Mr. GRAYDON:

Is the minister not afraid that might become a pork barrel?

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:

The hon. member for New Westminster referred to the question of political interference in the civil service. I am not at the moment dealing with political interference, but my point is this. When one tender out of many is very low and this tenderer gets the contract for a year, the Postmaster General is placed in the position that that person, having so tendered, may receive the benefit of the Postmaster General's beneficence by being granted a changed amount.

Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):

Not at all.

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:

Just a minute until I finish. I say that is unfair; it is a denial of the right of parliament to control expenditures voted' by parliament. I had no idea it went as far as that. The resolution in its present form seems innocuous, and one could support it because he realizes that these couriers should receive a fair and reasonable amount for the work they do. But for the minister to ask parliament not only to make provision for the payment of bonuses, to which we all agree -at least I have not heard any disagreement on that-but in addition, to place in his hand?

Postal Service

control of the expenditure of several hundreds of thousands of dollars based on such evidence as may be brought before him and1 his officials, is a course against which I protest. It is carrying into the days of peace the type of thing we objected to during the war. This is carrying into the days of peace the type of thing we objected to during the period of the war, namely placing the minister in a position of supremacy in the expenditure of money, regardless of contracts, regardless of parliament, and without control. I think the minister should gave consideration to extending the provisions of this resolution to cover all tenderers, so that they will all be treated alike, or, in any event, to doing away with this part of the provision. I should like to hear the Postmaster General, with his penchant for criticism, on this side of the house if anyone of us should ask for power to expend three or four hundred thousand dollars, uncontrolled by parliament. It is a dangerous principle and one which I am sure on consideration he will realize places too great power in the hands of any minister.

With everything the hon. member for Peel has said I am in complete agreement. The hon. member for Durham, who is not here today, has done much to bring before this house and the country the needs of the carriers. Surely in 1947 a minister is not going to ask for carte blanche in the expenditure of public money. Human nature being what is it, political considerations must inevitably enter into any evidence that may be brought before him; and I for one intend to protest against that portion of the resolution.

Mr. MARQUIS:

I want to add just a few words to the discussion on this resolution, because in my constituency I have many couriers who are carrying mail at very low rates. Some of them are carrying mail at the rate of $30 per mile per year, which I think is very low. After listening to the arguments advanced by those who have spoken this afternoon, we may conclude that everyone admits that the principle involved in the present resolution is just and fair. The only objection raised by hon. members of the opposition is that the justice offered is not sufficiently complete. It seldom happens that members of the opposition raise an objection of that kind.

The principle involved in this resolution is to adjust the bonuses and terms of payment under mail contracts. During the war many couriers asked for and were given bonuses amounting to ten per cent, fifteen per cent, twenty per cent. Others did not apply at all. Some applied and received five per cent. It

seems only just that today we should give to those who were given nothing, or very little, a bonus equivalent to that which was given those who received twenty-five per cent or twenty per cent.

I suggest that in the near future we should set a minimum rate to be paid these mail couriers. At the present time tenders are called for, and some people think that if they get a contract from the government they will live easily, with plenty of money. But when they send in a tender for a contract on the basis of $20 a mile I think it is unsound, unfair and impracticable, and it is impossible for those contractors to carry the mail and render the service they should.

For the time being, however, we have to take care of a situation which seems to me inappropriate and unjust. We have before us a resolution which takes care of that situation, and I do not see why we should object, because the principle seems to be supported by every hon. member in the house. As the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet said a few moments ago, we have to provide for different conditions in different parts of this great country; conditions of weather, conditions of distance, conditions of roads and so on. So it is impossible to fix an average rate for every contract, but perhaps it would be possible to fix a minimum rate and not accept any tender below perhaps $35 or $40 a mile. In this particular case, however, we are not attempting to provide for a situation that may arise in future; we have to take care of the present situation, and the only thing mentioned in the resolution is that we should make an adjustment in connection with the mail couriers whose prices are too low but who for five or six or seven years have rendered service to their country without receiving reasonable payment. As I said a few moments ago, this minimum rate should be allowed for the less costly routes, and those who have routes of the same kind in the same area should be paid equal rates.

In conclusion, I ask hon. members to look at the principle of the resolution and accept it. If, when the bill is brought in, some amendment must be made, perhaps all hon. members may concur in such amendment; but for the moment everyone seems to agree that the principle is just, and if the principle is just let us accept it.

Mr. WHITE (Middlesex East):

I wish to add just a word to what has been said by hon. members regarding the low pay these mail couriers have received. On August 6, 1946, I drew this matter to the attention of the Postmaster General. From time to time I have

Postal Service

spoken with various couriers, and I see the system in operation in our country. If this resolution is the best we can get, I think we must accept it in principle, with the expectation that, when the year is up, the department *will have had time to study this whole matter, so that some system may be worked out under which these people will receive proper pay. The hon. member for Vancouver North mentioned the difficulty of getting routes established. I have had difficulty in getting routes extended. Part of that opposition arises from the fact that the carrier does not want his route extended because it is costing him too much as it is.

Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):

Whenever a route is extended payment to the contractor is increased in proportion to the extension.

Mr. WHITE (Middlesex East):

The other day I had occasion to go to the Post Office Department to inquire as to the possibility of extending a route. The gentleman in charge said, "I am not in very good humour today", and he refused the extension. All I can say to the department in respect of that type of reception is that it is only another nail in the coffin of this administration.

Mr. HERRIDGE:

I rise to support the principle of the measure, not because I am entirely in agreement with it, but because in the meantime it does something for people who need help. I think however that we will have to go further than that in this respect. The hon. member for Cariboo expressed in clear language my thoughts on the measure, and the necessity for further action.

I must say I am happy to support the criticism of free enterprise by the hon. member for Peel, so far as rural mail deliveries are concerned. I believe I can say that I agreed with nearly all he said, and particularly with his suggestion that a committee of the house should be set up to deal with this matter. It was the hon. member for New Westminster who said that this question is larger than simply one of rural mail delivery, and suggested that it involves the whole rural mail system, including post offices.

I heartily agree -with that, and believe a committee should be set up to study not only rural mail delivery, but also the administration of rural post offices. I believe that in many respects the present administration of rural post offices is inefficient, and there is evidence of many inequalities and injustices. I know there are some who are not receiving the remuneration they should receive, while others are holding positions they should not hold, and receiving remuneration they should not receive.

I know of one instance where a veteran's application for a rural post office was refused. The position was given to another person-, with the result that the veteran is now operating the post office upon the condition of his paying the postmaster a percentage of the total income. The postmaster does not go to the post office at all. That is the sort of thing which should n-ot happen in, connection with rural post offices.

I know of other instances where postmasters are receiving $2,000 or $3,000 a year, andi not going near the post offices at all. They are paying some girls petty, pettifogging salaries to do their work. Those positions should be opened to veterans who need jobs. I could go on, at length, giving similar examples. I do think, however, that the suggestion by the hon. member for Peel in respect of the setting up of a committee is a sound one. We should have such a special committee to deal with the problem of rural mail delivery and the administration of rural post offices.

Mr. FRASER:

Did all those who applied for bonuses get them?

Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):

I would not be able to answer that without discussing the matter with my officials. I am sure if the couriers asked for bonuses which were not deserved, they would not receive them. I should be glad, however, to give the hon. member the actual number and the total amount.

Mr. FRASER:

In my own riding I find there are thirty eight carriers, of whom only sixteen received bonuses. I do not know how the minister or his department can ascertain why one would deserve a bonus and another would not. Someone near me suggests that it depends upon how they vote; I hope that is not so.

In my list before me I find that one man makes a trip of 47-8 miles six times a week, for which he receives $923.41, plus bonus. The next man travels only 24-7 miles, and he receives $940. Travelling only about half the distance, he receives about the same payment. That condition is shown all the way through this list, and I know it obtains right across Canada. In the routes set out here the roads are good- all the year round, with the exception of times of heavy storms, such as those we have witnessed only recently. One gentleman points out that horses had- to be used in the winter time, and I know they have have been used on these routes within the last few days. However, those horses are rented, or taken off their own farms. I believe that there should be a set figure per mile for all these routes.

Postal Service

The CHAIRMAN:

I have not interrupted other hon. members when they have referred to rural post offices. Strictly speaking, however, the discussion of rural post offices is not in order under this resolution.

Mr. FRASER:

I agree with what you have said, Mr. Chairman. I was going to mention only this, that many of these rural post offices cannot sell money orders or insure parcels, thus causing great inconvenience to some people when they have to travel ten or fifteen miles to buy money orders or to insure parcels.

I believe every rural office should be permitted to insure parcels. I hope the minister will accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Peel and set up a committee to look into the matter. This is of vital importance to the people of the country who get their mail because these rural carriers make it their business to see that, despite the weather, the mail goes through.

Mr. JAENICKE:

Will the proposed legislation cover contractors vsdio carry mail from the station to the post offices and back again?

Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):

Yes, it does.

Mr. HATFIELD:

In my constituency

twelve or fifteen routes have been discontinued because of tenders being too high. The people along those routes have not had mail delivery service for months. Post offices which have served people for seventy-five years have been closed. One postmistress in the community was operating a post office at thirty cents a day. Two other post offices were placed under her charge, but she was allowed no extra pay.

The rural mail system in my constituency has been a disgrace to the Post Office Department. I hope the minister will accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Peel, and set up a committee, so that a decent mail delivery service can be given the country.

Mr. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):

The minister has said in answer to a question that this legislation will cover delivery from railway stations to post offices. What is the yardstick used in arriving at a proper payment for this service? In rural mail delivery contracts the number of boxes served' gives some lead as to a basis on which to fix a price. But on this stage service one can consider only the actual distance travelled, with the possible further consideration of the quantity of mail carried.

If the minister will look at any list of contracts he will find that, so far as stage service contracts are concerned, the measure of pay-

TMr. Fraser.]

ment is not clear. To indicate what I mean, let me say I know of an instance where two different carriers meet the same Canadian Pacific train at approximately the same hour. The stations are only two miles apart. One man travels a distance of only four miles over a provincial highway which is kept in first-class condition, and he receives $1,050.

Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):

Once a day?

Mr. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):

No, he goes twice a day. The other man, who also goes twice a day, travels a distance of 6-5 miles and receives only $750, and the amount of mail carried is considerably greater than that carried by the man who receives $1,050. That is just an example of the differences that exist in this service. I would be interested if the minister would tell us what basis is used to arrive at these rates.