Mr. MURPHY:

My hon. friend knows that a man may go into the post office in Ottawa, for instance, and get a money order payable on an office in Winnipeg. The Winnipeg office deals with the payee, and when the transaction is completed as between the Post Office Department and the member of the public entitled to receive payment, these orders, and a list certified by the official in charge in the paying office, are sent to Ottawa, where the audit takes place in the Financial branch of the department.

Mr. GUTHRIE:

I see there has been some change in the number of audit clerks employed. The number of senior audit clerks has been reduced from 16 to 15; one has been let out there. Then in audit clerks there is an increase from 2 to 5, an increase of three; so there has been a net increase in those two staffs of two. Then there is an increase in senior clerks of two, making the net increase four. There is also an increase in clerk-bookkeepers of one, making the net increase five; also an increase in account

clerks of two, making the net increase seven. The only other increase that I notice is in the office of appliance operators, where the increase is from 61 to 81. There is one other decrease which would make the net increase in the inside staff of the Post Office Department twenty-five. That would hardly account for the large increase now asked for by the minister. Last year under this item we voted $1,109,518; this year we are asked to vote $1,143,729, an increase roughly of about $34,000. Do I understand that the whole of that $34,000 is required to pay the extra salaries of the twenty-five new assistants taken on in the department?

Mr. MURPHY:

Perhaps my hon. friend was not in when I explained that of the $34,000 increase, about $28,000 in round numbers, represented statutory increases over which, of course, the department has no control.

Mr. FORKE:

When is it likely that statutory increases will cease?

Mr. HOCKEN:

Never.

Mr. FORKE:

Then will there always be more expenditure for all time to come on account of statutory increases? It seems to me that when there are employees coming in at the bottom there will be some going out at the top, and that the time should come when there would be no increase, that there would be a balance struck. But for a number of years, ever since I came into this House, the vote on account of statutory increases grows. Will that always go on?

Mr. MURPHY:

There is a minimum and maximum salary for each class. An employee begins at the minimum and receives automatically an increase each year until he reaches the maximum for his class, when the statutory increases for him stop. These are matters fixed by the Civil Service Commission, under the provisions of the Civil Service Act. But each year as my hon. friend has mentioned, there are people coming in at the minimum salaries, and therefore statutory increases have to be provided for them.

Mr. FORKE:

When one new employee

comes in at the minimum salary, does it not happen that one goes out at the top who is drawing the maximum salary? Or, is the staff to increase for all time to come?

Mr. MURPHY:

No, the staff increases

only in proportion as the work increases, only as there are increased duties to be performed.' There are changes, of course, in the different branches of the department, and in the net result there has been an increase this year, as I have already explained.

Supply-Post Office

Mr. BROWN:

That same net result seems to happen every year.

Mr. MURPHY:

No.

Mr. GUTHRIE:

I would have no objection personally to these statutory increases. I think the officials are paid little enough, and in many cases they are paid too little. I understood the minister to say that of the increased vote asked for this year-$34,000 in round numbers-$28,000 was to be applied to statutory increases under the act. That would leave only $6,000 to be spent on the twenty-five new employees, or an average of $240 for each employee. Surely there must be some discrepancy there. I doubt if such a sum as $28,000 is necessary for the statutory increases. Would the minister explain that?

Mr. MURPHY:

Perhaps I had better give the details as furnished by the department. My statement as to $28,000 in round numbers being required for statutory increases is substantially correct. There were 379 statu-ory increases, amounting to $27,900 New positions 28 in number called for an amount aggregate of $25,260. There are: Two senior clerks at $1,320; one clerk bookkeeper at $1,020; three audit clerks $960; two account clerks $960; twenty office appliance operators, grade 2, $840. Then there is an increase due to salary revision by the Civil Service Commission, $3,180, and increases due to re-organization by the same body, $1,180. Adding all these increases together we have a total of $57,520. Now, set off against that, are the following decreases: Three positions not required owing to re-organization $5,080, the difference between salaries of employees who have been promoted or who have left the service and salaries of persons promoted or appomted to replace them at lower salaries, $18,229; or a total decrease of $23,309. Deducting the total decrease from the total increases there is a net increase of $34,211. That is how the amount is made up.

Mr. CLARK:

Would the minister give a statement showing the volume of the money order business done over a period of three years and the cost to the department of doing that business for those years?

Mr. MURPHY:

The total number of orders issued for the fiscal year 1921-2 was 10,031,198; for 1922-3, 11,098,222; for 1923-4, 12,561,490. The aggregate values of orders issued for each fiscal year were as follows:

1921-2, $139,914,186.39; 1922-3, $143,055,119.94;

1923-4, $159,855,114.97. The total receipts from the money order business were: 1921-2, $1,852,824.62; 1922-3, $1,180,957.45; 1923-4,.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

Those are the charges?'

Mr. MURPHY:

No, those are the receipts from the money order business. Does my right hon. friend mean by "charges" the expenditure for salaries and so on?

Mr. MEIGHEN:

No I mean the commissions on the orders.

Mr. CLARK:

There is a material decrease in the last fiscal year as compared with

1921- 2.

Mr. MURPHY:

There is an increase over

1922- 3, but a decrease as compared with 1921-2.