Someone might say, as a member of the department and a previous Postmaster General said before, that they could fire this man at any time. I said, "Try". "We have a contract", he said; and I said, "Yes, but I defy you or the Postmaster General or the department to show that contract." "Oh," he says, "we know where it is." I said, "I know where one of them is, a duplicate." The department has not that contract, but it reads that as long as he is giving service to the public he is entitled to 2 per cent on all postage stamps used in the city of Charlottetown.
I just bring these conditions to the attention of the new Postmaster General. Surely he will have enough sympathy to say to himself, "Well, here is a man who has given 53 years of actual service since he signed the contract, and 79 years of real service in terms of an 8-hour day. Let us not be so rude as to take away more than 50 per cent of his earnings by these metering machines."
I am not going to say anything more about the staff there, although we have an excellent staff and they are giving excellent service. There is one man on the staff, however, that I wish to speak about again. He is a man who has put in 53 years of service in the postal department in Charlottetown. He has never had a day's holidays, and has always worked a 12-hour day. He is still going strong; and when you figure it up according to the laws of the land and the laws of the 8-hour day he has given 79 years of service. Now, that is a record for any man. What does the department in Ottawa want to do, Mr. Chairman? They want to get rid of this man.
There is one thing I wish to mention. I should have done so a moment ago, but I guess I missed it. What I wanted to say was this. It may be all right under fish culture here but it is something that has to do with markets. I refer to the changing of the name in the marketing of canned mackerel. The name "mackerel" has been hard to get on the market as a canned food. But when it has been marketed under a new name, that of tuna chicken, it had wonderful success. The matter was brought before the federation this last year, and I am sure it will come before the Department of Fisheries. For instance, they are going to ask permission to use the name "tuna chicken" on their cans. Without getting anybody into any trouble-because they are out of it now-may I say that a couple of fishermen made a great success-in a small way, of course-of selling canned mackerel but they did not sell it under the name "mackerel". They sold it under the name "tuna chicken". Of course, tuna and mackerel belong to the same family. When this question comes before the Department of Fisheries I hope those who are making the regulations will permit people to can mackerel and put it under the name of "tuna chicken". If they do there will be a tremendous market created, because canned tuna has no comparison with canned mackerel. They could not get the word "mackerel" to take successfully as a canned fish. By changing it to "tuna chicken" the market will take a great deal of the mackerel off our coast in the form of canned fish. I know that the demand on the market for it a few years ago before the authorities caught up with the men who were running the factory was good. They had a great success in marketing it.
Subtopic: DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES
a note "appropriation not required for 1953-54." I understand that results from some change made in the department with regard to fur seals. I should like to know why there is not going to be any vote.
Subtopic: DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES