Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):

I would not be able to answer a question like that without knowing all the circumstances. Mail contracts differ considerably one from the other. I do not know whether hon. members realize it, but they vary from a dog-team route of 100 to 150 miles on the north shore of the St. Lawrence to the man who takes the mail from a station and carries it to a village less than a mile away. It is almost impossible to find a yardstick that would fit all the circumstances. Down below Quebec are mail contractors who must have snowmobiles, while others must have sleighs and automobiles and horses according to the season. Some of these men have to travel over mountains; others go along the south shore of the St. Lawrence down into the peninsula; some have good roads to travel on and others have not.

There is only one sure way of getting a fair price, that is by asking for tenders. All people who are interested have an opportunity to submit tenders because the notices are posted in the post offices, in the city halls, in the churches or in any place where the people might see them. Tenders are submitted, and we take the lowest tender provided that we are satisfied the man has the necessary equipment to carry out. his contract.

I do not think any member of this committee can say that the present Postmaster General has not given every possible attention to this question. Only a few postmasters have been dismissed, and some of them were of my own creed. I have no objection to having a committee consider this matter in an effort to improve the service. The service can be improved but it will cost more money. Rural mail routes are established according to certain rules. A route is not extended unless there are at least four families per mile. We would

Postal Service

not want a mail carrier to go three and four miles up a road, turn around and then retrace his steps. In that case the farmers place their boxes at the corner of the road.

As I say, I have no doubt that the service could be improved, and we are trying to improve it all the time. I hope the time will come when wre can deliver mail by means of helicopters to almost every village. If it were not for the conditions we must face today I am sure we would be able to improve the service. The hon. member for Lake Centre has said that this bill will give the Postmaster General more discretion, but I do not think it will. We cannot grant a bonus for a new contract to someone who has had the contract for less than a year and that only when an application is justified and in accordance with the rates paid in the vicinity. What the hon. member was saying might happen, possibly can happen, but I do not think it will. I shall be glad to give the answers to many of the questions that have been asked when the bill is before the house.

Mr. SHAW:

My colleagues and I are

prepared to support the principle of the resolution at present before us. We supported the payment of bonuses to rural mail carriers when that policy was inaugurated and we feel that to discontinue the payment of those bonuses as and from the 31st March would result in indescribable chaos. I know, as far as my own district is concerned, approximately four out of every five mail carriers would quit immediately if the bonuses were discontinued and there would be a noticeable reluctance on the part of people to bid should tenders be called for. However, we want to make it abundantly clear that we reserve the right to deal with the bill in whatever fashion we see fit.

I agree with the hon. member for Peel that a committee should be set up forthwith for the purpose of examining into post office matters.

I would not want this to be considered as a reflection upon any one. In discussing post office matters with the district director in my area-incidentally he is a very fine man and his officials are most cooperative-we constantly find that we are bumping our heads against policy. We can agree as far as certain things are concerned, and then we find ourselves up against the question of policy. The policy with respect to certain remote rural areas is entirely antiquated.

I have noticed more than once that there is reluctance to establish a service in isolated rural communities, even though those communities have been established for forty or 83166-24

fifty years, if it is thought the service will not pay its own way. I recognize the desirability of having each operation pay, but I feel that when a community which may have been settled for decades asks for a mail delivery service the officials should not be governed by one important factor, namely, will the operation pay its way? I would sooner see the Post Office Department, which has an annual profit of two, three or four million dollars a year, provide proper services for communities of this type, even though certain operations do not pay.

That is only one illustration of something which I should like to see discussed by the committee. I concur in the observations made with regard to our rural post offices, but I shall not go into that phase of the matter because I realize that it is not covered by this particular resolution.

I agree with the hon. member for Kootenay West that there have been some peculiar happenings with respect to the treatment accorded to veterans who have endeavoured to procure positions as postmasters. I know of one man who was wholly and completely established, who was given a position in preference to a young veteran who had given five or six years of exceptionally good service to his country. The veteran who did not receive the position was a capable young man; in fact he had had a certain amount of post office experience. I know' the Postmaster General would not condone actions of that kind if they were brought to his attention. I Hope yet to have an opportunity of bringing this case to his notice.

Let me conclude by saying that we support the continued payment of the bonus. We also support what, I believe, is a general request for the setting up of a special select committee for the purpose of doing that which we cannot possibly do when the estimates are under discussion.

Mr. McGARRY:

I approve the principle of the resolution and I intend to support it. On the other hand, I approve the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Peel in his advocacy of the establishment of a select committee to deal with this whole question. I also approve the note struck by the hon. member for Peel when he injected into this debate a matter which in one sense might be regarded as a little outside this resolution, namely, the matter of our rural patrons receiving adequate service. That is one matter which should be given careful consideration if. as and when this committee is established. I know every hon. member will regard any economies which departments can exercise as

Eirism rarronr

Postal Service

a commendable policy, but with regard to post office services I believe that certain policies of economies are being observed which are unwarranted. I know, in my constituency, there is a tendency to reduce daily mail routes to deliveries three times a week. In some places where this reduction has taken place there are threats that there will be other reductions. There are many people living along these routes, and in one instance patrons on the route are getting daily papers. Along a rural district, where in the course of the years the people have educated themselves and taken a keen interest in public affairs, I cannot conceive of anything that is more unpopular than to see a daily route which has obtained for the last seventy years, reduced to a service of three times a week. They can hardly realize why it is that in this dominion of ours where the people are supposed to be modernized they should have to put up with a condition which reduces them to the horse and buggy days. These are things that they cannot understand.

I also appreciate the remarks of the hon. member for Red Deer. I do not believe that the chief concern in granting the people a rural mail service is the fact that possibly the revenue from that post office is not commensurate with the cost of operation. When we cool off after the debates have taken place, which are sure to go on for some time to come, and set up a eommonsense select committee, that is one of the matters which should be dealt with fully this session.

Mr. McLURE:

Like all other hon. members who have spoken, I am in full sympathy with the principle of this resolution. Before very long we shall have the bill before us. I should like to suggest to the Postmaster General that after listening to the remarks made this afternoon if the bill is not ready to be brought down he should take time to revamp it because, judging from what we have heard today, the bill will have to be satisfactory to all before it will get very far in committee.

Mr. ISNOR:

I should like to support my colleague the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond in his plea with reference to the rural districts of Nova Scotia. If we are to keep our people on the farms and in the fishing villages we must give them the service which they deserve. We have had the odd service, which for many years was carried out as a daily service, reduced to a service of two or three times a week. That is a mistake, if we are to keep our people on the farms. There are now a great many persons in the industrial centres who would be serving their country

and themselves better on the farms than in the industrial centres. The Post Office Department would be well advised to give the constructive remarks of my colleague from Nova Scotia serious attention.

My experience with the Post Office Department and its officials is somewhat different from that which was expressed by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent. I have not yet approached! an official of the Post Office Department without receiving courteous treatment. I complain from time to time in an effort to get better service. If I have a good case they are prepared to listen, and I have not yet heal'd an expression used such as that referred to by the hon. member for Lambtonr-Kent to the effect that the official was in a bad humour and was not prepared to give consideration to -a suggestion for improved service.

It is only fair that we should speak in an honest and frank way in regard to officials of the post office or any other department. They are working under regulations of the Post Office Act which calls for'publicly advertised tenders. Their aim is to procure competitive tenders, and, they are bound, to accept the lowest tender.

I was surprised, to hear those who, like myself, support free enterprise say that1 they did not think the tender system is a good one. It brings about a large saving to the country at the present time. The tender system may not produce to, those who are tendering the returns which they would like, but it protects the country and the taxpayer. If there are four or five persons anxious to tender on a route, there is no other course open than to accept the lowest tender. As has been pointed out by some hon. members, it is difficult to set a stated figure such as $50 a mile. One hon. member said that in his constituency it was $30 or $35. Personally, I do not see how any contractor could cany on at that figure unless he had some other means of support. If a man works in the city while living in a rural district, and if he can combine his work with the mail service and thereby save the country $10 or $15 a mile a year, it is good business from the point of view of the department, and we should not be too critical of the action of the post office in accepting such a tender. I feel, however, that there are cases where in all fairness to the residents in the rural constituencies there should be taken, into consideration various factors such as road conditions, the number of boxholders and so on, and if it runs over $50 or $60 and, there are several tenderers-in one case I know of there were six or seven tenders, the lowest being $65 a mile-after having called for public

Postal Service

tenders and) having received that number, we should be in duty bound to accept the lowest tender if it is deemed that the district is entitled to rural mail service.

I would call the attention of the Postmaster General to the situation as it affects one contract at the present time, and so that I may not be indefinite, I would direct his attention to the correspondence in connection with the proposed rural route in the Armdale district through to Head of St. Margaret's Bay. It was estimated by the post office officials themselves in the district concerned that the service could not be carried on under a stated amount, and when the tenders were received the post office officials at this end considered that the figure was excessive. In my opinion-and I direct these remarks particularly to the Postmaster General-in that particular case consideration should be given to the number of boxholders who have to be served as well as to the distance involved.

On general principles, I am in accord with the resolution, as I believe all members are, because it brings up the price so as to meet present-day needs. For that reason, I propose to support it.

Mr. HENDERSON:

May I point out to

the last speaker, the member for Halifax (Mr. Isnor), that I am the member for Lambton-Ivent.

Mr. ISNOR:

I beg the hon. member's

pardon. It was the hon. gentleman who spoke earlier in the afternoon to whom I referred.

Mr. HENDERSON:

Like the hon. member, in any efforts I have made in connection with rural routes I have received splendid cooperation from the department. Among the rural mail carriers in my constituency there was one man who lost his farm and who was getting on in years and had to have something to do, and there was not much else to which he could turn his attention. The route was open for tender and he tendered less than the amount for which the work could be done. He did so simply to get the job and, after he had taken it, he was one of those who received the bonus, which brought his contract up to $40 a mile, so that he was very well satisfied.

Mail routes are a great blessing to the farmer. The farmers all take the daily papers now, and from now on they will be very much interested in the markets, which are subject to change without notice. Moreover, there is material on the feeding of hogs, cattle and so on and the daily paper is of interest to the farmer's wife as well. It is certainly a great boon and has a tendency to keep the 83166-241

farmer on the farm. He is isolated, and while it is true that he has the radio and the rural telephone, there are other avenues of information open in the daily paper. For instance, there is the serial that appears in the Daily Mail, and if the farmer's wife does not get her daily instalment of the story she is put out and is hard to live with.

Mr. BROWN:

What about the Advertiser Topic?

Mr. HENDERSON:

That also is an excellent paper, but it is a weekly publication. It is next to Eaton's catalogue up there; it is practically the family bible. I am in great accord with the resolution. I believe there are many injustices but I do not see how you can get away from the tender system.

Mr. ISNOR:

I wish to apologize to the member for Lambton-Kent. The hon. gentleman to whom I wished to refer was, as hon. members no doubt know, the member for Middlesex East.

Mr. FULTON:

I have two criticisms and one suggestion to offer in connection with the resolution. The first criticism follows that made by the hon. member for Vancouver North, who pointed out that in British Columbia we have the highest average number of boxes per route in Canada. I had occasion recently to ask for the extension of a certain route, and I received a reply from the deputy postmaster general to the effect that the extension could not be authorized because there were only ten families in five miles, which would be only two boxes per mile.

I have been through the figures for one of the Ontario ridings and I find the following cases: 14 miles with 12 boxes, or less than one to the mile; 79 miles with only 84 boxes; 20-5 miles with 25 boxes; 18 miles with 23 boxes; 32 miles with 31 boxes; 14 miles writh 14 boxes. *

Perhaps it may be suggested that this is because those responsible in our district are not as active in serving our interests as they are in other parts of Canada, but I feel that the reason is that we live a good deal farther from Ottawa than the people in central Canada and we cannot bring our case forward with the force of those next door to the scene of operations. That situation should be looked into and the cases in British Columbia adjusted and put on a favourable basis in comparison with other parts of Canada.

I am not sure that in any part of the country one should lay down a hard and fast number of boxes per mile before a route

Postal Service

can be authorized. In the particular case to which I have reference, the original application for the route was made by a resident who lives within the five miles to which they refused to extend the route. Had he not made application, there would not be a route there today, but because of the arbitrary figure that was set he still has to go fourteen miles to get his mail.

That is an illustration of the ridiculous situation which may arise if we adopt a hard and fast figure of four or two boxes a mile or any other number of boxes. So I would suggest to the Postmaster General that, while he has this matter under consideration, he should give some thought to providing that, in connection with the establishment of these routes, his officials take into consideration other factors besides the actual mileage.

The other criticism that I have to offer with regard to the present resolution is along the lines of that suggested by the hon. member for Lake Centre. I't is that this is a case where power is being given to a minister which is perhaps a great deal wider than it is safe to entrust to him. It takes away from parliament its control over the expenditures of the money of this country. I do not think anyone would suggest that the minister himself is personally anxious to get control of this money in his hands; but probably it is the case that this is the only method he sees of accomplishing that which he desires to accomplish, namely, to give adequate compensation to those people who are giving this mail service. I suggest that there is a method by which this can be done, and I shall make a suggestion as to the method in a moment or two, although it may not be practicable; there may be other considerations. But I am certain that a method could be found which would take the minister out of that situation and would make it unnecessary to give him the power to administer this money without the control of parliament.

It is the principle of the thing which I am considering at the moment, and I object to any bill which, under the guise of placing a power in statutory form, is actually merely seeking statutory authority for the exercise of the same ministerial power to which we have been objecting for the last two, three or four years; and that is what several of these bills which we have before us today are doing. Instead of limiting the power, which is what we are after, they are simply giving statutory authority to go on exercising the same power. That is the main objection which I have to the principle of this resolution; I consider that the power is far too wide and that it does

what the hon. member for Lake Centre outlined in terms which were more careful than any terms I can think of, so that I shall do no more than refer to the argument he put forward. It does open the door in these matters to political consideration and patronage which, so far, we have kept out reasonably w7ell in 'the actual awarding of mail contracts. The hon. member for Lake Centre I think put it in such a manner that the minister himself could not take exception or offence at his words, and I am going to leave it at that. I think the power is open to that abuse, and the committee should consider the matteT carefully before it passes the resolution or the bill. On those grounds I would oppose the present resolution.

The suggestion I have to make is that, in placing the mail route contracts, recompense be based on two factors: the actual mileage covered and the number of boxes per mile. You take the number of boxes per mile and multiply that by the number of miles in the route. It seems to me that would go a long way toward taking care of routes which are congested, short, and have heavy mail, as compared with routes with few boxes and which are long, dangerous and with very bad conditions in winter. That suggestion which I put forward' it seems to me would take care of both those factors and would avoid the danger of individual discretion, favouritism or patronage in the awarding of these routes. I think it would be one way out of the situation. I hope, before the bill is introduced, the minister will give consideration to this suggestion and that the objectionable features of this resolution will be removed.

Mr. STEPHENSON:

I do not want to hold the committee up, but I was called out of the house this afternoon and have not had a chance to hear the discussion that has gone on, so I may repeat some of the things which have already been said. My understanding with regard to these rural mail contracts is that they are let on a tender basis, and that the lowest tenderer gets the contract. The contracts were, as we know, very low in man3r cases. When the gasoline tax was increased in 1941, the department decided to give what they called a five per cent cost of operation bonus. There was also another bonus given where the mail driver applied to the superintendent stating that he could not operate under the contract price. It was entirely at the discretion of the superintendent that an increase wras given in the way of another bonus, which, I understand, was given on many occasions as a result of the mail drivers applying for it. Those who did not apply

Postal Service

received no bonus. That situation prevailed for some time, but last year a notice was sent out from the Toronto postal district office to the effect that this bonus would be discontinued altogether and asking the mail drivers whether they would continue their contract at the old price less the bonus. I made objection to this letter which was sent out to the rural mail drivers and to the way in which it read, because it seemed1 to me that there was an attempt to have the rural mail drivers indicate definitely whether they would do this or not. It had the tone of "sign it or else". The letter contained these words:

I would ask you to be good enough to reply to this communication immediately.

That put the mail driver in the position of having to indicate whether he would accept the contract at the old price or not. I took objection to this letter going out and brought it to the attention of the department; I also spoke to the Postmaster General. I do not know whether it was as a result of that or not, but the Postmaster General made a statement in the house on August 6 last, to the effect that, while these letters had been sent out, they could be disregarded by the mail drivers; and up to the present time the contracts stand as they were.

I am pleased' to see this resolution on the order paper because I believe that the rural mail drivers are not getting sufficient money to operate the mail routes efficiently, and in the way they should be operated. I know what generally happens. People applying for a mail route must have certain equipment, and one thing they must have is a car. In a good many cases the first thing they do is to go out and buy an old car. The result is that when they get out on their routes, into the mud and snow, they may take out a rear axle or a rear end, and spend most of the time having the car pulled back into the garage. Then the mail route suffers.

I believe that these rural mail drivers should receive sufficient remuneration to allow them to purchase good equipment, suitable for the job.

The average contracts are low; they would amount to about S15 a week in a good many cases. I think hon. members will all agree with me that a rural mail driver cannot operate a car, buy gasoline and the many other things he has to buy, maintain, a family and operate the route in the way it should be operated on that amount. I would suggest, if possible, that these country routes be laid out to cover a distance of about thirty-five

miles each. This would make a full-time job, for each driver, and not a piecemeal affair as it is at present.

I mentioned previously that in order to qualify for one of these contracts a man often buys an old car. We see him driving that old car, with a sign wired on the back, "Royal Mail", and that is our rural mail delivery. Of all the services rendered by the government, I think His Majesty's mail should rank very high; and if we want to sell Canada to the people of Canada and especially to those who are coming to this country as immigrants and settling throughout the rural districts, it would be a nice thing if we could have standard equipment in connection with mail delivery all over the country. I would suggest that these delivery cars be painted red, carrying the coat of arms, so the people may know that this is His Majesty's, royal mail. I believe we need to sell Canada even to our own Canadians today, as well as to newcomers whom we desire to make good Canadians of; and I believe this would be money well spent. It may be that money spent in other departments sometimes does not accomplish much, whereas I am sure any money we spent in this way would bring results. Even the bread trucks that are sent throughout the country are late models, nicely painted, carrying the name of the company; and they sell bread from door to door. So it might be an idea to have our rural mails delivered in cars or trucks of this kind; I believe it would be one way to sell Canada to the people.

Mr. GRAYDON:

Mr. Chairman-

Oh, oh.

Mr. GRAYDON:

I did not intend to make a speech, but that is an invitation I do not like to refuse.

Mr. MACKENZIE:

We withdraw the invitation.

Mr. GRAYDON:

Then I will not make a speech. Would the minister be a little clearer with respect to the disposition he is going to make of the suggestion I offered concerning a special committee of the house this year to consider rural postal problems?

Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):

I thought I had made it clear enough for everyone to understand. The suggestion has some value, if only to prove to every member of parliament that it is not necessary to use the big stick in this case. But I should like to discuss this matter with my colleagues and give an answer later.