1961-04-13

Mr. Egan Chambers (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rise on a question of privilege and join the great body of the misquoted. Last night I was a member of a panel at a meeting of the "Voice of Women" here in Ottawa. This morning the Canadian Press issued a story from which I will quote briefly:
Canada needs Bomarc missiles equipped with nuclear warheads if Canada hopes to defend itself adequately, Egan Chambers .. . said here last night.
What I said was that Canada requires Bomarc missiles and quoted what has been said in this house, that these reach their maximum effectiveness with nuclear warheads. It will be recognized that this does not rule out the rejection of nuclear warheads for other reasons.
Also, this morning radio station CBO quoted me as follows:
Disarmament pronouncements of external affairs minister Howard Green have lost in general popularity because they are supported by certain radical elements.
What I did was urge the "Voice of Women" to give the maximum support to the practical and realistic disarmament efforts of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and say that I did not feel it was of assistance to him to advocate neutralism or unilateral disarmament.
This was an informal meeting and I had no text, but I have checked my recollection of what I said with other well known newspaper men who were present, and they substantiate my version. I should like to say that I appreciate the difficulty of writing an accurate and abbreviated press account of such a meeting, and I also appreciate the fact that the Canadian Press has issued a correction of its story.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition suggested that I might 90205-6-228J
give a short summary of what transpired during the visit to Ottawa of the right hon. Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Though I do not feel free, as he realizes, to reveal the substance of the various private discussions which were held between Mr. Macmillan and myself during the visit, some general indication of the topics which were covered may be of interest.
One of the most important was the United Kingdom's relationship with Europe. This is a matter of major importance not only to the United Kingdom and the countries of Europe but to Canada itself, and indeed the whole western world. It should not be seen in purely economic terms, but as a broad development of much consequence in which there must be a careful weighing of both short and long term considerations and of political as well as economic factors. The United Kingdom government has these broad considerations in mind in examining the question of its relationship with Europe.
Reference has been made to the concept of an Atlantic community. As I indicated yesterday, these relationships among groupings in Europe and groupings in other regions of the world will take a very long time to develop and mature. It is well to recall, however, that to some extent the Atlantic community already exists, not in an institutional form but in a degree of spiritual fellowship and also in the various forms of co-operation in the military, political and economic spheres. It is naturally desirable, if not mandatory, in the interests of reinforcing the collective strength, stability and understanding of the western world, that co-operation should be expanded and intensified as practical possibilities permit.
I took the opportunity to restate the concern of the Canadian government regarding arrangements which the United Kingdom might work out with common market countries; that full account be taken of the trading interests of Canada. I made it clear that this would be particularly necessary in the field of agricultural products in which Canada has a substantial interest, and in respect of which the common market treaty has not yet led to specific trading arrangements. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom left me with a clear impression that the United Kingdom government intends to make every effort to work out a satisfactory means of participating in the economic organization of Europe without detriment to Canadian or commonwealth

Discussions with U.K. Prime Minister interests. In this connection discussions will continue from time to time, and my hope is that, through continuing consultation, arrangements will be arrived at in keeping with Canada's wishes in this regard.
NATO is one subject which was discussed at some length, and the imperative need for greater efforts than have been made heretofore to bring NATO into a strong, flexible and understanding partnership was underlined. In addition, the need of moral, military and political capacity if NATO is to pursue its objectives successfully was emphasized.
The Leader of the Opposition, with his knowledge of the operation of NATO from its foundation, will realize that the importance of political consultation has been a subject of consideration throughout the years. Indeed, he belonged to the group known as the three wise men which made recommendations in this regard. I think Mr. Macmillan would agree that what requires development is the will and the readiness to consult well in advance. The machinery is there, and it cannot be blamed now for any shortcomings in consultation.
The question of a meeting of NATO heads of government was discussed. I feel such a meeting is necessary, but I am equally convinced that it should not be held until there has been thorough preparation and investigation in advance of the likely areas of agreement.
In the international field we reviewed the current situation in Laos and the Congo, but I do not think there is anything to report to the house, since the position in both these areas has been adequately reported in the press and in this chamber.
The problem of China is one to which attention was devoted. In particular, Mr. Macmillan and I discussed the question of Chinese representation in the United Nations and agreed that it was important to continue to work on this problem in preparation for the next regular session of the general assembly later this year.
The house is aware of the fact that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom visited the West Indies before coming to the United States and Canada. During the course of our discussions he gave an account of the political situation in the West Indies and the outlook for the establishment of a federation when complete West Indies independence has been attained. The economic problems of the West Indies and the relationship of Canadian aid and other such programs to these problems in the western hemisphere were considered.
We discussed the question of low cost imports from Hong Kong, a matter of very
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
salient interest to Canadians at this time. As a result I believe a better understanding of the problems was arrived at, and further discussions will be continued by representatives of both governments.
Mention was made yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition to the uranium situation. On this matter both Mr. Macmillan and I had a word to say to the press following our meeting on Tuesday. Negotiations are continuing, and it would not be advantageous to go into this matter at this time. I might say that early meetings in London are anticipated to the end that negotiations will be resumed on the substance of this issue. In the meantime there is nothing to add to what I said in this regard when speaking in the house some week or ten days ago.
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I think we can conclude from what the Prime Minister has said in his report to the house on the discussions between himself and the members of his government and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom that perhaps the most important matter that came up was the United Kingdom making it quite clear-and indeed it was made quite clear by Mr. Macmillan in Washington-that the United Kingdom is moving toward a merger of the European free trade area and the common market. Indeed, as Mr. Macmillan is reported to have said in his press conference, that is the objective that the United Kingdom government has in mind. He was quoted as saying that once that merger has been achieved, and I quote from the press, "Then perhaps we can put together an Atlantic free trade area". These words confirm what Mr. Macmillan apparently said in Washington, and certainly what he said in a very important speech he made in Boston. He is reported as having said in that speech, and I quote from the Winnipeg Free Press of April 10, 1961:
We need to think not so much nationally or even in terms of greater economic co-operation between nations but in terms of wider groupings.
This is obviously, therefore, as the Prime Minister has indicated, a very important development. The relationship of our own country to that development is also one of major importance. Indeed, I think we will all agree that Canada's reaction should be a positive one, otherwise we may find ourselves carried along by events into an insufficient continentalism.
The Prime Minister also mentioned discussions about NATO. We on this side are only too anxious to support anything that can be done by our own government or by the other member governments, including the United Kingdom, to make that organization

stronger rather than weaker. The Prime Minister did not mention something that Mr. Macmillan himself also mentioned in Washington in his talks with President Kennedy, namely the desirability of a nuclear partnership inside NATO. I do not know whether that matter came up, but certainly it invites the question whether a nuclear partnership will make NATO stronger, or whether it may have the opposite effect of making it more difficult for NATO to strengthen its conventional forces.
Mention of NATO and the necessity of strengthening it reminds me of a statement made on this subject the day before yesterday by President de Gaulle, when he said, "It is the right and duty of the European continental powers to have a national defence that belongs to them". I hope, Mr. Speaker, that in any of the steps that are now being taken to strengthen NATO it will be made quite clear that there can be no salvation for the NATO countries in national defence alone.
The Prime Minister mentioned that they had a discussion about China. He said "The problem"-and it is a problem-"of Chinese representation at the United Nations is one that must be worked at against the next United Nations assembly". It would have been interesting, and perhaps we will learn later, to know the line which the Canadian government will be following in trying to work out a solution of that problem because, as the Prime Minister indicated, it is a problem that will certainly now come, perhaps in a concrete form, before the next United Nations assembly.
The Prime Minister mentioned uranium purchases. He is reported in the press as having said publicly "There is now a clear understanding of the position between the two governments in respect of this matter". He said that negotiations in regard to them- perhaps they should be called renegotiations -are about to take place shortly. In the face of negotiations which will be of such importance to Canada and to Canadian trade,
I do not desire to do or say anything which would complicate those negotiations. But surely the matter is, as the Prime Minister is reported to have said, quite clear. There is a commitment undertaken by the United Kingdom government. As the Minister of Trade and Commerce said not long ago, it is to be expected that the United Kingdom will honour that commitment, that the discussions to take place in London will confirm that commitment and discharge that undertaking so these orders can be allocated and bring new life, hope and activity to the uranium communities.
I am sure that the conversations which have just been concluded between the prime
13,	1961	3609
Discussions with U.K. Prime Minister ministers of Canada and the United Kingdom have been valuable to the governments of both countries. I am equally sure that Mr. Macmillan has gone back to the United Kingdom confirmed in his view of the underlying friendship of the Canadian people not only to himself and his government but to the United Kingdom.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I am certain that the visit to Canada of Prime Minister Macmillan was welcomed by all Canadians, and we are pleased that the Prime Minister has given to the house today something of a report, in general terms, of the discussion that took place between him and Prime Minister Macmillan. However, I think it would be fair to say that there was very little new in the statement made by the Prime Minister.
Certainly many questions are left very much unanswered. Not only are we still uncertain as to what facilities Canada will have for the export of her products to the United Kingdom market in the future, but in my opinion we are also very much up in the air as to the policy of the Canadian government in relation to the inner six, the outer seven and the Atlantic free trade area. We naturally hope that in any new developments Canada's rights will remain unimpaired, but we view with some misgiving the fact that Canada has not enunciated a clear policy of her own.
The Prime Minister made a very general reference to NATO. I am not really sure what it meant. The effect of his remarks was that there should be a strong, flexible and understanding partnership. The whole question of nuclear weapons for NATO, the question of the Polaris missile and so on, are unanswered. The position of our group is clear. We feel it would be a mistake to provide nuclear weapons for NATO at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: The Canadian government has not made up its mind. The Leader of the Opposition went both ways. Hon. members may snicker, but at least we are able to say that we are opposed to nuclear weapons being placed in the hands of the NATO nations.
There was obviously no reference to economic development, because economic development under article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty is weak and almost forgotten. It is the O.E.C.D., the inner six, the outer seven and other means of bringing about economic cooperation which are now being put into effect in this field where NATO has failed.
The Prime Minister's reference to China and its possible admission to the United Nations at some future date was interesting but
3610	HOUSE OF
Discussions with U.K. Prime Minister not very informative or clear. I am not certain what the position of the government is. I would hope his statement means that Canada will play a part in promoting the admission of China to the United Nations, because without China as a member disarmament talks are less useful and in our judgment it is more difficult for the United Nations to carry on its very valuable functions.
A general reference was made to the West Indies. We hope that in the future there can be closer co-operation between Canada and the West Indies in the economic and political fields. We hope that our immigration policies in the future will be tailored in such a way as to remove discrimination in this area.
The Prime Minister also made some reference to the uranium contracts. We hope that Canada will stand firm and insist that the United Kingdom honour the contracts for the purchase of 12,000 tons of uranium. We hope that these contracts will be allocated in a fair and generous way and that Eldorado will receive its fair share along with other companies so that the uranium industry of Canada and the communities affected will be maintained with as little dislocation as possible.
Undoubtedly the consultation between the Prime Minister of Canada and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has been welcome. Nonetheless we are disappointed that the Prime Minister has not been able to report accomplishments arising from this conference in a more concrete fashion.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. G. J. Mcllraiih (Oiiawa West):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of his statement. I understood him to say-and I think I can paraphrase this part fairly accurately-in connection with the uranium contracts that early meetings are anticipated when negotiations will be resumed. My question is this. Can he tell us, in a more precise way, when these meetings will take place? Second, will the meetings be between members of the government or between officials of the two agencies?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have not before me my exact remarks in that connection, but I thought I had said that negotiations would be continued rather than resumed, because they have been continuing. I may have used the word "resume". When I am in a position to do so I will make an announcement to the house-and I expect that will be very shortly-as to the membership of the Canadian group which I expect will go to London in the very near


future. In that connection may I say that it might be only one person who will go or it might be several.


George James McIlraith: I wish to ask a supplementary question. There seems to be a little confusion arising out of something said in a committee in another place. I wonder whether the Prime Minister is now in a position to indicate whether these continued negotiations will be carried on between government members or between officials of the atomic energy agencies.


John George Diefenbaker: I have already pointed out that negotiations will be continued. In the past in general they have been negotiations between Eldorado and the atomic authority in the old country, with the Minister of Trade and Commerce participating or at least being made fully aware of what is going on. What the personnel will be of the continued negotiating group or who the one individual will be, if such should be the case, I am not in a position to say at this time.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: I wish to ask a further supplementary question apropos of the Prime Minister's statement a moment ago. The Prime Minister indicated that the relationship between the common market countries and the United Kingdom will take a long time to develop and mature. Then he added an expression of the concern of the Canadian government at the rearrangement which the United Kingdom might work out with common market countries. My question is this. Apart from O.E.C.D., what has Canada done to enter into negotiations with the common market and free trade area with a view to safeguarding our export position in Europe?


John George Diefenbaker: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, this whole question has been discussed over a considerable period of time between the governments of Canada and the United Kingdom. When I said that the relationship between the Six and the Seven-now the Eight-would be a lengthy process, I think a reading of what I said will indicate that I stated that the establishment of an Atlantic community would be a long time process.


Lionel Chevrier: Apart from the relationship between Canada and the United Kingdom, has Canada approached the common market countries or the free trade area in connection with the formation of an Atlantic area?


John George Diefenbaker: I think the house has already had information in this regard. Discussions naturally are continuing with representatives of several, if not all, of the countries in question.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he can indicate what progress, if any, has been made in setting up the royal commission on medical care.


John George Diefenbaker: Very good progress has been made, and there should be an announcement shortly.
(Translation):



SEATING PLAN PAMPHLET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. N. Tremblay (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
These last few days, visitors have been handed a folder containing, in addition to a diagram of the House of Commons, some information about the house itself and the procedure of the parliamentary institution. Since the French version is faulty and of a rather poor quality generally, I should like to know whether the minister has seen it and, if so, whether he intends to comment on this matter.


Hon. Noel Dorion (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Roberval for giving me notice of his question and sending me a copy of the folder in question. Here is my reply.
I have read the folder in question with interest. Though I cannot claim to be a grammarian or a professor of literature, something which my hon. friend can do, I have noted certain expressions and phrases which he has drawn to my attention. While I am not scandalized, I recognize that those expressions and phrases appear questionable, to say the least. I therefore intend to submit the whole thing to the superintendent of the bureau for translations that any necessary correction may be made.
(Text):



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour.
Inquiries of the Ministry Has the minister any report to make to the house on the recent investigation conducted by his officials into complaints about alleged working and living conditions at the Carter Construction Company at Moosonee?


Hon. Michael Siarr (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have received a report on this matter, and I shall be glad to convey that report to the hon. member if he is interested.
(Translation):



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. Deschambault (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
Speaking on a bill concerning the Quebec tourist industry, the secretary of the province of Quebec made the following statement which appeared in this morning's papers:
The Quebec government has approached the government in Ottawa concerning the establishment of a national park in Quebec.
Is the minister in a position to comment on that statement and tell us what could be the particular location of this park?


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the setting up of a national park in Quebec is a project that goes back to 1937.
I took it upon myself to resume the talks on this matter with the present prime minister of Quebec in November 1960. His colleague, the provincial secretary, has informed me several times of his intention to discuss the situation with me. I am at his disposal at all times for such discussions.
(Text):



ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I wish
to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the government made a decision to award contracts for six submarines for the Royal Canadian Navy? If so, will the Prime Minister inform the house whether these contracts will be distributed among Canadian shipyards so the work will be shared by shipbuilding industries both in the west and in the east?
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, the latter portion of the question is not in keeping with the facts,

Inquiries of the Ministry as no decision has been made by the government to purchase or build six or any number of submarines.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Murdo William Martin: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. The question arises out of a report appearing in this morning's Globe and Mail in which the minister is reported as saying, "We should have blue signs hanging over a job we pay for". Can the minister inform the house of the method by which only Tories are assessed to pay for these jobs?


Some hon. Members:: Order.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport arising out of a reported conflict between C.P.A. and T.C.A. over air routes in the future. Can the minister say whether there will be an air transport board hearing on this question, or whether the government has under consideration the submission by C.P.A. to change the government's policy in this regard?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, as far as internal transcontinental or regional air routes are concerned, these matters are dealt with by the air transport board. As far as international agreements in these matters are concerned, these are for cabinet decision. With regard to the particular case which the hon. member has brought to my attention, all I can say is that this matter of national air policy is one that is before cabinet at the present time for consideration.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Smith (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport with reference to a press report regarding the transfer of a large Canada Steamship Lines bulk lake carrier to British West Indies registry to save on taxes and operating costs.


Will this ship be entitled to the same rights and privileges, under the Canada Shipping Act, as a ship of Canadian registry? More precisely, will this ship be able to pick up a cargo in one Canadian great lakes port and deliver it to another Canadian great lakes port? Will the sailors pay income tax to the Canadian government or to the British West Indies government if this ship continues to operate in Canadian inland waters?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Has the hon. member given notice of his question?


John Smith: Yes, I have.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, if this ship is registered in Bermuda it will appear in the commonwealth registry and will be entitled to the rights and privileges of ships which carry that registry.
As far as the income tax of sailors aboard a ship of this nature is concerned, I think that question should be directed to my colleague the Minister of National Revenue.



INQUIRY AS TO ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEW POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Minister of Transport. In view of the statement the minister has made from time to time outside the house concerning amendments to the Canada Shipping Act and the vessel construction assistance act, may I ask when the new shipping policy will be announced in the house.


Léon Balcer: At this session, Mr. Speaker.



NATURAL RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources a question relating to the resources for tomorrow conference, based on information I received yesterday that the largest labour group in central Canada, with a membership of many thousands of workers in this field, has received no invitation to participate either actively or as an observer at this important conference.
Would the minister indicate whether all the invitations have gone out, and which particular fields are being covered by the government and which by the provinces?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, the individual invitations to the various groups are being issued by the provincial

governments. If the hon. member will indicate which union is involved I shall be happy to investigate the matter.



YELLOWKNIFE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: While I am on my feet perhaps I could reply to a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin). The hon. member asked whether I had received a communication from the Yellowknife miners union regarding the granting of a ten year power franchise by the municipal government of Yellowknife to a private company in Edmonton. I have investigated the matter, and have discovered that while no letter was directed to me personally, a copy of a letter that was sent to the hon. member for Mackenzie River (Mr. Hardie) arrived in my office during my absence in the territories last week.
In reply to the latter part of the question I should say that the handling of local franchises for the distribution of power in the Northwest Territories is a matter that comes under territorial and municipal jurisdiction, just as it comes under provincial and municipal jurisdiction in the provinces. I know from information given to me when I was in Yellowknife last week that the municipal council reviewed the franchise of the distributing company in the light of a report given to them by engineering consultants they retained. I would not want to comment on the action taken by the municipal council in a matter coming within its jurisdiction.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that I have not given him notice, would he inquire into and perhaps report to the house tomorrow on the volume of export credits which have been extended for the benefit of winter unemployment since the minister announced, on about November 25, that new facilities in this field would become available, with the co-operation of the chartered banks, that may involve assistance to the extent of $700 million.


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I should be very glad to do that, but the formation of facilities to make these credits available was
90205-6-229
Inquiries of the Ministry not linked with unemployment, as I remember it. It was a facility to enable exporters to more readily obtain orders in foreign countries.



INQUIRY AS TO FINAL PAYMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. O. Cooper (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Some time ago an announcement was made with regard to pool payments. I understand that such a payment has been made in respect of wheat. May I ask the minister when the farmers can expect a payment for last year's crop in respect of barley?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take this question as notice.
(Translation):



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Johnson (Chambly-Rouville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to put to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister examined the question I asked yesterday in the house concerning the Richelieu waterway and which, I am sure, was brought to his attention by the Minister of Trade and Commerce?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Trade and Commerce has been good enough to hand me that question. After reading it however, I found that it concerned my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
(Text):



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources whether he has secured permission from the government of Manitoba to table the correspondence which on March 27 the house ordered to be tabled with regard to the Red river floodway.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, there has been no reply from the Manitoba government as yet.

Supply-A griculture


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the minister aware that the premier of Manitoba has stated in the legislature that he cannot get any consent from the federal government, and could the minister say how long this game of hide and seek will go on?

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Flynn in the chair.


The Chairman:: We are dealing with the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, votes Nos. 36 and 21. These items will be found on pages 6 and 7 of the blue book, and the details are on pages 134 and 116. Shall vote 36 carry?



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
Special-
36. Prairie Farm Assistance Act administration, $690,483.
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
whether under this item I might ask the extent to which the Crop Insurance Act has been applied or is being used in the three prairie provinces. As the minister very well knows, whenever a grain producer or a farmer becomes eligible for crop insurance, or signs a crop insurance contract, he ceases to pay into the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. Therefore I think it would be in order under this item to ask to what extent farmers are no longer paying into the Prairie Farm Assistance Act because they have signed crop insurance contracts.
I wonder, also, whether the minister could briefly give the committee some indication of the extent to which crop insurance is being used in each of the three prairie provinces.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, the best figures I have are these; over 2,500 in Manitoba in the calendar year 1960, and I understand this figure is expected to double in 1961. In the province of Saskatchewan some 400 sent their cash deposits to the government, and a request has been received from that province to allow the setting up of special pilot schemes with less than 25 per cent of the farmers in the selected areas for this year only. This matter will be before the government shortly for a decision.
In so far as Alberta is concerned, there have been indications in the press that some thought is being given to crop insurance. I have had discussions with the minister of agriculture in British Columbia about crop insurance in the Okanagan valley. I have had discussions with the cabinet in Prince Edward Island about crop insurance relating to potatoes in that province. I believe there have been reports

in the press that certain groups in Ontario are considering crop insurance in relation particularly to tobacco.


Mr. Nasserden:: Under the cash advance legislation at the present time I believe that borrowers wishing to secure cash advances and unable to secure the endorsation of a landlord are unable to secure such advances. In some cases these people own land of their own, and I was wondering if new regulations could be brought in to enable such farmers to take advantage of these benefits with respect to the portion of land which they own.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This is a question which has been before the department on several occasions. There are some difficulties, of course, as the hon. members knows, in arriving at a formula which would meet these conditions. I have discussed the matter with the heads of various farm organizations in the hope that we can arrive at some formula which will meet the needs of those who are concerned in this way.
(Translation):


Mr. Boulanger:: Mr. Chairman, could the minister give us the details of the expenditures incurred for each province, under this item, in the course of last year?
(Text):


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The payments are not yet complete, but they are almost complete; there are just a few places still to be investigated. The totals up to April 5, 1961 are as follows: Manitoba, $649,537; Saskatchewan, $4,535,499; Alberta, $4,822,018; British Columbia, $90,035. Total for the four provinces under P.F.A.A., $10,097,000.


Hazen Robert Argue: The Prairie Farm Assistance Act item which is before the committee now is an important one, and I think the statement the minister has made about the extent of crop insurance applications underlines the fact that crop insurance to date has been of very little real value. It certainly has not done a job for western producers in the crop insurance field in any way, and I think the results confirm the statements which were made by some of us on this side of the house that unless there is a major overhaul of the crop insurance legislation it is bound to remain ineffectual particularly in the higher risk areas of western Canada.
The minister has told us that last year 2,500 farmers had contracts in Manitoba and that this year perhaps 400 will have contracts in Saskatchewan, provided the government of which the hon. gentleman is a member decides to allow some pilot schemes in various parts of the province where fewer than 25 per cent of the farmers have signed crop insurance applications. Farmers in Alberta are

apparently not too interested in the legislation, because there is no scheme operating in that province at all.
If I remember correctly, the Canadian wheat board officials told us when they were before the agriculture committee that there are some 235,000 permit book holders in western Canada. So there are 235,000 farmers, and less than 3,000 of them have been covered by crop insurance. The best the minister could do today was to tell us that perhaps 5,000 or 6,000-2 per cent or 3 per cent of all the farmers in the prairie provinces-are going to avail themselves of crop insurance.
This government introduced the crop insurance scheme with a blaring of trumpets. This was to be another important plank in the magna carta for agriculture. Well, it is a pretty weak plank; very much of a sliver. It has been of a little use in Manitoba under particular conditions. In Saskatchewan, where I am informed the government, which has been promoting the scheme, sent out 40,000 application forms, the minister now says that 400 farmers have shown an interest. In other words, 1 per cent of the farmers receiving application forms have signed them and said they were interested.
Let us admit it; this is just a wee experimental project. This is not a system of crop insurance designed to protect western farmers. This is a little window dressing by the Conservative party with a few experimental projects under way. If I were in the position which the minister holds I would say that this scheme was a flop, a failure. It is not doing the job it was intended to do. I think I would be justified in using some of the strong language with regard to it which the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek used so effectively and, I am sure, so accurately in connection with another matter. The farmers he represents are not interested in crop insurance. I am sure of that. Most of the farmers I represent are not interested in crop insurance under this half-baked scheme which was brought in without prior consultation with the provinces.


Mr. McIntosh:: Would the hon. member permit a question? The hon. member says the Saskatchewan government sent out 40,000 application forms. Does he know into which areas in Saskatchewan these forms were sent; into the high premium areas of hail or into the low premium areas?


Hazen Robert Argue: I am not completely acquainted with what has been done-


John (Jack) McIntosh: Then you have made an irresponsible statement.


Hazen Robert Argue: Not at all. I am willing to give the hon. member my impression of what has 90205-6-229i
Supply-Agriculture
been done there but I cannot guarantee its accuracy. My impression is that they were sent out to the low risk high yield areas and not to the high risk low yield areas. That is my impression although, as I say, I cannot guarantee the accuracy of it. I was reliably informed that there were 40,000 applications sent out. If the answer to the hon. member is correct then of course it means that the farmers who would be paying the small premiums rather than the larger ones would still not be interested in this scheme.


Clarence Owen Cooper: Will the hon. member allow a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: Certainly.


Clarence Owen Cooper: Can you tell us how many municipalities applied that were turned down?


Hazen Robert Argue: As I have said, I have no information in that regard, but the minister could give us that information. If the minister feels that the Saskatchewan government has not co-operated fully he can say so. I hope they have, and it is my impression that they have leaned over backward to try to get a crop insurance scheme working, and they are willing to co-operate.
I suggest that 20 per cent of the premium paid out of the national treasury is not enough. I remember how the Conservative members used to rip Jimmy Gardiner up and down the back and say he was a terrible minister of agriculture, but Jimmy Gardiner had legislation that functioned for many years. I refer to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. Under that system the provincial government did not have to pay at all. Approximately half of the losses have been paid over the years by the federal treasury and half by the farmers.


Mr. Souiham:: Would the hon. member permit a question? Does the hon. member for Assiniboia realize that Mr. Brown, a member of the Saskatchewan legislative assembly, last year in that assembly advocated very strongly that the provincial government should bring in a practical type of crop insurance scheme, and thought the farmers themselves should be the ones to judge whether or not it worked?


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not know what that question has to do with this discussion. It is about as far removed from the Prairie Farm Assistance Act as that man in orbit was a couple of days ago. One individual in the Saskatchewan legislature made a speech and I am now being asked about it.
The crop insurance scheme, as a comprehensive scheme to protect western grain growers or for that matter the potato growers

Supply-Agriculture
of Prince Edward Island or the apple producers in the Okanagan, is not working. This represents just a few pilot plans which are not producing many results. The reason is very obvious. The federal government is backing away from the kind of responsibility it accepted under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. Under that act the federal government has been paying approximately 50 per cent of the losses, but under this scheme it is only prepared to pay 20 per cent of the premiums. They have scaled their responsibility down from 50 per cent to 20 per cent. One need not wonder why this does not work.
I suggest that the government should amend the Crop Insurance Act, and that its contribution should be increased at least to the 50 per cent level, the same level at which they were contributing under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. I feel if that were done it would provide at least some incentive to farmers to sign up; because of the subsequent reduction in the premiums. This would provide a more realistic acceptance of responsibility by the federal government.
I have never been strong in my support of crop insurance schemes, as I think my record in the house will show. I remember reading a report put out by the late R. F. Motherwell-he was a good friend of my mine at the university who did not agree with me politically in any way-in which he made very comprehensive findings. I think the main conclusion of his study was that for a long time we should be operating under a general crop protection scheme such as the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, with very definite and decided improvements in its application.
I would not like anyone to say that I am against a crop insurance act. On the contrary, I am in favour of it; but I 'feel we should give the farmers the opportunity to say whether they are getting adequate protection rather than giving them this half-baked scheme which appeals to just a handful of farmers on the prairies.
I feel that the payments made under prairie farm assistance are inadequate and outdated. These payments have not kept up in any way, shape or form with the increase to farmers in the cost of production. If one compares the benefits under prairie farm assistance today with the benefits received when the act was first introduced in the 1930's one will see that there is no question but that the payments under prairie farm assistance have much lower purchasing power than they did when the scheme was first initiated.
The benefit of prairie farm assistance has been allowed to slip and wither away over the years. Some improvements have been

made in the basis on which payments have been allocated. The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek suggested yesterday that payments should be made on an individual basis. I have been advocating this policy for many years, but we have not succeeded in this regard. When I first came to parliament in 1945, 171 townships in Saskatchewan suffered crop failure. It was then declared a disaster area and the Prairie Farm Assistance Act began to function. As I understand it today, if one township is eligible then one half a township becomes an operating unit, and by splicing them to additional areas, smaller areas than half a township can be eligible.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: I think you will find that 12 sections is the size.


Mr. Speakman:: Could the hon. member tell me which party brought this amendment into being?


Hazen Robert Argue: There have been a great many amendments brought in over the years. Undoubtedly the Liberal party is responsible for more than the Conservative party, but it was here longer and had much greater opportunity to do so.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This party was responsible for the legislation in the first place.


Hazen Robert Argue: I think you are right. It was first introduced in 1939. I might say, however, that we have all had a hand in this.


James Stanley Speakman: When were you in the government?


Hazen Robert Argue: I have had a hand in many things even though I have not been in government. I remember when Jimmy Gardiner brought forward an amendment to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, and he was so opposed to socialism that he said farmers operating on crown land would not be allowed assistance under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. We had a difficult fight and it was hard going, but Jimmy pulled in his horns and decided he had gone a bit too far and gave the farmers operating on crown land a little better shake than he had initially intended to give them. He made some changes which I feel represented improvements to that act.
I suggest that it is now time to increase the payments under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act by a very substantial amount. If the payments were doubled the amount of money a farmer could receive as the result of a complete crop failure would not be a fantastic amount. It would be just $6 per acre providing his yield was less than three bushels per acre. We all realize that today, of course, with improved farming practices.

a yield of three bushels per acre is almost unheard of. Even with this proposed improvement a farmer with a crop failure, as defined in the act, would only receive a minimum guaranteed income. I feel there is room for both a crop insurance act and the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, but I suggest that it is now time to bring forward amendments to improve the application of these acts.
(Translation):


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has he had an official request from Quebec asking that the province take advantage of the crop insurance scheme implemented by the present government?
A great many farmers in the province of Quebec go in for special types of farming. In my own riding, for instance, it is tobacco farming. It would be of great interest to those farmers if the province of Quebec shared in this crop insurance scheme.
I should like to know whether the minister has received an official request from the provincial government.
(Text):


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: No, Mr. Chairman. I should just like to say a word about the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and crop insurance as related subjects. The policy of the government is to keep both the P.F.A.A. and the new legislation, crop insurance, in effect side by side. The Prairie Farm Assistance Act is a type of special measure to help farmers at a minimum cost in case of a drought in their area. Crop insurance is an altogether different thing. It is a fund set up by the farmers themselves on an actuarial basis so the individual farmer may insure himself against all types of risks due to weather. The amount of coverage will be 60 per cent of the actual value of production in the area, and farmers will soon realize that, over a period of years, for every 80 cents they put in they will receive back a dollar. It is not a form of social welfare or relief whatsoever; it is an individual insurance scheme carried out on an individual basis and on a sound actuarial plan.
For my own part I think I can say that wherever information pro and con has been put before farmers and questions have been allowed to be asked and answers given, the farmers in every case have supported crop insurance.
I should like to put on the record some of the discussion on this matter that took place in the legislature of Manitoba, as reported in the Hansard of that legislature of March 7, 1961. It is in effect, I think, a reply to the
Supply-Agriculture
hon. member for Assiniboia. These are quotations from a speech by Mr. Hutton, the minister of agriculture:
The crop insurance program I would say, is a success in Manitoba in 1960, and indications are that it's going to be successful in 1961. We are enlarging two of the areas; another one will be set up; it will be announced in the house. We are extending crop insurance to the beet growers in Manitoba.
I am leaving out some interjections which I do not think add to or subtract from what the minister said. I continue:
Our experiment has been confined to areas representing about 20 per cent of the province of Manitoba. We have learned a great deal; we have come a long way in terms of getting information. Sooner than you wish to think we'll be in a position to offer crop insurance to the whole province of Manitoba. I think they're going to find out that as we said here in Manitoba that it's an educational program.
Then he went on to discuss classification of land and that sort of thing in connection with the crop insurance program. If hon. members will read the press clippings across Canada they will see that in Prince Edward Island the government mentioned crop insurance in the speech from the throne and declared their intention of bringing in a scheme for tobacco and potatoes. If hon. members read the press clippings from Alberta they will see that the farm organizations, knowing of the existing federal legislation, are asking their government to take positive action to bring crop insurance to Alberta. If hon. members will talk to the fruit producers of the province of British Columbia, the minister of agriculture, or any of those other people who are definitely interested in crop insurance under the present set-up, they will see that the provinces are moving forward under crop insurance not only with respect to cereal crops in the three prairie provinces but also in the specialty crops all across Canada. I would predict that in the next few years every province in Canada, with the possible exception of Newfoundland, about which I am not too clear at the moment, will have crop insurance schemes, and as those schemes demonstrate their soundness on an actuarial basis they will spread to all regions of every province. I believe that before a decade is over hon. members will see crop insurance schemes widely in effect over all the agricultural areas of Canada. It is good legislation.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I should like to make a few comments on this particular item. First, there has been some hold-up in the province of Alberta with respect to P.F.A.A. payments this year. I hope the department has got around this particular snag in the

Supply-Agriculture
administration of this part of the act and that the cheques will continue to go out to farmers in the east central part of Alberta particularly.
I should like to say I am disappointed that the Alberta government has not made some move to adopt a system of crop insurance. Certainly in the western part of Alberta, particularly, where there is a great threat of hail, the crop insurance plan envisioned by this government and passed in 1958 or 1959 would be of benefit to those farmers. It would at least reduce their losses considerably.
The hon. member for Assiniboia went to great lengths to explain his theory of prairie farm assistance. He also showed his ignorance of the legislation, which did not really surprise me but may have surprised some hon. members. He spoke about areas eligible to qualify and said that it was a township. Actually this has been reduced to 12 sections. If he cares to read his own remarks in Hansard of a couple of years ago, after this government amended the Prairie Farm Assistance Act to a considerable extent, he will find that he complimented the government for doing so. It was one of those rare occasions when the hon. member for Assiniboia found himself in an agreeable frame of mind. He complimented the government on bringing in the amendments and said he certainly thought they would do away with many of the complaints he had received with respect to prairie farm assistance at that time. Today he has made another request. He has said that the payments should be increased. This is an old story coming from him. He is continually wanting increased payments of one kind or another.


Mr, Argue:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: But again he shows his ignorance of the operations of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. He said the payments should be doubled; they should be increased to $6. If the payments were doubled they would be increased to $8.


Hazen Robert Argue: The hon. member is right. I made a mistake; the lowest payment is $4 an acre.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I compliment the hon. member on being in such an agreeable mood that he admits he made a mistake. I point out these two mistakes he made with regard to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. I hope the committee will look at all his remarks in the way I have done and question every one of them and look for his errors in most of them. I can find some most of the time.
Under this item can the minister explain the significance of the section marked with

an "(S)", where there is an increase of $6,800,000 in the amount of carrying costs of temporary wheat reserves?
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I did not catch the answer given by the Minister of Agriculture to the member for Joliette-L'As-somption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) who asked whether the Quebec government had requested that the province be allowed to take advantage of this legislation on crop insurance. I do not know whether the minister has answered that question-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: He said no.


Samuel Boulanger: The minister said no. In that case, I ask him whether the government which preceded that of Mr. Lesage had made that request? I believe it did not, for the legislation could not be applied in the province of Quebec, as we pointed out to the minister while we were considering the measure. We had, however, submitted suggestions and proposals which were not agreed to.
That is why the province of Quebec is not interested, any more than Ontario and the eastern provinces are interested.
I am glad to hear the minister say that, within two years, the provinces will share in the crop insurance scheme. We are noting his words; they will remain graven in our memories and two years hence, we shall be happy to congratulate the minister if this legislation is implemented throughout Canada.
By the same token, I venture to predict that, unless the act is amended, there will be no possibility of applying it in eastern Canada.
(Text):


Mr. Denis:: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the same subject, I should like the Minister of Agriculture to tell the committee how many provinces have taken advantage of this legislation. The act was passed about two years ago, and the government's contribution under the legislation has amounted to almost nothing because all it pays is 20 per cent of the premiums and half the cost of administration. It is only a matter of a loan to the province of up to 75 per cent of the amount if the loss is above $200,000, and if the loss is below $200,000 the federal government and the provincial government do not pay a cent. In addition, we know that at least 25 per cent of the farmers have to join in making an application under the crop insurance legislation, and the governments concerned will never pay more than 60 per cent of the loss. There are so many conditions to be fulfilled before the legislation can be taken advantage

of that I believe the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska is right when he says that ten years from now there will not be two provinces that will have taken advantage of it. I should like to know from the minister how many provinces now take advantage of this legislation, which has been in effect for two years.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, before we hear the comments of the Minister of Agriculture, may I be permitted to say that, while it is true that the Quebec government is not interested in coming under this crop insurance scheme, Quebec farmers, for their part, are indeed interested, especially those who go in for specialized farming; I refer to the people in my area who grow cigar, pipe and cigarette tobacco and who suffer considerable losses almost every year due to frost and drought.
I ask the provincial government to co-operate and to help those specialized growers of cigar, pipe and cigarette tobacco, especially so because the present government is not doing anything for specialized farmers. As a matter of fact, grants for the construction of greenhouses and driers have been abolished in Quebec. That is why I ask the Quebec government to co-operate with the federal government in helping out farmers who grow crops of that kind. It is high time the provincial government did something for Quebec farmers instead of discarding the policies adopted by the former provincial government.


Azellus Denis: Why didn't the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm speak along that line at the time his good friend, Mr. Barrette, was in power?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: He was of greater assistance to cigarette, cigar and pipe tobacco producers than is the present provincial government.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Chairman, I never heard the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm speak on this subject before; he has been mute as a fish about it, although he had an interest in the matter because the Joliette area includes a large section where cigarette tobacco is grown.
The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm who, I think, has been parliamentary secretary to the minister who later became premier, was in a better position than anyone else here to urge the provincial government to meet with the federal authorities, to call personally upon 25 per cent of the cigarette tobacco growers to meet with Mr. Barrette-the close friend of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm -and ask them to come to Ottawa to meet
Supply-Agriculture
with the Minister of Agriculture. Since the latter is a friend of the hon. member for J oliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm,	something
might have been achieved. But he did not do anything. This legislation is hard or even impossible to apply and, as the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm has just personally admitted, if the provincial government does nothing about it, then it is up to the federal government to do something for the farmers.
If the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm reads the act, he will find that the federal government does not deal with individuals. And what about autonomy?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You do not know anything. (Text):


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, I think I should say a few words on the question of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and crop insurance, after what has been said by the hon. member for Assiniboia. He made one statement that I think was quite factual, namely "I have never been too strongly in favour of crop insurance and my record shows it". I believe the government of the province of Saskatchewan can be looked upon in the same way. They were strongly in favour of crop insurance during the years when there was a Liberal government at Ottawa which did not bring such legislation before parliament. The government of that province changed its tune after we enacted crop insurance legislation.
The minister of agriculture of the province of Saskatchewan indicated last fall, when speaking to the delegates to the annual meeting of the Saskatchewan wheat pool, that the provincial government was not too interested in going ahead with the plan. About a week later he changed his mind and the statement was made that they would have proceeded with a scheme and would have proceeded sooner but the federal legislation had been passed too late for them to commence action prior to the end of the session of their legislature.
I have here some of the forms used in the province of Saskatchewan by the provincial government to promote, if you can call it promotion, a crop insurance plan there. First of all I want to say that in many areas of the province P.F.A.A. will continue to be the most effective instrument to ensure a reasonable standard of living for the people in those areas. However, there are other areas that have never been able to qualify under P.F.A.A., although in some cases farmers who

Sup p ly-A griculture
have suffered crop failures have had to contribute to the fund over a period of years through their sales of grain and the 1 per cent levy.
If you take some of the good townships in the northern part of my riding around Kinis-tino the cost of crop insurance is $1 per acre, of which amount the federal government is providing 20 cents. The saving on the P.F.A.A. levy on a 20-bushel crop is approximately 25 cents per acre. The hail insurance rate is around 30 cents, which makes a total of 55 cents. That leaves a balance of 25 cents per acre to be picked up by the farmers in order that they may enjoy an all-risk crop insurance plan. It is my belief that even on that basis it would be in the interests of many of them to come under this program and see if it will work to their advantage.
But the significant thing is that the province of Saskatchewan has not contributed a single cent to the crop insurance plan, although that government have advocated it almost since they first took office.


Hazen Robert Argue: The province is paying half the administration costs.


Edward Nasserden: Half the administration costs but no other charge whatsoever. I think that is one of the things the hon. member for Assiniboia should remember. After all, the provincial government has a responsibility in these areas and it is not assuming that responsibility today. It is my belief that the province can very well afford to pay 10 per cent of the cost, and I believe the balance of 15 cents per acre is an amount the farmers would be glad to pay in order to have crop insurance in the good crop areas of our province.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, the last speech we have heard underlines what has been a suspicion of mine all the time; that the members of the Conservative party in the house want to dump into the laps of the provinces the responsibility which the federal government accepted under P.F.A.A. The statement has been made that the provincial treasury of Saskatchewan should pay a certain proportion of the cost of the crop insurance plan, and this emphasizes exactly what some of us have been saying for many years. We think the Prairie Farm Assistance Act is the place where improvements should be made.
As has been pointed out, the largest payment that can be made under the act is $4 per acre with a yield up to three bushels per acre. I would ask the minister to tell us how many farmers received payments in the last year for which he has figures in each of the categories under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. My impression is that a very tiny proportion of farmers received the largest payment.

Therefore if one were to double the amount of payment a farmer who receives $2 an acre now on half the cultivated acreage up to 400 acres, or $400, would get $800 and this would still represent a small part of his general cost of production.
These payments would be higher than those for the lower yield categories. I suggest it is still a very small part or a relatively small proportion of the farmer's main operating expenses. I do not think that crop insurance should be loaded onto the provinces. I have no objection if a province wants to make a payment; that is fine. I think the Saskatchewan government has set up a reserve fund, in case of a widespread crop failure in which case funds would be made available by the provincial treasury.
Another thing the hon. member for Ros-thern failed to point out is that under this scheme the provincial government sustains full liability for the losses. This government does not guarantee 20 per cent of the losses at all; it guarantees 20 per cent of the premiums. If there were one or two widespread crop failures in the early operation of a crop insurance scheme that was in general use, the liability for payments out of the provincial treasury would be of absolutely fantastic proportions. The province of Saskatchewan would go bankrupt if there were widespread crop failures, as there were in the thirties, and on the assumption that most of the farmers were in a crop insurance scheme. The provincial government has a definite commitment and a definite liability under the act as it has been drafted.


Jacques Flynn: Shall vote 36 carry?


Mr. Regnier:: I believe that Manitoba's crop insurance scheme worked very well last year. I understand that the number of those to be covered this year is going to be doubled. However, I should like to ask the minister whether the premiums charged by the province of Manitoba were sufficient to cover crop losses, how much the scheme has cost the federal government and how much it has cost the provincial government?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: While we are looking up the figures, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say briefly that last year was a fairly good crop year and the surplus on the basis of premiums was very large. If my memory serves me correctly, the losses were $92,000 and the premiums came to over $300,000. That is in a fairly good crop year. If that fund were to build up over a period of years the province of Manitoba plans to reduce the premium in order to keep it strictly on a cost basis and to give inducement to farmers to keep the act working well and not to abuse it.

I wonder whether I might correct a statement I made yesterday to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam when he asked about the number of townships where no P.F.A.A. had been paid. I said I did not have the figures but that if my memory served me from a discussion of some time ago, there was just a handful of those townships. We have been examining the figures more carefully overnight and the correct figures in the last 21 years are as follows. In Manitoba 63 townships had never received a payment. In Saskatchewan 17 had never received a payment. In Alberta the figure is 51. If those figures are added together, out of approximately 7,000 you get a total of 131 townships that have not received any payment in 21 years.


Edward Nasserden: I never heard anything quite as ridiculous as the statement made by the hon. member for Assiniboia when he suggests that we double the levies for P.F.A.A. in order to double the payments.


Hazen Robert Argue: I never said any such thing.


Edward Nasserden: All that would do in the good crop areas in our province would be to make a farmer with a 20 bushel crop pay 50 cents for something that he could not get.


Hazen Robert Argue: Speaking on the point of order, may I say that I made no such statement as that which the hon. member alleges I made.


Edward Nasserden: The hon. member knows very well that if you double the payment you will have to double the levy. Where is the money going to come from otherwise?


Hazen Robert Argue: They do not go together at all.


Edward Nasserden: They certainly do go together. All I want to say further in that regard is this. Crop insurance and P.F.A.A. are two distinct things and they will serve people in distinct areas as well. I certainly think that trying to say they are both one and the same thing is not shedding any light on the subject.


Hazen Robert Argue: I want to deny very definitely that I said the contributions of producers should be doubled. I made no such statement. I would ask the minister whether he can give the committee the number of farmers that received prairie farm assistance in the last year under the various yield categories?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This is for the
crop year 1960-61. From zero to three bushels, 2,515; from three bushels to five bushels, 5,226; from five bushels to eight bushels, 26,334; or a total of 34,077.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I should like to ask the minister a question on a different topic, if 1 may. I am aware that the minister has
Supply-Agriculture
been plagued with many requests in regard to permit books. I wonder whether he has given any consideration to transferring the handling of permit books from the wheat board to P.F.A.A.? The reason I ask that question is this. I believe that the P.F.A.A. officials have more detailed information with regard to all the land on the prairie than have the officials of the wheat board and that it would be much easier for them with their set-up to look after the issuing of permit books.


Hazen Robert Argue: I want to raise an objection to the statement that has been made by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek. I would think that this would be a very retrograde step. I think that the farmers have much greater faith and confidence in the wheat board officials than they have in the prairie farm assistance officials. The prairie farm assistance people in the past, under the Liberal government, were in the main only liberal Liberals. The ones I knew were Liberals and party hacks too. They picked up some dough from the P.F.A.A. and then when an election was on you were not sure whether they were travelling for P.F.A.A., Mr. Gardiner's department, or whether they were trying to elect some broken down Liberal candidate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: It is different now.


Hazen Robert Argue: Someone says that it is different now. Now they try to elect broken down Tory candidates.


An hon. Member:: No such thing.


Mr. Drysdale:: You will not get any broken down C.C.F.'ers.


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not know what one might take from that statement.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: The obvious logical conclusion.


Hazen Robert Argue: I think it would be a mistake to take the issuance of permit books out of the hands of the wheat board and place it in the hands of the prairie farm assistance people in the provinces. I know of no farm organization that has asked for this to be done; at least I have not seen that they have asked for it. I can see no advantage that would come from it and I can see a great many disadvantages.


John (Jack) McIntosh: The hon. member for Assiniboia said he took exception to the statement I made. I do not see any exception. The appointments of the officials of the wheat board, P.F.R.A. and P.F.A.A. are all made by the same people and on the same basis.

Supply-Agriculture


Hazen Robert Argue: That is news to me. I thought the wheat board appointed its own people and I believe that it does so. However, I think the minister is pretty much in control of the people appointed by P.F.A.A. However, I have much more confidence in the officials appointed by the Canadian wheat board because I think there is much less of partisan politics there than there is in P.F.A.A.


Jacques Flynn: Shall vote 36 carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman has something more on this vote he can go ahead because I was going to ask for the indulgence of the committee.


Edward Nasserden: What is this item "appropriations not required for 1961-62" on page 8?


William Moore Benidickson: We have not yet come to that item. We have not yet passed this item, have we?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: No. That is statutory.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I rise in connection with item No. 36, the administration of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. I am rising basically on a question of privilege.
I wish to indicate to the committee the views of the Prime Minister when he sat on the opposition side of the house. I will quote just one short extract from Hansard. This extract is to be found at page 208 of Hansard for 1950.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Mr. Chairman, could we find out what is the question of privilege before the hon. member reads this extract?


William Moore Benidickson: I am referring to section 12 of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Yes; but what about it?


William Moore Benidickson: I am coming to the point. The Prime Minister said:
The attitude that an opposition is something to put up with on occasion is prevalent in some quarters.
Then he went on to say:
If the cabinet is to be trusted; if we are to accept at face value what ministers say, then we had better all be absent from this house.
Then a little later on he said:
I know that cabinets long in power tend to believe that they rule by divine right; I know that they do not welcome oppositions, but a one-party state is not a democratic state.
Since the new ministry came into office the rights of parliament have been noted and commented upon. I wish to quote briefly from the Victoria Daily Times of February 20, 1960. The title of the article is, " 'Restoring' Parliament". The article reads:
When the Conservatives-


John Andrew W. Drysdale: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has so far not laid any basis for a question of privilege. He has merely read extracts from Hansard, and he now wants to read an article from a newspaper.
I think it is important that he should first lay the basis for his question of privilege, and if you rule that there is a question of privilege, the hon. member may proceed to take it up. The hon. member mentioned section 12 of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, but then he read something that was said several years ago.


William Moore Benidickson: My question of privilege involves the obligation of the minister to provide all members of parliament, including those in the opposition, with information that is available to him in the form of an annual report.
I can sum up this editorial in one sentence. It says:
Mr. Diefenbaker used to charge the Liberals with submerging the rights of parliament in a sea of autocracy.
On Tuesday night I raised a question in the estimates of the minister with respect to the vote concerning the board of grain commissioners for Canada. I say that it is not accidental that within a few hours of our disposing of that vote the minister tabled- as is indicated in Votes and Proceedings of yesterday-when our debate had concluded on Tuesday night, the annual report of the board of grain commissioners for Canada.
I say that it is another instance of arrogance to table this report only yesterday. I say that it cannot simply be a coincidence that this report dealing with the activities under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act is tabled in this way.


Samuel Boulanger: I have not yet received it.


William Moore Benidickson: 
John Andrew W. Drysdale: Oh, come now.


William Moore Benidickson: I am making this charge, and I am making it very seriously. We saw this disregard of the present small opposition in the first session of parliament after this government received this massive support.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: By the people of Canada.


William Moore Benidickson: By the people of Canada, yes; but I remind you of what the Prime Minister of this country had to say about the rights of an opposition, no matter how small.


John Whitney Pickersgill: When he was in opposition.


William Moore Benidickson: When he was in opposition. I have had only a few minutes to check this matter, but my recollection starts with the first session of this parliament. The first estimates passed in the House of Commons that session as I recall were the estimates of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. We spent several days discussing those estimates. In that case with too obvious stupidity the government did not delay even two or three days. I think on the day following the passing of all the hon. lady's departmental items the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration presented, in the manner I have indicated, the annual report for her department which report then became public.
On two occasions the Minister of Labour, in matters relating to information on unemployment has followed this practice. Within a day after he was no longer responsible to this house for debate and questioning he filed information that had also been asked for, I assume, by government backbenchers who are interested in unemployment, too. This information would have been as helpful to them as it was necessary to the opposition before the debate was concluded.
Last year, in connection with the Department of Agriculture again, I was interested in this matter and I recall-


Jacques Flynn: Order.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, I think these remarks of the hon. member would be better stated at another time. The hon. member has strayed quite a way from the subject that is under consideration at this moment.


William Moore Benidickson: We have before us the estimates of the Department of Agriculture. I think the Minister of Agriculture is anxious to dispose of his estimates, as always are all ministers. I have not abused the privilege of criticizing his estimates. It is to my mind more than a coincidence to find this sort of thing happening again and again.
I would refer to another item from the same department. This incident occurred last year when the department was under the

Sup p ly-A griculture
former minister. We had a very important discussion about relief to the western grain growers for crops which had not been harvested and were left under the snow, and a bill was introduced to provide some relief under those circumstances. I took an active part in that debate. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate as another former prairie dweller was equally interested. Indeed, he happened to be in Winnipeg during the debate and I remember that as my deskmate he told me when he came back that he had heard the minister of agriculture for the province of Manitoba say certain things with respect to the attitude of the provincial department of agriculture with regard to this emergency legislation for the prairie grain growers at that time.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate after his return immediately put on the order paper a request for the tabling of correspondence between the minister of agriculture in Manitoba and the federal Minister of Agriculture because, naturally, he wanted to ascertain whether the minister of agriculture in Manitoba was putting in writing and letting the federal Minister of Agriculture know the same views as he was voicing publicly in the legislature on the day the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was in the gallery of the legislature. There was no particular shortage of time. My recollection is-and I think I am right because I made a note about it at the time-that again within hours after that debate was concluded the government tabled the correspondence between the two ministers. I say that certainly this provides no evidence of remedy relating to the hullabaloo which the Prime Minister of this country raised when he was in opposition, because I do not think that this ministry can give any examples of any similar disregard for parliament so blatant as those which I have just illustrated.


Hazen Robert Argue: On the point of order, if I may say a word-


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think I might be able to save a lot of time-


Hazen Robert Argue: On the question which has been raised, I think the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River is, generally, correct. I did not raise it yesterday although I was tempted to do so and perhaps I should have raised it.


An hon. Member:: Too late.


Hazen Robert Argue: I refer to the fact that the report of the board of grain commissioners was tabled after we had begun to discuss the item. I think this is a very bad practice. I think it is not only an unparliamentary practice but a somewhat cowardly practice not to make the report available to hon. members

well in advance so that they can intelligently discuss the item involved instead of waiting until the item is called and then hurrying to table the report.
I do not want to put words which he did not use into the mouth of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, but if I correctly interpret what he said he complained that the report relating to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act has been just tabled-


William Moore Benidickson: No. My information is that it was tabled yesterday.


Hazen Robert Argue: For what year?


William Moore Benidickson: For the crop year ending
1959-60.


Hazen Robert Argue: Well, I think the hon. gentleman is in error. I have here sessional paper No. 12, the report of the activities under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act for the crop year 1959-60 and according to the information on the front cover it was tabled on December 2, 1960, so I believe the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River is in error as far as this publication is concerned. However, he was quite accurate as far as the report of the board of grain commissioners is concerned. The government is only half as bad as he has pointed out. But he still has a very good case.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The hon. member for Assiniboia was hardly on a point of order but he has said what I was going to say, namely that the report in question was tabled several months ago. This can be confirmed by a study of Votes and Proceedings, for Friday, December 2. I will read it:
By Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle), a member of the Queen's privy council, -Report on activities under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act for the crop year, ended July 31, 1960, pursuant to section 12 of the said act, chapter 213, R.S.C. 1952.
However, I think there is a point in connection with the remarks of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River which has not been brought out. It is not a question of the department not fulfilling its functions under the legislation. That is done as rapidly as it can be done, because the machinery is all laid on. The trouble may be this, and it may apply to this matter of the report of the grain commissioners. There is a distribution list which was set up, I suppose, long before many of us came here, and the distribution list provides only 100 copies for the House of Commons. I think that what actually happens is that those responsible for the distribution presume that certain hon. members get these copies and others do not. I imagine, of course, copies will go to the library. But I can assure the committee that the minute the report of the board of grain commissioners came into my hands it was tabled. There were no

instructions on my part to delay it, because there is nothing in that report to cause embarrassment to anybody. However, I think that the hon. member possibly has a point, and I will look into it. As far as my department is concerned, if there is a limited distribution that may be what has caused the trouble.


William Moore Benidickson: I thank the minister for his statement, but that is not what caused my protest in so far as the annual report of the board of grain commissioners is concerned. The minister knows that on or before the day required by statute the department must file with the Clerk of the House of Commons a master copy of the report. That master copy, as indicated on page 433 of Votes and Proceedings of Wesdnesday, was only then filed. I will read the relevant entry:
By Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle), a member of the Queen's privy council-Report for 1960 of the Board of Grain Commissioners for Canada.
That is quite irrespective of how many copies are available subsequently for distribution at the request of members who, having read that notice, wish to examine that particular document further. So, in particular, the explanation of the minister is invalid respecting the tabling officially and for the first time with the Clerk of the house of such a report. It was tabled within hours after we had let the minister off the hook in debate, as it were, on this item, having no further questions to ask on the board of grain commissioners-


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: On a question of accuracy, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has made a serious mistake here because the vote on the item concerning the board of grain commissioners was not taken until long after this document was tabled. The report was available in the committee. I saw several members with it in their possession and the statement which the hon. member has now made that first the item went through and then the report was tabled is not true.


William Moore Benidickson: I was in the committee all Tuesday night, and if one looks at Hansard one will find that the vote was carried and, subsequently, the following day, this report was tabled.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: No. I am sorry, but I must correct the hon. member. The vote was not carried Tuesday night. The chairman will be able to say exactly when it was carried, because he keeps a record. But if the hon. member examines Hansard he will find it was carried yesterday.


William Moore Benidickson: I recollect that now. 1 accept that.
Sup p ly-A griculture


Hazen Robert Argue: Your batting average is not too good today.


William Moore Benidickson: My point is still valid. The only notice available to a member of the House of Commons that this report had been tabled would have been the receipt in his mail box today, Thursday, of yesterday's Votes and Proceedings. It would otherwise not be possible to know that this report was filed with the Clerk yesterday, the same day on which the debate was finished.
With respect to tabling the report under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act I simply want to repeat that I have been in my seat since 2.30 this afternoon. While here I sent for the last available report under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. A note came back with the report to the effect that it was tabled yesterday. I excuse the staff completely because I am sure that the individuals concerned had in mind an inquiry I had made before coming to the chamber in respect of the other agricultural report, namely the report of Board of Grain Commissioners for Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask for the indulgence of the committee but if it is not forthcoming I will not proceed. I was not here yesterday when the minister was good enough to reply to an inquiry made in respect of the Fairford river development in Manitoba. There was one point in his answer about which I should like to have a little further elucidation. I understood from his answer that this work is being carried out by the government of Manitoba but the federal government is paying half the cost. Could the minister tell us whether this is being done under some general policy or whether it is an ad hoc arrangement in respect of this project alone? My recollection is that under the legislation that was previously in force there was a 374-37-1-25 arrangement for the division of the cost of projects of this sort. I wonder if there is some new general policy, and I would like the minister to explain to what categories of project it would be applicable.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: For the last several years

at least five or six-a policy has been developing in regard to the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act where certain projects are carried out on a joint basis by the provincial and federal governments. The item to which the hon. member refers is included in item No. 33 but in the heading above it will be seen that this item includes the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act program, land protection and reclamation and development. This program has been evolving over a period of years, but this is part of the regular program.

Supply-Agriculture


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is, in other words, applicable over the entire area covered by the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act for any project in which the federal government sees fit to participate?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, but in the
case of Newfoundland we make grants to the government of that province, which looks after its own projects. I have forgotten the exact amount of the grant in respect of the bog land development.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is this a similar formula to that applied in respect of the maritime marshlands?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: No, it is a
different operation entirely. This is a grant we have given in respect of bog land development and it happens to be included under this vote.


William Moore Benidickson: The minister was good enough to concede that reports of the kind to which I have referred should be tabled in the house as soon as available. I wonder whether he would make inquiries to find out when the printed report of the Board of Grain Commissioners for Canada was first made available by the Queen's printer, and endeavour in the future to see that this type of report is not simply tabled after the opportunity for debate has passed but as soon as possible.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
21. Special grant to Pacific national exhibition, Vancouver, $200,000.
John Andrew W. Drysdale: The minister indicated yesterday, as will be seen at page 3542 of Hansard, that he would be prepared to make some further comment in regard to this item. I believe the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard also had some remarks to make in this regard.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words about this particular grant.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the minister now have three parliamentary secretaries?


John Russell Taylor: I would first like to say that this grant is most welcome to the people of Vancouver but it is unfortunate that Vancouver, at the present time, has no suitable coliseum. If it had I would certainly not comment in this vein today. The people of Vancouver urgently need a coliseum as well as a livestock building. However, under the present situation we will perhaps not get either.
I should like to refer to a letter which the minister sent me regarding this subject, because it pretty well sets out the objectives he

has in mind in connection with the building. The minister stated in his letter of February 20, 1961, as follows:
We have recognized that the accommodation for livestock at the P.N.E. is inadequate for an exhibition of its size and for the livestock which it attracts to its shows. This applies not only to the accommodation for cattle but, probably of greater importance, to the show ring and judging facilities. We have, therefore, undertaken to assist the exhibition to establish more adequate accommodation.
Mr. Chairman, obviously the minister had in mind adequate accommodation for a livestock show. Later in the letter he indicates how the building is to be financed through the provision, in these estimates, of the sum of $200,000. He further states in the letter as follows:
I have heard that there has been some controversy in Vancouver in connection with a sports coliseum equipped with ice facilities. In the Department of Agriculture, obviously, we have no Interest in a building for that purpose.
-But any funds provided by this department would be devoted only to the needs of the livestock show.
I presume that the minister feels the contribution of $200,000 will be a major contribution toward the construction of a mink, cat and dog show building, but I wish to inform the minister that in actuality this money will be devoted to a livestock building with some 8,000 seats capable of being used mainly as a hockey arena. The minister has said that this building should be used primarily for agricultural purposes.
I am also informed that in 1959-60 there was a submission made by the Pacific national exhibition that this grant of $200,000 would be insufficient to construct the building.
On December 12, 1960 the minister replied to that submission, stating as follows:
I am disturbed by the impression conveyed in the submission of September 12 that subsequent funds might be made available by the federal government to a total of $1 million.
If the Pacific national exhibition requires $1 million, and I suggest that it does, then that organization is not really building a livestock building but is building a large, needed coliseum. That is the point I wanted to put forward today. While the minister wants to help the people of Vancouver he really wants to contribute to the construction of a livestock building but he is actually contributing to the construction of a coliseum. Unfortunately we cannot agree in Vancouver as to where the coliseum should be built. If this must be tied to agriculture we will not have the coliseum we need and the building will not be placed where we want it.
The Pacific national exhibition board, and it is an excellent one, certainly has indicated in some of its directives what it proposed, and

this indication appears in some of its literature dated March 1 last where the following is stated:
The second stage provided installation of an ice plant to serve hockey and other events as well as heating equipment for the building. The city was being asked to advance $280,000 in 1960 and a similar amount in 1961. The province would be asked to contribute a similar amount as the city. It was understood $280,000 will be forthcoming from the federal government, while the P.N.E. is putting up $450,000.
The mayor who presided over the affairs of Vancouver in 1958 wrote to us here in Ottawa about this proposed building, and no mention is made in his entire letter of any building being constructed for livestock purposes. The mayor of the day talks about a contribution of a million dollars toward a coliseum. In his letter he said:
To assist in these considerations would you kindly advise if your government will still make the million dollar grant to the city for this coliseum, particularly if the project were developed in the downtown area, or would the former requirement still stand, i.e. the coliseum must be in conjunction with the operation of the exhibition.
From what I have said, after perusing some of the documents of the Pacific national exhibition and after giving consideration to the mayor's letter, it is obvious that the real requirement of the city at this time is a coliseum and not so much-although this is incidental-a livestock building. This impression is left most clearly when you peruse the many newspaper articles which have appeared over the last four or five years when consideration was given to this proposed building.
When I close my remarks I wonder whether the minister will indicate that in 1956 the federal government made an offer of $1 million to the Pacific national exhibition. If the offer was made, will the minister indicate who made the offer on behalf of the federal government and to whom was it made? I hope the minister realizes that a change has taken place in the situation since the federal offer, that is, the proposed offer, was made in 1956. At that time the government stipulated it could make a grant only to assist an agricultural fair, which tied the coliseum to the Pacific national exhibition grant. Since 1956 the voters have voted upon that issue and they rejected a million dollar bylaw to cover the city's share of a coliseum on the Pacific national exhibition ground. No longer can a coliseum be judged solely as an adjunct of an agricultural fair.
The building is needed today not only as a place for conventions and sports events but as a public works project, which is so much needed in the Vancouver area at the present time. I am not going to take up the time of the committee by referring to other newspaper articles, but I should like the minister
Supply-Agriculture
to comment upon what was said by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond yesterday when he discussed whether this building could be erected in the downtown area, or whether a downtown coliseum could be used for agricultural purposes, just as much as one in the Pacific national exhibition ground, which obviously operates for only a short time in the year.
The other real point, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that the grant by the department at this time could make possible a proper building for proper purposes erected where the city desires to build it, and apparently that would be in the downtown area.
The courses open in connection with this much discussed building would be, (a) withhold the grant for the time being, a thing which obviously nobody wants because they need the money out there; or, (b) make the grant now, with the condition that no ice refrigeration be installed for five years, which would take the hockey element out of the building. If such a condition were attached then, of course, I feel that the proposed plans would be reduced considerably and immediately and we would then end up with a proper livestock building instead of ending up with a combined livestock and coliseum building, which will be too small and will not be where the people want it.
Another suggestion would be for the minister to consider making a matching grant with the Minister of Trade and Commerce of at least $1 million so that we could have a proper building for conventions, trade shows and agricultural events, and a building in which we could celebrate our birthday centennial in 1967. That is another course that is open.
There is a feeling that in 1956 an offer of $1 million was made. If that is true, then I presume the minister could once again make an offer on behalf of this government or, with the Minister of Trade and Commerce, he could make a grant available larger than this item of $200,000.
I also notice that there was an item in the estimates which indicated that the Canadian national exhibition was to receive a sum of $500,000 from the federal government during the present fiscal year. Therefore, it would appear that the minister has some discretion over the amount to be voted.
I think the minister is aware of the fact that the city of Vancouver owns the Pacific national exhibition, and it is the same city which proposed to erect a building either there or in the downtown area. If adequate funds were made available then, of course, we could have agricultural events take place in the building and other events could also take place there.

Supply-Agriculture
Probably the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond will be asking some questions on the same item. I think I have covered the situation pretty well. I hope that the money can be made available and in the right quantity in order that we will end up with the right kind of building that is so badly needed in the area at this time.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Before the minister replies, I should like to make one or two remarks to supplement those already made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard.
First, I should like to emphasize to the minister that we in the Vancouver area sincerely appreciate very much this $200,000 grant. I would emphasize that it is urgently needed at the present time for a show ring out at the Pacific national exhibition.
The point that I wish to bring to the minister's attention, and one which I think the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard was trying to draw to his attention, is that in 1967 we shall be celebrating our centennial. I wonder whether the minister could give serious consideration to the addition of $800,000, perhaps by way of a supplementary estimate, to make up a $1 million grant to the Pacific national exhibiton.
I suggest that perhaps he could, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard has said, also co-operate with the Department of Trade and Commerce and provide a further $1 million. Perhaps I seem a little bit generous in throwing around millions of dollars, but in item No. 36, which was just passed, we voted some $49 million for the storage of surplus grain. Over the years since 1956 some $200 million has been used for the storage of grain. Perhaps I could say in a humorous way that we would be prepared to have a building for at least the temporary storage of grain if we could participate in some of the moneys voted under item No. 36. But I would point out to the minister that the very progressive Minister of Trade and Commerce has already provided some $300,000 for the Seattle trade fair in 1961 and I have been particularly pleased with the progressive attitude that the new Minister of Agriculture has taken in trying to assist in agricultural matters. I feel that if he could produce this $1 million and make a start toward this agricultural building or agricultural coliseum, which would have a seating capacity of 15,000 and could be used for many other events, the minister would receive the gratitude both of myself and the people of Vancouver generally.


Mr. Hicks:: Mr. Chairman, as a governor of the Pacific national exhibition I think it is my duty to say a word about this grant of $200,000. The grant was originally given for

the purpose of assisting the livestock business of British Columbia and as the grant comes from the Department of Agriculture I presume it can be used only for exhibition purposes on the exhibition grounds. I do not think I have anything more to say about the matter. We all know there has been a controversy involving the businessmen of Vancouver with respect to having a coliseum in the centre of Vancouver rather than having a livestock building on the grounds of the Pacific national exhibition. To me it is absolutely ridiculous to talk about locating the coliseum in the centre of Vancouver and moving cows, horses, sheep, swine, chickens and everything to the centre of the city just because that is where the building is. After all is said and done, the Pacific national exhibition grounds are only two or three miles from the centre of Vancouver and I suggest that if there is too much controversy over this whole matter the minister may even change his mind and not provide a grant at all, which I hope will not happen.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Mr. Chairman, as found on page 3542 of Hansard, the minister indicated that he would make some further comment. I hope the item will not pass without the minister making some suitable comment, perhaps only to indicate that he is going to give us the $1 million.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The minister is always very canny when local issues are being discussed. The last official word we had from the P.N.E. officials was in the latter part of February and they assured us that they had dropped all plans for ice facilities in the new building and that it would be devoted to the needs of the livestock industry.


John Russell Taylor: What date was that?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The latter part of February.


John Russell Taylor: Mr. Chairman, so much has been said about the building that I wonder whether the minister would allow the P.N.E. to have the money to construct a building anywhere in the city of Vancouver, not necessarily on the exhibition grounds? We all know, for example, that McGill university is in downtown Montreal but I have noticed on my way into the city that the part of the university having to do with farming is located to the west of Montreal. If money were given to McGill I imagine that some part of it would find its way into the operation west of Montreal. The same thing could apply in this instance. We could have our livestock show downtown if necessary and we would all be happy.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: On the last day this matter came up I asked the Minister of Agriculture if he could enlighten us with respect to the definition of exhibition grounds and I said that I hoped he would be able to inform himself on the matter during the intervening time. So that the point may be straightened out so far as the people of Vancouver are concerned, I ask the minister specifically whether or not the acquisition of land in downtown Vancouver for exhibition purposes would mean that that land would be considered part of the exhibition grounds? I think there is a general principle involved which would apply to many other cities. Would the minister be good enough to comment?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The regulations for grants to exhibitions are under review and we took up the matter with the provincial ministers of agriculture at the agricultural ministers' conference. I should like to point out to hon. members that the grant to the Pacific national exhibition is completely outside the regulations. It is a special grant as a matter of grace and such grants go to very few exhibitions. It is being made in this case because the Pacific national exhibition has certain national characteristics. The only other exhibition that has qualified is the Royal at Toronto and I believe a similar grant has been proposed for another city. It is only when some national significance can be established that we give these special grants. So far as the location of buildings is concerned, all we are interested in is making sure that the purposes of agriculture are being advanced. We have no responsibility for athletics or public health.


John Russell Taylor: Could we have a further statement from the minister that he will at least make an effort to discuss a larger grant with the Minister of Trade and Commerce? I am completely satisfied at the present time that an ice plant is going to be installed in the building. I am not concerned about what was said in letters. I am satisfied there are going to be ice facilities so if we are going to have hockey in the building why can we not have trade and commerce activities too?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Jacques Flynn: This completes the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
308. Departmental administration Including Canada's share of the upkeep of the international bureaux at Berne and Montevideo, $2,174,216.
Azellus Denis: Is the Postmaster General going to make a statement before we proceed with the items?
Supply-Post Office


Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Mr. Chairman, the greatest volume of postal business ever, the highest revenues in history, the most sweeping expansions in service to the public since 1867 and the boldest and most effective economy moves within the operational records of the department- this, in a nutshell, is the story of the postal service during the period between May 27, 1960, when I last presented the estimates of the Post Office Department for the consideration of the house, and the present.
During the last few years the volume of mail originating in Canada has spiralled upward in an apparently endless climb. When figures for this fiscal year are complete we will undoubtedly, for the first time in our history, top the four billion mark, or well over 200 pieces of mail for every man, woman and child in this country.
This staggering volume of mail is reflected in the department's revenues for the year
1960-61 which will top the $200 million mark for the first time in our history. When our figures are complete we expect to find we have incurred total expenditures in the neighbourhood of $209,500,000, thus showing a deficit on the year's operations of some $9 million. Since salary increases alone have cost us some $13J million during the year, I feel that our financial record remains most satisfactory. In the year just starting we will have the benefit of increased revenue from parcel post rate changes and our overall operations should therefore again be approximately on the break-even basis which it is my policy to try to maintain.
As a basis of comparison, Mr. Chairman, I might say that in the United States the post office department reported a net deficit of $597.1 million for the fiscal year 1960. Its annual report noted that $6.8 billion of the $15.3 billion increase in the national debt which has occurred since 1946 has been caused by postal deficits alone. I do not propose to deal in any more detail with overall finances since the general figures I have quoted are all that are yet available for the year ended March 31, 1961, and those for the preceding year are given in detail in our published report which is available to each member of the house.
During the year we have accomplished some remarkable economies in the face of marked cost increases that are above and beyond our control. One of the most remarkable of these has been in our Christmas mail operations where I am pleased to report the first major operational breakthrough in streamlined mail handling, a breakthrough that resulted in savings to the department in excess of $800,000.

Supply-Post Office
This tremendous saving has been accomplished in the face of a Christmas mail volume at least 5 per cent higher than that reported last year and despite the fact that no less than 10 new letter carrier offices have been added to the service in the past 12 months requiring a total of some 22,000 new Christmas man-hours in themselves.
In all, this year we cut our Christmas man-hours by some 115,000 over last year. These tremendous savings were accomplished by a combination of tight operational control and a simplified system of handling our Christmas card mail which we call terminal sortation.
Terminal sortation has gone hand in hand with a new system of separating first class mail from Christmas cards at the point where they first enter the mail stream. By a combination of these systems we have been able to provide service on regular mail during December that compares favourably with our standards for other months of the year. In short this past December we handled more mail, faster and at less cost than ever before in our history.
The steady increase in mail volume demands that we continue strenuous efforts to develop and perfect modern and effective mail handling techniques and equipment. One of our major projects in this field is the electronic-mechanical letter sortation system, the experimental model of which is being developed by the post office with the assistance of Canadair Limited in Montreal. We are at a crucial point in this development, for this ultra modern system has now reached the point of operational tests and is actually sorting regular mail for the Montreal post office.
Since this equipment is radically different from anything previously developed for postal purposes anywhere in the world, our present studies will provide the first practical figures for performance characteristics and output of such equipment. I can report that while the accuracy of the sorting system seems excellent, its reliability for continuing performance without mechanical or electronic failure is not as yet satisfactory and our tests indicate that some substantial additional work will be required on certain components.
Before proceeding with this project on any extended basis it is our intention to relate the information we have now obtained with certain other studies of a systems nature; based on the results we will decide the direction of our further advance.
There can be no doubt that during the past year we have made more progress than at any other time toward the ultimate production of an electronic-mechanical letter sortation

system. It is frustrating not to have shiny new batteries of such machines already installed in major Canadian post offices, but no other nation has reached this point because of the problems involved; and our system of advancing only as rapidly as we can be certain of the correctness of our advance undoubtedly gives the taxpayer far better value for every dollar spent than does any other method.
For example, our mailmobile system has proved its worth on a trial basis with only a limited number of machines, but the trials also demonstrated the need for a more rugged type of vehicle to meet the unusually difficult conditions of mail delivery. Sixteen machines manufactured by the builders of the famous "jeep" have been placed in service for test purposes along these lines.
Again, the experimental group of plastic letter boxes we tried out demonstrated that the material was completely satisfactory but that certain design changes were required and these are now being made before we proceed. In other words, we test and we determine what is right before we expend the taxpayers' money in large sums in fields where we are not absolutely certain of our position.
With respect to machinery and equipment of a highly advanced nature which is sufficiently proven to justify installation for regular use, we are engaged in a steady program of planning and development designed to improve the capacity of our existing buildings and to add new space to house such machinery. One such item will be a new chain type conveyor scheduled for the new wing of the Hamilton, Ontario post office which will permit mail bags and other loads to be moved at steep angles and guided and controlled by preset remote direction. The new building at Quebec and the new wing at Halifax will contain revolutionary new conveyor systems capable of lifting mail vertically on a continuous basis. They are the first such developments in this country and among the first on the continent. We will be installing at Winnipeg early next year a complex new mail segregator which will for the first time use electronic-mechanical techniques to perform automatically one of the most tiresome and time consuming chores presently performed by hand in post offices.
One tiny item that will nevertheless be of interest to anyone who has ever struggled and tried to write with post office pens is that we are trying a second experiment in the use of ball point pens in 14 of our major post offices. We also have ready for installation 300 of our electric stamp vending machines to which I referred last year and which

operate merely by dropping in the quarter without any further effort being required on the part of the patron. These machines will be in use shortly right across Canada in our post offices and other locations.
The handling of the mails within post offices is only part of the over-all job of communication which the post office must undertake. The other basic problem in postal services is transportation, and in this field we have made some of the most interesting and potentially important experiments of the year. One of the most intriguing has been our testing of "piggy-back" mail services which allow us to combine the best features of railway transportation and highway transportation in the swift movement of the mails. It is as yet too early to evaluate fully the results of these tests but it is apparent that the system offers some unique solutions to mail transport problems. Piggy-back services are designed primarily, of course, for the movement of second, third and fourth class mail, since the bulk of our first class letter mail travels by air.
As the number of trains available for the conveyance of mail continues to decline, the volume of mail handled by rail continues to increase, especially between the larger cities and on transcontinental services for whenever it has been possible to do so, we have continued to make use of the railways. In many cases we have made complicated adjustments in order to preserve a traditional railway link. A recent example is the change in service on trains five and six between Truro and Sydney, Nova Scotia. I think it is fair to say that without the determined co-operation of the post office in working out methods of handling mail on a difficult and more complex new schedule, the railway would have been forced to discontinue this line, and this action could have been a serious blow to the entire Cape Breton area.
We have, however, frequently been forced to accept alternative methods of transportation when existing rail links were terminated or reduced to the point where they no longer provided an acceptable service for the transportation of the mails. One such alternative is highway transport. In the last year we added no less than 53 new highway services, and made extensions in 46 existing routes. In addition, another eight routes have been approved and will be going into service shortly and five other routes are being seriously considered.
The final stage in the handling of mail is delivery to the patron. In rural areas during the past year 98 new rural routes have either been established or are authorized and will shortly go into service while 1,157 extensions have been made to existing routes.
Supply-Post Office
Newfoundland, with its rural population largely stretched along the coast, has always presented a special problem for rural mail delivery. We have made a special study of this problem and have developed a plan by which group mail boxes can be introduced in certain areas. This year we have also inaugurated in the Avalon peninsula two rural routes, the first in the history of Newfoundland.
In urban areas the establishment of letter carrier service is often regarded by a community as a sign of growth and maturity, and during the past year more Canadian communities achieved this status than ever before save for one post-war year which followed four years completely barren of such inaugurations.
Letter carrier services were established in 11 new communities during the past fiscal year and 32,678 new calls were thus added. It is difficult to keep right up to date in this rapidly moving field but for the 11 months which ended in February of 1961, the department added door to door delivery to no less than 139,437 householders between new communities and additions to existing services. At March 31, 1961, there were 2,877,131 calls being carried out by Canadian postmen every day. This is, again, another all time high.
During 1960 we adopted a new policy in regard to business calls on mixed walks whereby we would spread the calls in a concentrated area over a larger number of walks. We have set up 223 walks under this new procedure, and this has resulted in a much earlier delivery of mail to most of the business calls in the areas where the change was made. It is also interesting to note that by this change we were able to provide approximately
5,000	additional firms with a second delivery, whereas previously they had received only one delivery each day. At the moment something closely approaching 100,000 business firms and locations are receiving two mail deliveries, or better, each day.
As you may imagine, this procedure has been reflected in a marked reduction in the number of complaints received from business concerns relative to the late delivery of their mail. I refer to complaints, because the Post Office Department is meticulous in their handling of complaints and, in addition, in following up each inquiry very carefully. I have always felt that the number of complaints we receive, in relation to the volume of mail we handle, is one of the best possible measures of whether or not our service is generally improving. The figure continues to drop, indicating beyond any doubt improvements in our service.
For the year ended March 31, 1957, the last full year of post office administration under

Supply-Post Office
the previous Liberal government, the department received 123 complaints lor each million pieces of mail handled. In 1958, with nine months of Conservative administration, the figure dropped to 112 complaints per million pieces; in 1959, with a full year of Conservative administration, to 106; and in 1960 to 101. For the fiscal year just ended we estimate a maximum of 94 complaints for each million pieces handled. This compares with 123 complaints for each million pieces handled in the last year of the previous administration.
I say, with all due modesty, that I think it is a remarkable achievement. I hope my critics from the official opposition in this committee, when they pick away at items of post office administration, will always remember that whereas in the last year they ran the post office they were receiving 123 complaints for every million pieces of mail handled, we are now receiving only 94 complaints for every million pieces. There is no better measure available of the progress that has been made in the administration and efficiency of this department.


Mr. Deschaleleis:: What about the deficit?


William McLean Hamilton: have dealt with that, and you can ask me any questions you wish afterwards.
As our urban populations continue to increase we are faced with a new problem of providing adequate service to communities within communities, to the almost self-contained suburbs, many of which have populations as large or larger than some of our established cities.
One solution to this problem has been the increasing use of postal stations and letter carrier depots scattered at strategic points throughout the cities. During the last year we set in operation no less than 11 new postal stations and letter carrier depots which is, so far as we can judge, the greatest expansion in this type of service in the department's recent history. For the four-year period from 1957 to the present we opened more than twice as many of these stations as during the four-year period from 1953 to 1957.
Speaking of records, the Canadian postal service set another record last October when we established no less than eight new letter carrier services in the same month, bringing some 23,320 new householders under our door-to-door delivery system. No other single month, since the establishment of the letter carrier service in 1874, has seen such a sweeping advance in this field, and no other period within the records of the postal service compares with the last three years, when some 18 communities were added to the list receiving door-to-door mail delivery.

Another additional service for our patrons has been the extension of our, I think I will call it optional additional delivery service on undelivered parcels, other items such as registered mail and the small parcels handled by letter carriers. Previously, when such items could not be delivered in a stated number of calls, they were returned to the post office and the patron had no option but to call for them there. This system is still in effect for those who wish it, but in addition, if a patron wishes, arrangements can be made by telephone for the item to be delivered on a specific day for a charge of 25 cents. This has proved popular right across the country wherever it has been introduced.


Azellus Denis: Of course.


William McLean Hamilton: Supply-Post Office
security was formed and set into action. Since that time, although the number of holdups and thefts from post office vehicles is unchanged at 14, this year only seven offences resulted in the loss of public funds or postal values, compared with ten the preceding year.
During the fall of 1960 there was a flurry of street letter box thefts, and the number of attempts on letter boxes and relay boxes increased from 122 to 188 last year. We have now taken steps to improve security with regard to these boxes. In addition to removing the repair of mail receptacles from the penal institutions where this work has been done for more than half a century-a period which, of course, includes the entire regime of the preceding administration-we have publicized offers of rewards up to $2,000 for information leading to the arrest and conviction of persons committing various types of offence against the post office and the mail it carries.
I might emphasize here that we are dependent in so much of our activity on public co-operation and public help. We hope that these reward offers will attract public attention to the contribution they can make in dealing with these offences by making available to the department any information which they think might help us to deal with particular offences.
In addition to these steps, we are moving to increase and strengthen the staffs of our investigations and protection agencies in the field. We are acutely aware of the problems involved, and acutely aware of our responsibility to protect the mails that have been entrusted to us. In a time of increasing crime and violence, I believe our record has been consistently good. We are striving to make it better.
On the international scene, the Canada post office took advantage of the introduction of trans-Atlantic jet aircraft to offer a swifter regular air mail service to the United Kingdom and continental Europe. This tended to increase the popularity of air mail to overseas points in relation to surface mails. During the calendar year 1960, 1,034,801 pounds of international letter mail was conveyed by air as compared with 848,366 pounds conveyed by surface means, a 22 per cent differential in favour of the swifter aerial route.
Since I dealt at some length with the new Canada-United States postal agreement on March 15 in this chamber I shall not go beyond noting it at this time so that I shall not be accused of having overlooked it.
In the face of great new challenges, I believe the postal service has acquitted itself well. Today, as I report to this committee, the Canada post office is functioning, I believe,

with an efficiency never dreamed of a few years ago. It is meeting challenges never anticipated in the last decade, and it is successfully overcoming them to maintain its high and envied place among the most effective and most efficient postal services of the world. I would just add the final word that in these circumstances we do not consider that "Denis" is any menace.
(Translation):


Azellus Denis: Mr. Chairman, I must thank the Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton) for his brilliant statement. As usual, he has shown great talent for taking credit for the work done by the officials of his department. Yet the credit goes solely and exclusively to the employees of the post office.
He has also shown skill in disguising the wrongs for which he is personally responsible. The evils of his administration have been dressed up as virtues. When a figure is too high to be revealed to the public, he expresses it as a ratio and that is that.
He has not changed since a few years ago, when he used to make similar statements. He has taken credit for things he has not done, and has tried to justify his poor administration.
The minister reminds me of a type of bird known as the German sparrow, which uses the nests of other birds but never builds any himself.
I have been following the minister's remarks closely. A large portion of his statement was devoted to automatic devices, electronic machines, etc. He discussed the experiments which have been conducted so far, and I think he has been at the experimental stage for at least three years. If this goes on, I am afraid he will soon be overcome by his own party, because just recently, the Prime Minister stated at a Conservative rally, of course: "The experimental stage is over; we will now roll up our sleeves and prepare for the next elections." So I suggest that the minister get cracking if he wants to keep up with his colleagues.
Mr. Chairman, the minister said not a word about achievements coming under his jurisdiction. He made mountains out of mole hills. He talked about service expansion, something which is quite normal, resulting as it does from the population increase and the growth of new communities. All those services which have expanded during the past year under his administration are services

that normally grow every year, as they did under the previous administration. In fact, I intend to prove this assertion a bit later.
Mr. Chairman, the minister was very careful not to mention the famous promises he used to make when he sat in the opposition. As far as he is concerned, all that is gone and forgotten.
For instance, he does not remember promising two mail deliveries a day. Naturally nothing has been done in that connection. The minister had also promised that the R.C.M.P. would investigate post office thefts, and had stated that this police force would protect the post offices. Yet no action has been taken in that respect.
The minister had promised to balance his department's budget. When he showed a deficit, he said it was fine. Last year, he came up with a surplus and used the word "tremendous". This year, he reports a $9 million deficit and calls the achievement outstanding. Whatever the situation, whether there is a deficit or a surplus, the minister is completely satisfied. Yet, when the Liberal party was in office, he would cry shame whenever the then postmaster general announced a profit.
When, unfortunately, there was a slight deficit in the past, the present Postmaster General hastened to explain that his predecessor had made a mistake. But when the present minister announces a deficit, it is a remarkable achievement, rather like a success.
Under the Liberal administration, it was considered a serious mistake, but not any more.
Postal workers are ill-treated by the present administration. They have been constantly complaining at many meetings. When it was decided to raise their salaries, it was done by groups, by classes, and there was no retroactivity. Since then, other meetings were held where complaints were voiced against salary adjustments that are not considered satisfactory.
Patrons, since that is what we are being called now, experience delays in the mail delivery. The situation is the same today as it was before, if not worse. I can prove this point.
As far as patronage is concerned, I must say that the minister has dismissed more people than ever. This is another point that can be easily proved.
Not only what he termed the extravagance of the former government was not corrected, but it has grown worse.
Supply-Post Office
If we look at the estimates, we note unjustifiable discrepancies. How is it that in 1960 the estimates showed a $1.8 million surplus while in 1961 they show a $9 million deficit? Does he follow in that field the policy of the government, whose estimates have proven to be wrong?
There is some confusion here in the conception of budgeting, Mr. Chairman. One budget is a $9 million deficit, and it is an achievement. Another one shows a $1 million surplus, and it is still an achievement. One can't make head or tail of it.
On the whole, I believe that the minister, instead of being of assistance to the normal operation of the department, has hindered it. I offer him this advice, given to young doctors before they go into practice:
Primo non nocere. (First, cause no harm.)
I advise therefore the minister not to cause any harm. If he wants to figure out the weight of parcel post items compared to that of diesel engines, that is his business, since he seems to like adding up figures. If he wants to figure out the piling of postal parcels and strike a comparison with Mount Everest, that is his business. But he should not disturb his employees. They are more efficient when they are left undisturbed.
The hon. minister knows that a Russian, Gagarin, has just completed a full circle around the earth. He is quite at liberty, if he so wishes, to compare that distance with that covered by his letter carriers.
With regard to the estimates, it must be said that we are dealing here with a minister who is a spendthrift and an expensive one. As a matter of fact, estimates are increasing by the year.
In 1957, estimates had decreased by $1.2 million. As soon as he arrived, they increased by $11.1 million. In 1959, they were raised by $5.7 million, by $1.1 million in 1960 and $5.6 million in 1961.
For 1961-62, they go up again by $1.1 million. To that must be added the supplementary estimates passed recently, that is $1.2 million.
But that is not all. Income has also increased by $5.2 million in 1958, $4.4 million in 1959, $1.6 million in 1960 and $2.1 million in 1961.
What did he do with that money? How did he spend the money we voted him and the money he collected?
Receipts and appropriations gave him a total of $20 million more to spend in 1958 and $11.7 million more in 1959. The amount for 1960 has not been given, but I am sure it was even higher.

Supply-Post Office
Should we blame the deficit on the wage increases? The minister should be careful here, because operation increases include the wage item.
In 1958, that item increased by only $5.2 million when he secured an additional 20 million in revenue and appropriations. In 1959, salaries account for no more than 4.4 million while the estimates and receipts went up by 11.7 million. It was the same story in 1960 when salaries increased by 1.6 million while he secured 11 million more than the previous year. Therefore salaries do not account for the deficits he is showing now.
Where there is evidence of extravagance, however, is in travelling expenses. The hon. minister is a great traveller. Yet, he pours out thousands of dollars in advertising, urging people to write and to write often; as for the minister himself, he does not do any writing. He and his officials go travelling. As a matter of fact, in 1957, when he came into office, travelling expenses were $337,000 but today they are up to $482,000, a 50 per cent increase. Then, not content with travelling, the minister and his employees use the telephone a lot. They telephone, they wire, but they do not write. The minister and his employees urge us, the customers, to write; as for himself, he has to use the telephone.
When, in 1957, the Conservatives took over, telephone and telegraph costs were $125,000; they now reach $176,400, an increase of over 40 per cent.
Mr. Chairman, the minister cannot boast of having saved any money there.
Take for instance item "purchase of material", such as the famous electronic equipment, those expenses he told us about: "Rental of electronic apparatus, and purchase of material", $1,000,000. The figure is now up to 2.5 million. Travelling expenses, telephone and purchase of material represent an increase of 1.3 million over 1957.
If we look at the estimates for this year, for the previous year and two years ago, we find that each year they grow larger. Where are the savings under those items I referred to?
Now let us deal with transport expenses. They are unchanged. They increased normally, as they did in 1955-56 and 1956-57.
Rail transport expenses are perhaps even less, because they have in many cases been replaced by truck service. The Lord only

knows what success he made of it. The same can be said for mail transport by water or by air.
As far as philatelic income is concerned, the departmental report fills a whole page and a half with talk of this successful service which is bringing in $336,000. In 1953-54, philately brought in $418,000 and in 1956-57, $315,000. Why is the minister boasting like that?
I now come to that famous increase in the charges for parcel post, with which we were presented between Christmas and New Year's, by way of a gift. Though the house was sitting in November, the minister could hardly be expected to shoulder his responsibility and come to the house and say: We have to increase postal parcel rates. Or else, knowing that the house would meet again in January, he might have waited until then before taking action. But no, slyly, because this was bad news which he thought people would not notice during the holidays when nobody has time then to read the Canada Gazette, the minister chose that particular time to break the news.


Mr. Graffley:: Mr. Lesage upped his taxes at that very time.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Missisquoi is the first to interrupt me. Am I ever lucky.
An order in council of December 27, 1960, announced new rates for parcel post within Canada. Why did he not wait for the session to resume? Why not announce the increase to the house, like the brave man he is? Perhaps because he had promised not to increase the rates for this service. In fact he had undertaken to cut letter rates from five to four cents at the time he so unmercifully criticized the minister of the day.
That is not all. If he had been satisfied with a normal and reasonable increase, I would not bear him too great a grudge, but he is quite extravagant and needs a lot of money. But he has done more than that. He has eliminated from the list the special rates for delivery within 20 miles. That special rate has been abolished, not only for deliveries within the same province, but also for an adjacent province, which resulted in increased mailing costs. As a matter of fact, whereas it formerly cost 10 cents to send a parcel, it now costs 23 cents. A 15-pound parcel used to cost 38 cents and now costs

$1.64. Some mailing costs have even been increased by 331 per cent of the former rate.
(Text):


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: On a point of order, I think the hon. member for Labelle is interrupting the hon. member for St. Denis.


Mr. Clermont:: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville is doing the same thing as I am doing.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. McGee):: The
hon. member for St. Denis has the floor and if hon. members wish to carry on conversations, perhaps they might do so behind the curtain.
(Translation):


Azellus Denis: Please pardon him, Mr. Chairman, because the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Johnson) as well as other Conservative members have been very nervous since June 22 last, and they are getting more nervous as we draw nearer to the federal elections. I am prepared to put up with him, Mr. Chairman, provided that he does not bother you too much.
As I was saying, parcel post rates have gone up 90 per cent. It used to cost 38 cents to send a parcel from Hull to Aylmer, whereas today, for the same parcel, it costs $1.35. A parcel sent from Hull to Ottawa used to cost 38 cents, as against $1.64 today for a 15-pound parcel. Things have reached a point, Mr. Chairman, where it is cheaper to send a parcel by taxi.
I think the increase cannot be justified, save perhaps by the minister himself, with his pet words:	"outstanding" and "tremendous".
When I asked him in the house what revenues he expected from those increases, the minister replied he expected to get $22 million. The estimates, therefore, had been drawn up at the time. The expenditures we will be asked to approve when his department's estimates come up do not include those extra $22 million.
Moreover, I fail to understand why the rate on periodicals has been raised by a third, despite the agreement reached with the United States. Here again, this is a case where the minister offered no explanation to the house until he was prodded by a C.C.F. member. The minister then proceeded to explain that it was another increase, yet it had been announced in the Chicago Tribune before we, in Canada, knew anything about it. This is a 33J per cent increase which came into force today, at a time when the O'Leary commission has just completed its sittings 90205-6-230
Supply-Post Office
and is working on its report; at a time when we are considering how to deal with the competition from American periodicals. Even before the report is submitted, the Postmaster General decides to raise the rate by one third. I am sure such a measure will in no way prevent periodicals from coming into Canada, because our own periodicals will be subject to the same increase. Canadian publishers were already complaining about low profits. If they are faced with higher rates on top of that, they will either be driven to bankruptcy or will have to raise the price of their periodicals. That is another increase on third class mail matter, as indicated on page 4 of the Post Office Department report.
Articles of irregular shape, samples or advertising novelties, etc., will not be accepted for "householder" delivery and the rate on items weighing over two ounces has been increased by one half cent.
Therefore, that is another increase which the taxpayer will have to pay.
The minister thought that in taking over the department, he could bring the rates down. On the contrary, he has increased them.
And now, what about the employees? Everyone admits that the morale of the employees is very low; everyone admits today that the employees are afraid of loosing their jobs. When the minister has those electronic machines set up to do the work of 10, 15 and even 20 persons, he cannot have his employees nor Canadian taxpayers believe that those machines will not displace employees. Besides, the minister himself stated -perhaps not in the case of regular employees-that part-time employees might be affected. But those are employees like any others. The reason is very simple. If he does not hire more employees in the Post Office Department, it is because machines are displacing prospective employees.
Unemployment is prevalent across the country and we should set an example. There is no hurry for those electronic machines to displace labour.
The minister has no competition, he is the only one charging for parcel delivery, the only one charging for postal services. He could at least wait until unemployment decreases before thinking of replacing men by machines. Like any private member, a minister must take the human element into account, and bear in mind that hundreds of persons could normally be employed in this country by the Post Office Department, as is the case elsewhere. But not him. He wants to modernize. So he goes to the United States and to Great Britain to see new electronic

Supply-Post Office
devices. Some of them are rented at a cost of almost $2,000 a month, only on a trial basis and for experimental purposes. Why not wait at least until those countries proceed with their own experiments and see whether those machines are considered good. Then we can decide whether they should be bought or not. But no, we are being used as guinea-pigs, while our people are jobless. And meanwhile in the post offices-


Mr. Graff  ley:@: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Azellus Denis: Mr. Chairman, would you please ask the hon. member to wait. I shall reply to all his questions in due course.
I come back to the morale of the employees. Last year, out of sheer meanness, Christmas and New Year's day were struck out as legal holidays because they fell on a Sunday, so that postal employees who usually work on Sundays and who decided to take the day off on Christmas or New Year's day were not paid. How petty, for the sake of a few pennies. No wonder your division saved money during the Christmas period, for it reduced the salary of workers getting $1.26 or $1.41 an hour. Moreover, they were told that they would be paid $1 an hour if they agreed to take on another type of job. This is a saving made by the minister at the expense of his employees, and he said so in this very house.
And that is not all. It was recently decided that employees working during the Christmas season would be granted holidays instead of being paid in cash. Yet, in 1957, the former postmaster general was giving them the choice between cash and holidays. And even then the present minister was complaining about the situation, as witness those words from Hansard:
(Text):
I refer to page 1983 of Hansard of March 7, 1957:


William McLean Hamilton: Will the minister please explain to the house why they do not make a practice of paying all Christmas overtime in cash and having the thing cleaned up promptly in January?


Mr. Bourgel:: It is not the same man at all.


Azellus Denis: Not the same man. (Translation):
That is what he said. Other times, other ways. The employee who counted on his overtime to pay his rent will have to use his holidays. If he planned to make a time pay-

ment on a refrigerator, he has nothing but holidays to offer his dealer. If only he had been notified of this new policy, he would have acted accordingly.
Today the new Postmaster General is making a great show because he saved money on overtime. We are installing electronic machines, says he. There are 200 square feet of space in the Montreal post office which have been left empty for the last six months, waiting for the arrival of electronic devices. It served as a cloakroom during the holiday season. Today, this section is closed up, it is unoccupied. I do not know whether the minister is expecting Elsie and Alf, the English robot. Things of that sort happen every day. And then he stated: "I have no sympathy for letter carriers who complain about their salary". How after that, can you expect employee morale to be good? Here is sound advice for him:	primo non
nocere (first of all, do no harm). The minister is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on electronic machines that will take the employees' places. Postal employees are entitled to know the facts. I think the Postmaster General should see to it that there are improvements, instead of trying to have people believe he has brought about improvements.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock? (Text):


Frank Charles McGee: I am
sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired. Does the committee agree unanimously that the hon. member should be permitted to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William McLean Hamilton: Is there any objection to going on now so that the hon. member can continue his remarks?


Azellus Denis: I will continue at eight o'clock.


Frank Charles McGee: I have heard objection to continuing at this time.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m. (Translation):
Azellus Denis: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank hon. members for allowing me to go on with my remarks, even if the time I am allowed by standing orders has expired. I may assure you that I shall try not to abuse this priv-

ilege. However, in doing so, I feel that the public and hon. members may suffer, because I shall not be able to tell all I would like to say about the post office administration. At any event, I believe I have said enough by now to prove that the present minister, far from being as efficient as those who preceded him, just made things worse.
There is one thing I should not hesitate to say; he did more harm to employees in his department than any of his predecessors.
When the house took recess at six o'clock, I was just dealing with a speech made by the minister in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. In his speech, he attributed unemployment to three or four causes, of which the first was competition; the second, the greater number of people on the labour market; the third the lack of specialized and expert workers in this age of automation. Finally, he suggested to those who were listening-at least I suppose they were listening-to buy in Canada, to "Buy Canadian".
Now, if there ever was a minister who disregarded all these alleged causes of unemployment, it was the present Postmaster General. For instance, with regard to competition, the Postmaster General can hardly expect us to believe that there is competition within his own department. Consequently, if he does not take on more employees in his department it is not on account of another Post Office Department, since he is the only one to offer this service in this country.
Second, the increase of people on the labour market. That happens every year. It is normal. Each year, our population increases and there is hardly any difference with former years. As far as the special training which our citizens should have in order to face the automation era, if our workers are not ready to use automatic machines, it is up to the minister not to step up automation excessively. If the minister wants to set up automatic equipment in the Post Office Department and does not have the required experts to operate them properly, I should simply suggest that he wait until we have competent people to do this work. I do not tell him to hurry up, I simply suggest that he wait until the number of unemployed in this country regresses before he replaces people by machines in the Post Office Department.
And the last advice given by the minister to his listeners was to buy Canadian; he 90205-6-2304
Supply-Post Office
added that the Americans were buying American and the British buying British, and that Canadians could get something similar at a better price.
Well, Mr. Chairman, if that is good advice to reduce unemployment, I suggest that the minister should practise it himself because, unless I am mistaken, all that was modernized in the Post Office Department, all the electrical equipment that was installed there was imported. For instance, the Univac-120 equipment is imported; the electronic equipment comes from England or the United States. In fact, the minister even went to England recently and inquired about this famous new equipment called Elsie and Alf. I even believe that he is interested in introducing it in this country. Consequently, before advising Canadian citizens to buy Canadian, he should practise his own advice and buy Canadian whenever possible.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Hear, hear.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Chairman, if this is true for electronic equipment, it is also true for mail-mobiles or scooters, because most scooters or mailmobiles about which the minister makes such a fuss are American or Italian made, and it is only last year that they were finally fitted with a body apparently made in Canada. But the greater part of those mail-mobiles is made abroad.
Thus, if the minister wishes to carry on his experiments with scooters or mailmobiles, he should try to find someone in Canada who could build such a mailmobile so that he could do his share to reduce unemployment.
Mr. Chairman, to come back to those mail-mobiles, the minister said in the house, in reply to a question of mine, that his department had purchased 57 mailmobiles at an average cost of $81,966 a year. He added that without those mailmobiles, 19 additional civil servants would have to be hired. Now, supposing he had hired 19 additional employees at about $4,000 a year, for instance, instead of buying his mailmobiles, the total expenditure would have been $76,000. Therefore, it would have been cheaper than the experiment he is now carrying out with those mail-mobiles.
I see the Postmaster General shaking his head in denial. He seems to feel that I am not right. Well then, let me quote the information given out by the minister, as found at


Mr. Brunsden:: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Azellus Denis: If my hon. friend would wait a few minutes he will have all night to ask any questions he wishes.
(Translation):
I respectfully submit, Mr. Chairman, that patronage has prevailed even more than previously. All members here have received letters denouncing injustices, claiming that such and such a person, such and such a postmaster, such and such a postman had been dismissed for political reasons.
I will mention two or three cases only, without going into all the details. If the minister wants more details, I am prepared to give them to him. There is, for instance, the case of one Mr. Gingras in the beautiful constituency of Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm, a veteran, who has been refused the job of postmaster because he was told he would not be able to carry out his work, in view of the fact that he was operating a bakery. There is also the case of a citizen of Louise-ville, a veteran who, after having passed the test, was replaced by another candidate who is not a veteran.


Mr. Paul:: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege.


Azellus Denis: There is no question of privilege.


Rémi Paul: If the hon. member for St. Denis is referring to political influence alleged to have been used for the appointment of the Louiseville postmaster-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Azellus Denis: There is no question of
privilege.


Rémi Paul: -I must tell him and even emphasize the fact that the appointment is not the responsibility of the Postmaster General but that of the civil service commission.


Jacques Flynn: If the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere has a question of privilege, he must state what it is about. If it is a matter of disagreement, he will have the opportunity to answer later.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Chairman, I understood the hon. member for St. Denis to contend that he is under the impression that the hon. minister has indulged in patronage. On that point, I submit-


Maurice Bourget: Order, order.


Rémi Paul: I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member for St. Denis has no right to level such an accusation.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Chairman, whether it is the civil service commission or the Postmaster General that should be blamed for it, it is none the less a fact.
However there is a point I should like to emphasize. When the Postmaster General was a private member in the opposition he used to criticize the postmaster general of the time and take him to task for various things. Yet the then postmaster general would reply that the question came under the civil service commission.
Therefore, if the present Postmaster General could raise questions at the time, I do not see why I cannot do the same now.


Mr. Ricard:: Does that mean that all the charges then made were justified?


Azellus Denis: They are justified today. However the person responsible-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You have been talking for an hour and a half without saying anything.


Azellus Denis: To give another example- several government members feel uneasy-I am referring to a sessional paper concerning Ladysmith, Que.
A mail contract was taken from a courier and awarded to another man who is a Conservative organizer.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You transferred 535 contracts. You are the greatest supporters of patronage.


Azellus Denis: The Postmaster General denies practising patronage. I simply want to prove, quoting certain cases in support of my point, that he does practise patronage.
The minister is as much to blame as his predecessors, if not more so.
I simply submit the case of Ladysmith. A Mr. Pasch was replaced by a Mr. Turcotte, in
Supply-Post Office
spite of a petition signed by all boxholders, except two who could not be reached on account of bad roads.
Here is a summary of the petition and this is part of the papers produced in the house. (Text):
Copy sessional paper 119C, 1st March, 1961. (Translation):
Here is what the petitioners claimed, among other things on March 1, 1961:
(Text):
As far as we are concerned, Mr. Pasch-
(Translation):
He is the man who had the contract before. (Text):
-is the best mailman we have had as long as we have had this route. He is just like clock work every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday morning. We know just when to expect him.
Further down, it says:
To us, so far as James Turcotte is concerned- Mr. Turcotte is the man who is replacing the former mailman.
-we are certainly against him serving our mail boxes. In the first place he is in his high seventies and he is too old a man to be capable of looking after mail.
(Translation):
I skip a small part, because it is somewhat private and personal. I continue:
(Text):
He is always interfering with politics and that does not suit with post office work. Several of us box holders will certainly have our boxes lifted off the posts if James Turcotte serves our mail boxes as he is anything but honest. We certainly got a shock when we heard of our rural route carrier Reinhold Pasch being changed without any complaints or warning.
(Translation):
As I said before, Mr. Chairman, that petition was signed by all box holders, with the exception of two.
Did that prompt the minister to reconsider his decision? Oh, no.
Another one lost his postmastership because he had signed nomination papers.
We all know that honest citizens often cannot refuse to sign a candidate's nomination papers. What makes it worse in this case is the fact that the nominee was not running in a federal election but in a provincial one. If the postmaster had taken part in a meeting or if he had been an organizer, well and good, but he merely signed to show that he knew the man who wanted to run in a provincial election. He is an honest man and a veteran besides.
He is replaced by another Conservative organizer. Therefore we Liberals have no

Supply-Post Office
lesson to take from the new Postmaster General who, while in the opposition, used to complain about the very same things.
If he wants me to recite dozens of cases, I can do so and prove to him that he did worse than the minister of the previous government.
Anyway, Mr. Chairman, there is another promise which he made but never fulfilled.
I come now to that famous question of publicity. I know that our friend, the Postmaster General is publicity-minded. In fact, I have never known a minister to enjoy facing camera as much as does the present minister.
And yet in years gone by he would complain about the high cost of publicity, criticizing the publicity reports for 1956 and 1957.
Well in 1956-57, before the minister took over his present function, we used to spend $326,700 in Canada for his department's publicity. We are now asked in this budget to vote $456,800 for the same purpose, which is an increase of more than $130,000, or one third; that amount is more than sufficient to replace the famous locks the keys of which are now in the hands of Kingston inmates.
I believe that in that field alone he could save enough to change all locks on postal boxes which may be broken into, since it has been proven by the police who inquired into the matter that crooks had keys to open almost any postal box across the country.
As a proof of his propensity for exaggeration, the Postmaster General uses public money for his own publicity. I have here a copy of the publication entitled Postmark, for which the government spends over $34,000 every year.
If you get this little publication, you will notice that every issue carries a photograph of the Postmaster General. It is reproduced sometimes twice, sometimes three times. I have even found an issue showing his picture 12 times. Altogether, these publications printed the picture of our sweet Postmaster General 70 times.
In addition, he has been cover-boy or pinup boy seven or eight times. He has been photographed standing up, riding a scooter, a car, sorting mail and bowling. He has been photographed from the front and from the back.
In all this publicity we find summaries of things he has said, and references to the places where he has been and where he has eaten.
All that has cost the Canadian public $34,000. We have no objection to the minister making propaganda for himself, and I believe he needs it. He has my approval, but he should do it at his own expense, not at the expense of the Canadian people.
But that was not enough to satisfy him, so he recently sent another 24-page book, printed on de luxe paper. I got one and I believe other members got a copy too.
In this book, he tells us that we do not know anything about postal service. However, on reading the book, we realize that the Postmaster General himself does not know anything about it either.
As a matter of fact, this book contains a summary of the report of the Post Office Department. But the minister being fond of publicity, takes advantage of it.
His name appears on page one, and again on page three.
Another blank page and a nice grey ribbon.


Mr. Gillei:: Jealousy is your only inspiration.


Azellus Denis: The third page is blank; further on only a quarter page is printed, then there is a large school-child sketch, and another quarter page.
You can read all kinds of trivialities and stupidities. For instance, how many miles the mail carriers walk: they walk six to seven times the distance from earth to the moon and back.
There is information about the weight of letters, and I think that is where it is said it equals that of 2,000 diesel locomotives.
Really, Mr. Chairman, that information is so interesting that I think I will quote it, the more so since I would not want to misrepresent the minister's statements.
On page 7 you can read:
(Text):
It is more than 3,700 miles from St. John's, Newfoundland, to Victoria, B.C. but if all the letters posted last year by Canadians were laid neatly end to end-
Mountain of mail.
(Translation):
I do not know how long it takes to work out those calculations, and I wonder whether the employees are the ones who make them I do not know whether the letters are large or small or whether undelivered letters are included in the statistics.
(Translation):
-they would cover the return trip half a dozen times.
(Translation):
Some letters are a foot long, others are only six inches long; this is part of-
They would weigh more than a thousand diesel locomotives-
(Translation):
It is fortunate that diesel engines were invented, otherwise we would not have obtained

those statistics; the old engines were inadequate.
(Translation):
-and stacked in a pile would tower 500 times as high as Mount Everest.
(Text) :
This is very instructive, Mr. Chairman, this is really informative for the Canadian people. I wonder how people could be so ignorant before. I wonder how long it took the employees to figure that out.
I remember that we were asked to guess riddles of that sort in school: If it takes 30 yards of cloth to cover an elephant's back, from what height would a monkey have to drop a peanut in order to sink a ship?
I feel that this administrative system is childish. When it is claimed that the Canadian people are being informed by such nonsense, I suggest it is time to change the government if not to change the Postmaster General.
Out of 24 pages, eight at most are made up of reading matter. There is no French version, it is out of the question. The price of this publication is not known. Yet, enough space was available to include a French version.
Mountains. And on page 7:
(Text):
... a mountain of ...
(Translation):
On page 8:
(Text):
Moving the mountains.
(Translation):
Page 9:
(Text):
A mountain that grows.
(Translation):
And a little further:
(Text):
* . . mechanism and the mountain .. .
(Translation) :
And now we have reached page 11:
(Text):
More than moving mountains.
(Translation):
Here, you see a picture of the minister, sketches, and his famous plastic mailbox which cannot contain much more than Christmas cards because it is no bigger than a matchbox.
In my opinion, the minister had his bit of fun.
(Text):
Ah, we have information on page 21,
What the post office does for you-It carries your mail.
(Translation):
I believe I have said enough-
Finally, the minister asks for our comments. Well, I think he will save me the trouble of writing to him, but I suggest that he read the record tomorrow and he will
Supply-Post Office
have a good idea of the Canadian population's opinion on that matter.
Now, with regards to postal service, as I said earlier, we have lots of letters that are returned three months after having been sent; people have come close to being arrested because their mail was late, or have lost their job for the same reason, as a Cooksville alderman pointed out.
The minister boasts of having set up carrier services. However this service has been refused to Ste. Agathe des Monts; and do you know why? They did not have the required population. Therefore, it was not the minister's fault. Well, same goes for those who have obtained their carrier service-it was not the minister's doing either. Carrier service extension is normal, as evidenced by the annual increases of those services.
In 1956-57, street letter box service increased by eight; in 1957-58, it increased by nine; there has been another increase in 1958-59 and an increase of nine in 1959-60.
As far as parcel post is concerned, it is the same thing; each year you add four or five new services-it is normal.
Therefore, the minister should not take credit for it. It depends on the population, the area and the density of homes.
The situation is the same in the case of the other road services.
In the case of rural routes, they used to increase by about 50 each year in the past. The minister does exactly the same thing now. The policy was the same in 1956-57 when those routes increased by 50; in 1959-60, they increased by 54. This is nothing to boast about. There is no reason to take any credit for it. Everything is done according to rules established long before the hon. gentleman became Postmaster General.
As far as the post offices are concerned, the minister cannot boast of having increased their number because, since he took over they have decreased by exactly 382. Some better and larger ones have been built but nevertheless, we have, in this country, 382 post offices less than when the minister's party took over.
A few moments ago, the efficiency of the service which looks after compensation claims was mentioned. In 1957, there were 11,800 claims; in 1959-60, there were 13,020. Consequently, since the minister has been administering the department, compensation claims have not decreased.
Compensation paid in 1957, because they were really warranted, amounted to $128,000, whereas under the present minister's administration, his department paid out a sum of $170,000 in compensation. In short, as far as an improvement of that service is concerned, it can scarcely be called a success.

Supply-Post Office
On the other hand, as far as recoveries are concerned, the amount of $11,200 has been recovered on amounts which had been paid. In 1959-60, the amount was exactly the same. Yet, the department paid out large sums in compensation. The number of compensation cases has increased; and the amount has also risen.
With regard to dead letters, we find that they are more numerous than ever.
And the minister's auction sales, well, they brought in less than in 1957.
As to postal matter, the situation is about the same as in 1957. In 1956-57, there were 3,485 million postal matters; in 1958, there were 3,723 million; in 1960, the figure was 3,600; in 1960-61, we have 3,900 million.
Consequently, the volume of mail is not much bigger now than it was in the past.


An hon. Member:: It is costing millions more.


Azellus Denis: I do not think I need continue my remarks in that regard, because we have amply shown that the minister had nothing to do with all the good that came about; rather it was a result of normal operations.
If the hon. minister wishes to hear complaints about holdups, I can give him dozens of them-
(Text):


Mr. Aiken:: On a point of order; I realize that the hon. member has been given extended time and that this is his big moment, however, he has been speaking now for 40 minutes. If we are going to extend the time I feel we should at least go through the formality of doing so each half hour.
(Translation):


Azellus Denis: I suggest that the hon. member bear with me for two or three minutes. In any event, he knows full well that we are allowed to speak for 30 minutes when the house is considering estimates, and to rise as often as we wish. Furthermore, I do not know whether he was here at the time, but the hon. members have been kind enough to allow me to complete my remarks. I also think the Postmaster General is anxious to get rid of me as soon as possible, and I want to give him satisfaction.
I still have to deal with the matter of thefts, for which I should not need more than two minutes. The present minister used to complain that his predecessor hired thieves. He has risen to office, he has become Post-

master General, and now there are even more thefts. And when he was asked about this, he said: "Yes, there are more thefts, but there is less money involved." This year however, there are more thefts and there is more money involved. I wonder what excuse he will turn up. Let me remind him of what he said on July 26 1958, as recorded on page 2739 of Hansard:
.. .while roberries in post offices did increase from 159 in the previous year to 191, the actual losses in those robberies declined from $161,500 to $130,100. The reason for that is simply that instead of the previous, self-satisfied, take-what-may-come attitude of the former postmaster general we went after this thing.
The minister says he went after this thing. Could it be because there had been less money stolen? In 1959-1960 the number of thefts reached the figure of 813. At the time he complained, there had been 335. So what kind of success can the minister claim? The amount of money stolen at the time was $106,510, as against $295,130 today. In other words, the amount has tripled and the number of thefts has doubled. So, considering that he used to complain about the minister hiring thieves, I wonder what charge I should level at the present minister now.
Mr. Chairman, in order to please the hon. member who finds that my comments are not likely to help the Conservative party, I shall close my remarks in saying that the Postmaster General has fulfilled none of the numerous promises he made when he was a private member.
Second, he has neglected the employees in lowering their morale by his meanness.
Third, he has neglected the services in multiplying delays, in allowing thefts to increase, in allowing, for instance, that deliveries by truck be exposed to thefts much more than when deliveries were made by train. Allow me to remind the house that when one of the first postal services was set up in 1719, highway robbers had been checked by arming mail couriers. The minister could do the same thing; he could also investigate when a mail transport contract is granted. I submit that the present minister is not aware of the behaviour or background of those who obtain mail contracts, nor of the truck drivers. No wonder the mail is exposed to all kinds of thefts, as was the case when the truck driver was himself the thief. I suggest to the minister to reconsider the matter and stop increasing truck transport to the detriment of railway transport.

Lately, we learned that the Canadian National Railways had registered a deficit of $67 million. That would be a good opportunity to reduce that deficit a little by having them keep their contracts.
Once again, I hope the minister will give credit to those postal employees who are doing a tremendous job, and who certainly deserve the congratulations of the Canadian people.
(Text):


Edwin William Brunsden: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, some 10 minutes ago the hon. member who has the floor said that he would finish in two or three minutes. These have been the longest two or three minutes that I have ever experienced in my life.


Mr. Regier:: Mr. Chairman, some of us have looked forward with anticipation to once again having our annual entertainment in the House of Commons and I must say that the hon. member for St. Denis has not let us down. He has again provided enjoyment in our discussions. I should like to disagree with him on only one plea that he appeared to be making. If I assess his submissions accurately, he seemed to plead with the department to delay the application of automation to the Post Office Department in the interest of supplying more employment in our nation. To me this would be a most deplorable attitude for the minister or for any department of government or any industry to adopt because I believe that all of us ought to basically welcome the advance of automation. If we can make machines do the work that human labour has done in the past I believe it is in the long term interest of all of us to welcome this type of development. I believe that national unemployment problems have to be resolved in another way and that opposing automation in any department of government or in any industry is a very poor answer to the unemployment problem.
In my initial remarks I should like to remind the minister of the call issued by his own Prime Minister at the last meeting of the national Progressive Conservative party of Canada in their great pow-wow in Ottawa, at which time the Prime Minister announced that the issue the next time we faced the electorate will be free enterprise versus socialism. Since the minister is one of those responsible for the operation of one of the most socialistic enterprises in our nation, I ask him whether tenders have yet been called for the sale of the Post Office Department? Is he prepared to follow his leader and offer for public sale the enterprise known as the 90205-6-231
Supply-Post Office
post office of Canada because, if I understand the clarion call of the next election, it is supposed to be free enterprise versus socialism. The minister is responsible for one of the greatest socialistic enterprises in Canada, and I am asking him whether the post office is to be sold to private enterprise with or without tenders being asked for and bids being called?
I should also like to join the hon. member for St. Denis in his expression of regret over the "letter perfect" that we received in our mails. I should like especially to express my regret at the particular bulletin entitled the "Letter Perfect." We received a letter signed by William Hamilton, Postmaster General. I suppose it was signed by a mimeograph machine. What I do not particularly appreciate is the opening sentence which asks, "How much do you know about the Canadian post office? If you are like most other Canadians the answer is 'very little' ". I think the tone of that letter is regrettable in so far as the recipients are concerned. I know the minister is an expert in the field of public relations and advertising. However, I am sure that no one in the advertising field, or in the public relations field, will agree with him that it was appropriate to address that letter to all members of parliament, and I suppose to all members of the other place, informing them that what they know about the Canadian post office is "very little".
I believe this was a regrettable move on the part of the Post Office Department and it did very little to enhance the prestige of the minister. We may all be experts in certain fields but if we have an understanding of public relations we will never inform people that they are not also experts in a particular field.
I should like to begin my remarks by paying my compliments to the employees of the minister's department. I believe that in world history instances are very rare where public employees can be said to have given as faithful service to the general public as have the employees of the Canadian post office over many long years. They have done so despite inadequate wages and inadequate recognition on the part of the government of Canada in years gone by.
To come to specific matters. I recall that some time ago the minister assured the house that the minimum number of households required before door-to-door delivery service might be instituted in any community was a subject that was under consideration. At the present time the regulations provide that door-to-door delivery service cannot be instituted in any community until at least 2,500 households exist. The minister assured the house at that time that this minimum figure was under active consideration from the point of view

Supply-Post Office
of the possibility of reducing it. I should like to have a report as to what have been the results of this active consideration. Have any conclusions been reached and, if so, what are the conclusions?
In the light of existing levels of unemployment I believe very serious consideration indeed should be given to this matter and I should like to recommend that door-to-door delivery be instituted in all communities having 1,500 households rather than the existing minimum of 2,500. Before we go overboard in offering twice-daily service in any of our urban areas for the convenience of a limited number of business institutions, I believe we should first of all give most serious consideration to reducing the minimum number of households required before an urban area, a suburban area or any postal community can have door-to-door delivery service.
I should like to call the minister's attention to page 48 of his latest annual report. I notice that it deals with the year ended March 31, 1960. I suppose that a day or two after we have completed his estimates we will receive in the mail the latest annual report for the year ended March 31, 1961.


William McLean Hamilton: Thank you for the compliment.


Erhart Regier: I have noticed this happening in the case of so many departments in the past. The moment the estimates are through we are supplied with a copy of the latest annual report. I can understand that as of today, April 13, the minister can hardly be expected to have his annual report completed and I am willing to forgive him. However, I regret having to deal with a report that is over a year old.
I should like to call his attention to page 48 where reference is made to the operations of the post office savings bank for the past ten fiscal years. In my opinion this is a wonderful institution and I regret that the minister and his department are doing very little indeed to advertise the facilities available to the Canadian public through the branches of the post office savings bank that exist.
I am very pleased to note that the number of depositors has increased. There are now 302,611 accounts compared with 278,595 at March 31, 1951. I believe that is remarkable progress. However, I also notice that the balance on deposit as at the end of the fiscal year has declined from $37,661,920.55 at March 31, 1951, to $29,372,460.93 as of March 31, 1960. In my view this is regrettable. I contend that the minister and the Post Office Department should undertake measures to make the facilities available to the Canadian

public more widely known. I look forward to the number of depositors who patronize the post office savings bank continuing to grow and I hope the total volume of deposits will also grow in the years to come.
I should now like to refer the minister to page 50 of his latest annual report where reference is made to the number of post offices. Once again, as I have done in other years, I must call his attention to the fact that there is again a decline in the number of post offices in operation in Canada. During the year ended March 31, 1960, there were 279 post offices closed while only 142 new post offices were established resulting in a net decline in the number of post offices of 137. The reason I raise this issue is that it is a very important one to many people living in the suburban areas adjacent to the metropolitan centres of Canada. There is and there has been for years a deliberate policy on the part of the Post Office Department to lock up post offices in suburban communities in order to enhance the prestige and size of the major post office in the central metropolitan area. The minister should realize that he is not being blamed for the Liberals having built a $14 million lemon in Vancouver. He ought not to sustain the maintenance of that lemon and to penalize all rural communities around Vancouver for the sake of making this Vancouver lemon into a paying proposition. The minister ought to realize that there was a minister preceding him and that there were other colleagues of the minister preceding him who looked with envy at the pork barrels existing in Montreal and in Toronto and who made a very desperate effort to establish a similar pork barrel in the city of Vancouver. We are having post offices closed down and knocked out of business all around Vancouver, even many miles away from Vancouver, because of this initial plot and scheme for which I do not blame the minister. It was a Liberal cabinet minister, and not even a former Liberal postmaster general but a Liberal cabinet minister of the city of Vancouver, who designed this particular plot.
If the minister attempts to tell me or the people of the lower mainland that because of automation efficiency is being increased, he is completely wrong. He can ask any reputable business man in the lower mainland of British Columbia and he will find that our services are deteriorating year by year until the situation has arrived at the stage where every once in a while delivery of a first class letter from Ottawa to my home takes up to five days, while a letter out of South Burnaby into north Burnaby will take up to three and four days. Any man, on behalf of a business enterprise or organization sending out mail

in the lower mainland of British Columbia will be very happy to substantiate my claim. The minister is not responsible initially. He ought to stop listening to the big grass in the Vancouver postal district and pay some attention to the local community needs in that area. Our postal services are rapidly deteriorating.
We see no beneficial results whatsoever in this effort to build up this horrible lemon we find on Georgia Street which cost the taxpayers $14 million. A tunnel was built, if you please, to carry the mail from the C.P.R. station. It is an underground tunnel. I do not know how long it is; it is several miles in length and it cost $2 million. It has been a complete flop ever since the beginning. All important mail goes by air as the minister knows. The building was designed for helicopter service from the airport to the post office. I understand there is no such service even yet after many long years. There is no helicopter that takes the mail at the airport and delivers it on to the roof of this $14 million building. However, to handle the advertising of the soapsuds there is a $2 million tunnel in operation.
I would ask the minister whether the interest on $2 million a year would not more than pay for all the trucking necessary for a number of years to come. There is no tunnel to the C.N.R. station. There is just one tunnel costing $2 million to the C.P.R. station. I understand that it is operating most inefficiently and that, as far as economics are concerned, it is really something fantastic and out of this world.
I hope the post office will also soon begin to pay some attention to municipal boundaries. I know the assertion is made that in the interests of efficiency they can pay no attention to municipal boundaries. However, I have in my constituency the corporation of the district of Coquitlam. The residents of this municipality receive their mail either in the city of Coquitlam, out at the city of New Westminster or out at the city of Port Moody -and that is a fantastic situation-simply because of the arbitrary authority. We pay no attention to municipal boundaries. It is ridiculous. If there were a little bit of good will on the part of the postal authorities, they would pay some attention at least to municipal borders and would attempt to align their services so as to cause the least possible disruption. In my opinion it is completely needless that one single municipality must be served out of three separate post offices, each with a different name.
I should also like to appeal to the minister at this time to consider once again increasing the postage on second class and third class 90205-6-231 j
Supply-Post Office
mail. I feel that it is absolutely unfair to ask the users of first class mail and the taxpayers of Canada to subsidize all the horrible material that arrives in our mail boxes almost every day. I have a small apartment in Ottawa. I received there several advertisements in the mail this morning the first of which reads:
Save 10 cents on Kellogg's cereals. Free coupons inside. Canada postage paid, 11 cents.
The next one reads:
To the occupant 9 cents off. Canada postage paid, 11 cents.
It is sent out by Rice Chex, Wheat Chex and Corn Chex. I do not know what that means. The next one reads:
Save 10 cents when you buy one bottle of New Jim Dandy.
The next one reads:
Save 10 cents when you buy Swan any size.
There is shown a picture of the new squeeze bottle. That is four advertisements. I have one more which reads as follows:
12 cents off any size package of Extra.
I assume that "Extra" is a soap of some kind. Oh, I observe it is alleged that it is especially helpful in the washing of glasses or cut glass. The taxpayers and the users of first class mail are helping to pay for the distribution of this kind of junk. These companies, if you please, can turn around and claim this cost under the Income Tax Act as part of their advertising expenses. I know what happens to this 12 cents. Every merchant in Ottawa has 100 customers who like their merchant and they do not buy the stuff. They just bring the coupons to the merchants. It means in this case roughly 49 cents to these merchants to whom these advertisement coupons will be delivered in time.
I believe it is time that these misusers of the Canadian postal facilities are made to pay their fair share of the cost. This has nothing to do with the distribution of public information as is the case when we speak of newspapers or other valuable publications. However, these people ought to be called to account and be made to pay their fair share.
I should also like to ask the minister about one other matter. How much does his department pay each year to Pitney-Bowes? How much did they pay within the last fiscal year, or the fiscal year preceding that, if that information happens to be statistically more easily available to the minister?
If I want a Pitney-Bowes machine, why do I have to pay much more than the little machine is worth in the first place in order to get it to my business office? Then why

Supply-Post Office
do I have to pay a rental every three months on the machine? In the average business establishment the rental alone is more than the bloomin' little machine is worth in the first place.
I ask the minister, does Pitney-Bowes have a complete monopoly in the matter of postage meters; and if so, why? Why does not the department consider owning its own machines and renting them out to business establishments in Canada? Why do we have to pay over $300 for a machine that in its manufacture is worth perhaps $8 or $9, and then have to pay a very heavy rental ever after? What kind of a stranglehold have these people on the post office in this regard?
While I know they have not a monopoly in this field, how much did the government pay Pitney-Bowes in the last recorded year for the rental of weighing scales; and if they rent any at all, have they paid any money to Pitney-Bowes for the rental of folding machines? My inquiry concerns postage meters, scales and folding machines.
I believe the activities of this particular firm in relationship to the post office are due for investigation and I should like to have the minister's observations on these matters.
Before resuming my seat my main plea to the minister is that he should realize that in 1957 he became the Postmaster General of Canada. I know that most of his employees are loyal beyond the call of duty. However, I should not like the minister to think for one moment that he must always and at all times heed the advice of his senior officials without personal investigation into the merits of the arguments put forward by those senior officials.


Mr. Thomas:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to congratulate the Postmaster General on a very interesting presentation of the annual report of his department. The hon. member for St. Denis could not see too much virtue in it, but I think the hon. member is possibly better as a humourist than a statesman, as far as his view of post office matters is concerned.
I think the Post Office Department, the Postmaster General and the government are to be congratulated for taking a forward view in carrying on the administration of this branch of government service. No service given to the Canadian people is nearer to their hearts, lives or emotions than the service given by the Post Office Department.
Steps were taken during the last year to promote good relations with the employees of this department by adjusting their wages and bringing them into line with other adjustments that have been made throughout the civil service. I am sure that the morale

of post office employees has been greatly improved over the year on that account.
I know the Postmaster General is well liked by his employees. He has come into my own constituency without any fanfare and has visited local post offices in a quiet and efficient way much to the liking of the people in charge of those post offices. The department has been alert to increase the delivery service in the urban development areas around the city of London, and this has been much appreciated.
On behalf of the people of my constituency I extend thanks to the Postmaster General and the government for the promise of some new post office construction in our riding in the towns of Strathroy, Lucan and the village of Delaware.
I should like to offer one suggestion to the minister and the government for the improvement of the post office service in Canada. I suggest that the government give consideration to extending house-to-house delivery to the smaller centres. At the present time we have house-to-house delivery in the cities and, as was pointed out in the report of the Postmaster General, in the business sections there are two deliveries a day in many instances.
In the well developed rural areas all across the country we have house-to-house delivery through the medium of rural delivery carriers. In the smaller towns and villages across the country people still have to walk a distance of up to half a mile to the post office for their mail. I think it would be worth considering extending house-to-house delivery in the smaller towns and villages where this can be done with reasonable facility.
We are spending large sums of money to encourage the creation of jobs in Canada. Here would be a field of employment really made to measure. It requires only manpower.
It has been estimated by some authorities that in the heavy construction industry it costs as much as $28,000 a year to keep one man working with modern equipment. This is because of the high capital cost of materials and the power equipment necessary for this kind of industry. It would cost virtually nothing in the way of capital to put a mail carrier to work. Every dollar spent would be a dollar in wages. Such a program would constitute the most direct possible form of encouraging employment.
Such an extension of house-to-house delivery would raise our standard of living and assist in the equitable sharing of our national income by supplying more people with gainful employment. On January 22, 1959 I made the same suggestion in the

course of the debate on the address and I said on that occasion as reported on page 225 of Hansard:
On page 2744 of Hansard of July 26, 1958 the Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton) stated that house-to-house delivery is not provided in municipalities where delivery calls number less than 2,500. The reason behind this policy is that house-to-house delivery is most economical where six carriers can be used, five for regular five-day week route work and one spare man to alternate over the five regular routes so as to furnish six-day service.
It is respectfully suggested to the minister and the government that consideration should now be given to providing house-to-house delivery in smaller towns and villages where there is sufficient work to provide full-time employment for one man. Rural free delivery is almost universal; so is house-to-house delivery in the large centres. It would appear that the people in the smaller towns and villages may be under a disadvantage compared with others from the standpoint of mail service.
I should like to suggest to the Postmaster General and to the government that an estimate of the cost of extending house-to-house delivery to the smaller towns and villages across Canada be made, and that careful consideration should be given to the proposal I have outlined.


Mr. Carter:: Like all hon. members I listened with a great deal of interest to what the minister had to tell us about his department this afternoon. I want to compliment him on the achievements which he related to the committee, although the evident satisfaction which the minister showed in those achievements might perhaps make any further compliments seem superfluous.
Before proceeding, I too, want to pay tribute to the staff of the post office both here in Ottawa and in my own province. As the Postmaster General has said, they are very dedicated people and I wish to record my appreciation of the co-operation I have always received from them and for the thoughtful and sympathetic consideration which they have always given to problems I have brought before them.
Like the hon. member for St. Denis I received one of those little booklets telling the story of the Canadian postal service, and I want to thank the Postmaster General for reminding me that I am both a shareholder and a patron of our country's most essential public service utility. As a shareholder in this great public service over which the Postmaster General presides I must confess that my chest swelled with pride at the great list of broken records and earth shattering achievements about which the hon. gentleman told us this afternoon but I must say also that this pride was rudely dissipated when the Postmaster General announced a $9 million deficit. Deficits are always bad news to
Supply-Post Office
shareholders and it came as an anti-climax to all those great accomplishments:	the
greatest volume, the greatest expansion, the greatest revenue, he said, since 1867. The minister did not say it, but I was wondering whether this deficit was also the greatest deficit we have had since 1867.


William McLean Hamilton: No.


Chesley William Carter: Well, I did note from the report that this is the greatest deficit we have had since 1951. The largest deficit recorded since 1951 is a little under $2| million. We had a surplus in 1956 amounting, I think, to a little more than $10 million, which is a far cry from the financial balance sheet which the minister put on record today. The Postmaster General explained that this deficit was due to salary increases. I do not think that explanation is entirely valid. As the hon. member for St. Denis has pointed out there was an increase in the estimate last year as well as an increase in revenue, which should have helped toward paying those salary increases. The question which is uppermost in my mind is this: did any of those salary increases go to revenue postmasters? The minister mentioned two groups and I understood that these were permanent employees. But in most of my riding we have very small communities and very small post offices and I should think the people who work in them are not regarded as permanent employees but, more or less, as casual employees. I was wondering whether they also had shared in these increases. The minister nods; I am glad to know that they did.
In my province, or, at least, in my own riding, the functions of the post office have changed considerably over the past 12 or 13 years. Prior to confederation, or what we call confederation, when Newfoundland became a part of Canada, there were very few if any people in the ordinary fishing settlement who had any interest in the post office. The local merchant would probably be expecting mail together with the teacher, the clergyman and a few professional people. But perhaps not more than a dozen people in the whole settlement would be interested in the post office and therefore there was not too much concern about the service on the part of the people generally. Nowadays, however, everybody is interested in the post office because everybody gets mail. There are unemployment insurance cheques, family allowance cheques, old age pension cheques and so on, and the post office today instead of serving perhaps a dozen people serves practically every family in the community.
This places a greater burden on post office services and gives greater status to the postmaster. In view of this increase in traffic

Supply-Post Office
the postal accommodation situation in the small settlements is not satisfactory. We have a great number of settlements comprising 500 or 600 to 1,000 people. Although these settlements have quite a number of inhabitants the post office, because of low revenue, is operated from an individual's home. I am speaking of those settlements where the postal revenue is not great enough to warrant the provision of a post office building in the community. This situation imposes an inconvenience upon the residents because they must line up outdoors in all kinds of weather in order to receive their mail. Generally speaking there is no lobby in the private home and sometimes hardly even room enough to accommodate the mail.
I have repeatedly asked the Postmaster General to change the policy in this regard because I feel that if we are making great progress, as he has suggested this afternoon, the policy should surely be sufficiently flexible as to meet the varying conditions that exist in these settlements. I feel that we are, instead of changing the policy, holding to the old rigid policy of not providing postal services, such as buildings, etc., in those areas unless the revenue is at least $10,000, or something in that neighbourhood. This policy does not allow the provision of that type of service expected by the people in those out of the way settlements. I would like at this time to renew my age-old plea to the Postmaster General to reconsider his policy in this regard, and I hope that when he comes back to present his estimates next year he will be in a position to tell us that another great step forward has been taken in respect of a change in the provision of accommodation in the settlements to which I have been referring.


An hon. Member:: That would mean a greater deficit.


Chesley William Carter: No, I do not think this would mean a greater deficit at all.
I would also like to bring a problem to the attention of the Postmaster General regarding the basis of remuneration to the postmasters in these small revenue areas, and suggest that it is not entirely fair. As the Postmaster General appreciates, the postmasters in these revenue areas are paid a fixed amount out of which they are required to provide accommodation, fuel, light, janitorial services and maintenance. This is a satisfactory system in some areas but does not work out well in others. One result of this policy is that in two areas, comparable both in size and work load, the cost of accommodation varies, with the result that one postmaster will, in effect, receive less than an other. I realize that there is the one advantage

that the total amount paid to individual postmasters can be used as a basis for superannuation, but it seems to me it would be more equitable if the Postmaster General were to accept the responsibility of providing for accommodation rather than placing the burden upon the individual postmasters themselves. Present practice does constitute a hardship to the individual postmasters in many cases. While it is true that, as the Postmaster General told us this afternoon, the salaries to revenue postmasters have been increased, I am wondering if there has been a proportionate increase given to cover the cost of rentals, fuel and other operating expenses, or is the increase in these costs to be taken care of by the one increase he mentioned?
I must now turn to a consideration as a patron rather than a shareholder and in this light must express concern at the increasing postal rates particularly in respect of parcel post services. As the hon. member for St. Denis pointed out, the rate increases have been substantial, ranging from 100 per cent to 300 per cent.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: You
must remember that the rates have gone downward as well.


Chesley William Carter: Yes, they have gone downward as well but in so far as they have gone up it constitutes an extra tax. I have no quarrel with the theory that the post office should pay its own way and I think that is a very sound principle, but in view of the increase in volume that has taken place and considering the modernization that has been effected by the automatic mail handlers, surely there is a decrease in the unit handling cost which would offset any additional expenditures which the Post Office Department may have to make. I believe every large private organization operates on this theory and I feel that the Post Office Department should do the same.
In any case, if we consider last year's report of the Postmaster General we find that over a 10-year period there is a $30 million credit to the taxpayers in respect of postal services. I arrive at this figure by adding the surpluses of 1951 to 1960 inclusive, which total $34,765 million, and subtracting the deficit for the same period which amounted to $4,374 million. I think the taxpayer should be entitled to have this surplus taken into account when considering any increase in postal rates, particularly since increased efficiency of operation would perhaps offset any increase in operating expenditures.

The Postmaster General referred this afternoon to an honourable mention which had been given to a design for a special issue of postage stamps.


William McLean Hamilton: was referring to a first prize rather than an honourable mention.


Chesley William Carter: Yes, I should have referred to the first prize and, for my purposes, that is even better. In this connection I am reminded of a letter I received some time ago from a Newfoundland organization which urged that a special stamp be issued at Christmas time depicting, perhaps, the scene of the nativity. I am not aware that the Postmaster General has received a similar letter but it originated with an organization that has dedicated itself to offsetting the commercialization of Christmas. It was pointed out in this letter that seven or eight other countries had issued several stamps in this vein at Christmas. I feel this is a good idea and would support this organization's request, and hope that the Postmaster General will give it favourable consideration.
In looking at the Postmaster General's report for last year I see that his department's greatest source of revenue is derived from the sale of postage stamps. I also notice that revenue from the sale of meters and registration impressions has almost equalled that from the sale of stamps. We have not been given the figures in this regard for the present year and do not know therefore if the increase in revenue from postal meters and registration impressions has taken place on the same scale, but if it has been proportionate then it is now perhaps even greater than the revenue from postage stamps.
Which of these two methods of selling stamps produces the greater net revenue for the post office? I understand that the only expense in connection with the stamps is the printing of the stamps themselves, which should not be too expensive. Is the cost of the meters greater than the cost of the postage stamps? If we are short of revenue, or are running into deficits, then we should encourage the method which will produce the greatest amount of net revenue.
The minister took a great deal of pride in the reduced number of complaints that he has received. Of course, there are two ways of looking at this. People sometimes give up complaining when they feel it is no use to complain. While they may have complained more when the Liberals were in power it may have been because they had more hope of getting action on their complaints. Now they have learned from experience that it is useless to complain to the Tories and they have given up in despair.
Supply-Post Office
Therefore, I would not advise the Postmaster General to press that argument too far.
There is just one other question I wish to ask the minister before I take my seat. I notice on the sheet entitled "Standard Objects and Expenses", under "Special categories", the allocation for this year is up by $2.8 million. The explanation indicates that the reason for this increase was the movement of mail by land, air and water. I was wondering whether the minister would tell us if this is on account of an increased volume of mail or on account of the increased cost of contracts that have been renewed? These are all the things I wish to mention at this time. There may be other points that I shall raise when we come to the individual items.


Mr. Weichel:: Mr. Chairman, as a former postmaster for almost 36 years, I am always interested in the estimates of the Post Office Department and especially in the wonderful growth of this organization and the splendid service provided by the Postmaster General, his department and thousands of employees across Canada.
Since retiring as a postmaster over three years ago I have been impressed by the many changes that have been made in the improvement of mail service during that short period.
The booklet entitled "Letter Perfect", about which we have heard quite a bit, the story of the Canadian postal service, published by authority of our Postmaster General, should be of great interest to all Canadians as shareholders and patrons of the Canada post office. The Postmaster General's remarks in the second paragraph of the foreword in this booklet are well worth repeating. I quote:
Keeping pace with the tremendous growth and development that have marked Canadian business and industry In recent years, the post office has worked hard to maintain a modern efficient organization that handles an ever-increasing amount of business with speed and economy.
The efforts of 40,000 or more employees at more than 11,000 post offices across Canada present to us some idea of the great volume of mail handled so efficiently. Transportation of mail, as we know, is provided by air, water, rail, motor vehicle, snowmobile, dog sled and by other means. Perhaps one of the finest improvements has been the regular letter mail by air, otherwise known as "all-up service". To give the committee an example of the value and speed of such service, a letter mailed at my former office in Elmira, Ontario, on Monday evening at six o'clock was received and ready for delivery in Halifax at 9.00 a.m. the next morning.

Supply-Post Office
Great strides have been made in the rural mail carrier service. This has given an additional number of Canadians the opportunity to enjoy this privilege for the first time. Owing to the increase in volume of mail, we realize that these carriers are spending more time in preparing the mail for delivery and longer hours in covering their routes. Most of these carriers have been compensated for this extra time, but others have not received any increases for some time. Owing to the higher cost of living, may I suggest to the director of transportation, who has made a noticeable contribution to the improvement of rural routes and other services under his direction, that he give this matter his further consideration.
Many other advancements have been ably explained by our Postmaster General in his opening remarks. The indications are that the Post Office Department is ever ready and always on the alert to improve such services for the benefit of all concerned.
The Post Office Department has often been referred to as the barometer of business. During my term of office in this department men of business, industry, labour and agriculture inquired from time to time as to the increases of revenue in order to analyse the development of Canada's economy as a whole. The Post Office Department, along with the district director and his staff, have always been very helpful and considerate in providing advice and information concerning post office problems and opportunities to better the service.
The appointment of area superintendents, according to my observation, has been invaluable to post offices in their areas, especially the smaller ones spread out in those districts. Their frequent visits give them the opportunity of personal contact with the postmaster and his staff and also to correct certain details so essential to the betterment of the postal service. In my opinion they are performing yeoman work.
The appointment of public relations officers has always been commendable. The public relations officer has played a large part in the courteous behaviour of the post office staff to Mr. John Public and vice versa. On various occasions this officer from the district director's department visited my office, at which time he called on the schools, spoke to the service clubs and showed pictures of the advancement of postal service; he explained in detail other important matters such as insurance, c.o.d., special delivery and the benefits of householder mail.
The explanation of the postal service to our younger folks has been carried out for some time. During the spring and fall seasons I would arrange with the principal and

teachers of our schools to have the children visit my office in their classes, at which time explanations concerning the service were given.
Perhaps I could mention at this time that the visits of our Postmaster General have been deeply appreciated. It gives the employees the feeling that they are important cogs in this great work.
May I express my appreciation to the Postmaster General and the Minister of Public Works of their interest and concern in postal facilities at Kitchener, Ontario. This city has doubled its population in the last 25 years, and the improvements in the facilities in our area have been beneficial to all concerned.
Kitchener's twin city, Waterloo, where the present post office was built in 1912 and improved in 1948, has doubled its population in the last 10 years and tripled its revenue during that time. Again may I say I appreciate the efforts that are being made to overcome the present inadequate accommodation.
The Ontario postmasters' association, along with other such groups throughout Canada, have been interested in the postmasters and their staffs who work in the smaller offices. I am sure that the Postmaster General, along with all employees, was saddened last year by the sudden passing of Mr. Jay Ferris, postmaster of Campbellford, Ontario. This gentleman held many important positions in the postmasters' association and along with others played a big part in the substantial increases recently received by employees and in other matters pertaining to the welfare of public servants.
As a former member of this association for many years and a supervisory postmaster, I can understand some of the problems facing the postmasters of smaller offices. Many of these people are unable to enjoy more than a few days holidays each year as their services are requested from day to day. May I suggest that special instructions could be given by the postmaster and the department to the postmaster's assistant covering all phases of the work, including the cash account.
I have noticed from time to time the announcements as to how mechanized the post office is becoming and the amount of research that is being done to improve mechanization. Perhaps most of this research is being directed toward the larger offices. This research could also be directed toward the smaller offices as no doubt they would welcome the introduction of small cancelling machines and adding machines in order to provide them with some kind of efficient tools in their trade. Without these machines they must continue to do everything manually.

Their manual labour in this regard and their other duties involving the savings bank, government annuities, distribution of income tax forms, unemployment insurance stamps, et cetera, provide a busy schedule for the postmaster and staff. May I recommend to the department that further consideration be given to the smaller offices with regard to such matters.
Another interesting point that has been discussed on many occasions and which was mentioned by the hon. member for Middlesex West is that patrons in smaller towns find it difficult to understand why they cannot obtain house-to-house delivery of their mail. They feel that the postage they pay is the same as people pay in the cities and that they should be entitled to the same consideration. However, I understand that the Post Office Department has certain minimum requirements that must be met. Perhaps these requirements may be set too high. Older people have to walk quite a distance to receive their mail and parcels while others in the cities have them delivered. After all, the same taxes are paid by the people in the smaller towns. I hope this problem can be reviewed.
My last point has reference to the possible application of the minimum, four-cent local or drop letter rate of postage between Kitchener and Waterloo. I know that the rates on letters are governed by the Post Office Act which stipulates that the rate of postage on each letter posted within one postal area for delivery in another postal area is five cents for the first ounce, et cetera. I know that at the present time Kitchener and Waterloo are classed as two separate and distinct postal areas. I wish to mention that, geographically speaking, you walk from one city to the other without noticing the difference. In fact, they are so close that some people's homes are half in Waterloo and half in Kitchener and they pay taxes to each city. At one time the mayor of Kitchener lived in Waterloo and the mayor of Waterloo lived in Kitchener. Many Kitchener people work in Waterloo and vice versa. Girls working in office positions often take the mail with them at closing time and drop such letters in their home post office with the result that they are marked "postage due", which causes dissatisfaction to the receiver. I understand that this problem is being studied further by the department.
It has been a privilege, Mr. Chairman, for me to take part in the discussion of these estimates. May I again commend the Postmaster General, his genial deputy and all the employees for the success they have achieved in this important department.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, the speech made by the Postmaster General was such a really marvellous job of polishing his own flawless
Business of the House
diamond that I hate to get up and put any mist on the jewel but I feel that the department is hardly as perfect as the Postmaster General perhaps is. I wish to make a number of comments about the organization of the department and particularly about its deficit.
The minister really did not really speak about the deficit, the amount of money the department is losing on certain parts of its operations, specifically in its handling of parcel post and second class mail, though he did make some reference to parcel post. It seems to me that with that business efficiency he brought to giving us this wonderful pamphlet, "Letter Perfect", with the taste for design he has brought to postage stamps and to letter boxes and the efficiency he has brought to expansions of services he should be able to do something a bit more positive than he has with regard to the deficit.
Another thing he failed to speak about is a subject he brought up in a speech he made when he was in the United States, a speech that I am sure he was delighted to see find a place in that very well known publication, "Vital Speeches of Today". This is not something that happens every day to a Canadian Postmaster General so one would have imagined he would be proud of the remarks he made there and the policy that he seemed to enunciate. I can only be somewhat aghast that he did not bother to work that subject into his speech tonight in leading off on his departmental estimates. Perhaps I can call it ten o'clock and get under way more properly tomorrow on my appreciation of the Postmaster General.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, would the house leader indicate what the business may be for next week? I am assuming, of course, that we will continue with the estimates of the Post Office Department tomorrow followed, as he said last night, by the estimates of the Department of Fisheries. Are we to have a supply motion on Monday in view of the fact that the supply motion this week was postponed or is there other business for next week?


Mr. Churchill:: Friday's business will be as the hon. member has mentioned. We will continue with the estimates of the Post Office Department and if they are completed we will go on with the estimates of the Department of Fisheries.
The forecast for next week, subject to change because of changing circumstances as seems to happen almost every week, will be as follows: On Monday instead of a supply

Business of the House
motion we will take legislation. We will commence with item No. 3 on today's order paper, Bill No. C-72, an act to amend the Customs Tariff. That will be followed by Bill No. C-82, item No. 5 on today's order paper, having to do with a convention between Canada and the United States with regard to taxation matters. That will be followed by item No. 9 on today's order paper, the resolution in the name of the Minister of Labour dealing with the subject of rehabilitation of disabled persons. The estimates for next week, discussion of which may commence on Wednesday, will
be those of the Post Office Department if, unfortunately, we do not finish them tomorrow although I am sure the house will want to complete that department. We will then go on with the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I think that is all I will announce by way of a forecast for next week. Perhaps I could enlarge on Monday evening if the house appears to have made good progress.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Argue: 1.	Does the Royal Canadian Air Force conduct aerial photography for the purpose of mapping and charting (a) in the Canadian Arctic (b) in any other area of Canada?
2.	If so, are the photographs developed as the result of these flights available for: (a) inspection and future use connected with the economic development of Canada (b) photogrammetry (c) photo interpretation (d) resources surveys (e) structural geology (f) forest inventory (g) overburden and soil analyses (h) land use surveys (i) airborne profile recording (j) photographic reproduction?
3.	If not, for what reason?
4.	Have all these photographs been kept under the best possible conditions for future use?
5.	Have there been any complaints from users of these photographs concerning their present quality because of deterioration due to improper storage?
Answer by: Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister
of National Defence):
1.	No, not since the completion of the survey of Canada in 1956. The R.C.A.F. does, however, act as custodian of all federal government survey negatives including those taken by the R.C.A.F. prior to 1956 and those taken by civilian contractors up to the present date.
2 and 3. Prints of federal government negatives are available at a nominal charge to federal, provincial or civic governments, industry or the general public through the national air photo library of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys.
4.	Yes.
5.	No.


TRACADIE RANGE FIRE
Mr. Robichaud: 1.	What is the total number of claims received and accepted by the Department of National Defence
13, 1961	3655
Questions
for damage caused by a fire presumably started by R.C.A.F. planes in the vicinity of Tracadie target range, in August 1960?
2.	What is the total amount involved for claims accepted by the department and for which a settlement has been agreed upon?
Answer by: Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):
1.	Number of claims received, 58; number of claims paid to date, 42.
2.	Amount paid to date, $8,042.60.


POST OFFICE SITE, RESERVE MINES, N.S.
Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	Has a decision been made on a site for a new post office at Reserve Mines in Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, what is the obstacle to a decision?
3.	H so, is it intended to build a post office in the fiscal year 1961-62?
Answer by: Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):
1.	No.
2.	The department was in the process of acquiring land on which to erect this building when local objections were received to the proposed location on Sydney road. However, at that time the acquisition process had proceeded to the stage where it was not practicable to withdraw, and the lot on Sydney road was, therefore, acquired. The obstacle to a decision regarding a site for this post office is still the difficulty in satisfying various local interests concerning the location.
3.	Not applicable.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Livestock division-
21. Special grant to Pacific national exhibition, Vancouver, $200,000.
Special-
36. Prairie Farm Assistance Act administration, $690,483.

Friday, April 14, 1961