It is well known, I believe, that if any postal employee is for any reason dismissed for cause or dismissed as a result of some crime, and is imprisoned therefor, he loses his superannuation. I have in mind one or two particular cases, but I do not wish to refer to any name. This matter is, of course, statutory at the moment and the minister has no control; nevertheless it is worthwhile bringing it to his attention in view of the hardship caused dependents of an employee. After all, a misdemeanour on the part of an employee of the post office, punishable by a gaol sentence, is a serious matter. None of us will deny that. But when a man has served the Post Office Department for twenty or thirty years, and is within a few years of superannuation, and then for some reason or another he commits a crime and is incarcerated, his family are the ones who suffer and not himself. There have been such cases, as the minister knows. I do not wish to call attention to any one in particular, but I have drawn to the minister's attention certain cases and he has given them every
possible consideration for which the families concerned are grateful, as I assure him I am.
At the time I discussed the matter with him this session he said he would take it into consideration with the thought perhaps of seeing what might be done to rectify a situation which would cause undue hardship to the family of a man who had been gaoled for a crime such as removing from the post office table an envelope containing money. A man may be with the post office as long as twenty-five years; he may have a wife and children; he is in mediocre circumstances, and as a result of some sudden temptation he removes an envelope and puts it in his pocket. He is sentenced to three years. He loses his superannuation-not only his superannuation, but all the money he has paid into the fund. It is lost to him for cause, it is true, but his family are the innocent victims. I have in mind one or two cases where there were several children. The father is removed from the family; there is no breadwinner; the mother may not be capable of working owing to some physical incapacity, and she finds herself destitute because her husband no longer earns any money and his superannuation is gone. All the money that he has paid into the fund over a period of years is lost not only to himself but to his wife as well. I was wondering whether the minister, after consideration of one or two particular cases, had any statement to make as to what progress he had made in this matter.