Mr. BENTLEY:

I wish to bring up a matter to which I think the minister should give serious attention. Last Christmas at Maple Creek a person was engaged to assist in the Christmas rush. The postmistress there was convicted in a Saskatchewan court of paying less than the minimum wage under the laws of Saskatchewan. The matter was finally brought to the Supreme Court of Canada, and the federal government counsel argued that both employer and employee were in the postal service of Canada, under the jurisdiction of parliament, and that therefore the provincial legislation did not apply to them.

I do not intend to quarrel with the actions of the courts; it is their business to discover what the law is and to apply it. I presume the Supreme Court of Canada was correct in its

finding; and the point is that if it was correct something is radically wrong with the administration of any government department that refuses to pay an employee $18.50 a week in this day and age.

The laws of Saskatchewan were made for the benefit of the people of that province by the government duly elected; and if the federal government is not prepared to permit these people to come under the wage laws of that province, then the federal government should see to it that they are paid proper wages, in line with the minimum wages of that or any other province having minimum wage legislation. That amount is certainly not exorbitant.

As I say, I am not trying to blame the postmistress. It was up to her to get the job done, and she was not going to spend any more money than was permissible. But when the court finds that both she and the temporary employees come under the Post Office department-and that is the finding-then the federal department and the administration are responsible for seeing to it that their employees get at least the minimum wage for the work they do.

Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):

As I explained a few moments ago, we have changed the rules. In the revenue post offices today we pay the postmasters fixed salaries, which will entitle them to superannuation, and so forth. The postmaster formerly paid these employees himself, out of his revenue, and at times we found that he was not very generous with them. Since April 1, however, we have changed that procedure, and that was one reason we did so, in order to see to it that the employees are paid reasonable salaries. We also see that the post office is located according to our specifications, so that these postmasters will not gyp us, if that word may be used, in regard to the location. We are going to see that the smaller post offices are located in better quarters. .

Mr. McLURE:

Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):

The amount is high enough, indeed; but if the hon. gentleman would take into consideration the fact that during the Christmas season, in Toronto, for example, we have to obtain over seven thousand temporary employees, and in Montreal around six thousand temporary employees, he would see the reason for it. In every city we require temporary employees at that time of year, some of whom may work for a month and others for shorter periods. To have all those names appear in the estimates would enlarge the book considerably; but all those expenditures are audited. It covers employees who may work for two or four or five days, while others may work for a week or more. If the hon. gentleman emphasized the point I might be able to bring in a list of these employees, but it would be a difficult return to prepare. I do not think that expenditure can be treated in any other way.

Mr. McLURE:

That is a satisfactory answer. Never before have we been given any idea of the extent of this temporary employment. Now the Postmaster General has given us some idea, which is quite satisfactory to me.

Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):

In all the city offices we require over 25,000 temporary employees.

Mrs. STRUM:

How do you determine the yearly income of postmasters in small villages? Some of them, I understand from some of my constituents who work in these places, must be there all day because of the hours, and they cannot undertake other work. They tell me they can hardly live. Is there any way of putting a floor under the income of these people, or how do you determine what their living will be?

Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier); We have small offices where the revenue is below $100 a year. In those offices the postmaster has the privilege of doing something else. He is generally a restaurant keeper or a storekeeper, and he keeps the post office in his store. But even if a postmaster has a revenue of only $12 or $13 or $15 we pay him a minimum of $120. A postmaster in a very small village who also keeps a store, in which the post office occupies a small booth, receives at least $120, though the revenue may be only $25 a year.

Mrs. STRUM:

I am thinking of the man in a place where there are three other stores, who has not the capital to open a store of his own, where there is not room for another grocery store, but who must keep his post office open all day, six days a week. Is there any way of determining what he will live on? How can he go out and work as a carpenter if he has to stay in the post office?

Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):

He must not take a job as postmaster unless that is to be simply a by-product, if I may call it, of what he is going to earn. It must be a man or woman who can keep a little post office in the house or in the store. If he is a carpenter he had better not also be the postmaster.

Item stands.

Progress reported.

Mr. FULTON:

What is the business for tomorrow?

Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):

We shall go into supply of the Post Office Department, hoping that we may make a little more progress; and then trade and commerce, reconstruction and supply, justice, Secretary of State and public works.