Mr. MASSEY:

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

Supply-Post Office

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.

Mr. McLARTY:

Offences of this sort do

not relate pecularily to the post office. They come under the Civil Service Superannuation Act, in connection with which there has been an investigation by a committee of this house for some time. The committee has since brought in its report. After all, it is not a matter that is referable to the post office as such. I greatly appreciate the hardship that reflects itself on the unfortunate family of the man who has been guilty of misconduct, but that is something which comes under the statute. In the administration of the Post Office Department my powers are strictly limited by acts of parliament I am here in an administrative capacity, and it is the duty of the house to make any amendment it deems desirable.

Mr. MASSEY:

I am sure the minister

does not misunderstand the spirit in which I have brought up this matter-

Mr. McLARTY:

Not at all.

Mr. MASSEY:

-or the particular cases I had in mind. He went out of his way to

see what could be done, and those who were interested appreciated this as much as I did.

Mr. McLARTY:

I regretted that I could

not do anything.

Mr. MASSEY:

I understand that fully, but the minister will agree that a case of this sort might arise more readily in the Post Office Department than in any other. Here men are handling large sums of money daily, and the chances of such an occurrence are greater in the post office than in any other department. I wished to bring the matter to the attention of the committee and of the ministry as a whole because there does arise at times a situation which is grossly unfair to the unfortunate family concerned.

Mr. DEACHMAN:

My recollection is that about 1920, at the time of the union government, the railways received a substantial advance in rates for carrying mail, and while other payments to railways for freights and express have declined sharply since then as a result of truck competition, there is apparently only a small decline in the amount allowed the railways for mail service. I suggest, although it might look like robbing Peter to give something to Paul-

Mr. MARTIN:

Why not give it to Paul?

Mr. DEACHMAN:

If it were Paul Martin I would, gladly. I suggest it might not be a bad idea to see that this payment be made to conform to what might be called a reasonable remuneration for the service rendered. I do not see why we should continue a payment which might have been justifiable at the time it was established in the days of extremely high rates, but which is out of line with present conditions. Another question: Is anything being done with regard to the carrying of mails by trucks instead of by railways? In some places the service might be better.

Mr. McLARTY:

I shall be glad to consider the suggestion.

Mr. WALSH:

Will the minister explain the contracts with the railway companies?

Mr. McLARTY:

The rates in connection with mails are set by the governor in council. There is no contract. The present rates were fixed by order in council in 1922. In March, 1921, a hearing before the board of railway commissioners was held and the rates were subsequently raised. But there is no contract.

Mr. WALSH:

Has there been any diminution in the amount of mail carried by the railways since the inception of the air mail service ?

Mr. McLARTY:

It is a little early to say. There is no decrease in the authorizations for space on the railways and there has been no decrease in the quantity of second-class mail carried by the railways. The volume of such second-class mail in the last three years has been:

1935- 36

1936- 37

1937- 38

Pounds

108,000,000

121,000,000

124,000,000

The trans-Canada air mail service was inaugurated such a short time ago that it would be difficult, to determine at this early date the effect on the first-class railway mail service.

Mr. WALSH:

How much was paid in the last year to the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific for mail service?

Mr. McLARTY:

For the year 1937-38 the total paid to the Canadian National Raillways was 82,969,000, and to the Canadian Pacific Railway, S3,589,000.

Mr. WALSH:

Over a million dollars more paid to the Canadian Pacific than to the Canadian National-

Mr. McLARTY:

Not a million dollars. Roughly, S600,000.