction to that?
A. Well, after Father Walsh talked to him he said to Father Walsh that he would try to do better, but when he got me alone he said it was a big joke and that he would just continue in the same manner he was doing.
Q. When did you stop living with him?
A. December 1958.
Q. Do you have any personal knowledge of your husband's alleged adultery on January 19, 1959 with Violet Little?
A. No, I don't.
Q. When you stopped living with your husband where did you go?
A. I went back home with my parents.
Q. Are you living with them today?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Did your husband continue to remain in the common domicile?
A. Yes, he did.
Then the chairman wanted clarification on this point and asked:
Q. Is it an apartment or a house?
A. It was a house.
Q. Did he support you during that period, or did you go on working?
A. I went on working.

Private Bills-Divorce
By Mr. Jacobs:
Q. Did you have to work?
A. Well, while I was with him, yes, because he was unreliable, never kept a steady job.
By the chairman (Senator Roebuck):
Q. What does he do?
A. Now I couldn't tell you.
Q. What was he doing at that time?
A. He was a chauffeur.
By Mr. Jacobs:
Q. Has there been any collusion or arrangement between you and your husband to obtain this divorce?
A. None whatsoever.
Mr. Chairman, it would have been very nice if Senator Roebuck had asked if there was any connivance or anything of this nature between the lawyer and the petitioner while this question was being asked by the lawyer because it would seem that if the particular program which many of us watched last night was typical of divorce practice, probably the question should have been asked not only of the petitioner but also asked by the senators of Mr. Jacobs himself, because it appears that they themselves are in on the connivance and collusion as often as not.
Q. Have you In any way connived at his alleged commission of adultery with anyone?
A. No.
Q. Is there any condonement or forgiveness on your part?
A. No.
Q. Would you take him back today?
A. No I wouldn't.
Q. You are presently working?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Self-supporting?
A. Yes.
By Senator Lambert:
Q. Was your husband a private chauffeur or was he working for a taxi company?
A. No, he drove trucks for delivery stores, grocery stores.
By the chairman (Senator Roebuck):
Q. Have you had any sexual intercourse with your husband since you parted with him in December 1958?
A. No, I haven't.
Now we come to the calling of the witnesses in this particular case, and I think the committee would do well to remember what they have seen of corespondents in divorce cases, not in one divorce case but in 120, and should give utmost consideration to what they already know to be a fact. I ask the committee to listen to this particular evidence. This witness is Ernie Gordon Etheridge who is a professional, having appeared on many occasions before the Senate this year and in years gone by. He is still 44 years old and he still calls himself a private detective living in Montreal. Mr. Jacobs starts the questioning as follows:
Q. Mr. Etheridge, I show you a photograph which has been filed as exhibit 2. Can you identify the man in the picture?

A. That is Leslie Patrick Meehan, and a picture you gave to us when you retained our services in the fall of 1958.
Q. Did you conduct an investigation into the conduct of Mr. Meehan?
A. We did at the time we started the investigation, we found Mr. Meehan was living at 4196 Wellington St., Verdun, as you had pointed out. At the start of the investigation he was alone there, and then on into December 1958 we found that he was working as a salesman at Lambert Motor Sales, and also after the holidays when we went back there there was a woman living with him at that address at 4196.
By the chairman (Senator Roebuck):
Q. That is a conclusion of yours, witness. You must tell us what you saw that led you to that conclusion.
A. We had seen the woman leaving and entering the Wellington street address with him, and once we were positive we decided to make an entry at the house, and on Monday, January 19, 1959, we were on the surveillance, Mr. Brault and myself, of 4196 Wellington street, and we noted this woman to enter about ten after six. This is a third flat property, and it is on the top floor of the building, a store downstairs, living quarters and a flat in the middle landing, and at 4196, this was the top floor of this building. On the outside we had noted after the woman had entered that the front of the third flat became illuminated. At about 6.35 we noticed that Leslie Patrick Meehan arrived, and the fellows that had come with him in the car drove off, and he entered. At 10.35 we noted that the third floor was in complete darkness. At 11 o'clock we went to the inside stairs and groped our way to the third landing. We knocked on the door there, and Mr. Meehan came to the door and asked who was there. We told him we were from the Reliable Detective Bureau and wished to speak to him. He moved away and came back and opened the door. As he did, we stepped into a hallway which was illuminated and we identified ourself to him. He admitted that he was Leslie Patrick Meehan and also that the exhibit 2 was a picture of himself. He admitted that he was not living with his real wife, Joan Emily Wills, but admitted that he was living with another woman.
One of the surprising things about the television broadcast last night-


Mr. McPhillips:: On a point of order, this bill has nothing to do with any television broadcast.


Charles Edward Rea: The Chair advises the hon. member not to speak again about the program last night. If he does so I shall have to ask him to take his seat.


William Arnold Peters: I only wanted to point out that in my experience-and I have no great experience with this kind of thing-it is difficult to know why people would open a door in the middle of the night without some very good reason. I am sure it does not happen very often. It may only be that I have not travelled in the same circles as other people, but it seems to me to be most unusual for people to open a door at eleven o'clock at night in these circumstances. Supposing the door is partly open and left on a safety latch and the occupier sees two big men

out there. Unless the occupant is a big guy himself I do not think he would be very anxious about letting them in, no matter who they said they were. I would say it would be almost impossible to get someone to open the door at this time of night if they did not want to.
I note, also, that this particular company is called the Reliable Detective Bureau. They make a point of having found out the address, and then they go on to say that the lawyer gave them the address. Evidently, having conducted this investigation they were able to locate the address they have been given in the first place. Granted that Mr. Etheridge is a capable investigator: he points out exactly what he sees. Nevertheless, the case falls into a pattern which is very convenient for its particular purpose.
The witness added:
He admitted that he was Leslie Patrick Meehan and also that exhibit 2 was a picture of himself. He admitted that he was not living with his real wife, Joan Emily Wills, but admitted that he was living with another woman.
The evidence goes on:
Q. Tell us about that admission. What was said that led to such statements?
A. I said to him, "We know you are living here with another woman as man and wife, not your real wife, Joan Emily Wills", and he admitted to that.
I suggest that this is strictly a supposition on the part of the detectives. It is pointed out in this evidence that there was a store downstairs, that there were living quarters on the second storey and that there was another apartment on the third floor. So when the investigators, sitting in their car, saw a woman enter this building I suggest it would be impossible for them to be able to say with any certainty that she was the particular woman concerned at that moment. I think it would have been difficult for them to have ascertained just where she was living in this set-up, because there were at least two other living quarters in this building as well as a commercial store.
Anyway it all fits in very well, because it appears that this is exactly what is wanted. I am told, and others are told, that in cases of this kind certain things are desired, and it certainly seems that the respondent in this case has admitted to anything he was asked.


An hon. Member:: Read on. It gets more interesting.


William Arnold Peters: I notice that we are having no difficulty in keeping a quorum. In at least one other case I read the detectives insisted the parties use their proper names and indicated that the names appearing on driving licenses might not be sufficient evidence because they could be false. In this case she 79951-0-272J
said her name was Violet Mitchell and he accepted it without question. The questioning continued:
Q. How was she dressed?
A. She had at least the top of blue and white pyjamas we could see. They both had admitted that they were living together as man and wife at the premises 4196 Wellington street. We were at the doorway of the bedroom and they both could hear us talking when the admissions were made.
If they could hear the admissions made the admissions must have made by the detectives themselves, but no matter. I continue:
Q. The two of them were together?
A. Well, he was standing with us in the doorway and she could hear everything, she was sitting in the bed.
Q. What did he say?
A. He admitted-
Q. I know, but what did he say?
A. Well, he said that it was not his fault, that his wife had left him and that it was the fault of her parents, and lots of stories like that, like many of them do. We told him that we were not interested and that if he wanted to do anything about it he should see his own lawyers afterwards.
Q. Well, he blamed it on her parents, and what did he say?
A. He said it was the fault of her parents.
Q. What about the fault of her parents?
A. I didn't ask him questions. I said that we had nothing to do with it, we had everything we needed and he could get his own lawyers and do what he wanted afterwards.
Q. There is no admission there.
A. He admitted that he was living with another woman other than his wife, I think I said that before, Joan Emily Wills.
Q. Well, you asked him that?
A. And he admitted to that.
Q. He said "Yes" to that?
A. Yes.
Q. So that is the admission?
A. That is the admission, yes. The house consisted of another room, and from the front to which was a gallery completely empty, and there was a kitchen on the left-hand side as you entered, and another vacant room off the kitchen behind the double room.
A second detective, Mr. Gerry Brault, appeared on behalf of the petitioner and having been duly sworn testified as follows:
By the Clerk of the committee:
Q. What is your name?
A. Gerry Brault.
Q. Where do you live?
A. Montreal.
Q. What is your occupation?
A. Investigator.
By Mr. Jacobs:
Q. I show you exhibit 2, which has been filed, a photograph, can you identify the man in that picture?
A. Yes, this is Mr. Leslie Meehan.
Q. Were you with Mr. Etheridge on January 19, 1959, when you saw Mr. Meehan?
A. On January 19,	1959. I accompanied Mr. Etheridge following the activities of Mr. Meehan, at 4196 Wellington street, Verdun around 4.45, up to 11 o'clock, when we went to the door on the third floor at 4196 Wellington street, Verdun, Mr. Etheridge knocked on the door, and Mr. Meehan
4310	HOUSE OF
Private Bills-Divorce
came and opened the door, wearing blue pants, brown shoes-over his pyjamas; bare chest. Mr. Etheridge identified himself to him, and he admitted that he was Leslie Meehan, and he admitted that the picture in our possession was his, and we walked into the bedroom and a woman was lying in the bed, and when Mr. Etheridge asked her her name she sat in the bed; she was wearing blue and white pyjamas and she had her hair in pin curls; she gave her name as Violet Mitchell; and they both admitted living together as man and wife. Mr. Etheridge told both of them that they would hear from his real wife's attorneys in the near future, and we left the house.
It is unfortunate we cannot refer to other matters.


An hon. Member:: Are you getting tired of reading? Why not keep on reading?


William Arnold Peters: No, I am at the end of the page.


Charles Edward Rea: Order.


William Arnold Peters: This is a simple case. The detectives got all the evidence they needed. Nothing was left to chance. The girl gave her name and they accepted it. I assume they felt they could serve her at that address because she was not asked for her address. Unless the wife has a wealthy boy friend then I presume the money for this divorce is coming from her parents with whom she went back to live. All the indications are that an agreement was reached between all the parties. I suggest they had a rehearsal and maybe the corespondent liked the respondent's company and moved in. It appears that her address will be the same as the respondent's. There has been no attempt to prove adultery. We are asked to dissolve the marriage on the grounds of adultery. We know what adultery is although many hon. members formerly were not aware. These detectives do not indicate that they yet understand what it is and Canadians generally are not aware of what we consider as adultery.
Point No. 6 of the petition reads as follows:
That your petitioner has ascertained that the respondent, Leslie Patrick Meehan did commit adultery on January 19, 1959, at 4196 Wellington street, Verdun, with Violet Mitchell, who resides at 4196 Wellington street, Verdun.
I hazard a guess that he did commit adultery with her but no one could ascertain that from reading the evidence before us. It is only a supposition on my part that adultery took place. If we were well read we could probably tell you what book she was reading when the detectives visited.
Parliament could grant this divorce and hon. members feel that they had done a good job. No children are involved. The parties are young and at least one could go on to make a good marriage. I do not think we


should insist, therefore, on a closer examination of this obviously flimsy, fabricated evidence.


Mr. Howard:: Before we proceed further, I wonder whether I might make a few comments about this. But first, because of the reference of my hon. friend from Timiskam-ing, may I say that it is not my intention to engage in any discussion about the excellent, enlightening and revealing telecast which took place last night.
There are a few matters with which my hon. friend from Timiskaming dealt. He indicated that the evidence was presented generally in a clear-cut way but there are a few things on which I think perhaps I should comment. The hon. member for Victoria, (B.C.), who is an esteemed member of the legal profession and who is now substituting for the hon. member for Halifax who is engaged on other matters in the province of Nova Scotia, I understand, will perhaps clear up this point when I make reference to it.
One of the first things that came to my mind-I only do this because of our reading and examination of evidence in other cases and thus compare this with the others-is the following which appears on page 11 where the first question directed to Mr. Etheridge is answered in this way. First, he identifies the picture as being that of the respondent; he gives the name of the respondent and then he says:
And a picture you gave to us when you retained our services in the fall of 1958.
Other evidence given by the petitioner was to the effect that the wife stopped living with her husband in December of 1958. I know that in quite a number of other cases, Mr. Chairman, whoever is counsel for the petitioner inquires of the petitioner when she or he came to see him, when those services were retained. In other cases, the time is given, the particular month of the particular year when she or he first went to see the lawyer about whatever difficulties he or she had with the spouse. In this one we find that while the petitioner ceased living with the husband as husband and wife in December, 1958, as shown by the petitioner's evidence, in fact the petitioner had undoubtedly-if we give full credit to Mr. Etheridge's testimony-retained the services of Mr. Jacobs, or went to see Mr. Jacobs, sometime before they actually stopped living together, because he retained the services of Messrs. Etheridge and Brault of the Reliable Detective Agency, bureau, or whatever it is, in the fall of 1958.
I do not say there is any conflict there. I do not say that this is a point that is earthshaking or is going to influence us or upset

us in the consideration which the committee should give to this particular case; but I would have thought that it would be well for this point to be cleared up and some specific reference made to when the young lady went first to see the lawyer. As I say, I do not think it has any bearing on the case. Perhaps it is one of the things on which, for use and for understanding in the particular case before us and for use and our guidance in the future, the hon. member for Victoria, (B.C.) might be able, from his legal experience, to give us an indication of just how it happens in this particular case that there seems to be a little conflict in the time.
I also wish to reiterate, if I may do so without transgressing on the rules by the use of repetition and, to make reference to, as the hon. member for Timiskaming has done, the fortuitous circumstances which existed and which led the detectives at eleven o'clock, or eleven thirty o'clock in the evening just to walk into somebody's apartment. I say, as I have said on many other occasions, Mr. Chairman, this just does not happen with the degree of regularity that we are asked to believe it happens. It may happen in an isolated instance. It may be that in this instance the respondent is in the habit of opening his doors at eleven o'clock in the evening after all the lights are out, after he has been in bed, to people who-it was two people, incidentally in this case-are complete strangers.


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: The hon. member must restrict his remarks to the bill and those discursive remarks as to what may be done in certain circumstances, while they may be interesting, have no relation to the bill. His remarks must be related to the bill.


Charles Benjamin Howard: May I make a comment on the point of order and say I do not think it is a point of order because my remarks were related to this bill, were related to the evidence given by Mr. Etheridge. I just happened to read the evidence. If my hon. friend from Victoria, (B.C.) wants me to read the evidence I can do so. The evidence given by Mr. Etheridge is that he and his partner at eleven o'clock in the evening went up and knocked on the door; the door was opened and they were given free access to the apartment. I say it is highly unlikely that this did take place.


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: On a point of order, if my hon. friend wishes to read the evidence-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The hon. member for Skeena is still talking on the point of order.


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: He is not speaking to the point of order; he is making a speech.
Private Bills-Divorce


Charles Edward Rea: Order.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I am not sure which point of order I am discussing now; I think it is the first one. I was saying that my remarks were completely in order and completely relevant to the particular bill before us because the bill asks us to dissolve the marriage on the ground of adultery. It is mentioned in the bill itself and I am talking about that particular evidence and the manner in which the evidence of adultery was obtained. I am casting doubts on whether we should accept that or not.


Charles Edward Rea: The hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) is going to raise another point of order?


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: Mr. Chairman, all I want to say is that the hon. member is entitled to comment on the evidence, but he is not entitled to comment upon generalities of the giving of evidence in these cases, as he has been doing.


Charles Edward Rea: I am sure the hon. member for Skeena realizes that he cannot discuss procedure. That is the point the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) is making.


Charles Benjamin Howard: That is not my intention or desire, Mr. Chairman. I am just pointing out -if I can repeat this to get it clear on the record and clear in the mind of the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.)-that this adultery was alleged to have taken place on the third floor of a three-flat building. To quote from the evidence of Mr. Etheridge, about half-way through, he says this:
At 10.35 we noted that the third floor was in complete darkness. At eleven o'clock-
Twenty five minutes later, allowing for what they thought was necessary time in their experience to elapse, he continues:
At eleven o'clock we went to the inside stairs and groped our way to the third landing.
They groped their way up three flights of stairs. I imagine this must have been in complete darkness, or perhaps the two detectives were not able to see too well on this particular evening. In any event, for one reason or another, they had to grope their way to the third landing. Once they got there they knocked on the door and the respondent came to the door and asked who it was. They told him they were from the Reliable Detective Bureau; they wanted to speak to him, and these were the open sesame words that allowed these two gentlemen, complete strangers to the respondent, to walk into the apartment and ask all manner of questions which have been gone into quite extensively by the hon. member for Timiskaming. I submit, Mr. Chairman, and

Private Bills-Divorce
I think I am perfectly in order in doing so, that this sort of thing just does not occur. At the risk of offending the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) again, may I reiterate that the respondent in this instance may have developed a habit of opening his door to all and sundry at eleven o'clock in the evening-


An hon. Member:: Maybe he opened the door to let the cat out and they walked in.


Charles Benjamin Howard: He let a couple of somethings in. I would not call them by the designation the hon. member has used. In any event, unless 'he is in the habit of doing this sort of thing in the case of anybody who happens to come along at eleven o'clock in the evening, it is stretching the point quite a bit to ask us to believe that it occurred in this way, especially after groping up three flights of stairs in darkness to get there.
There is another matter to which I wish to make reference. It has to do with the evidence of Mr. Etheridge and Mr. Brault and the so-called admission that the respondent and the corespondent were living there as man and wife and that they both admitted this was so. I should like to quote part of the evidence of Mr. Etheridge starting at the bottom of page 11 and going over to page 12 in which he relates the story of his conversation with the respondent. He talked about an admission and said:
He admitted that he was not living with his real wife-
He gives her name.
-but admitted that he was living with another woman.
I do not know if this question was asked by Mr. Jacobs or Senator Roebuck but I would take it to be Senator Roebuck.
Q. Tell us about that admission. What was said that led to such statements?
A. I said to him, "We know you are living here with another woman as man and wife, not your real wife-
He gives her name.
-and he admitted to that.
So we have secondhand information that the respondent admitted that he was living there as man and wife with someone who was not his legally married wife. He goes on from there to describe the setting of the bedroom and the apparel of the corespondent.


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: 
Charles Benjamin Howard: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I can only say that the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) seems to have the ability today to raise all sorts of inaccurate things which are not in fact points of order. This question has been dealt with on a number of occasions. In fact, we have had points of order raised by my hon. friend's colleagues that we should not be reading the evidence and your ruling was that we could read it, discuss it and make reference to it in any way whatsoever with the qualification that we must deal with that part of the evidence relating strictly to the material in the bill before us. That is what I am attempting to do. I am not trying to put any better words on the record. I am merely following the rules of the house about repetition. If I were to read from the evidence the description of the bedroom, what he or she was wearing and so on I would be repeating what the hon. member for Timiskaming read when he was discussing this case. I want to stay within the rules. All the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) is doing is inviting me to violate the rules, and I do not think I can accept his invitation.
Then there was another question, "How was she dressed?" and the first statement is that she was wearing certain things. Here is the next one and it is this statement I want to take issue with.


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: Why don't you read it? Why don't you give the answer?


Charles Edward Rea: Order. Will the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) please resume his seat? Will the hon. member please sit down? When the hon. member wishes to rise he must address the Chair. The hon. member for Skeena has the floor.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I do not want to cause-


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: The hon. member for
Skeena has the floor but I am rising on a point of order.


Charles Edward Rea: I will be very happy to hear the point of order.


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: We usually find that these members say they have the floor when we raise any point, but I wish to say this. The hon. member for Skeena read a question and then he proceeded to give his own extemporaneous version of the answer. I contend that is completely out of order. If he reads a question from the record then he must read the answer and not give us his interpretation of the answer.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The hon. member-


Charles Benjamin Howard: May I speak to the point of order?


Charles Edward Rea: Certainly.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I do not know what the difficulty is with the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) today but apparently it is something that should not find expression in this house. I read the question that was asked. The question was, "How was she dressed?" The first part of the answer as to what she was wearing is not relevant to the point I wish to make. I was about to read the second part which is relevant to the point I wish to make and unfortunately the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.), with his blood pressure and other problems jumped to some conclusion just to get on the record and caused some confusion.


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: That is not my problem. I know what yours are.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I submit that is not a point of order.


Charles Edward Rea: With respect to the question of whether or not the hon. member should read the question in the evidence and then the exact words of the answer, the hon. member can give his own interpretation of the answer as long as he does not change the meaning. The Chair sees nothing wrong with that.


Charles Benjamin Howard: You have been wrong four times, today, Bert.


Charles Edward Rea: Order.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Here is the answer to which I wish to refer, and to avoid any exercise being necessary on the part of the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) I will read it.
They both had admitted that they were living together as man and wife at the premises-
Then the address is given. I hope the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) will not raise a point of order about that because it is not my practice to read the actual address or the names of the individuals in order to prevent any undue publicity. The witness said:
They both had admitted that they were living together as man and wife-
Up to this time, Mr. Chairman, they both had not admitted they were living there as man and wife. The only person who admitted they were living as man and wife was the respondent. It was given in previous evidence that he had so admitted. The only evidence before or after that as to what the corespondent said is that she gave her name, and it is put in quotation marks. That is the only evidence here as to what she said. I submit that the evidence does not show that she admitted they were living as man and
Private Bills-Divorce
wife. Only one person admitted it and that was the respondent himself. The witness went on to say:
We were at the doorway of the bedroom and they both could hear us talking when the admissions were made.
I assume he is talking about the admissions by the respondent that they were living there as man and wife. He is undoubtedly jumping to the conclusion that the corespondent agreed with this admission by silence, but nowhere in the evidence does it appear that she admitted that they were living there as man and wife. Mr. Brault said exactly the same thing in his evidence on page 13. He said:
and they both admitted living together as man and wife.
I submit this is not true. Mr. Etheridge and Mr. Brault either did not give the full evidence in the first place as to what was admitted or they are not giving the correct evidence. Now they say both people admitted it, and there is a conflict between them. Unfortunately that has been the pattern with these gentlemen. They have been too carefree in the manner in which they have given evidence before the committee of the other place, knowing full well that as long as their sketchy evidence meets the basic test that is all that is necessary. If there is any laxity or incorrect evidence this is a minor detail.
I think there is another thing which should have been cleared up in conection with this case. Again I would indicate to you, sir, and through you to the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.), that in my following remarks I wish to make a brief reference to the way in which I think evidence should be given, and relate it to evidence which we have heard in other cases. I only do this in an incidental way for the sake of comparison, and I think I will be in order in so doing. This is alleged to be a so-called common law relationship, that is a man and a woman not legally married but living together as man and wife.
In other cases-this is where I may run foul of the rules, but I do not think I will- the test to be met in determining whether or not a common law arrangement is proven is how long they have lived together. How long has this relationship existed? In some instances we have found the relationship existed for two, three or more years, at least for long periods of time. In one case with which we dealt a few days ago the period was only two months, and you will recall that I wondered whether or not that was a sufficient period of time in which to establish a common law relationship.
In this instance, so far as we know from the evidence, the common law relationship

Private Bills-Divorce
existed for one evening, that is January 19, 1959. The evidence indicates that the respondent had seen the corespondent and had been seen in her company on occasions, and had been seen going in and out of this particular address where the adultery is alleged to have occurred on the 19th. However, so far as living together as man and wife is concerned, this relationship existed for one day, January 19, 1959. If that is the type of evidence that the investigators are going to give to the committee of the other place and are going to ask us in this house to accept as part of the corroborating evidence of the common law relationship, then they should also be prepared to go into the question of how long that man and wife relationship has existed. Otherwise, I do not think such evidence should be in there. We know that in giving weight to evidence submitted, in this instance to the committee of the other place, and certainly so far as the courts themselves are concerned, if proof can be given that there is a common law relationship then the court and the committee of the other place will give a great deal of weight to that as, in fact, proving the alleged adultery.
When we talk here about people living together as man and wife, the same design is there. It is an attempt to prove, through the common law relationship, that adultery could have or was likely to have taken place. If these gentlemen, Mr. Etheridge and Mr. Brault or the lawyer who is handling this case, expect us to give weight or that degree of weight which is necessary to the evidence concerning a common law relationship, then they should be duty-bound to put in evidence concerning the period of time during which that common law relationship has existed. In my opinion, regardless of what these gentlemen say about the time during which the common law relationship existed, they lived together as man and wife for one evening only, which would put this case in the same category as the motel and hotel cases.


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: That is sufficient, is it not?


Charles Benjamin Howard: My friend's voice is getting out of whack. That may be sufficient if they are not going to talk about the common law relationship. In any case, where the motel or hotel type of evidence is used, it is obviously arranged in a large number of cases, regardless of Mr. Robinette of the law society of Upper Canada saying that he has no knowledge of this sort of thing. I think he is talking through his hat. There is knowledge that a great deal of collusion exists in these one-night stands or hotel and motel cases.

This is substantially what exists here, and we must look at it in that light, especially when there is no reference as to the time they have been living together as man and wife.
1	raise this point, not to object to the granting of the divorce, but to point out to hose lawyers who are making a living off these unfortunate cases, and to the investigators who are making their living off these cases, that they had better be a bit more careful in the future in their presentation of the evidence. If parliament is going to have to deal with these cases in the future, and I hope we do not, I think we should raise this point. As I say, I do not raise it to object to the case, I merely raise it because, as my friend from Timiskaming said, the evidence was presented in a sloppy fashion without too much regard for the fact that there was conflict between the evidence given by the two investigators. If they wish to have the evidence that they give considered in the future then they should smarten up and attempt to present their points in a proper fashion without these conflicts.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: When shall the said bill be read a third time, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Bourgei:: Can the leader of the house give us the order of business for Monday and Tuesday?


Mr. Churchill:: For next week, the legislative items will be No. 5 on today's order paper, second reading of Bill No. C-58, to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code. This will be started on Monday. If that is completed, we will follow with budget resolutions; No. 9 on today's order paper, which is second reading of Bill No. C-64, to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act; and then three items, Nos. 1,
2	and 3 on today's order paper, which deal with harbour commissioners. This would be the business for Monday and Tuesday.
On Wednesday, we would start with item No. 6 on today's order paper, Bill No. S-28 respecting a certain trade agreement between Canada and Australia. If that is concluded

we would continue with any of those other legislative items I have already mentioned. The arrangement for Thursday and Friday is expected to be consideration of the estimates starting with transport, followed by post office, mines and technical surveys and fisheries.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
Special-
Irrigation and water storage projects in the western provinces including payments in the current and
Supply-Items Passed subsequent fiscal years in accordance with the agreement of July 25, 1958, relating to the South Saskatchewan river project; the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act program; and land protection, reclamation and development-
31.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $7,602,105.
32.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $16,422,810.
33.	Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act including authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amount of the share of the province of Nova Scotia of the cost of the Annapolis river aboiteaucauseway project, $1,634,555.
34.	Prairie Farm Assistance Act administration, $672,947.
Loans, investments and advances-
Agriculture-
483. Loans to settlers in the Bow river project in the current and subsequent fiscal years in accordance with regulations of the governor in council, $250,000.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 30, 1960

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on veterans affairs-Mr. Montgomery.