Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):
I desire to bring to the attention of the government two telegrams which have been placed in my hands, the subject matter of which is of sufficient importance to justify taking that course at the present stage of the proceedings of the House. One telegram is signed by the secretary of the Amalgamated Civil Servants of Canada, Vancouver Local Council. It is addressed to me and reads as follows:
Six hundred civil servants at mass meeting here passed following resolution without one dissenting vote:
"That we most strongly protest the offer of from forty-two to sixty dollars per annum in-
crease in most cases publicly advertised as hundred and twenty dollars flat rate increase for all civil servants after waiting patiently for five years for some measure of justice. We emphatically condemn the assumption that we received an increase in pay in nineteen hundred and twenty-four and protest against using such imaginary increase in order to deprive us of the full benefit of the recent revision. We reiterate our request for a flat increase of three hundred dollars per annum for all with a minimum of hundred dollars for all full time adult occupations and respectfully solicit your support on the floor of the House of Commons so that salaries in the Canadian civil service may be raised to the level of respectability. This for your Vancouver colleagues also."
I also have a wire from the railway mail clerks in which they declare that in some cases the change has actually resulted in a decrease. The point I wish to bring to the attention of the government is this: It was officially
announced by the government, I think through the lips of the Secretary of State, that a flat increase of $120 a year was given to all civil servants. In the working out of the salary revision it appears that in some cases there has been a decrease; in other cases the increase is only from $42 to $60 a year and not $120. I would ask from the government that some statement should be made explaining the apparent discrepancy between the first announcement that there was a flat increase of $120 and what appears to be the actual result.
Subtopic: OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED EXCEPTIONS TO APPLICATION OF INCREASE