1964-04-30

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Joseph Macaluso (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege. It has to do with a newspaper report which appeared on page 1 of yesterday's Hamilton Spectator in which a story under the by-line of Mr. Tim Creery deals with a discussion between several Liberal M.P.'s and the hon. member for Labelle prior to his defection to the Conservative party.
I have no objection to the contents of this article, but the headline is misleading, unfair and damaging to the integrity of myself and the other hon. members mentioned in the story. The headline reads "Link City M.P. to Socred's 'Bribe' Claim". My question of personal privilege is based on two things, Mr. Speaker. First, any suggestions made by the hon. member for Labelle about a bribe were not directed to any of the M.P.'s involved in the discussions. Second, while Mr. Davey and all the hon. members concerned on this side have denied any suggestion of a bribe being offered, this matter has still to be looked into by a parliamentary committee. The headline, then, is wrong when it links my name or the names of any of the hon. members involved with alleged bribery.



MR. LANGLOIS    PARTY DESIGNATION OF MEMBERS FOR LABELLE AND RIMOUSKI

Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.
In Hansard of yesterday, April 29, 1964, the list of members of the house still showed the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Girouard) and the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Ouellet) as being affiliated to the Social Credit party. I consider that to be an insult to the Social Credit party and a slight on all rightthinking members.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that there be an immediate retractation and correction on the part of those responsible for such a disgrace, for we will no longer accept to be dishonoured by such ties.


Mr. Speaker:: May I point out that I am informed a clerical error was inadvertently made, and that it will be corrected.



MR. NESBITT-APPEARANCE ON C.B.C. PROGRAM &quot;VIEWPOINT&quot;

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I wish to raise a question of privilege in connection with another matter which concerns a great many members of this house. I may say to Your Honour that this is the first opportunity I have had of raising this matter because I have just received a photostatic copy of the newspaper article in question.
This newspaper article appeared in the Toronto Telegram of April 20 and was written by one Lubor Zink, a member of the parliamentary press gallery. It concerned the appearance by myself on the C.B.C. television program "Viewpoint". I am not concerned with the observations of Mr. Zink concerning myself, no matter how unfounded and bizarre they may be, but I am concerned with one of the things said in the article, which is as follows:
I have nothing against the M.P.'s expressing their unavoidably partisan opinion over the public-owned C.B.C. and getting paid for it with taxpayers' money-
Mr. Speaker, I did not receive any fee for appearing on this program, nor have I ever received any fees from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It is also my understanding that most other members of parliament do not accept fees for appearing on the C.B.C. I would draw Your Honour's attention that in view of the terms of the House of Commons Act this false allegation by Mr. Zink may well be defamatory, and I trust that either he or his newspaper, or both, will publish an appropriate apology and denial.



CONSUMER CREDIT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. J. Greene (Renfrew South) presented the first report of the joint committee on consumer credit, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
2752	HOUSE OF
Statement on Science and Research SCIENCE AND RESEARCH

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the house of certain decisions reached by the government concerning the organization of government activities relating to science and research.
Hon. members will recall that last December I asked Dr. C. J. Mackenzie to examine the activities of government relating to science and technology and report how, in his view, our efforts might be made more effective. On January 28 last Dr. Mackenzie submitted a report, a copy of which I now table in both French and English. I draw the attention of the house to the two principal recommendations put forward by Dr. Mackenzie in his progress report.
The first recommendation, which the government has now decided to adopt, is that a scientific secretariat be established to assemble and analyse information about the government's scientific programs and their interrelation with other scientific activities throughout Canada. This organization, which will be a small fact finding and analytical group serving in a staff capacity without executive authority, will, subject to approval of appropriate provisions in the next supplementary estimates, be established as part of the privy council office. It will, we believe, meet a long felt need in providing day to day support in the work of the privy council committee on scientific and industrial research.
Professor F. A. Forward, head of the department of metallurgy at the University of British Columbia, has agreed to serve as the first director of this scientific secretariat during its formative period. The establishment of the new office will take effect next July, and we count ourselves very fortunate in having secured the services of a man with the record, experience and ability of Dr. Forward. In creating this scientific secretariat, the government is also following substantially the course recommended by the Glassco commission.
The second recommendation contained in Dr. Mackenzie's report has to do with the proposal for a national committee on scientific policy, which again had been recommended by the Glassco commission. It will be noted from the report that Dr. Mackenzie in his report agreed in principle with this recommendation, but felt that before such an advisory committee could be brought into being we should re-examine the role of the national research council and define more clearly, in consultation with the national research council, what relationship should exist between it and the proposed new committee.
IMr. Greene.]

The government agrees that before a new advisory committee can be established the questions raised by Dr. Mackenzie in his report must be settled. This matter will therefore be the subject of study by the government, and in particular by the privy council committee on scientific and industrial research during the coming months, and it will be one of the first tasks of the new scientific secretariat to assist the privy council committee in this study.



UNITED NATIONS


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table the report dated April 29, 1964 of the secretary general of the United Nations to the security council on the operations of the United Nations peace keeping force in Cyprus, to which I made reference yesterday. In view of the importance of this report, perhaps the house would agree to incorporate it as part of today's Hansard proceedings.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give consent to having the report printed as an appendix to Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of report referred to above, see appendix.]



PRESS PRIVILEGE


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-93, to provide for the protection of news sources (press privilege).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I must state at once that this bill which I am bringing in does not have the approval of my colleagues. If enacted it would ensure that practising journalists would not be required in the courts to disclose the sources of information gained in their work. This would not, of course, be any protection against any statements, written or oral, made by journalists which could be libellous or slanderous.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a couple of questions to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He tabled the secretary general's report which, of course, we read in the newspapers this morning. I would ask him whether he noted U Thant's statement that "disarming of all except in the regular police and gendarmerie, with control of extremists on both sides" was one of the conditions. I would also ask him whether he has noted that that is one of the matters which we on this side of the house have been advocating. In addition, I should like to ask him whether the Le Devoir report of this morning is correct when it states "U Thant underlined the very restricted powers accorded to the United Nations force in Cyprus compared with those prevailing in the Congo". The report then states that in Cyprus, unlike the Congo, the forces are not authorized to resort to force.


Paul Joseph James Martin: With regard to the last part of my right hon. friend's question, I may say that I have not seen the newspaper report. I would be glad to examine it and deal with it later.
With regard to the first part of the question, I noted the observations made by the secretary general, but I do not believe I can usefully connect his statement with earlier statements made by the right hon. gentleman.


John George Diefenbaker: Truthfully, you could not.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would suggest that in examining the report and in view of what he said yesterday to the effect that Canadian forces might be mere vulnerable spectators of strife in Cyprus, the right hon. gentleman note what the secretary general said:
I wish here to emphasize my view that the United Nations force was dispatched to Cyprus to try to save lives by preventing a recurrence of fighting. It would be incongruous, even a little insane, for that force to set about killing Cypriots, whether Greek or Turkish, to prevent them from killing each other. Yet that is exactly the dilemma which is almost confronting General Gyani in Cyprus today. On the other hand, the force cannot stand idly by and see an undeclared war deliberately pursued, or see innocent civilians of all ages ruthlessly struck down by snipers' bullets.
In this connection I would call the attention of the house particularly to the section of the report beginning on page 10 which deals with the specific refinements and the kind of action which, in the present difficult situation, the United Nations force is authorized to take.


John George Diefenbaker: There is just one matter I want to mention. The hon. gentleman said I made a statement that the forces were in the
Inquiries of the Ministry position of passive policemen. I should like to correct that statement by citing page 2722 of Hansard, which reads as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. gentleman this question. Has he made representations to the effect that the role of the United Nations force, and I refer particularly to the Canadians, shall not be that of simply a passive policeman but that the force shall undertake remedial and effective action which in their opinion is necessary?
That is quite different from the way in which the minister interpreted it.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: I accept my right hon. friend's correction.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. In view of the fact that the six point peace proposal made by the secretary general to the United Nations seems to offer some hope of making the peace keeping functions of the United Nations force in Cyprus more effective, may I ask the minister, first, if this six point proposal has the support of the Canadian government and, second, does the minister know whether the security council has approved this proposal by the secretary general?


Murdo William Martin: The security council has not been in session since this report was circulated. The report is circulated to members as a matter of course and it is made available to members of the United Nations who are contributing to the peace keeping operation itself.
With regard to the proposals made by the secretary general, they do have the endorsement of the Canadian government. They represent substantially the result of discussions between members participating in the force and the secretary general or his officers.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question. Has the secretary general the power to implement these proposals without the concurrence of the security council, or must he wait for their approval? Second, may I ask the minister since these proposals which the secretary general is now making can be made public, as they have been, is there any reason why the terms of reference for the whole operation could not also be made public?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the status of forces agreement and the aide me-moire which outlines part of the terms of reference have already been tabled in the House of Commons. The directives have not, nor is it the intention to publicize the directives, for the reasons I have already given. With regard to the powers of the secretary general in connection with these new steps that may be taken by the peace keeping force,

Inquiries of the Ministry the secretary general has that power under the resolution passed by the security council on March 4.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They will become effective immediately?


Paul Joseph James Martin: These are now effective.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister tell us if the report broadcast on the C.B.C. national news this morning is correct that Swedish troops under the United Nations command in Cyprus have disarmed Cypriot guerrillas and, if so, do Canadian troops under the United Nations command have the same instructions?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, whatever instructions would be given to any contingent in the peace keeping force, would apply to all the participants in that force. In this context my hon. friend will have the opportunity of reading the report of the secretary general of the United Nations circulated yesterday. With regard to the particular radio news story no confirmation has yet come to us.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and ask him, in view of the fact that May 15 is the date when the 12 mile fishing limit will be established, whether the negotiations between Canada, the United States and one or two other interested nations have produced an agreement for the protection of traditional fishing rights of claiming nations such as the United States and France. What is the present position in this regard?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations with the United States, France and other foreign countries interested in the 12 mile limit are still proceeding, and I can add with satisfaction that a bill providing enabling legislation for the government to proceed with the 12 mile limit will be introduced in the other place probably today or tomorrow, and its details will then be made known.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, does the introduction of the bill mean that there has been agreement regarding claimed traditional rights in this regard between Canada, the

United States, France, and one or two other countries? Has that agreement been arrived at, or is the legislation being introduced while the negotiations are continuing and are uncompleted?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I may add, Mr. Speaker, that the bill will be introduced while negotiations are still going on and being completed. As I said earlier, the details of the bill will be made known probably within the next 24 hours, and at that time I will be in a position to provide further details.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: As a supplementary question, has there been any change in the position of the government of the United States with respect to this matter as of now, compared with the position the same government took a year ago?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, while negotiations are still going on it would not be proper for me to give details of the position taken by the United States or any other countries connected with this matter.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, following a question of privilege which I raised yesterday, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in the absence of the Prime Minister, stated that an answer would be given today in order to clear up the confused situation existing between Quebec and Ottawa in regard to the national pension plan. The whole population is apparently wondering if we are going to have a double pension plan in Quebec or if the plan will apply uniformly across Canada. Could the Prime Minister enlighten us on this matter today?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to clarify this point again for the hon. member. I have already made a statement in the house which I thought was a clarification. I have also received a request for information along the same lines from the hon. member for Three Rivers, who was asked the other day to put his request on the order paper.
In reply to these questions I would say that the proposal we are making is that there will be one pension plan which will be the same for all of Canada. This plan will be embodied in federal legislation. But any province that

so wishes can pass its own legislation making the federal plan also a provincial one, which in that case will be administered by the provincial government.
However, as far as the public are concerned it will be the same plan, requiring the same contributions and providing the same benefits, whether it is administered federally or provincially. This, Mr. Speaker, is understood in the agreement that has been reached and the arrangements that have been made between the government of Quebec and the government of Canada. This, Mr. Speaker, is the proposal. Whether it is implemented depends on the will of parliament and of provincial legislatures, but it is a proposal in which the government of Quebec has concurred, which other provincial governments have welcomed and which I hope will soon be implemented.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Does the answer given earlier to the hon. member for Villeneuve by the Prime Minister mean that social insurance cards will no longer be required in Quebec, since that province will have its own pension plan?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is the type of question that should be placed on the order paper.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the question I asked him last Friday on his estimates about possible publication of the survey of conditions of eastern farmers, and in view of the fact that this survey was made available at a recent conference held in the interlake region of Manitoba, would it be possible for members of parliament to get this report before his estimates are brought up again?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If this report is available, certainly it is available to all members of the house.



CHANGE IN SEATING ARRANGEMENTS OF NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a request to
Inquiries of the Ministry which I am sure Your Honour will be happy to agree. Because there are a couple of vacant seats and no one else will have to move to make it possible, and in order that two of our members may not have to sit behind members of another party, I should like to ask that the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) be moved to desk No. 241, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mather) to desk No. 267, the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) to desk No. 268, and the hon. member for Hamilton South (Mr. Howe) to desk No. 269.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Clerk please take note of the seat changes.


Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that although I have enjoyed the interesting influence which surrounds me, I am happy to get back to the safety of the New Democratic party.



GOVERNMENT POLICY RESPECTING IMPORTS FROM U.S.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and I apologize for not giving him notice, but I am up to my ears in the Columbia water.


An hon. Member:: So is everybody else.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In view of the fact that Canada imported 13.7 million short tons of bituminous coal last year and over 1 million short tons of anthracite coal, and that this is expected to increase by over 1 million tons in 1964, does government policy provide for increasing imports of coal from the United States?


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member put that question on the order paper.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Then I wish to give notice of my desire to debate this on the late night show after ten o'clock.
[Later:}


Hon. Miichell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria asked in my absence if I could inform the house as to the present state of the negotiations between Canada and the United States, as indicated by secretary of the interior Udall, with regard to this country's purchase of more coal from the United States as a result of increased purchases of power by that country from Canada.
2756	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry
This question seems to proceed from the assumption that in fact there are negotiations in progress between our two countries in which these two matters are linked. No such negotiations have been held or are being held, and I would like to say that in any general discussions relating to energy, which have been going on for some time and in which secretary of the interior Udall, who is in the gallery today-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mitchell William Sharp: -has been participating, the governments of both our countries have at all times been fully aware of the interest in this matter of the coal producing areas of our respective countries; and I can assure the hon. member, on secretary Udall's behalf as well as on behalf of the Canadian government, that this will continue to be the case.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Pierre-Andre Boutin (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Could the minister give us the reasons which prevent the federal government from reaching an agreement with the state of Maine regarding the unemployment insurance of the Canadian loggers who go to work in that American state?


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member put that question on the order paper.


Pierre-André Boutin: Mr. Speaker, I ask that this question be transferred for debate at ten o'clock tonight.



REPORTED DISCREPANCY IN NUMBERS OF RECIPIENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, may I answer a number of questions to which answers were promised earlier in the week. The first question was asked by the hon. member for Queens-Lunen-burg with respect to differences between statistics provided by the unemployment insurance commission and the dominion bureau of statistics.
The most recently available figures on unemployment insurance beneficiaries are for February of this year, when there was an estimated average of 503,000 persons drawing 

benefits during the month. For the week ending February 22, 1964, there were 467,000 estimated as unemployed by the labour force survey of the dominion bureau of statistics.
The difference of 36,000 in these figures, both of which are estimates, can in part be accounted for by the sampling variability of the labour force survey and the estimating procedures with respect to the number of beneficiaries. The difference can also be accounted for because a number of unemployment insurance beneficiaries are working part time and drawing partial benefits, and therefore will not be counted as unemployed by the dominion bureau of statistics in the monthly force survey.
In addition, one of the estimates is an average of the number of people drawing benefits during the whole month, while the d.b.s. estimate of unemployment is a count of the number of people employed during the third week in the month.



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of national importance for the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the house whether current reports are correct that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) did indeed tender her resignation last evening?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If I am not mistaken, I understand that this question was asked and answered last week.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I believe my question to be important and urgent.
Could the minister give the house a progress report on the consideration by the boundary waters commission of the Richelieu waterway project?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member put this on the order paper.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I would ask that this question be transferred for debate at ten o'clock tonight.



EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chatlerlon (Esquimall-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, but in his absence and knowing the interest of the Prime Minister, by reason of his recent telegram to the victims of the damage on the west coast, I direct it to him. Owing to the continuing and growing distress of the tidal wave victims on the west coast of Vancouver island, can the Prime Minister now inform the house whether the government of British Columbia has indicated the amount of federal assistance that will be required to rehabilitate those suffering this damage?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, so far as I know no such information has been received, but I will look into the matter at once in case it was sent to my colleague.


George Louis Chatterton: As a supplementary question, is the government considering making a grant directly to the disaster fund, regardless of the request of the British Columbia government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we are following the normal course in these matters, in which a request for this kind of assistance should come first from the provincial government.


Mr. John N. Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, if I might add in answer to the hon. member, the minister will be touring Alberni on May 3.


George Louis Chatterton: Pretty late.



PUBLICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he has exchanged, or plans to exchange any views with the United States ministerial visitors on the question of the periodicals legislation which is on the order paper, as it appears in Votes and Proceedings for March 11?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have had the pleasure of an exchange of views on several subjects. There will be a report made to the house on the conference tomorrow, after completion of the conference.


Douglas Mason Fisher: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that there is some urgency about this because of the pressures which are being brought to bear all about the House of Commons, I wonder if the Prime Minister is in a position to tell us whether he intends to go ahead with the legislation in the exact form in which it appears in Votes and Proceedings.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The proposal is already on the order paper.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. G. Hahn (Broadview):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister report any progress in the formulation of a national civil aviation policy?


Mr. Speaker:: In order to assist the hon. member to get a fuller answer, may I suggest he put that question on the order paper.


David George Hahn: I will deal with it, if I may, after ten o'clock.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Transport appears to be prepared and eager to report to the house on the matter, I wonder whether the house would give unanimous consent to hearing what progress has been made in the establishment of a national air policy, it being such an urgent matter.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I understood that the hon. member for Broadview had put this matter down for debate after ten o'clock tonight, so if the hon. gentleman would stay and listen I would be glad to speak at that time.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. It is rather blunt.
2758	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry
Is the minister aware that the bloodthirsty officials of the income tax division are now cutting down to the bone the receipts for charitable donations? When will he put a stop to that bureaucratic dictatorship in our province and throughout Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that is not a question. It is a statement, and I must rule it out of order.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. If I were to produce all the complaints which I receive these days at my office, you would not say that I am making an unfounded statement. I have proof of what I am saying, and that is why I should like the minister to give me an answer.


Mr. Speaker:: There was no doubt about the importance of the question. It was the form of the question to which the Chair was objecting. It was given in the form of a statement, not of a question.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: I wonder if the Prime Minister is yet in a position to answer the question I put to him with respect to the urgent request of the government of the province of Alberta concerning the motion which was unanimously passed by that legislature last month.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes. I regret not having been able to inform the hon. member of this fact previously, but the government has received a letter from the Speaker of the legislative assembly of Alberta containing the resolution in question recommending that negotiations be commenced immediately with the government of the United States. This resolution is now receiving consideration, and its subject matter has been discussed at the current meetings with United States ministers.



PASSAMAQUODDY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: I have a question for my fellow maritimer, the Minister of Fisheries. Can the hon. gentleman advise the house as to the progress of his discussions yesterday with secretary of the
[Mr. Caouette.l

interior Udall respecting the Passamaquoddy project, in which the government and congress of the United States seemingly evince greater interest than the government of Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: This, it seems to me, is a
very good question for the order paper.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: On a point of order, I have never questioned a ruling of the Speaker since I came to this house, but two of the ministers of the crown have already answered questions relating to the Canadian-United States discussions, and the question I have just asked seems at least as much in order as were those other questions.


Mr. Speaker:: The point of the ruling is that at ten o'clock the hon. member would have greater opportunity to explore this interesting question and probably to get a more detailed report. The Chair was, in effect, trying to assist.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: I have a question for the Minister of Industry. Will the minister inform the house what action has been taken to offset the substantial and serious lay-offs at Enamel and Heating Products Limited, Amherst, which are having such a damaging effect on the economy of Cumberland?


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member object to putting this question on the order paper.


Robert Carman Coates: I will join the late, late show.



POINT EDWARD NAVAL BASE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria, rising on a question of privilege, alleged that I had committed a "grievous error" in a statement I had made in the house regarding the refit of a naval vessel at Point Edward naval base. He said that the ship in question H.M.C.S. Swansea, was in fact at a private shipyard in Sydney rather than at the R.C.N. Point Edward naval base.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that my original statement was completely in accordance with the facts. The refit of a naval ship includes certain work for which the ship must be drydocked. As there are no facilities for drydocking a frigate at Point Edward naval base,

a contract was let to Sydney Engineering and Dry Dock Company for the docking portion of the refit, and H.M.C.S. Swansea is at present on the slip at this company.
However, the major portion of the refit will be carried out at the Point Edward naval base with an estimated requirement of 100,000 man hours, compared to 16,000 man hours required for the drydocking. It had been the previous intention that the whole Swansea refit should be let. to contract, but in order to ease the reduction of employment at Point Edward naval base it was decided, as I originally stated, to carry out the refit at the naval base. In consequence, Mr. Speaker, there was no question of privilege.



CONSIDERATION OF REPORT &quot;EMPLOYMENT AND MANPOWER UTILIZATION IN NEW BRUNSWICK&quot;

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Allan Joseph MacEachen: With respect to the question asked by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert on April 27, the report to which he refers entitled "Employment and manpower utilization in New Brunswick" is being made available to interested departments and agencies in Ottawa for study, and obviously to provincial agencies in the province of New Brunswick. It. will also be made available to members of parliament.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY AUTHORITY FOR FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS UNTIL 1967

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. The other day in an announcement the minister indicated, or said, that the government is "at present contributing to the cost of highway construction under the Trans-Canada Highway Act, until December 31, 1967". I wonder if the minister could tell us under what authority those contributions will be made.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member would not object to putting that question on the order paper.


Frank Howard: I would, to an extent, for this reason. As I understand it, the Trans-Canada Highway Act prohibits any contributions to the various provinces after May 31, 1964. It is because of the urgency attaching to that date that I ask my question, which is akin to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition a few moments ago in which the date May 15 was referred to. My question is, I submit, just as urgent.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Of course the Chair always tries to accommodate as many hon. members as possible, and if I am correct it does appear to me that the Minister of Public Works has the answer. In order to save the time of the house perhaps the minister would answer the question, if he has an answer ready, and we will dispose of the matter.


Hon. J. P. Deschateleis (Minister of Public Works):: May I simply say to the hon. member that a few months ago this extension was granted by the house by way of supplementary estimates.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean-Paul Deschatelets: May I take this opportunity to deal with a reply I gave to a question asked by the hon. member for Bow River a few days ago. Although the hon. member had informed me of his intention to ask his question, I did not have the text of the question beforehand. In this question the word "misleading" was used and I mistakenly thought it applied to myself when in fact it did not, as Hansard shows. I answered that if confusion existed it was in the mind of the hon. member.
I have always tried to be fair and just in my replies to questions in the house, and I wish to state here that I would never have used the term I did if I had not interpreted the question incorrectly.



URANIUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. Webb (Hastings-Fronlenac):: wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. Because of the seriousness of the situation in Bancroft and the urgent need for action, aggravated by recent press reports which are contrary to the pre-election commitment given by the Prime Minister, what action is contemplated in order to keep the uranium mines in operation, thereby assuring the survival of the Bancroft community?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not accept the hon. member's statement that there was any pre-election commitment on this matter at all. The steps which have been taken have been made known to the house, and further steps will be made known if possible.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: On a point of order, I have the commitment here. It was published four days before the election. It says "Mr. Pearson has promised-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is the time for questions.



CROP INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Since the provinces are now in the process of signing up farmers for crop insurance, would the minister inform the house if the government contemplates introducing legislation this session to reinsure the provinces against losses under this program.


Harry William Hays: We hope we shall be able to deal with this legislation during the present session.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gene Rheaume (Northwest Territories):: My question is addressed to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In view of the fact that today is the last day upon which recommendations were to be received from Indian bands in Canada on this legislation, the proposed Indian claims commission, can the minister assure the house and the Indian people of Canada that he will proceed with this matter and introduce this legislation at an early date?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: We shall be very glad to receive any comments by members of Indian bands in Canada on this legislation, and I hope it will be brought before the house during the second part of the session.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the answer given by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration that there are going to be two sections to this session-possibly the Prime Minister did not hear the words but apparently we got that information by way of indiscretion-would the Prime Minister give his views thereon?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, surely my right hon. friend will not begrudge the house a week or ten days some time in August?
IMr. Pearson.]


John George Diefenbaker: Is that the plan, that there is to be a break in the session some time in August? Is this a serious answer, or is it one of those flippant answers in which the Prime Minister sometimes engages?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, if we do not make further progress than we are making now, we may not even get that week.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Battle River-Cam-rose):: I have a question for the Secretary of State. Perhaps in his absence the acting minister would answer it. Will the hon. gentleman ascertain from the C.B.C. upon what grounds it follows the policy that whenever a controversial matter arises on which the government needs aid, it calls upon a well known Liberal partisan propagandist to appear on its network and present his views in the guise of commentary?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member put that question on the order paper.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is based on a good-size picture in the Gazette this morning in which the minister is shown leaning across the conference table, apparently in anger, toward United States delegates at the Canada-U.S. conference. The caption under the picture reads:
Canada-U.S. conference: External affairs minister Paul Martin leans across the conference table for a word with U.S. interior secretary Stewart Udall.
My question is this. Does this unusual picture of the Canada-U.S. conference represent the minister protesting to the United States secretary of the interior his attempt to obtain further control over Canada's natural resources, or is it merely a publicity stunt to impress the Canadian people?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we all agree that this is a very important question. What I was doing was telling the United States secretary of the interior how enthusiastic my hon. friend was for the Columbia river treaty.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It looks as though you were saying "Give us back our water".



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. Has any special authority been given for emergency works to give access to docks and navigation facilities left high and dry on lake Huron and Georgian bay? Has there been any special or emergency authorization?


An hon. Member:: Pray for rain.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I suggest that the hon. member put this question on the order paper. It is an important question and I am sure could be adequately dealt with later.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice?
Could he tell us whether the consideration of the case of the Indian chief Jules Sioui, imprisoned for almost a year, is now completed and if so, what decision was reached?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I asked to be informed on the case of Jules Sioui who has been in jail for almost a year and I realized, just by looking at the record, that this case was never submitted to my department. However, I asked my officials for a report in order to know how I could help him.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the Minister of Justice make the statement that he has made. The case of a man in jail for one year because he believes he is a martyr to a principle deserves the consideration of the minister. I do not want to make a suggestion, but I do place before him this thought; that consideration should be given, in view of this Indian's desire to protect his people and the kind of offence charged against him, which is ridiculous in the extreme, to whether it is not a case for a free pardon.
Inquiries of the Ministry PROTEST TO RUSSIA RESPECTING ALLEGED ESPIONAGE
On the orders of the day:


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, since the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) is not here, I will put my question to the Prime Minister.
Does the government intend to send an official protest to the Soviet authorities about the abuse of privilege committed by the Russian journalist Tarasov?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will bring this question to the attention of my hon. friend the Secretary of State for External Affairs.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member for Port Arthur asked a question on April 23 with respect to the maritime transportation unions trustees. This question has been referred to the trustees, and I am told the trustees held no formal interviews with the press in the preceding week. In his capacity as administrator of the seafarers international union of Canada Mr. Millard did see the press on one occasion about a specific matter concerning the S.I.U., namely an application for certification of an S.I.U. crew on a vessel.


Douglas Mason Fisher: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, in view of the answer given by the minister. If I make available to the minister the news reports that indicate that Mr. Millard in fact met with newspapermen in the S.I.U. building and gave a demonstration of the perquisites that Mr. Banks had had, would he then consider reapproaching the trustees to see if they would be willing to appear before a House of Commons committee?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I understand that Mr. Millard did talk to the press with respect to one specific matter, namely the request for certification. A visit to the S.I.U. headquarters ought not to be construed as disclosing information to the press which is not available to members of parliament.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, the minister has not answered my question. In view of the information that was released in that case, would the minister consider asking the trustees

Blue Water Bridge Authority if they would be prepared to appear before our standing committee on industrial relations?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, on two previous occasions during the session I have approached the chairman of the board of trustees, and after considering the matter the board decided, in their view, that they would not wish to meet a committee of the house at this particular stage because of the kind of negotiations and arrangements which are still under consideration.



BRIDGES


John Whitney Pickersgill: the second reading of Bill No. S-4, respecting the international bridge over the St. Clair river known as the Blue Water bridge.
He said: Mr. Speaker, if the house would be agreeable I should like not to speak myself but to have the hon. member for Lamb-ton West, who is intimately acquainted with the situation, explain this bill very briefly.


Mr. Walter F. Foy (Lambton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on Bill No. S-4, respecting the international bridge spanning the St. Clair river between the village of Point Edward and the city of Port Huron, Michigan. This bridge is known as the Blue Water bridge. A number of members in the house have asked me whether this is a new bridge, and to clarify the matter I should like to describe the background of the Blue Water bridge.
The bridge was completed some time in 1937. At that time the Michigan state bridge commission was formed and agreements were prepared regarding Canadian maintenance of this bridge, tolls, etc. The approaches to this structure, I might say, are in the most advantageous and commercially developed area of the village of Point Edward, Ontario. In the original agreement the village of Point Edward was to receive $5,000 in lieu of taxes each year. The original agreement did not provide for any Canadians to be appointed to the bridge commission although it is an international bridge.
The agreement further stated that when the bonds and debts of the bridge were retired the tolls would be discontinued. This took place in 1961. The original agreement also stated that when the bonds and debts were retired the taxes to the village of Point Edward would cease.
The present quandary in connection with this matter results from an obvious disparity in the legislation concerning this bridge. As I have stated, on June 1, 1961 the corporate

obligations of the commission were already satisfied and the commission took the position that by operation of law the portion of the bridge situated within the province of Ontario reverted to the Dominion of Canada and that all liability of the Michigan state bridge commission for taxes levied by the village of Point Edward or for any payment provided for in lieu of taxes would cease. Of course, Mr. Speaker, no taxes or payments in lieu of taxes have been paid to the village of Point Edward since 1961. I would also point out that when the original payment of $5,000 was agreed on back in 1938, operating expenses for the village were much lower than at the present time, and simple arithmetic will show that this very low payment is much too small and should be adjusted.
This Bill S-4 should be passed with all possible haste for the reason that the maintenance of this bridge has suffered, as well as the village of Point Edward. I am very gratified to note that this new Bill S-4 provides for the new bridge authority to consist of four Canadians and four Americans.
It has come to my attention, Mr. Speaker, that there is no maintenance staff looking after the Canadian side of the Blue Water bridge. Therefore unless immediate steps are taken to correct this situation there will be no grass cut, no painting or maintenance of the bridge, refuse will not be collected and the beautiful entrance to Canada from the United States will certainly be a mess. The surrounding area of my riding, including Lambton-Kent, is also very conscious that something must be done to correct this situation. I am sure my friend the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. McCutcheon) will agree with me that the passage of Bill S-4 is long overdue, and I would ask the house to pass it with all possible haste.
Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lambton-Kent),
Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to compliment the hon. member for Lambton West on his clear and concise statement in support of this bill. It is not often that I find myself in practically complete agreement with the hon. member for Lambton West, and in view of this I am forced to conclude that his thinking is changing for the better. In support of what has already been said I should like to add one or two brief comments as background to the bill.
In about 1928 the St. Clair Transit Company was incorporated under special act of the government of Canada. It was authorized to build, finance, maintain, operate, and charge tolls in respect of the Canadian portion of this international bridge at Point Edward, Ontario. The statute further provided that

upon the retirement of all corporate obligations of the company or of any person to whom it might assign its rights, the operation of the bridge within Canada should be conveyed to the Dominion of Canada. The St. Clair Transit Company subsequently passed out of existence, but prior to this time it assigned all its authority to the bridge commission of the state of Michigan.
The Michigan state bridge commission constructed the bridge and has, since its opening to traffic during 1938, operated and maintained it in a most efficient manner. It was operated so efficiently, in fact, that the capital debt of the structure was fully paid off on June 1, 1961.
No problems arose until this capital debt was paid off. However, at that time, due to a provision in the United States federal law and the insistence of the United States bureau of public roads, grants in aid of a Michigan highway project would be withheld unless the state of Michigan lifted all toll charges in accordance with the terms of the grants made by the United States federal government to the Michigan state highway department to aid in the construction of the Michigan approach.
Since that time, or I should say since 1962, the bridge has operated toll free. As of now they have run out of money. Indeed, in order to provide for the continued operation of the bridge until the government of Canada could act, the province of Ontario has voluntarily assumed responsibility for winter maintenance, snow removal, sanding and the electricity necessary for the lighting of the bridge. The government of Canada has kept up the customs and immigration buildings. Recently, in fact within the last few days, all the maintenance and supervisory staff have been laid off as a result of a lack of funds.
As the hon. member for Lambton West has pointed out, there are many other important aspects of this matter. For example, he mentioned the taxes due the municipality of Point Edward. However, the maintenance and upkeep of the bridge is very important. Here we have a great structure joining two great nations. Are we going to allow it to fall into disrepair because the federal government has not got around to setting up the authority with power to operate this essential public structure?
As a matter of interest, Mr. Speaker, may I say that during the period April 1963 to April 1964, traffic crossing this bridge was as follows: United States passenger cars in, 568,128; United States trucks in, 50,324; Canadian autos in, 519,400; Canadian trucks in, 14,707; total passengers in all vehicles, 3,959,179.
Blue Water Bridge Authority


An hon. Member:: What year is that?


Mr. McCutcheon:: It is 1963-64. These figures could very well be doubled, because they refer only to vehicles entering Canada. One could assume that almost the same number of vehicles left the country. This, Mr. Speaker, more than justifies the vision of those who many years ago planned this great project. With all this traffic it is essential that the structure should be policed, that service vehicles should be available and that maintenance should be kept up.
The purpose, then, of the bill before us is to provide for the establishment of a commission that will be charged with responsibility for having those things done. I should like to point out further that this matter has received the closest scrutiny in the other place. May I appeal, therefore, for quick passage of this bill so the commission might be set up to operate this service in co-operation with its United States counterpart and to accept for Canada what, by law, belongs to Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this request seems to be a reasonable one and we are happy to agree to it.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Having travelled across this bridge many times, having friends living in the cities located at either end of the bridge, and having heard a clear explanation of the need for the passage of this bill, we give our wholehearted support to it.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. S-4 is a very interesting bill, especially when we are told that from 1963 to 1964, that is during one year, more than three million people crossed the Blue Water bridge which spans the St. Clair river and connects a point in Ontario to the United States.
If it is true that the province of Ontario had to meet alone the costs of maintaining the bridge from the time that tolls were discontinued, that is since 1961, I think it would be reasonable that the federal authorities see to it, under this Bill No. S-4 which provides for the establishment of a joint Canadian-American authority, that people using that bridge contribute to its maintenance.
Mr. Speaker, we will not prevent the immediate passing of this bill.


Walter Frank Foy: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member speaks now he will close the debate.
2764	HOUSE OF
Blue Water Bridge Authority Mr. Foy: I wonder if I could ask the hon. member for Lambton-Kent a question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why not do it in committee?


Walter Frank Foy: That will be too long to wait.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We will go into committee right away.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Cameron (High Park) in the chair. Clauses 1 to 11 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 12-Application of revenues. Mr. Olson: There is just one point that needs clarification in clause 12. This clause indicates that the bridge authority may not increase any liability not dischargeable wholly from revenues or funds receivable by the bridge authority under this or any other act of the parliament of Canada or the United States. I should like to ask the sponsor of the bill if there is any provision for revenue from any other source than tolls.
John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand that is the only source.


Mr. Olson:: Then the passage of this bill will not place any financial burden on the government or the parliament of Canada at all?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No. That is my advice, and that is why it was possible to introduce it in the other place.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 13 to 25 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
The Chairman:: Shall I report the bill?


Walter Frank Foy: Mr. Chairman, could I take a minute to ask the hon. member for Lambton-Kent a question?


Lucien Lamoureux: By consent.


Walter Frank Foy: In my remarks regarding the bill I referred to the hon. member for Lambton-Kent as my friend and I really meant it, but I noticed that in his remarks he said something about my attitude improving. I wonder whether he would explain this. Before that I should like to say that the speed which this bill has been dealt with is phenomenal, and it must be due to the eloquence of the hon. member for Lambton-Kent and my fine introduction.
Bill reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether it could be read now, by leave.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


John Whitney Pickersgill: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



POST OFFICE ACT


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Post Office Act to abolish the local delivery rates for first class mail and for all newspapers and periodicals other than those published more frequently than weekly: to establish a minimum rate of one half cent per copy to each separate address for all publications other than those to which local delivery rates apply or that have postage free privileges; to make the four cent a pound postage on specimen copies of publications subject to either the local delivery rate or the minimum rate, whichever is applicable, and to extend to certain cultural and technical publications the privileges now granted to newspapers and periodicals devoted to religion, the sciences or agriculture.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, the purposes of this resolution are threefold; first, to initiate legislation which if passed, and I hope it will be soon, will provide the Post Office Department with additional revenues by abolishing the local delivery rate, by establishing a minimum rate per piece, that is per copy piece, for other than daily, weekly or semiweekly newspapers, and by making the per pound postage rate on specimen copies subject only to the minimum rate or to the local delivery rate. The second purpose is to extend to certain cultural and technical publications relating to fisheries, forestry and other fields the privileges now enjoyed by other periodicals devoted to religion, the sciences and agriculture. The third purpose is to abolish the local delivery rates on newspapers and periodicals published less frequently than weekly.
The first of these three recommendations is in line with recommendations made by the royal commission on government organization, the Glassco commission. The commissioners made certain recommendations that revenues be brought into line with expenditures.
The second and third objectives are to implement in part the recommendations of the O'Leary commission with respect to these publications.
Traditionally the Post Office Department has endeavoured over the years to break even in its operations while at the same time

providing a satisfactory service at a reasonable cost to users of the mails. According to the accounting practices in use over the years, this goal would seem to have been achieved. If you look at the annual reports of the Post Office Department, even the one filed a few weeks ago, you will find that year after year there would appear to have been either a small surplus or a small deficit. In fact in the last 10 years you will find that five showed surpluses and five deficits.
Unfortunately the accounting system employed does not reflect the actual facts. A number of major services chargeable to postal operations are supplied by other departments. Chief among these is the cost of the accommodation provided by the Department of Public Works. In other words, the post office buildings and other so-called federal buildings that exist from one end of Canada to the other have been supplied free of charge, and even some of the services being used in these buildings are provided free of charge.
In addition, the superannuation account for postal employees has been a direct charge against the Department of Finance and not against the Post Office Department as such. This fact was brought out very clearly in the Glassco report. It is reliably estimated that after the inclusion of all interdepartmental credits and charges, including franking privileges and other things, the Post Office Department would have faced a net operating deficit in excess of approximately $37 million in the current fiscal year.
Steps have been taken by my predecessor and myself to adjust these charges where this could be done without legislation. However, the changes I have mentioned today, more particularly the one having to do with the abolition of the household or local delivery rate or, to put it colloquially, the abolition of the four cent rate, need the authority of parliament.
I should like to direct the attention of hon. members to the estimates for 1964-65 which were tabled by the Minister of Finance some weeks ago. I draw attention to page 351 where under the heading "Post Office" hon. members will see the following at the top of the page:
Approximate value of major services not included in these estimates.
Accommodation (provided by the Department of Public Works), $25,298,000.
The amount is slightly lower in 1964-65 than in the previous fiscal year.
Accounting and cheque issue services (comptroller of the treasury), $584,300.
Contributions to superannuation account (Department of Finance),	$8,510,500.
Employee surgical-medical insurance premiums (Department of Finance), $1,170,100.
Employee compensation payments (Department of Labour), $261,900.
Post Office Act
The next item is the carrying of franked mail. I am not referring to franked mail such as mail sent out by members of the House of Commons. I am referring to the mailing that is done by the Post Office Department itself which, if it did not have a franking privilege and was paying for the services it is getting, would involve an expenditure of another $1,008,000.
These amounts total $36,832,800. In addition to these amounts that are not included, and which have not been included in the estimates in the past, you will recall, Mr. Chairman, there were very substantial increases in wages and salaries to postal clerks, as part of the regular review, which increases were introduced in 1962 and made retroactive to a date in the previous year. They are carried into the estimates this year. They affect the estimates, but nevertheless when you are considering the position for the 12 months ending on March 31 they would distort the picture if they were not in the estimates.
When a deficit reaches the proportions it has in the case of the post office, a deficit that will be at least $37 million if we had not made any changes, it is a matter of grave and serious concern for all of us. If the post office is to operate within its revenues, as the royal commission suggested, we must not only continually examine our operating efficiency but we must continually study and up-date postal charges for the services being performed.
I believe there is general agreement that the postal service of Canada has established for itself and is maintaining a high reputation for efficiency in world postal service. This becomes more evident when one travels and has the opportunity to compare the postal services of other countries, even those of our neighbours to the south and those in western Europe.
A review of the Post Office Department services by the Glassco commission has produced a real tribute to the work of the department, as recorded at page 309 of volume III of the Glassco report:
"The Post Office Department has attained a commendable degree of efficiency."
Improvements are continuing in the postal services and it has been my privilege to visit post offices in large and small centres. My first visit was to the post office in Quebec city, which is one of the two most modem in Canada. Quebec and Halifax are regarded as the two most modern, although some equipment has recently been put in the Winnipeg post office, which is still more modern, and which is being used on an experimental basis. From Quebec I went to the air mail post

Post Office Act
office in the airport at Montreal, and I have visited post offices in London, Ontario, in parts of New Brunswick and British Columbia.
I think I am a reasonably informed person and I must confess I was very impressed with the job being done in these post offices by the men performing the duties of postal clerks, and delivering the mail. However, great improvements are still needed. Automation is being introduced in practically every modern postal system in the world, and we should introduce more of it in Canada, if we are to meet the demands of the modem day and age, and if we are to keep costs under a reasonable amount of control.
The one thing that struck me, even within ten days of the time I assumed office as Postmaster General, was that the rising costs of new equipment and the rising costs of wages have to be taken care of by an increase in revenues. There is a serious discrepancy in our rate structure. Even before the Glassco commission made its report, Mrs. Fairclough, when she was postmaster general initiated a study to see how the rate structures stood in relation to the services being performed. The report from this study was laid before my predecessor and, before he had time to deal with it, it reached my desk.
In the meantime, certain minor adjustments that could be made by the postmaster general were implemented by my immediate predecessor, and others more recently by myself. For instance, we have increased charges for registered mail, special delivery letters and money orders. They were increased on November 1 last year and will produce $1,875,000.
The postage rates on third class mail, c.o.d. charges, and the mailing of newspapers and magazines, which took effect on April 1, likewise will bring in a substantial amount, some $6,265,000. But even with these two increases we are still short very close to $30 million in what we need to bring revenues in line with expenditures.
The first amendment that is proposed deals with what is called the local delivery rate, and it is estimated it will bring in some $8| million per annum. I should point out that there are now two rates of postage on letters posted for delivery in Canada. When I say letters I mean first class letter mail, sealed letters as distinct from third class mail. There is a four cents rate for local delivery and a five cents rate for delivery anywhere else in Canada.
There was a great deal of merit in having these two rates when they were first introduced. The local delivery rate, as many of us will recall, was intended for letters that are posted and delivered in the same post

office. In other words, a letter was placed in the post box, picked out, and put in a private box in the same local post office. In fact the rate for this service was in force even before confederation. Today, with the extension of metropolitan areas, this same four cents rate will cover the delivery of a letter perhaps 25 miles away, a letter that has moved by automobile or by rail, and has perhaps gone through half a dozen different hands.
If I may make a personal reference here, my hon. friend the member for New Westminster wired me congratulations the day I took office as Postmaster General, and drew attention to the fact that from north or west Vancouver you could mail a letter to one side of a certain road in New Westminster for four cents, but if you mailed it to the other side of the road it cost five cents. This just did not make sense. It just does not make sense, that a letter which is put into the mail has to be sorted, put in a bag, transported, then re-sorted at the other end before delivery should pay only four cents. In addition, we have rural delivery services and letter carrier services, particularly in the metropolitan areas, where most of the four cent stamps are used, and these additional services increase costs greatly. It is interesting to note that those who are getting most advantage from this four cent rate are commercial firms. I think they account for the use of 55 per cent or 60 per cent of the four cent service. In the light of the deficit of $37 million, these firms are not paying their way; they are being subsidized by the taxpayers generally. When these facts, collected in part while the previous government was in office, were brought to my attention I had no hesitation in recommending that the local four cent delivery rate be abolished and that we have one first class delivery rate, a five cent rate. That is the first recommendation contained in this resolution.
A second one is the extension of a special rate to certain cultural publications and to fisheries and forestry publications. This involves an adjustment in the second class mail rates which combines benefits to the publishing industry with a fairer distribution of the postal charges. The first benefit is represented by the proposal to extend to the publications devoted to the fisheries, forestry, arts, literature, and so on, the special rate of lj cents per pound which is now granted to publications devoted to religion, the sciences, agriculture and to extend this special rate to small weekly, semi-monthly and monthly publications with circulations under 10,000. I do not think any member of this committee would argue that a magazine devoted to forestry or fisheries should not be treated in the

same way as a magazine devoted to the sciences or agriculture.
The O'Leary commission recommended free distribution privileges throughout Canada for the first 5,000 copies per issue of publications referred to as "non-profit cultural" and "little" magazines. I know that many members of this committee have gone into these recommendations in detail. I myself have made a study of them. You may recall that the report ties in this proposal with a test relating to advertising content. But how impracticable it would be if we were to make postal officials in all the different districts responsible for determining how much advertising material was contained in each of these publications. Determination of the profitability or otherwise of magazines is difficult enough even for chartered accountants, and I do not think an attempt should be made to pass that responsibility on to the Post Office Department. We have gone as far as we can in seeking to implement this recommendation of the O'Leary commission and we have done it in the way suggested in this resolution.
We also propose the repeal of the local second class postal rates. This proposal is also included in the resolution. The second benefit to the publishing industry is the repeal of the local second class mail rates for newspapers and perodicals published weekly or less frequently. The local second class rate is a piece rate. This does not apply to all the publications I have been referring to; but in some instances where charges are based on weight, we recover as little as one fortieth of a cent per piece. This is ridiculous today when so much of our work is taken up with the handling and distribution of mail. The largest part of the load carried by our postmen is made up frequently of mail for distribution of which the department receives from one fortieth of a cent up to half a cent. In other instances we were getting up to two cents. Now, by a recent change, we will be getting three cents. The charge today for such local deliveries is one cent for the first two ounces, one cent for the next two ounces and one cent for each succeeding four ounces or fraction thereof. These rates are imposed by weight-they are rates per pound-and as a result it is possible to deliver a Montreal newspaper in Winnipeg or Vancouver cheaper than one could deliver the same newspaper in Toronto. There is no sense in it. There should be a minimum rate applicable to each piece of mail rather than a poundage rate, and that is what is proposed in this measure.
The extension of this special low rate and the repeal of the local delivery rate will result in no great revenue to the post office. Actually it will mean a loss. We will lose about half a million dollars on this item, and
Post Office Act
recover some $450,000 from the introduction of a minimum rate per piece, so there is, in all, a loss of $50,000 or so to the post office. As it is, we are carrying this mail on a poundage basis, and until parliament gives us the right to make the change to which I have referred the anomalies that I have mentioned will continue. However, when the change is brought about it will have the effect of putting the operation as a whole upon a sounder basis. At the risk of repeating myself, I will point out that approximately 80 per cent of the costs incurred by the Post Office Department today are incurred in the handling of mail. The department has had to gear its operation to handle individual items as against bulk mail. We now wish to extend that minimum rate principle to certain kinds of second class mail.
I do not think there is much more I can say at this stage. I shall, of course, be glad to answer any questions which hon. members may raise.


Mr. McBain:: At the outset, may I offer my congratulations to the Postmaster General on his new appointment. I hope he can avoid some of the pitfalls into which the former postmaster general fell, unless of course he has his eye on the vacant Senate seat in British Columbia. I may say we hope we may not lose the present Postmaster General because we feel he has the ability to do the work assigned to him if given the opportunity.
I should also like to pay tribute to the 50,000 persons who are responsible each day for seeing that the mail is delivered in good condition and on time. I believe the employees in this department of government are a dedicated group whose devotion to duty is the foundation of the Canadian postal service. It is a devotion of which Canadians can be justly proud. On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, no doubt there has also been a certain amount of frustration in the operations of the postal department for it has had two postmasters general within the past 12 months. The report of the postmaster general for the year ending March 31, 1963 was tabled on Friday, April 3, 1964. The Postmaster General has already made reference to this report. There was some discussion a number of days ago in the house concerning this report when I asked the Postmaster General a question and pointed out that the report contained a letter addressed to His Excellency Major General Georges P. Vanier, Governor General of Canada, signed by the present Postmaster General under date of September 1, 1963.

Post Office Act


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the hon. member, if he would permit an interjection at this stage, I would say that that date was put on the stencil after I signed it, and it was corrected as soon as I noticed it. Also, the detailed answer to the hon. gentleman's question has been prepared and will be given on Monday.


James Alexander McBain: I appreciate that reply from the Postmaster General, Mr. Chairman, but would point out that there must have been considerable confusion within the department or these errors in the original report would not have occurred. I am also concerned about this, that while this report was ready last September 1, it was not tabled until April 3, 1964. Perhaps the Postmaster General can explain that at a later date. While I am dealing with this report, I wonder whether the Postmaster General will table the revised report-perhaps he has already done this-so that the sessional paper will be correct in its entirety.
The resolution before us deals with the elimination of the local delivery rate for first class mail and makes reference to certain other changes relative to mail other than first class. My understanding is that the only portion of this resolution to which parliament has to give approval is the increase of the local delivery rate on first class mail from four cents to five cents. I think the Postmaster General pointed out that this rate has been in effect since confederation; that is, the rate for local delivery mail has been less than the rate for mail outside local delivery since confederation. To me it would seem that the local delivery mail rate should still have a preference over the rate for mail delivered outside the local area.
In his presentation the minister mentioned the fact that in the city of Toronto this mail may have to go through a number of hands before delivery in that area, but I still fail to see why it would cost any more in the Toronto area. I think it would cost less to deliver in the local area than some piece of mail delivered from Toronto to his own city of Vancouver. I understand, also, that the other increases mentioned in the resolution went into effect or could have been imposed as of April 1 without the consent of parliament. If this is correct, one wonders why all these other changes were included in the resolution.
The last increase in local first class mail rates occurred in 1954 when the Liberal government of that day, after removing the excise tax on cheques previous to the 1953 election, imposed a one cent increase to offset the loss from the revenue on the tax on cheques. Prior to that increase the first class letter rate
for local delivery was three cents, and at that time it was increased to four cents. The previous four cents rate for mail delivered outside the local post office was increased to five cents. The previous increase was, I believe, back in 1942, so it appears that every ten years or more the Post Office Department finds it necessary to increase the rate on first class mail. The 1954 resolution was very clear and concise. It read as follows:
That it is expedient to amend the Post Office Act to increase the rates of postage on letters posted in Canada from the 1st day of April, 1954.
Then it goes on to say:
(a) on each letter for delivery within the postal area in which it is posted, from three cents to four cents for the first ounce or fraction of an ounce, and from one cent to two cents for each additional ounce or fraction of an ounce-
Part (b) of the resolution dealt with the increase from four cents to five cents. The resolution we are asked to approve today is, to my mind, a jumbled-up affair. The first three lines of this resolution read as follows:
That it is expedient to amend the Post Office Act to abolish the local delivery rates for first class mail and for all newspapers and periodicals other than those published more frequently than weekly-
I suggest, therefore, that if we accept this resolution in its present form it means that first class rates for local mail are completely abolished and there can be no more first class local mail delivery. I would hope, therefore, that the Postmaster General will give serious consideration to withdrawing this resolution and introducing a new resolution in a more concise form, similar to the one introduced in 1954 when first class mail rates were increased.
I believe the figures the Postmaster General was using in his remarks today were those for the year 1963; that is to say, the fiscal year ending March 31, 1964. Of course, he is the only one who has access to those figures. The figures I will be using are taken from the 1963 report of the Postmaster General. This report shows a surplus of some $3J million. We must consider that this surplus was obtained under the very capable leadership of the former postmaster general, Hon. Ellen Fairclough.
One also wonders why local mail was selected as the target on which to raise revenue for the postal department. Whom will this increase affect? First of all, it will increase to some extent the cost of living, for it is the small businessman and individual who will suffer the most under the increase. Local businessmen make great use of first class local delivery mail for mailing information to their customers, monthly bills, and so on. Again, Mr. Chairman, I wonder why

local delivery mail was selected as the target to be increased, because the Postmaster General's report shows a general increase in first class mail in the years 1961-62 and 1962-63. The increase for the 1962-63 fiscal year was $115,899.87, while fourth class mail for the same year showed a decrease in revenue of $40,900.45. There is an item showing loss from theft and fire amounting to $38,646. We hope the Postmaster General will be able to tell us, before this resolution is passed, what is the loss by theft up to the present time.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I can answer that question very quickly. Our losses are limited to $100 per package, regardless of how much is involved.


James Alexander McBain: I am very pleased that the Postmaster General has answered the question in that way, but we would also like information as to what has been the loss from thefts which have occurred within the last six weeks or so. In recent weeks questions have been asked of the Postmaster General regarding mail thefts occurring in the Montreal and Three Rivers areas, and the minister has been quite vague in his replies as to the amount of money stolen. I am wondering whether he is withholding this information. Is he afraid to divulge the actual amount involved, for by not doing so he raises the suspicion that the amounts are very large, possibly the largest of any mail robbery yet perpetrated in Canada. I have been waiting for a reply to a question asked on Friday, April 10. This question, as reported on page 2033 of Hansard, is as follows:
I wonder if the minister is able to give us any additional information regarding the unprecedented robberies from mail vans in the Montreal and Three Rivers areas. Can he assure the committee that mail clerks are now being given adequate protection, and are armoured express trucks now being used to carry large sums of money? If that is the case, is this being done only in Quebec or is the practice being followed in other parts of Canada as well?
The Postmaster General has made a reference to the increase being necessary in order to meet pay increases for postal employees. I do not think anybody would suggest that the employees should not have a generous increase, for many of these employees have been waiting a considerable length of time for this increase to come through; I for one believe that they are very deserving because of the nature of their work. However, the Post Office Department is not the only department of government which has had to face increases in salaries. I do not recall in any other instance that a department has been told it must produce sufficient revenue to pay for salary increases and changing working
Post Office Act
conditions. The Post Office Department is the only department producing revenue in this way, and apparently the public users of postal facilities are to be saddled with the increased costs.
The Postmaster General mentioned that the Department of Public Works supplies accommodation to post offices all across Canada. In many instances that is quite correct, but I am thinking of a revenue post office where the local postmaster is required to provide his own accommodation. The Department of Public Works supplies accommodation to most of the other government departments, and they are not expected to raise revenues within their departments to meet the cost of these accommodations.
Going back to the increase in mail, I am sure that many postmasters in their own post offices have been deluged with mail coming through which should now carry a three cent stamp. I am referring to unsealed letters containing printed matter. I know that the local postmaster in my area has been deluged with this type of mail. The senders of the mail are not quite familiar with the new regulations and are still sending this mail out addressed to the receiver under a 2 cent stamp. In the interests of efficiency and expediency in handling the mail the postmaster of the local post office attaches a card and expects the receiver of the mail to pay an additional 2 cents. When these increases come into effect I wonder if something could be arranged to provide more adequate information to the senders of this type of mail, so that they are informed of the proper postage. I know it becomes embarrassing to them as well as to their customers to whom the mail is sent.
I was pleased to hear the minister say that the rural weeklies are still going to receive certain facilities along the line of the postage rates they have enjoyed over a number of years. I feel that these rural weeklies are providing a service to the areas interested and should naturally be given some consideration in mailing rates.
There is one other matter before I take my seat, Mr. Chairman. I note that a new stamp issue carries a flag bearing three maple leaves on stems with a white background and a blue bar at each end. I hope the Postmaster General can inform us what this depicts. Does it represent a kite-flying activity on behalf of the Prime Minister for his design of a new flag for Canada? I will close my remarks at this point, Mr. Chairman, and I hope that some of these questions I have posed to the Postmaster General will be answered in the course of the debate.

Post Office Act


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, normally one might expect the minister to wait until comments have been made by other members, but in case other hon. members in the house might fall into error by statements made, in good faith, by the previous hon. member I think some of his statements should be corrected. Before making these corrections I should like to thank the hon. member most sincerely for his complimentary references to myself and, more particularly, for the well justified complimentary references to the nearly 50,000 employees of my department.
The hon. gentleman is in error when he says that the only part of this legislation which has tp be approved by parliament is the abolition of the local delivery rates. I can assure the hon. gentleman that if he reads sections 11 and 12 of the act he will see that every single item in this resolution needs the authority of parliament before it can be put into effect. The hon. member need only read section 11, which deals with mailing charges for newspapers and periodicals, to see most of these items. If he reads the resolution he will see the first part of it is confined to first class mail that is the abolition of the local delivery rate; but the second part deals with the establishment of a minimum rate of one half cent per copy to each separate address for all publications other than those to which local delivery rates apply, or which have postage-free privileges, and that necessitates a change in the act. The third part of the resolution concerns the 4 cent a pound rate on specimen copies of publications and is tied in with an existing section of the act, section 12.
The last part of the resolution, which deals with the minimum rate for cultural and technical publications, is again tied in with a specific subsection of the act, section 11(3). So that all three of the other amendments I mentioned necessitate legislation before they can be put into effect, that is before the fisheries, forestry and other publications can take advantage of the suggestions which have been made, and before minimum charges for handling certain items can be taken advantage of.


James Alexander McBain: Mr. Chairman, may I inform the Postmaster General that I was using information contained in a press release under date March 7. It appeared in my local paper, the Times-Journal, and referred to the fact that a post office spokesman had said that the changes are expected to raise $8.5 million per year. I assume this news release came from the office of the Postmaster General or from his department, and it outlines more or less that the only change which need take place is the increase from 4 to 5 cents.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Let me assure the hon. member that I saw the press release which went out and it dealt with more than the abolition of the local delivery rates. The one which caught the eye of people in the cities and towns was undoubtedly the abolition of local delivery rate, because such people were not as interested in publications dealing with forestry, fisheries, agriculture and similar matters.
Another matter which I might deal with, to save time later on, is this. I mentioned that it was estimated that the abolition of the local delivery rates would bring in an increase in revenues of roughly $8.5 million. The hon. member for Elgin suggested that this should not be done, that there might be some other way to bring the two things into balance. Might I point out to the house that the post office handles some 12 or 13 million pieces of mail per day, roughly two thirds of which is first class mail. All we are trying to do in this resolution is to make each class of mail pay its own way. First class mail is today not paying its way. If we increase our revenues $8.5 million for handling nearly 60 per cent of over four billion pieces of mail a year, we are not going to add greatly to the load on this particular class. There is no other source of revenue from which to obtain this amount unless the hon. member wants to advocate the abolition of free mailing privileges for newspapers in rural areas. We could do something there. However, I do not believe that would be politically palatable to members on either side of the house.
If you are going to get any real help it has to come from the first class mail. When you consider there has been no change in rates for ten years, despite the extension of services in rural areas, the extension of walks and everything else, I think this is a modest increase.


James Alexander McBain: Does the Postmaster General suggest that the figures I have taken from the 1962-63 report which show first class mail as having a balance over the deficit are not correct?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I know the hon. member was listening, but he may have been working on his notes. If he had heard my figures he would see that there are some $37 million worth of genuine expenses of the postal department that are not included in the 1963 figures and which should have been included. Perhaps I, as Postmaster General, in view of the delay in filing the report to which the hon. gentleman has referred, might have disregarded the whole report. This report was prepared early in the year 1963. It reached the deputy minister, as the report



19B4

[Stage Direction]
Post Office Act
indicates, some time in April or May of last the congratulations of our party to the min-year. Eventually, it was sent to my im- ister upon his appointment. Many of us have mediate predecessor, but he did not sign it had occasion to deal with him since his appointment and we have been impressed by his ability and his desire to improve the status of
at that time. It had been addressed to him in good faith, and all I had to do was transmit to His Excellency the Governor General a report that had been addressed to the previous minister. I did not think it was for me, particularly since a year had gone by, to change the figures in that report.
I can assure you that when the estimates for 1964 were being prepared I saw to it that these additional figures were given for the information of the members of this house. It is unfortunate that the hon. member for Elgin, and perhaps other members, may have been misled. I am sure that if the other figures were considered and it was realized that first class mail, by itself, is 53 per cent, and if you take parcel post along with it, it brings it up to over 55 per cent, and there are certain other first class items that bring the figures up between 55 per cent and 60 per cent, it would be clear that if you are going to get your proportionate share of the $37 million deficit the only way to get it is by changing the delivery rates on first class mail.
I might say that I am relying on the information of the experts, and our figures show the average rate for handling first class mail is more than four cents per piece, and, while I would concede at the outset that it costs more to deliver a letter in Ottawa, Vancouver or Winnipeg, I think all members will agree that a charge of four cents to deliver a letter from any part of downtown Toronto anywhere in greater Toronto in the metropolitan area, is too small. I have been shown that a 4 cent delivery rate is not adequate to take care of the situation. There is no thought on the part of the postal department of having first class mail pay more than its fair share of operating expenses of the department. The same statement would apply to third class mail. The mail users of third class mail are largely commercial users and advertising people. The bulk of the users of first class mail in Canada, and this can be detected through the metering machines, are the people who use the mails for commercial purposes.
Lucien Lamoureux: It seems to me we are not going at this in the proper way. I feel we should give every opportunity for the making of opening statements on this resolution. Perhaps questions might be asked of the minister later on, and just now I should like to see the hon. member for Danforth.


Reid Scott: In rising to comment on the resolution stage of this measure, I should like to join the previous speaker in extending
his department.
I recall that last year when the estimates of this department were before us, under his predecessor, I referred to working conditions and labour conditions under which the employees of this department operate.
I do not intend to review my position at that time on this resolution because I would be out of order if I did. I merely mention it because I wanted to indicate to the minister that since that time we have amassed considerable information relating to labour conditions and working conditions of employees of the postal department. When his estimates come before us, we will be looking to him for a fairly detailed statement of his intention, programs and policies to be inaugurated to alleviate the revolting working conditions within the post office itself. The minister has only been in office a short time, but I am sure he is cognizant of these conditions. We shall be looking to him, when his estimates come before us.
Dealing with the proposals before us now, Mr. Chairman, I may say that the members of my party will deal with various aspects of the resolution and I shall deal with only one portion which relates to the proposal to increase local rates by 25 per cent, that is from 4 cents to 5 cents.
I wanted to indicate to the minister that unless a great deal more information is available to convince us otherwise, we intend to oppose this as vigorously as possible during its passage through the house. The reason advanced for the increase is that it will increase revenues, for one thing. The minister has read to us a statement of some of the unseen expenses, buildings and other services made available to the post office, which indicate the cost, over and above the figure we have been given of $36 million. I presume the increase is intended, in some way, to meet this unseen deficit.
However, sir, the other reason advanced, as I understand it, is that it will help the minister in drawing the boundaries for local mail. His remedy is that instead of trying to draw boundaries he will make everybody pay 5 cents, and presumably that will be the simplest solution. I believe, Mr. Chairman, very few people will agree. The evidence that we are able to obtain indicates that first class mail already shows a profit. The figures made available to us, for example, for 1959 indicate that first class mail showed a profit of $35 million. It seems to

Post Office Act
me, Mr. Chairman, that if these figures are accurate, then first class mail today is not only showing a profit but is showing a sufficient profit to almost equal the unseen costs the minister outlined to the house.
This proposal is borne out in the Glassco commission report, the third edition, page 324, where it says:
The most significant facts emerging from the above table are that first class mail Is shown to yield a profit sufficient to carry all the other services and produce an approximate break-even.
If these facts are true it seems to me that in any attempt to deal with costs and deficits in the post office we should be leaving alone any classification of mail which is paying its own way and which in fact is already showing a substantial profit. It appears that the real deficit is when you get into the area of second class mail. Again the 1959 figures that are available to us indicate that this class of mail showed a loss of $26 million. Mr. Chairman, these are newspapers and periodicals that are well able to pay the freight and carry their own expenses. I really cannot understand why the users of first class mail should bear on their backs the burden of the unprofitability of second class mail.
From recent figures we understand that first class mail is carried at a profit of 1.8 cents a piece, second class transient mail shows a loss of 10 cents per piece and newspapers a loss of 4 cents per piece. What I would be interested in hearing is some explanation from the government for this subsidy to the newspaper industry. I really do not understand why this particular preference is given.
I recall that when this item was drawn to our attention by the Auditor General in the public accounts committee last year and we asked him why there was this subsidy of millions of dollars to newspapers and periodicals he smiled, and the only thing he could say was, "Well, this is the way it has always been done"; but no rational reason, no economic justification, could be given. Therefore as this legislation goes through the house we will be looking to the minister to convince us, if he can, that we should withdraw our opposition, because at the present moment it seems to me that if the people who use first class mail are paying a rate which shows a handsome profit they should not be further burdened by granting an even greater subsidy to newspapers and other publications.
Again referring to the Glassco commission, Mr. Chairman, they attempted to analyse this problem, and as found on page 326 they state the following with regard to this type of special treatment:

It dates from the early part of the last century when the general level of literacy improved to a point where mass media had an audience. In response to the public demand for current news, and because newspapers and magazines were the only means of reaching the public on a broad scale, governments adopted a policy of subsidizing the costs of distribution.
They go on to say:
Today, the situation is vastly different. Other media of mass communication have developed and the underwriting of publication costs by advertisers has substantially altered the economics of publishing. Publications have grown enormously in bulk in the past 100 years-the four page newspaper of the last century appears today with mammoth editions of over 100 pages-and the costs of the post office have necessarily increased very materially.
They go on to point out this interesting fact:
The advertiser, responsible for from 40 to 70 per cent of the content of many present day publications (90 per cent was noted in one case), has become a beneficiary of the government's policy of subsidizing distribution of second class mail.
They say they cannot go into the area of public policy in this regard but they do make this recommendation:
An annual grant be made by parliament in amount sufficient to cover the costs of the post office in handling second class mail, to the extent that such exceeds postal revenues arising from the rates set by parliament.
In short, they are urging us to withdraw this subsidy or in the alternative to bring it above board. They are saying that the government, rather than loading this cost on the backs of the first class mail users in order to justify this subsidization of the periodical and newspaper industry, should frankly admit it and put a specific amount in the estimates to cover it, rather than trying to hide it among the estimates of the department.
There is anoher aspect of this matter on which I should like the minister to comment. It arises from the avalanche of American mail coming into Canada for which our post office receives no compensation. The Postmaster General, in reply to a question asked by a member of our party, indicated that during 1961 and 1962 the deficit for handling second class mail from the United States addressed to people in Canada was $3,900,000. According to the royal commission on publications, Canada's loss on second class mail fiom the United States in 1960 was approximately $6 million on publications alone. How much it was for other printed matter was not stated.
It is estimated that in 1962 Canada imported printed matter to the value of $300 million, at least 85 per cent of which originated in the United States. To my knowledge there is no other comparison in the world for this relationship between two countries. We in Canada absorb 35 times more printed

imports per capita than does the United States. This has occasioned grave concern, for example, in the graphic arts industry. In one of their bulletins they point out the huge flow of printed imports year after year represented by incoming second and third class mail from the United States delivered without any remuneration by our Canadian post office. All postal revenue for this material goes to Washington because of the universal postal convention which compels us to carry United States mail without compensation. Since the flow from Canada to the United States is in no way comparable, our post office is saddled with a daily mounting debt in this regard.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that there is good cause for a re-examination of the relationship between Canada and the United States in this regard. I understand, for example, that the loss incurred by our post office on Time and Reader's Digest is $1,400,000 a year. To me it is incredible that we should be in the position of distributing these fantastically wealthy publications and carrying them in our mails at a loss. These are only a few of the points that I-


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. It being five o'clock and in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business it is my duty to now leave the chair.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. It being five o'clock p.m. the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions, papers.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Hon. Paul Martineau (Poniiac-Temiscamingue) moved:: That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all maps, drawn up or deposited with the chief electoral officer or the representation commissioner, pertaining to the proposed redistribution of electoral boundaries in Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, may I make it quite clear at the outset that the purpose of this motion is to procure all the information which, in my view, hon. members need in order to examine and intelligently discuss Bill C-72, which is already before the house. I wish to make it equally clear that in presenting the motion I do so without any desire whatever of casting doubt or criticism upon the work that is being performed in this regard by the representation commissioner who, I know, enjoys the full confidence of members on both sides of the house.
If these maps are being drawn up, they are being drawn up in accordance with a
Electoral Boundaries Maps statute passed by this parliament. The necessity for hon. members to have access to them is, first, to put an end to rumours that have circulated widely in the house and outside it with regard to what the maps really are, what they portend to be, and how the different electoral constituencies are being carved up.
It could be that some hon. members have seen the maps. I have nothing to say on that. Personally I can say I have not seen them, but among hon. members who have seen them there has been great discussion regarding the new boundaries. We must remember that if Bill C-72 becomes the law of the land it will be initiating something very new. It will not only be a redistribution but a real revision of every electoral district in Canada, carried out in a manner different from that used in the past, namely by the appointment of independent, provincial commissions.
The importance of having the maps is to be able to decide exactly whether or not the proposal contained in clause 13 of Bill C-72, which stipulates a tolerance of 20 per cent from the provincial average of population, is a reasonable proposition. How can that be done without having access to maps, whether they be definite or hypothetical, complete or fragmentary? At least they are maps which will give hon. members some indication how the constituencies will look if this 20 per cent tolerance is adopted.
Another reason for my insistence upon this motion is to put an end to the aura of speculation and rumour under which the proposed redistribution is couched. I understand that at the moment there are three sets of maps, each made up with a different tolerance or margin, upwards or downwards from the average. I am told one is set up with a proposed tolerance of 10 per cent, another with a tolerance of 20 per cent, and a third with a tolerance of 30 per cent or 33J per cent.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member would permit me to interrupt him at this point to recall that I gave an answer to this question in the house. He may not have been present when I did so, but it was a definite answer from the representation commissioner, who said he had prepared rough drawings on a 10 per cent and on a 20 per cent tolerance, and was in the course of preparing another series on a 25 per cent tolerance. We do not need to rely on rumour on this particular point.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I thank the minister for his information.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The information was given to the house four or five days ago.
2774	HOUSE OF
Electoral Boundaries Maps


Paul Raymond Martineau: It is new information so far as I am concerned because, unfortunately, I was absent and did not hear the words of wisdom of the minister on that occasion. But his intervention only sets out in clear light the necessity to have these maps produced. Surely if we are to decide whether we should have a 10 per cent, 20 per cent or 25 per cent tolerance, we should be able to see them?
When has a court ever deprived a jury or itself of the means of getting information pertinent to a subject? This is what I am seeking at present-information pertinent to the redistribution bill. From what the minister has said today, and from what he said on a previous occasion, we know there are two sets already drawn up and a third one is being prepared.
The tolerance can be applied in many different ways in each individual constituency. In other words, you could chop off the north end of a constituency and add something to its south end, or take away from its east side and add to its west side. To give a concrete example I mention my own constituency of Pontiac-Temiscamingue. Geographically it is one of the more extended constituencies in the country. It is also one that comes far below the required minimum of population proposed by Bill C-72. Its population is about 41,000, and the average constituency population in Quebec will be something like 70,000. If we take a tolerance margin of 20 per cent this means that constituencies in Quebec should have a minimum of 56,000 population and a maximum of 84,000.
There is another factor with regard to Pontiac-Temiscamingue that I wish to mention, namely that it is made up of two counties which are different from the counties in most constituencies. They are separated by forest or bushland some 200 miles in length and breadth, which means that two counties really have no direct contact between them. One part is a northern county, so far as the province is concerned, and the other is a western county, with this large tract of woodland in between with no inhabitants in it.
One would think that the logical way to deal with such a situation would be to attach the northern end of the county of Temis-camingue to the constituency of my hon. friend from Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), who at one stage represented the county of Pontiac, and to attach the lower end to the-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I apologize for interrupting the hon. member but I am sure he will recognize the very narrow limits of this debate. The only question before the house is whether or not the documents in question should be produced. May I quote 

to the house a ruling in this regard made by Mr. Speaker Michener during a debate on February 8, 1962. It will be found reported on page 682 of Hansard of that year. He said:
Before the hon. member proceeds further with that line of argument I think I should say to him that my view of the scope of the motion is that it is limited to the desirability of the production of the documents. The motion is one calling on the government to produce the documents referred to in the motion and the question in issue is whether or not they should be produced.
May I go on to read what was said by Mr. Speaker Lambert on November 18, 1962, as reported on page 1427 of Hansard of that year. Mr. Speaker Lambert said:
I should like to draw attention to the very narrow limits of the debate at this point. The matter under debate is merely whether the documents should or should not be produced, not whether under a certain act, something could or could not be done.
I am sure the hon. member recognizes the narrow limits of the motion before the house and I would suggest he confine his remarks to the motion.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Thank you very much. I do indeed recognize the soundness of the ruling you have just made, and if I have referred to constituencies, to my own constituency in particular, it is in order to show why it is desirable that these maps should be before us. It was to show that if a certain tolerance is adopted, you have a constituency with a certain appearance; if another tolerance is adopted, the constituency has a different appearance. At a later date, the committee of the whole house will have to decide whether or not the tolerance of 20 per cent which was proposed is the best which could have been chosen, and it would be infinitely better I think if the committee in carrying out this task could have the maps before it. That is why I am quoting the example of the constituency of Pontiac-Temiscamingue where one set of maps would for instance, bring the town of Rouyn into the constituency and another set might bring in a large section of the constituency of Gatineau. I think that is pertinent information for the committee to have in its possession before reaching conclusions about certain aspects of this bill.
The purpose of this motion is to provide for members of this house the fullest possible information on a question which is of vital interest to them and to the country. I am asking for the production of this material so that hon. members, as legislators, may be sure that Bill No. C-72, to which I presume the house will give its attention again in due course, is a proper solution to the redistribution problem. That is the only reason. To summarize-I see I do not have many minutes left-let me say I think it will be useful

for the house to have these maps, first in order to put an end to a plethora of rumours and, second, so that members may have before them in diagramatic and vivid form material on the basis of which they can better decide whether or not clause 13, as drafted at present, is acceptable and fair to all concerned as the basis for redistribution and as a basis, also, for the work of the commissions which are to be appointed. When the maps are before the committee it can determine whether or not due regard is being given in the legislative proposal to the immense geographical and territorial differences which exist between some constituencies and others. If, with the maps before them, members of the committee can see that what is being proposed is absolutely unrealistic and incapable of being performed satisfactorily, they may then decide on some other course, some other tolerance, or some other way in which to act so as to give adequate representation to all sectors and to all people in Canada. If the maps reveal that because of very large territorial differences, because of physical obstacles, because of a large number of hamlets spread out over immense areas, hon. members who will be called upon to represent such constituencies would find themselves faced with a completely hopeless task, I say it will be the duty of the committee at that stage to decide on some other course in order to ensure to Canadians the best possible representation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The motion seeks to compel the representation commissioner to produce certain documents which the other day, in response to a request from the other side of the house, I informed hon. members were in existence. I also informed the house that those documents were, virtually, mathematical exercises which could not conceivably bear any relationship to the ultimate disposition of the problem which will come before commissions which have as yet not even been created and which, if the legislation we are considering in another context is adopted, will require the exercise of the independent judgment of independent perspns.
So what the motion is asking for is something which has no relationship whatsoever, except as an exercise in map drawing, to what will eventually emerge, if there is any disposition on the part of this parliament to deal with this problem and to deal with it in any reasonable time. Because the house is being asked to produce documents prepared by an officer of parliament I wish to make it clear at once that there is no question of confidence in the government involved in this matter. The house has a perfect right to ask
Electoral Boundaries Maps its officers to produce any documents it wishes, and in speaking today I am speaking only as one of the members of this house. However, I hope that the reasons I am about to give for opposing this motion-and I certainly intend to vote against it-will commend themselves to every member, and that I may convince the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau) of the unwisdom of having made this suggestion and of the wisdom of withdrawing it without putting the motion to the house at all.
I intend to deal seriatim with the points the hon. gentleman made. He said the purpose of this motion was to permit hon. members to discuss the bill intelligently by procuring the information they needed. I contest that point directly. I say that exercises which will assist the commission, when commissions are set up, constitute the kind of information which would only serve to confuse and obscure the issues, possibly not among members in this house, but certainly among the public. I say this because we all know that when pictures and diagrams are published in daily newspapers, which most people do not read very carefully, an impression is bound to be created that something definite has been decided when, in fact, nothing definite has been produced. As for hon. members being able to consider this subject more intelligently, an offer was made, through my mouth, by the representation commissioner, to all parties in the house that they could choose a few of their members to look at these maps and have them thoroughly explained by people competent to do so in order that they would know exactly what they were and what they were not, and could exercise their intelligence on them. So there is no suggestion on the part of the representation commissioner of concealment. Moreover, the hon. gentleman was careful to say and, I am sure, most sincerely, that he had the utmost confidence in the representation commissioner. It is the view of the representation commissioner who, after all, is the only person with any experience of having these maps produced, that publication of them would result in confusion and the misleading of the public.
As to the suggestion of putting an end to rumour, I suggest there are no rumours about these maps whatsoever which have not been created by some hon. members or by some other hon. members-and I am making no imputations on anyone. But there could be no rumours unless they had been started by ourselves. Moreover, a means of dispelling these rumours has already been recommended to the house. They could easily be dispelled, and I have a very strong impression that they do not exist outside the house at all. In fact, I think we take ourselves a lot too seriously

Electoral Boundaries Maps about this matter. The rest of the public is not concerned, in the way we are, as members, about the size and shape of our constituencies, and when we express all this vast concern about the size and shape of our constituencies I suggest we are thinking of ourselves, not of the public, and that we should remember that no matter what the size and shape of one's constituency may be there can only be Canadian citizens in it as voters, that if we do not have enough appeal to them we shall not be elected, and if we do have sufficient appeal then, regardless of the boundaries, our constituents are going to elect us.
I suggest we are displaying a somewhat vain posture when we show too large a concern about the shape or size of our constituencies or talk about how desperately disappointed our constituents will be if they happen to be represented by somebody else, whereas, in fact-and I am sorry to have to say this-most of them do not care a great deal. They want to be represented in the house, and they want to be represented fairly in the house. In that context, Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member for Pontiae-Temiscamingue of this point. He said that in Quebec, with a 20 per cent tolerance the smallest constituency would have a population of 56,000, and the largest a population of 84,000. If you had any constituency with less than 56,000, it means you must have another one somewhere else with more than 84,000; and this is something that sometimes seems to be forgotten. I do not know why it should be thought that some constituencies should have a population of 90,000, so that some other hon. member will only have to represent 50,000. I suggest this is, again, thinking of one's own interest more than the public interest. I will not continue with that theme, Mr. Speaker, because you will be calling me to order; this is perhaps only indirectly related to the question of the publication of the maps.
The best reason the hon. member gave for not producing these maps was that the tolerance could be applied in many different ways-and so it can. Therefore, if these maps were published, where the tolerance has necessarily to be applied in one particular way, it would be bound to create a false impression because almost certainly the commissioners, if they do their job properly the way we expect them to do it, will not accept any of these maps but will use their own judgment. Otherwise we are wasting our time; otherwise we might just as well tell the representation commissioner to do the whole job himself.
If we are going to set up commissions that are not going to exercise an independent judgment, we are wasting public money by
[Mr. Pickersgill.l
suggesting it; and I do not think we are, because I do not think the representation commissioner by himself could do the job, and I do not think he should do it. I do not think it should be done by any one man. I think it does require a proper consideration of geographical, historical and other factors that cannot be in the knowledge of the kind of people who would draw the original drafts here in Ottawa in some office. It will have to be subjected to all those practical considerations that we expect the commissions to weigh and which it will take at least a year to do. There is only one thing that can happen if these maps are made public; that is to create all kinds of false impressions and rumours beside which any rumours that exist now will hardly be noticeable.
In other words, it is hard to believe that any hon. member could seriously support this motion unless he was anxious to create in the public mind a false impression, instead of a true impression, of what was being done.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. minister is not beginning to impute motives.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, no; I merely-


Paul Raymond Martineau: If he reflects a little on his last sentence, I think he will realize that no other inference can be drawn.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is an old adage about the cap fitting, sir. I did not impute motives to any individual member of the house at all; I just said I feel that any hon. member who would, on reflection, after hearing these arguments, still support this motion would, I think, be seeking to mislead the public-


Paul Raymond Martineau: Such modesty.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and create false impressions. The hon. member said we ought to see these maps because we are the jury. That, sir, is another very, very unsound-


Paul Raymond Martineau: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker; I did not say we ought to see these maps because we are the jury; I simply used the example of a court and a jury. Before making any decision, the members have the right to have full access to all pertinent information. I do not see why the minister should persist, on the one hand, in-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, may I finish
stating my question of privilege?


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is not a question of privilege; it is just taking up my time.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I am speaking on a question of privilege. I say that the minister, on one

hand, is insisting on imputing motives. He said, "If the cap fits, let him wear it". I happen to be the sponsor of the motion, so it is reasonable to assume that I support the motion. But the minister always comes around to some argument imputing motives, on the one hand, and on the other hand twists the words that are used. I reject his imputation on both grounds.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member knows there is no question of privilege at all there. He may feel he has been misquoted by the minister; but he has an opportunity later in the debate to straighten out the facts or to explain what he said. However, that is certainly not a question of privilege.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not going to raise a question of privilege, a phony one, about the motives just imputed to me by the hon. gentleman.


Paul Raymond Martineau: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member rising on a question of privilege?


Paul Raymond Martineau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The minister has just again stated that this was a phony question of privilege-


John Whitney Pickersgill: So did the Speaker.


Paul Raymond Martineau: -and he is thereby imputing motives. I submit that I raised the question of privilege frankly and in a sincere way, to set the record straight.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must rule, again, that there is no question of privilege.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Surely, Mr. Speaker, you are not going to condone the minister making the charge that I put forward a phony question of privilege? Perhaps it was not an acceptable question of privilege, but it cannot be phony, because I raised it in good faith.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A lot of phony things have happened in good faith, as all of us know.


Paul Raymond Martineau: But "phony" has a particular connotation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I was rising to say that I was not going to raise any kind of question of privilege about the motives just imputed to me by the hon. gentleman, because so many motives have been imputed to me in this house from that side that we would have nothing but questions of privilege if I was as thin skinned as hon. gentlemen opposite seem to be-but happily, I am not.
Electoral Boundaries Maps The hon. gentleman did use the word "jury" and he used it in precisely the sense that he rose on his so-called question of privilege to define. He said that we needed this information in order to exercise our judgment as legislators.


Paul Raymond Martineau: That is right.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We do not need this information in order to exercise our judgment as legislators, at all. What we decided by a vote of this house, by a unanimous vote of this house, was that we were not going to exercise our judgment as legislators about the shape and size of the constituencies, beyond fixing the tolerance. That is what we decided when we accepted the second reading of this bill. We decided we were going to appoint independent juries to look at the maps and to make recommendations. Therefore I contend that it is none of our business at all to see these maps until the work has been done, and that in effect to see these maps is really an attempt to make a gerrymander by the back door.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: When I have concluded. I did not interrupt the hon. gentleman when he was making his remarks, and I would like to conclude mine. I say that the suggestion that we should concern ourselves about the work of the commissions is to do precisely what the right hon. gentleman who sits opposite now condemned so strongly in 1951 and 1950 in this house. We would be trying to interfere with the process that we decided upon by a unanimous vote to give to somebody else. That would be the effect of trying to do it in this back-handed fashion. We would be trying to bring in a gerrymander by the back door. That is precisely why I think this motion should be defeated. I would be happy if it could be withdrawn, realizing what we would be doing after deciding not to have a political redistribution, after deciding to have it done openly in the house. We should not try to do it in an indirect fashion by devices of this kind.
I think that is the strongest of all the reasons why this motion should be rejected. I say again, Mr. Speaker, that if the maps were published-I do not think it would be a very serious thing if every hon. member of the house examined them-it would be a very serious interference with the work that we entrusted, by act of parliament, to the representation commissioner, whom we appointed by act of parliament. If these maps were published, my own opinion is that no amount of explanation that they did not represent what the ultimate results would

Electoral Boundaries Maps be would ever catch up with the maps, and impressions would be created all over this country that this was all arranged already, when it has not been at all; and the possibility of having a fair and independent redistribution by commissions which would be appointed as the result of legislation passed by this parliament would be destroyed.
I had hoped that when we set our hands to this task and did it in the non-partisan spirit of taking this whole business out of politics and keeping it out of politics, we would go through with it and not start faltering half way. I do not impute any motives to the hon. gentleman; I just impute a certain lack of reflection, a certain lack of consideration, a certain lack of judgment, shall we say, that we normally expect from him and normally do get from him, because he is one of the more sagacious members of the house in matters that are perhaps not of such direct concern to him as this. But I do say again that the publication of these maps will not end rumours. It will start more rumours and create more false impressions. The hon. gentleman said he wanted to get the facts before us. There are no facts at all in these maps, because they will bear no relationship, except purely accidentally, if they do at all, to what will eventually result from a proper redistribution if we pass the kind of legislation we are now debating in this house. All they could possibly do is make confusion worse confounded.
Therefore it seems to me that if we are sincere and honest in our desire to end gerrymandering for good and to take out of partisan politics the redistribution of the representation in this house, we will reject every kind of device which will make that more difficult. I feel sure that production of these maps would have that effect.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Would the hon. member permit a question. He stated that it was none of the business of members of parliament to have access to those maps. Why, then, at the outset of his speech did he say that members on all sides nominated by a whip or someone from each party could see these maps, if they have no business to see them? Surely the minister is not suggesting that these maps are merely exercises in futility?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, they are not exercises in futility, any more than building the foundations of a house is unnecessary to the house. But if you produced a picture of the foundations and said that this was the completed house you would certainly be creating a false and misleading impression. That is exactly what we would be doing by producing this kind of map. The hon. gentleman said that I said that it was my opinion that it was no 

business of the house to see these maps at all. That is my opinion but-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret I have to interrupt the minister but his time has expired.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should have liked to finish that sentence.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have stated on several occasions, both in the last session and in this one, that I think it is a high point in the history of the Canadian House of Commons that we have decided to take redistribution out of politics. I think the decision we took when we passed the bill in the last parliament appointing the representation commissioner was a tremendous step, and we can take pride in the fact that Bill No. C-72 which is now before the house was given second reading with unanimous support. It is because I am so proud of the decision that parliament has taken to put an end to redistribution by political committees on the basis of political considerations that I think we should go down the line with that decision, and on that basis I hope that the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau), after debate has continued a little while, will see fit to withdraw this motion.
It seems to me that to ask for these sketches-or transparencies, as I have heard them described-to be produced would not only add to the confusion in the way the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) has indicated, but it would give the appearance of parliament wanting to keep its finger in the drawing of these maps. I listened to the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue making a very plausible case for our needing to see them so as to make up our minds whether or not we would support the legislation; but I would suggest that either we believe in the principle of independent redistribution or we do not believe in that principle. Either we believe in giving the matter to people outside parliament or we do not. Either we believe in the principle of certain tolerances and standing by them or we do not.
The hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue wants us to defer our decision on a matter of principle until we have seen what the results of applying that principle would be.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Someone says "right". I think that that is a mistake and is a retreating from the high point which we reached when we in this parliament, both with respect to the bill passed last session and on second reading of

Bill No. C-72 this session, decided to go for a non-partisan, non-political redistribution.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question. I wonder if the hon. member would tell us whether in his view the question of tolerance, whether it be 10 per cent, 20 per cent, 25 per cent, or whatever it may be, may be discussed without in any way affecting the principle on which this house has already agreed, namely that of independent redistribution? If the hon. member answers that question affirmatively, does he not think that certain documents and maps placed before the committee would be helpful in deciding whether one tolerance is right, or whether it should be some other tolerance?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I not only think the matter can be discussed without seeing the maps, but I think it can be discussed far better without seeing them. If we agree with the idea that we should approach representation by population, either we decide scientifically upon certain tolerances and stay with them or we admit that we do not believe in the idea and want to decide on a tolerance which will produce the kind of boundaries we want. That is what we have done in the committees which handled redistribution across the years of our history, and I think we should get away from that.
I should like to read two or three sentences dealing with this question of doing the job independently, which I think are classical statements and bear repetition. They are to be found at page 1651 of Hansard for April 18, 1950. My first quotation is as follows:
I say that the time has come to consider the adoption of a system of redistribution of constituencies every ten years as the population changes, not in accordance with political considerations or personal bias, but that scientific consideration should be given to redistribution on the basis of population by a commission composed of the chief electoral officer, the surveyor general and one judge or more. No political considerations would be involved in such a commission. I would place them in a position where they would consider the whole matter of redistribution without denying to parliament the final say in connection therewith.


Paul Raymond Martineau: We agree.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend says the Conservatives agree. Please note that the request made then was that this commission be put completely beyond political considerations. The suggestion was that the only place parliament should come in would be at the very end. To request that we now see these maps is, I submit, to suggest that we have some finger in the pie as far as the work of the representation commissioner is concerned, and that we are interfering in the job even before it gets started.
May I read one more sentence and then I suspect that hon. members will know whom
Electoral Boundaries Maps I am quoting. In the next paragraph the same speaker said:
I feel now, with redistribution at least two years removed, the time has come to look into the matter of establishing a commission which would be free from political considerations to determine this question, not with a view to the political outcome in the ensuing election but in order to assure that democratic procedure shall be maintained in our country.
I have taken those words from a speech made in the House of Commons on April 18, 1950, by the then member for Lake Centre, later prime minister and now the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker). I ask hon. members to ponder those words, that clear clarion call for putting the drawing of the boundaries of the constituencies of members of the House of Commons beyond political considerations. Yet it is now suggested that even before we have passed this bill, while we are still considering it, we ask to see, and to have made public for all the country to see, the exercises which are being made before we finally decide whether we agree to the principle and before we finally decide on the tolerances.
I am opposed to this motion because I believe to vote for it would be to cast a vote inconsistent with the vote which this house has already cast on second reading of Bill No. C-72. I would also point out that this same bill contains a clause, clause 17, which provides for the commissions, once they have been appointed and have done their job, to hold public hearings and to make the maps public for everyone to see-citizens generally, members of parliament, whoever you will.
In this motion it is asked that we be given some special privilege ahead of time to see these maps. It is asked that something be done now, even before the commissions are appointed, and which the commissions are not supposed to do until they have surveyed the whole situation and done their work. I think we are not only confusing the public, but we are certainly putting the members of these commissions in a very difficult position if we are going to see these sketches, these exercises, ahead of time, because we will inevitably state opinions about them and confuse the whole situation.
I feel about this as I feel about every other aspect of this whole question of redistribution. I think that parliament has done itself proud in getting over nine decades of the worst kind of redistribution. I think that parliament has done itself proud in the unanimous decision which it has taken, a decision agreed to by all members of all parties, to go for redistribution by a completely independent body, and I hope we will go all the way through with this decision.
2780	HOUSE OF
Electoral Boundaries Maps I am not going to get into another argument which has been raised in another connection; suffice it to say that as far this aspect is concerned let us be consistent and go all the way. Having decided that we are going to give the job to people whom we will not control or meddle with, or to people whose work we will not try to influence, let us stay with that decision all the way down.
This is a terribly important issue, basic to the whole constitutional set-up. I regret the matter is being delayed. This is 1964 and the last census was taken in 1961. It would be a tragedy, almost a treason to the constitution of Canada, if because of delays on this matter the next election had to be fought on the constituency boundaries which were drawn on the 1951 census. I am afraid that if these sketches are produced this would add to the delay. Hon. members would start complaining about what is going to happen to their constituencies-and that is an anomaly right there. The constituencies are not ours. We are concerned with the rights of the people of Canada. As I say, I think that anything that delays carrying out the requirement of the constitution of Canada for redistribution after every decennial census is treason to the constitution itself, and regardless of who is responsible for the delay, whether it is the opposition that is holding up the matter or whether it is the government that is not bringing forward the bill, I believe that we should get on with the job.
I deplore the delays and I deplore any move to retreat from the very highminded decision of principle that parliament has taken to put redistribution beyond partisan politics, beyond the kind of thing we have had for the last nine decades. Therefore I hope that when this debate is over the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau) will be consistent with his vote on second reading of Bill C-72 and will ask that the motion be withdrawn.


Mr. Korchinski:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Gladly.


Mr. Nasserden:: May I ask a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Certainly.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Rosthern.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member who has just taken his seat will tell us whether he has seen the maps?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am told there are no maps so far. Therefore one cannot say he has seen maps. However, in response to the suggestion


that was made I have seen some of the sketches that are referred to as transparencies, consisting of lines drawn on transparencies that are put over old maps.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a minute. These are what are referred to, and if they were published I am satisfied they would confuse the situation. I say quite frankly in reply to the hon. member for Rosthern that what I have seen does not make me happy in terms of personal self-interest. I should like to see Winnipeg North Centre stay as it is, but any sketch I have seen indicates that many changes are going to be made. But what is involved is a matter of principle.
Indeed, all parties in this house have taken a stand on the principle that the seats in the house are not ours, that the House of Commons belongs to the people of Canada and that the boundaries should be drawn in a way that will best serve their right to have proportionate representation in the House of Commons.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Cariboo. There is so little time left and as there are a number of members who still want to take part in the debate I wonder whether we could let them proceed.


Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I am only going to say a very few words, chiefly to register my opposition to the production of any drawings or working sheets of any kind by the commissioner. In my opinion, if there is anything that could be termed meddling this would be it. I feel very strongly on the matter. It seems to me that if these documents were produced we would be defeating the very thing we have started out to do.
I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that certainly the first thing we must do is to put those who are going to be charged with the task in a position where they can go to work and get the job done. The situation in which we find ourselves, namely arguing over some transparencies or drawings, is in my opinion a reflection on the members of the house from the point of view of what we are really trying to do here. Either we must be on the side of removing this matter from politics or we must be on the side of keeping it in politics. We cannot be both.
I feel that the motion before us is a projection of the discussion that has taken place on clause 6 of the bill, and in my opinion the matter is being brought forward in another form in order to keep politics in the business

of redistribution, instead of removing them.
I do not think we should put ourselves in the position of trying to predetermine the work of the commission. After the commission has done its work we will be able to make representations to it. People will be able to make representations then, if they see something that they think makes representations necessary. In the present position we are just guessing a half and multiplying by two or guessing a quarter and multiplying by four. This only aggravates a situation that is wrong in the first place. I say: Let us get on with the business of getting the commission operating when we go back to the bill. I would also ask on behalf of the members of this house that the motion be withdrawn before the debate ends, so that we can get off on the right foot.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago I heard the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) say that the electoral maps which were made available to the members in the past few weeks were only mathematical exercises, but I fail to see the necessity of doing mathematical exercises in the redistribution of electoral boundaries.
According to all members, we should remove politics from the new redistribution. The best way to remove politics from that very important issue would have been first, not to invite the members to see those maps because then it was an attempt to get those who are in politics to discuss with the chief electoral officer the way a riding should be reorganized.
On the other hand the minister told us that he wished that those maps which in fact can be seen-I have seen them myself-be not even studied by the provincial commissions. Why draw up those maps then? By not doing it and letting the provincial commissions prepare the new maps, this afternoon's debate would not have taken place.
In fact, I do not think that a single member is satisfied with those maps which we have seen at the office of the chief electoral officer. As a matter of fact, hon. members go back to their own riding spreading rumours right and left, as mentioned a while ago by the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau). They are asking themselves what 10, 20 or 30 per cent might mean in their ridings or their regions? If the matter is to be settled definitely by the provincial com-
Business of the House
missions, a stop should be put to the drawing up of electoral maps in Ottawa and the provincial commissions should be left entirely free to determine the new boundaries of the federal ridings for future elections-


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, it is six o'clock-


Mr. Boulanger:: No, it is five to six.


David Réal Caouette: Someone said it was six o'clock. I do not know who it is but I think it is my hon. friend for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) who is always in a greater hurry than anyone else.
Mr. Speaker, concerning the mathematical gymnastics which the chief electoral officer has been required to do, now that we have seen those maps, it is obvious that he will also have to do geographical gymnastics.
Now, several people are dissatisfied with the new electoral boundaries which are to be suggested to the provincial commissions. In that connection, I should like to repeat what I said a moment ago:
First, the minister should never have invited the members to see the maps if he wished to keep politics out of the question.
Second, such mathematical and geographical gymnastics should not have been imposed on the chief electoral officer either.
Third, the whole thing should have been left to the provincial commissions. Then, we could have said at last that the matter was free of politics and that we approved the decisions made by the government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock this day are as follows:

The hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), extension of the winter works period.

Second, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hahn), national civil aviation policy; third, the hon. member for Queens, discussions with the United States representatives with respect to the Passamaquoddy project. The house will now resume the business interrupted at five o'clock.

Post Office Act POST OFFICE ACT



AMENDMENTS RESPECTING DELIVERY RATES ON PUBLICATIONS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Nicholson-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair:
That it is expedient to amend the Post Office Act to abolish the local delivery rates for first class mail and for all newspapers and periodicals other than those published more frequently than weekly; to establish a minimum rate of one half cent per copy to each separate address for all publications other than those to which local delivery rates apply or that have postage-free privileges; to make the four cent a pound postage on specimen copies of publications subject to either the local delivery rate or the minimum rate, whichever is applicable and to extend to certain cultural and technical publications the privileges now granted to newspapers and periodicals devoted to religion, the sciences or agriculture.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Kindt:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of privilege which affects every member of this house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are not in the house.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I think I should bring it to the attention of the hon. member that he can only rise on a question of privilege affecting the members of the house when the Speaker is in the chair. He cannot rise on a question of privilege that affects the house in general when we are in committee.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Then what is the procedure for getting a motion before the house at this time?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I move, seconded by the hon. member for MacLeod, that the committee rise and report progress, in order to enable the hon. member to bring his question of privilege before the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But we do not even know what it is.


Erik Nielsen: Will Your Honour please put the question?


Lucien Lamoureux: I have no motion before me. It will have to be transmitted to me in writing.
Mr. Nielsen moves that the committee rise and report progress. I assume, if I may change the formula, it should also request that the committee have leave to sit again later this day or the next sitting of the house as the case may be. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



PRIVILEGE


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege affecting every member of this house. Two national news broadcasts, between six and seven o'clock this evening, carried the information that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickers-gill) had given his blessing to the amalgamation of T.C.A. and Canadian Pacific Air Lines, at least in the international field, and discussions are proceeding with this objective in view.
My point of privilege is that the Minister of Transport has released this information before informing this house. This is a direct affront to the members of the house. The Minister of Transport is not a new member, and therefore should know better, but the move on his part was undoubtedly deliberate and directly opposed to the rules, rights and privileges enjoyed by members of the house.
I should like to be charitable to the minister, but if he persists in this type of action the only correct procedure is to press for his resignation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker-


Erik Nielsen: May I speak on the point of privilege-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Minister of Transport.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I have made no statement of any kind to the press. Anything that has appeared anywhere is speculation. The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hahn) attempted to ask me about this matter this afternoon, and no doubt excited some speculation by doing so.
The matter is set down for debate at ten o'clock this evening, and I intend at that time to make a statement, but the statement I am going to make is a matter that has nothing to do with the business of the house. It has to do with the administration entrusted to the government and it would not be the kind of statement that would normally be made on motions in any event, so that on every count there is no reason why the time of the house should be taken up with a matter of this kind, except as a matter of debate.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, may I speak on the point of privilege?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest, sir, there cannot be any debate on this matter unless there is a motion.


Erik Nielsen: On a point of privilege-


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order-


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Surely the right hon. gentleman, who is erupting like a volcano, realizes any hon. member may raise a point of order, even a minister of the crown-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and my point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Perhaps hon. members may wish to say something after I have spoken, but the way I see the matter is that this has been brought to the attention of the house as a question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Kindt), based on a statement alleged to have been made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill).
The Minister of Transport denies having made such a statement, and my understanding of the rules and the practice of the house is that hon. members have to accept the veracity of a statement made by another hon. member. In the circumstances I have to rule that there is no question of privilege, and since there is no motion before the house there cannot be debate. I trust hon. members will co-operate with me in this difficult matter and recognize that there is no question of privilege, at least at this time.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: On a point of privilege, I for one have listened to the broadcast tonight on two separate radios-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: -and my point of privilege is that this is something affecting all members-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Will the hon. member kindly resume his seat for just a moment, unless he has another point of privilege to raise different from the one he has brought to the attention of the house? He has made his point. We have heard an explanation from the minister, brief and to the point, and I do not think that there is any debate possible at this time. The ruling of the Chair is that there is no question of privilege, and I would very earnestly ask the hon. member to accept the ruling of the Chair at this time.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: But it was a pack of lies given by the Minister of Transport.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The house will now resume in committee of the whole.
Post Office Act POST OFFICE ACT



AMENDMENTS RESPECTING DELIVERY RATES ON PUBLICATIONS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Nicholson-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair:
That it is expedient to amend the Post Office Act to abolish the local delivery rates for first class mail and for all newspapers and periodicals others than those published more frequently than weekly; to establish a minimum rate of one half cent per copy to each separate address for all publications other than those to which local delivery rates apply or that have postage-free privileges; to make the four cent a pound postage on specimen copies of publications subject to either the local delivery rate or the minimum rate, which ever is applicable and to extend to certain cultural and technical publications the privileges now granted to newspapers and periodicals devoted to religion, the sciences or agriculture.
Reid Scott: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose at five o'clock I had been dealing with the submission made to us by the minister, in which he purported to justify the increase in the mail rates. I looked over his statements during the dinner hour and, comparing them with the information contained in the Glassco commission report, I find it very difficult to reconcile his statements with the information and recommendations given by the royal commission in question.
The minister's main contention is that the department needs more money and the best place to get it is from first class mail. He also made the submission that it was his intention to have each class of mail pay its own way; in effect, be self-sufficient. The minister then outlined some of the deficits that were not included in the estimates. Over the dinner hour I was reviewing the report of the Glassco royal commission as it relates to the post office, because it gives some interesting information concerning these two types of mail. On page 325 there is a table which summarizes the receipts and the disbursements of first class and second class mail. The first class mail shows a surplus of slightly over $35 million.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, interested as we might be in this, I think it would be helpful if the hon. member drew to the attention of the committee that those figures were for 1959.


Reid Scott: That is right. I am not trying to hide anything of that nature, but the commission itself indicated-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Perhaps if the minister kept quiet and listened for a while, he would find out.

Post Office Act


Reid Scott: These were the most accurate figures at which the commission could arrive after undertaking a very careful method of analysis. If the minister would read it, he would see this is an attempt to be very very fair to his department. If he has other figures for later dates based upon the same statistical detail then let us have them in the house and we will be glad to examine them. I do not want him to impute motives to any member of the house.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Or betray his ignorance.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: No, I was not imputing motives; but I thought it fair to point out that the figures were for 1959.


Reid Scott: To go on, Mr. Chairman, the figures in question show that first class mail had a surplus of slightly over $35 million, and second class mail showed a deficit of slightly over $23 million. The table on page 326 allocates between these two groups the unseen charges that the minister mentioned this afternoon, amounting to some $31 million. Even after these are allocated, still the first class mail shows a surplus of over $19 million and the deficit on second class mail climbs to $29 million. I really do not understand how the minister can tell us that what he is attempting to do in this legislation is anything other than force the people who use first class mail to dig deeper into their own pockets in order to subsidize second class mail. I would also like to know from the minister why he has ignored the recommendation of the Glassco commission in this regard, why he is throwing this recommendation out the window, because it says quite clearly;
-the imposition of an obligation to subsidize second class mail from its own pocket-
That is referring to subsidizing second class mail from first class mail:
-seems undesirable.
They make certain recommendations to the minister in this regard; that he should, rather than have this method of subsidization, be frank with the country and vote the mail subsidy in the estimates themselves. We will want some pretty cogent figures from the minister before we will be convinced that this is not the case. The commission came to the conclusion that the deficit in the Post Office Department roughly equated the deficit in second class mail, and I cannot for the life of me understand why we should be asked to pay subsidies to newspapers and periodicals and, more particularly, to the advertisers in those journals, because that in essence is what we are doing.
We have also asked the minister to outline to the committee what steps he intends to 
take, if any, to deal with the disparity between the large losses suffered on United States mail carried free in Canada and the extent to which this is offset by Canadian mail carried in the United States. I have outlined the tremendous disparity, and although this may not be easy, we feel that explorations along this line are more warranted than digging deeper into the pockets of those who use first class mail.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, we want to know what serious consideration the government is giving to the other recommendations of the Glassco commission in which are outlined very precise steps which it is felt will give a truer financial picture of the operations of the post office and will effect very far ranging economies. It is suggested, I know, by the commission that various government departments should be charged for the services they receive and should charge back for services rendered, rentals and matters of that kind. Until we have this information we do not have before us a correct financial picture of the post office and we simply cannot make an intelligent adjudication upon the proposals submitted by the minister.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We never have had.


Reid Scott: As the hon. member for Bur-naby-Coquitlam says, we never have had this in the history of the post office. I would have thought that action along those lines would have been more becoming in the circumstances. I feel, in conclusion, on the basis of the evidence we have heard today, on the basis of the minister's statement, that no case at all has been made for increasing the rates on first class mail. It is clear, from all the evidence to which we have access, that it not only pays its own way but shows a very substantial profit. The real deficit at the moment occurs in the hand-out given by way of subsidization to second class mail, newspapers and periodicals; and until something is done in this connection we intend to oppose this move. We also want to hear about the United States agreement, and what the minister really intends to do in regard to the recommendations of the Glassco commission. Does he intend to honour them; does he intend to put them into effect, or does he intend to throw them out the window as so many other recommendations have been treated in the past? That is all we want to say at this stage, Mr. Chairman; but until we hear more we intend to oppose this move.


Mr. Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Chairman, as we are considering the resolution to amend the Post Office Act, I want to mention that our Canadian postal system is recognized as

one of the best and most efficient in the world, thanks of course to our postal employees who are qualified and to all this devoted staff looking after the delivery of mail throughout Canada and attending every day to the distribution of correspondence so that all Canadians may have the best possible service.
I take this opportunity to pay special tribute to one and all.
I see in this resolution that it is intended to abolish the local delivery rate, which would amount to a disguised tax increase.
Of course, I appreciate the requirements of the postal administration because, like all other fields, it is affected by the treacherous inflation resulting from a financial system which is basically wrong.
Fortunately, we have some hope for the future, because after counting all those who favour monetary reform, I arrive at almost 25 per cent of the members of this house.
It is obvious that the post office is not a profit organization; but I realize how difficult it is to get fair treatment in that service. I know that personally, because I was a postal employee after my studies and I know that, when I left the service, two men were hired to replace me.
I should like to mention the case of the Chicoutimi post office which, for more than three years and a half, has yearly receipts of over $240,000, which means that it qualifies as grade 12. Its turnover this year will probably amount to $300,000 and I think it would be normal to classify it the way it should be.
I avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate the minister who, I believe, is able to understand the problems that exist at the present time in his department, since his administrative genius is acknowledged, and I hope that these small details will be corrected in due time.
May I add that I am happy to hear that post offices will be built in my constituency, namely at Laterriere, St. Honore, St. Ignace and in a few other places. I hope that those projects will materialize as soon as possible.
In conclusion, I would like to point out to the Postmaster General the case of Port Alfred which I submitted to him recently. This town has been asking for home delivery for more than 15 years. I have set forth a fair solution which I think should win his approval.
That was all I had to say on this matter, Mr. Chairman, because I feel that we should take every means to enable the Canadian postal service to operate efficiently and give the best service possible.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Chairman, allow me first to congratulate the new Postmaster General.
Post Office Act
I wholeheartedly hope that we will not have again to deplore the irregularities which we witnessed under his predecessor.
Mr. Chairman, I wonder if, in future, the minister intends to give some consideration to the elected members and to inform them of any action taken by the Post Office Department in their respecting ridings.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but, as he is aware, the hon. members must limit their remarks as much as possible to the matter under discussion. Since we are now dealing with a resolution concerning certain amendments to the Post Office Act and the transportation of mail, I suggest the hon. member should confine himself to that matter.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, you are very kind. But I was just following in the footsteps of some of my fellow members whom you tolerated so patiently.
I am now coming back to the subject matter. I simply wanted to convey to the minister some ideas we wished to express, and blaze the trail for the future administration of the department, because, when a resolution with regard to the post office is presented to the house, we necessarily must deal to a certain extent with the postal service.
Before going straight to the core of the matter, I hope I may ask the minister a second question. Will he maintain the partisan custom in his department of consulting people entirely outside politics?
We have now received the departmental report, and I wanted to congratulate the minister tonight for issuing it. Yet, I somehow feel ill at ease commending him, more particularly when he says:
That it is expedient to amend the Post Office Act to abolish the local delivery rates for first class mail and for all newspapers and periodicals other than those published more frequently than weekly-
Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the house that the suggested amendment, and more particularly the last words I quoted, affect us, and especially our small local publications to a great extent.
To my mind, this motion is nothing but a new tax on local delivery in Canada. It is not just any tax, but a specific imposition on private business. This is another case of the small local business being the whipping boy for the large corporation. The small man will again pay for some nonsense or some extravagant expenses the minister or the post office officials will incur.
Mr. Chairman, it is rather strange that, as soon as a deficit is foreseen in some department, it is immediately compensated by a

Post Office Act
new tax. Not the slightest effort is made to scrutinize the budget to see whether something could be adjusted in the estimates. None at all. Instead of making an effort in that direction, as soon as a deficit is foreseen, the imposition of a tax is immediately suggested. Always the same scapegoat.
The small man is always the one who pays in the end. When I find that the annual report shows a surplus of $3,486,449.02, I wonder why a new increase in postal rates is being proposed, after a surplus has been made public. As a matter of fact, I think that this attitude is even less understandable than the tax itself.
I must point out to the house that such action is unfair, and that if this resolution is passed tonight, it will simply be discriminatory toward the first class mail, as well as toward all our local publications.
Once more, we forgot, maybe intentionally, the big newspapers, the foreign newspapers which flow into our country and for which Canadian people pay higher and higher taxes.
I am taking part in the debate this evening merely to mention that anomaly within our administration, and I suggest to the Postmaster General, instead of considering a new tax before going to bed tonight, to go over his budget and determine whether there is no extravagance in the salaries or if there are expenditures which could be eliminated in order to balance his department's budget because, in my opinion, it is the easiest budget to reduce. In fact, the Post Office Department is supposed to be administered, most logically without having the small taxpayer pay higher postal rates.
On the other hand, if the minister has a mania for taxation, let him tax the rich. In short, let him tax those who can pay. Let him tax the owners of newspapers with a large circulation or those who run American magazines. But he should leave alone-and surely once in ten years is not too much-the small local businessman, the small Canadian undertaking which can barely make ends meet in our towns but which is trying to do something for the province of Quebec.
Those, Mr. Chairman, are the few remarks I wanted to bring to the attention of the minister and I hope he will consider them seriously overnight.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I wish to join with my colleagues who spoke before me to congratulate the Postmaster General on his appointment.
I also want to pay tribute to the employees of the Post Office Department who work hard in the public interest.
I have two suggestions to make to the Postmaster General.

I suggest that post offices should be closed on Saturday as they are in the Netherlands. It would be logical, in my opinion, if the civil servants had their week end free like the citizens in other social classes.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his remarks bear such a vague relationship to the subject matter of the resolution that I cannot allow him to carry on.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I believe this relates somewhat to the resolution, for if the post offices close their doors, the amendments referred to in the resolution will automatically be affected. Also would the minister even amend his resolution along this line, in order to grant a holiday to postal employees on Saturdays, for they surely deserve a normal week end as any other Canadian citizen. In such a case, only the members of parliament would be at their offices on Saturdays, but, as far as they are concerned, they discharge a mandate of public interest.
I do not mean that postal employees are not devoted to the service of the public.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I have listened carefully to the remarks of the hon. member, but he has not yet established in which way they relate to the question before us.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I believe my second suggestion will relate a little more closely to the question before us.
I am suggesting that the Postmaster General compel the owners of two and three storey houses to co-operate with their tenants in establishing letter boxes on the first floor, so that the postmen may not have to climb the second or third floors as happens at present.
I think it is inhuman to have such a state of affairs. The minister is acting in good faith and he will surely consider the situation with officials of his department.
On the other hand, the Canadian weekly newspapers association is a bit concerned over the resolution. Canadian weeklies can now distribute 2,500 free issues every week through the mail without paying a penny.
You are no doubt aware, Mr. Chairman, of the competition which dailies give to local newspapers across Canada. As a matter of fact, that competition is rather strong. I believe that the weeklies have a role to play in our social life and I wonder why the Post Office Department, according to this resolution, intends to impose a special tax on weeklies mailing over 2,500 copies. I would ask the minister to amend the resolution so as to leave unchanged section 11 of the act,

especially paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (2), so that Canadian newspapers may enjoy the same privileges as before.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I urge the minister to reconsider his policy concerning new issues so that a stamp may be issued to commemorate the centennial of the death of Sir Louis Hyppolite Lafontaine who was in a way a forerunner of confederation since, at one time, he presided over the destinies of the two Canadas with Robert Baldwin.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: To continue-


Lucien Lamoureux: I should like once again to call the hon. member to order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I would be most happy if the minister could tell us what he intends to do about the request submitted by the association of Canadian weekly newspapers and also about the three proposals I made to him. Knowing his devotion and the care he takes to inform the house, I am sure he will give an accurate reply as usual.


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to make a few remarks about the resolution before us.
Like the hon. members who spoke before me, I would like first of all to congratulate the Postmaster General, because the administration of his department being undoubtedly a very important responsibility, to be entrusted with it by his leader, evidently bears testimony to the minister's administrative abilities.
I would also avail myself of the opportunity to express my appreciation and pay tribute to the numerous employees of the Post Office Department who discharge their duties and responsibilities with tact and efficiency.
I would have liked, Mr. Chairman, the present Postmaster General's predecessor to be in the house today, to hear his successor state that the deficit foreseen for the coming year will be around $37 million. As a matter of fact, last year, if we remember rightly, the former postmaster general who is sitting, today, in the other place, which is much more peaceful than ours, was blaming the deficit on the poor administration of the Conservatives who were facing him.
Well, we have at present a Liberal administration which foresees a deficit of about $37 million.
I would also like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that those who will provide the additional revenue that the Postmaster General is looking for will always be the taxpayers. It is said that last November increases yielded some $8 million and that it is not enough. During a period of one year, Mr. Chairman, 20220-177
Post Office Act
it is the second time that the Postmaster General comes forward to ask for additional revenue. Last November, there were quite large increases in some cases. For instance, registered letters rate varied from 35 to 60 cents; letters by postal delivery went up from 10 to 25 cents, that is an increase of over 15 cents; postal parcel rate went up from to 20 to 35 cents, while money orders went up from 20 to 25 cents. Since April 1, 1964, there was another substantial increase for what is called commercially c.o.d.'s. We must also recall, Mr. Chairman, that to send our wishes next December, we will have to pay 50 per cent more than last year.
Added to increases provided for now, it will be an amount of $37 million, according to the Postmaster General's figures, that the taxpayers will have to pay over what they used to.
May we point out that according to the minister himself, it is mostly commercial and industrial businesses which will have to carry the load of that new increase. It is hard to understand, Mr. Chairman, that in one office, the distribution of first class mail should be increased.
In view of all the boasting about their own talent as administrators we heard from those people now occupying the treasury benches, something on which they all agreed when they were in opposition, it would seem to me that the Postmaster General himself is also heading quite the wrong way in taking steps which will certainly result in an even higher cost of living.
I have no intention whatever, at this time, of indulging in a speech on this matter, but I cannot refrain from pointing out to the house that what the Postmaster General is now asking us to do will surely entail an increase in the cost of living.
I suggest that the Postmaster General should look for other means of getting the money he needs without adding to the burden of the taxpayer in general by an increase in postal rates as steep as the one he is contemplating, especially in view of the fact that it is the second one in less than a year.
Mr. Chairman, that is what I wanted to say. I am convinced that the businessmen and industrialists in my riding would not have been pleased had I let this increase in postal rates go through without telling the house that they oppose it.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: Mr. Chairman, before this debate commenced I had hoped to receive a statement from the minister with regard to a question I asked him some time ago as

Post Office Act
a result of the increased cost of sending newspapers to husbands and sons serving overseas with Canadian forces. I am certain that the introduction of this measure by the Postmaster General is to increase the revenue of the Post Office Department, yet the total cost of this increase will be borne by Canadians and is a hardship upon the people of Canada.
With regard to these proposed increases in rates I should like to point out that the profits of the Canadian editions of Time and Reader's Digest for the year 1959 were revealed by the royal commission on publications to be $937,000 in the case of Time and $1,158,000 in the case of Reader's Digest. No Canadian periodical makes such profits. The unfair part of it is that the postal subsidy given to these papers, according to post office figures, show that there is a loss to the Post Office Department each year on account of handling the distribution of Time of about $600,000, and between $600,000 and $900,000 in the case of Reader's Digest, depending on the method of calculation. The inequity of this is that Reader's Digest, a United States publication, pays a rate of one and three quarter cents a pound. Star Weekly, a Canadian publication, pays three cents a pound compared with this one and three quarter cents for a United States publication. Our Canadian newspapers pay more than three cents a pound. I hope that during the course of this debate or when the Postmaster General answers questions he will give the committee an explanation of his reasons for this action.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, some of us had the pleasure of watching the Minister of of Justice last night on "The Nation's Business" when he was interviewed by or had a chat with the hon. member for Northumberland. He introduced an argument at that time which it seemed to me the Post Office Department and the Postmaster General might have considered before bringing this legislation in front of us.
The Minister of Justice painted the picture in these words: Yes, of course, the provinces are going to get, not 17 per cent but right up to 24 per cent under a certain formula, but we will not get less. It is going to be a bigger pot; there is going to be growth. We are not going to get less. He did not make any mention of the fact, which I suppose the Postmaster General will, that costs are going up, wages are going up, expenditures are going up. All we got from the Minister of Justice in connection with the new tax agreement was how wonderful it is. Everybody gets more and nobody gets less.


An hon. Member:: Pie in the sky.


Douglas Mason Fisher: It was real pie in the sky. I should like to know why the Postmaster General did not give us some of this pie in the sky. The fact is he has given us a different kind of pie and it is quite an argument he has brought forward. If I may refer to a local setting, the cities of Port Arthur and Fort William are adjacent to each other and they were very proud last year, the chamber of commerce in particular and with some reason, that they had managed to get the local delivery rate between two cities. The post office authorities, the postmaster general at that time and everybody else were very pleased about it. Everybody was estimating how many thousands of dollars local businessmen were going to save because of this action. Everybody was saying: This is justice which should have been extended to us long ago because we were obviously paying too much for postage.
What comes along a few months later, with this magnificent, competent government that always does things so well? They have got the genius for administration, you know. Port Arthur and Fort William lose their little percentage of benefit, but it is all in the name of putting the books in better shape. The department is going to have things look better.
I received a letter a couple of years ago from the postmaster general at that time, William Hamilton, and I want to put it on the record because the minister has said nothing in his introductory statement to indicate that this situation does not exist. The situation that is portrayed by Mr. Hamilton is the real problem here. The minister will not come out and really say it is. Instead he is going to get money from first class mail that he should be getting from some other kind of mail. Mr. Hamilton's letter reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Fisher:
During the discussion of my estimates in the House of Commons you asked me for certain information breaking down, as between Canadian and United States publications and as between newspapers and other periodicals, some earlier information I had supplied covering revenues and costs in this field.
In this letter I will try to do so but I must immediately caution you against assuming any particular accuracy for these figures.
I take it he meant that he was giving accurate dollars and cents figures, and his point is that generally they are accurate but not in particular.
I should also point out that we have no breakdown whatsoever as between newspapers and periodicals such as magazines; for our purposes these are all second class mail and no analysis we have ever made has attempted to make a division between the two.
Regarding my caution on the accuracy of the figures, I think this is understandable. Millions of pieces of mail are handled every day and

any assessment of volume, class and so on can only be on a sampling basis. Furthermore, since the job is so big and tends to interrupt the normal flow of the mail we make our studies only at fairly lengthy intervals; the detailed cost ascertainment study, for example, is done only every three years.
Finally, the further one attempts to break down cost figures and obtain details, the more uncertain those details become. For example, I am inclined to think that our total allocation of costs as between various classes of mail and our over-all estimate of the volume in each class is reasonably accurate; when one begins to break down a particular class into further groups, it becomes less accurate for a number of reasons.
You will remember also the running battle which has existed in the United States for some time over the basic question of how costs should be allocated as between various categories of mail and this has applicability to our Canadian costing systems as well since costs accountants will always argue over the basis on which overhead has been applied to various categories and what are direct and what are indirect costs.
Within this framev/ork, you will remember that our cost ascertainment statements for the fiscal year 1958-59 show the following figures relative to second class mail:
Second Class Matter
Volume (originating)	531,148,888	pieces
Receipts	$ 6,189,125
Disbursements	27,879,068
Disbursements over receipts	$21,689,943
I gather that the figure for disbursements over receipts is now up to $26 million so far as these particular	categories are	concerned.
Based on surveys which were made in 1955 and 1956, we estimate that the Canada post office handles about 120 million pieces annually of publications mailed in the United States and having the postage paid there, and about 40 million United States publications which are mailed in Canada and have the postage thereon paid to the Canadian post office. Our estimate of the receipts from the latter is $900,000.
Our cost calculations have always been based on the principle that they disregard mail matter originating and paid outside Canada and subsequently handled by the Canadian post office for delivery in this country. This principle is based on the fact that most letters generate a reply and that therefore there will be an equal volume of this kind of mail into and out of the country. Thus, while it produces a lower figure for the actual volume handled than would be the case if mail originating outside Canada was also included in the volume figures, and therefore a higher cost per piece figure when the volume is divided into the total operating costs for a particular class of mail, there is an approximately equivalent benefit to the Canadian post office by the fact that about the same volume of mail is sent out of Canada and handled at no delivery cost to us by other countries.
These principles are universally accepted by postal organizations and are, indeed, the basis on which it has been possible to organize such a smooth flow of mails between most countries in the world without any one country demanding payment for the work it does for another country in so far as first class mail is concerned.
While we have applied the same principle to all the classes of mail, in the case of periodical publications it must certainly be admitted that a far greater flow comes to Canada from the United
20220-177i
Post Office Act
States than goes to the United States from Canada and if we are going to take into account, as you would wish to do, the United States publications mailed and paid for in the United States this will require a downward revision in the cost per piece which was quoted in the cost ascertainment figures tabled in the House of Commons. You will remember that the cost per piece overall was there shown as 5.249 cents; to apply the total costs of $27,879,000 over all publications handled by the Canadian post office-including those mailed in the United States-the cost per piece will have to be reduced to 4.299 cents.
Once one is in possession of the foregoing information it is possible to estimate the figures you require, but to save you the trouble-
Mr. Hamilton was a very agreeable minister.
-I am going to set them out below:
Canadian publications mailed and postage aid in Canada	$21,114,698
U.S.A. publications mailed and postage paid in Canada	1,719,800
U.S.A. publications mailed and postage paid in U.S.A.	5,044,570
Disbursements	$27,879,068
The best breakdown we can establish of the receipts figure of $6,189,125 given on page 2 is as under:
Canadian publications mailed and postage paid in Canada	$ 5,289,125
U.S.A. publications mailed and postage paid in Canada	900,000
Receipts	$ 6,189,125
The best breakdown we	can	establish	of	thedisbursements over	receipts of	$21,689,943	given
on page 2 is as under:
Canadian publications mailed and postage paid in	Canada	$15,825,573U.S.A. publications	mailed	and	postagepaid in	Canada	819,800U.S.A. publications	mailed	and	postagepaid in	U.S.A.	5,044,570
Disbursements over receipts $21,689,943
The date of this letter is July 27, 1960. Mr. Hamilton went on to say that he hoped this was the basic information I wanted. I remember that at that time the hon. member for York Humber, who had not yet joined us as a parliamentary colleague, was also interested in this question. I was hoping he would see fit to come forward at this time to give us the views that he used to present to the various members of parliament around the corridors of power, as they have been described, when he was in his previous function.


Mr. Cowan:: I have not changed my mind.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The hon. member says he has not changed his mind. I am glad to know that because if he has not changed his mind he must be very worried over the fact that the reason we have this resolution before us, the reason we are going to have a bill, is that the Post Office Department and the government have not been able to come up with

Post Office Act
an answer to this tremendous loss, this tremendously exaggerated disbursement cost, not in the area of first class mail.
I would like to suggest that if you want an emotional or qualitative difference between first class mail and the distribution of periodicals and publications of various kinds that come under other categories, there is a natural division to make. It is a division all of us make in our minds in connection with mail services, the difference between first class mail treatment and the mailing treatment of other kinds of periodicals.
I am not downgrading the other portions of the work the department does, but I would like to put it to the minister that first class mail in this country really means something. There have been complaints at various times about the service, but in the main the Postmaster General can be proud of it. But I do not see how he can be proud about coming in here and whacking people in this country by putting up the cost of the first class mail, when the first class mail is not losing money.
Why do the minister and the government not come up with some kind of solution where the problem really lies. In order to do this the minister has to come in and tell us something about the government's policy on periodicals and publications. His predecessors did try to take some steps a couple of years ago to make some adjustments, to get more of the United States periodicals mailed in Canada, which had some effect but were not effective enough. It is also quite apparent that many newspapers and periodicals have rates that do not come anywhere near meeting the costs.
I believe the hon. member who spoke just before me made the point, in connection with the estimates, regarding the subsidy the Post Office Department is giving Reader's Digest and Time magazines. The figure runs, as it has been given to us, at somewhere between $600,000 and $900,000 a year. I think each member of the house who has been around his office has encountered the lobbyists, and it is no disgrace to name them and say that this estimate has been prepared by the Montreal Star, the Family Herald, the Toronto Star, and the Toronto Star Weekly. These are the people who are trying to find the heart and capture the soul of the Liberal backbenchers, to see if they can do something about the government's position on periodicals.
That estimate may not seem much, but when you take the two of them it gives you a figure of over $1 million, and in effect it is a subsidy. This is one of the reasons why the people of Canada will have to add that extra cent when mailing their letters to their loved ones, or whenever mailing business letters. In

other words, we are going to have the wonderful chance of helping to disseminate Time and Reader's Digest around this country. That may appeal to some, but personally I am against it and my colleagues are against it.
If the minister cannot come up with better proposals than this to meet what is a relatively minor deficit in terms of the kind of services the department provides, I think we should vote against them. When I say it is a minor deficit, I mean in terms of the department's total revenues and expenditures; but there is, as I tried to point out earlier, a very substantial deficit between the cost and the income that come from a certain kind of mail. I have tried to point out where losses are really coming from, and I think it is rather disgraceful for the minister, representing this government which is so full of administrative genius, to come in and tell us he is going to put an extra cent on something that is already paying its way.


Mr. Paul:: Mr. Chairman, I thank my hon. friends opposite for their cheers, undoubtedly hoping that I will throw bouquets at them. Let them not delude themselves, but since it is my duty to congratulate the new Postmaster General for the high office to which he was just appointed to and which he will undoubtedly discharge just as well as his predecessor, it is with pleasure that I offer him my congratulations.
I would not want to forget to congratulate also the efficient staff of the Post Office Department and all those who do their share to make our Canadian post office system one of the best in the world.
What puzzles me. Mr. Chairman, is the silence which paralyses our friends opposite. After all, not one of them rose to his feet to protest against an increase of $38 million in new taxes. And knowing the objectivity of the members of the press gallery, I am sure that tomorrow we will see in all the newspapers across the country the following headline: "$38 million increase in federal taxes." Then, the population will be adequately informed about that new tax the government is attempting to impose tonight through the Postmaster General.
It is somewhat like the sales tax on building materials. It is done by stages. First of all, an increase was imposed starting November 1, 1963: the point was to find $1,800,000 in round figures; then, an increase on certain postal matters starting April 1, 1964 which will yield for the department receipts amounting to some $6 million and, today, we are presented with the grand finale which looks rather like a cap. It caps it all.

In any case, the increase has reached $30 million. And our friends opposite are glad and they cheer when a member of this house, conscious of his duty and his responsibilities, rises to question the efficiency of the Post Office Department.
This afternoon, the minister tried by every means to have the house believe that this administrative measure was absolutely necessary. It is no doubt to celebrate the election of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) as leader of the Quebec members that we are offered this $30 million in new taxes. And to top it all, Mr. Chairman, the Liberals give this measure a rousing welcome.
They will certainly refrain, during the next election campaign in their respective constituency, from telling how much partisanship they have shown in this house this evening, to the prejudice of the Canadian people. A new tax is levied and once again we see them, dumb as a fish, show their political solidarity, to the detriment of national interests and Canadian citizens.
This afternoon the Postmaster General was the errand boy of the cabinet. He is a new minister, and probably has little experience in administration, and they take advantage of the situation by making him bear the deficit of certain other departments. When the Postmaster General announced this rate increase this afternoon, he referred to page 351 of the estimates for the year ending on March 31, 1965. He told us that the approximate value of important services not included in the departmental estimates imposed administrative costs of some $36 million to the Post Office Department. However, if we consider with objectivity the expenditures and revenues of the department, we find an administrative surplus of $3 million. I do not think that this department is one whose ostensible purpose is to fill the coffers of the treasury, but that is what we are led to believe by this legislation.
The minister told us also that the Post Office Department benefited from administrative expenses made by the Department of Public Works, owing to the fact that the latter spends approximately $25,298,000 to provide postal accommodation. To that effect, I therefore ask the minister the following question. Is his department, the only one to get free accommodation from the Department of Public Works? Do the departments of labour, justice and many others not get the same advantages? Then why give that reason which in itself, does not only apply to the Post Office Department, but which is a matter of administration for all the federal departments.
Another reason given by the minister is:
Accounting and cheque Issuing branch (treasury comptroller).
Post Office Act
Can the Postmaster General tell us whether he benefits from a preferential treatment from the treasury?
Contributions to superannuation account (Department of Finance).
Is not the Minister of Finance in charge of superannuation for all civil service employees in any department?
Employee surgical-medical insurance premiums (Department of Finance).
Does not the Minister of Finance assume this same obligation on the part of all other departments of the federal government?
Employee compensation payments (Department of Labour).
Is the Post Office Department the only one to take advantage of surgical-medical insurance?
Carrying of franking mail (Post Office Department) .
In order to have a better balanced budget, would it not have been better if the Postmaster General had charged mail transportation cost to other departments rather than granting them franking privileges?
I feel, Mr. Chairman, that the reasons given by the Postmaster General are not serious and that by acting in this way he becomes the mouthpiece for the financial requirements of the government. Under the guise of such administrative expenses charged to the budget of the Post Office Department they want to recoup from Canadian citizens a sum of $38 million.
Should we pass this measure without a word, as our Liberal friends would like us to do, we may be sure that other departments will put forward the same administrative reasons that have been advocated by the Postmaster General this afternoon. Then, we shall have to put. up with other increases; that is what stamps this government anyway.
An excellent tax was imposed on us during this parliament's first session and still another one is being imposed today, namely one of $36 million which will result in increasing the already too high cost of living in Canada, without mentioning the fact that the mail service-


Mr, Nicholson:: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but where does he get that figure of $38 million? He has used it several times. It was $8 million, not $38 million.


Rémi Paul: Perhaps I made a mistake but I was sure the minister this afternoon spoke about $36 million. Perhaps I made a mistake of $2 million. But for the Liberal party, $2 million is peanuts.
2792	HOUSE OF
Post Office Act

Mr. Chairman, I was saying that an increase in the cost of the mail transportation would raise the cost of living.
On the other hand, if the minister had stated that this increase would improve the postal service, give the Canadian people twice-a-day mail delivery in the cities, as claimed by his predecessor and Liberal members when they were in opposition, or if he had said: "Yes, there is an increase, but the Canadian people will benefit by it", we might have agreed with him. But no, that does not enter into the picture at all and that is why I believe we should know what the members on the other side are thinking.
Gentlemen, do you accept that increase in rate or do you disapprove of it? If you are against it, stand up, exert pressure on the Postmaster General, and on the man you chose last Saturday in Montreal, to change the disastrous measure that the Postmaster General wants us to swallow.
It is not by putting forward false reasons like the one mentioned by the Postmaster General-reasons which are not particular to his department but seem to exist in all departments-that the government will get us to agree to that resolution.
Mr. Chairman, I think that the government is urgently in need of money and that it will collect that tax to the detriment of all Canadian taxpayers. That is why I am anxious to hear the experts, including the hon. member from Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Pepin), who is always eager to make high sounding statements on all matters dealing with trade in particular.
He will no doubt tell us his opinion; he will tell us why he approves this tax and whether or not it is in actual fact prejudicial to taxpayers of his riding as well as to taxpayers throughout Canada.
Mr. Chairman, the minister will undoubtedly be able to give us explanations. I hope especially that he will be in a position to show us that the treatment his department receives from the Department of Public Works is preferential treatment, and that the accommodation provided by the Department of Public Works seems to be the reason for the proposed increase. I hope the minister will show us that his department enjoys preferential treatment, which may justify the increase in the postal rate proposed by the minister.
Personally, I do not intend to support this measure, because, once more, it is a tax in disguise, an hypocritical tax. Even if it is introduced in good faith by the Postmaster General, it is an hypocritical tax, disguised, unjustified, and it must be fought, not by the silence of our hon. friends of the other side


of the house, but, by participation in the debate, to enlighten the minister about the error he is about to commit by imposing a new tax on the mail delivery in this country.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) is prepared to speak tonight.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to take part in the debate but since several hon. members saw fit to do so, even if the bill has yet to be introduced, and in view of the fact that we are only at the resolution stage, I would be remiss if I did not say a few words, first to congratulate the Postmaster General on his appointment and then to say that, after hearing the hon. member who has just sat down, one would be inclined to believe that under the Conservative government taxes did not exist in Canada, that the only party which has imposed taxes in Canada or ever proposed an increase in taxes, like the one we are dealing with now, is the Liberal party.
The hon. member would have us believe, it seems, that the Conservatives never imposed any tax in Canada, never raised taxes, that there never was a million Canadians unemployed. In fact, they seem to be angels since they are in opposition.
Mr. Chairman, this does not mean that we accept the government's proposals especially the increase in the postal rate all over the country, or even the abolition of the local delivery rate for first class mail because, from now on, it is going to be more expensive to send mail first class.
The government proposes also to establish a minimum rate of half a cent per article of mail to each separate address.
Why does the Postmaster General recommend an increase in postal rates for regular mail such as personal letters, etc.? I am told it is because the department is short of money, and the only place where the government can find the money it needs to administer the Post Office Department is in the pockets of millions of Canadian taxpayers.
While he is at it, I wonder why the minister does not do a full job. Half a cent per copy for each separate address is not enough. That will not give the government enough.
The government should have gone all the way and increased postal rates so as to have enough revenues for the department to show a profit. It would have thus given the people a true image of the government's great solicitude when it levies taxes and still more taxes, and even imposes taxes on the taxes, when that is possible. Then, the Canadian people would realize that the old parties have to be replaced by something new on the Canadian political scene.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Justice is ready to speak tonight.


Douglas Mason Fisher: In my previous remarks I forgot to touch on one aspect of this subject -I was reminded of it by another hon. member.-and I wish to draw this to the attention of the Postmaster General. In effect, he is asking us to feel sorry for certain men. He is asking the ordinary individual who uses the services of the post office to come through with some more money. I was reminded in Toronto recently that some of the people who are getting this grant for improving the breed of horseflesh are people who really need it- people like E. P. Taylor. I wonder why the house does not join me in prayer for barefoot boys like Roy Thomson, now Lord Thomson of Fleet. As a matter of fact, he is coming over to Canada soon. Someone said he was swimming because he was so hard up. Anyone ever heard about John McConnell? He has a farm paper, the Family Herald and Weekly Star. I think McConnell is in rough shape, if the minister is obliged to come up with something which will force the ordinary fellow using the post to contribute a little bit more, instead of asking him to do so. Then there are people like the Southams. Everybody knows how hard up they are.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please, I do not see that the remarks now being made by the hon. member relate directly and essentially to the resolution now before us. They may relate to the resolution, but I would ask the co-operation of the hon. member to indicate to the Chair how they do.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I thought the chairman was more acute than that. Obviously farm papers and daily newspapers with a circulation of below 10,000, which have a special low rate which does not come close to meeting the cost, are one of the reasons why there is a deficiency in the department, why the minister has brought in this bill. I was just calling the attention of all members to who it was that was being assisted, these poor, hard-up people like Lord Thomson, John McConnell and the Siftons. I think this is worth noting. Someone pointed out that if you raise the price of postage for farm periodicals, it will hit a co-operative newspaper such as the Western Producer. I can shed all kinds of crocodile tears for the Western Producer. It almost breaks your arm as you throw it into the wastepaper basket, it is so loaded with advertisements. It is obviously in dire poverty.
There is something wrong when the Postmaster General will not face up to situations like this. Here we have newspapers and pub-
Post Office Act
lishing interests in this country, and it is just laughable to think of them being close to the wall. These are prosperous enterprises. Here we have a man who has gone on, on the strength of a little newspaper with a circulation of below 10,000 that he got nothing out of in northern Ontario in the Timmins and Kirkland Lake region, until he is the greatest purse bearer in the world. What is the Post Office Department doing by this kind of subsidy in a situation such as this? I think the minister should give us some frank answers as to why there has not been more planning to go after revenue in areas such as this, instead of wiping out the local delivery rate and planning to increase the first class mail rate.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Peiers:: Mr. Chairman, if the minister wishes to answer these questions, I will defer to him. I would think, in view of the discussion that has taken place, that if the government takes some action on this resolution now they will not be acting in accordance with the wishes of the people, because I think it is very clear to the postal department and to the house that this resolution, if it indicates correctly the contents of the bill, will not pass this house, and I think rightly so. I believe there is a great deal of sympathy for the Post Office Department. There is a great deal of sympathy because it is something that is so common to everyone and everyone uses its facilities. The average person uses the facilities of the department when he goes down and mails a letter and puts on first class postage. There are great numbers of such people, and they have supported the post office to the extent of creating the only profit the department enjoys.
We know that the post office fits into a different category, and the revenues necessary to operate it must be considered different to those of other departments. We expect that the Post Office Department will be a liability. We expect this because we ask them to do so much in so many fields from which no money flows. In quite a number of other countries the post office has been separated from government; it is no longer a department of government but is established as an independent agency of government. In that case departments of government, things like periodicals, and so on, have to make a profit on their own and have to make their regular contributions. But we are being asked in this resolution, not to equalize the expenses of the post office to provide enough money to cover the costs of its operation, but to pay

Post Office Act
a rate of first class postage in this country that will continue to pick up some of the deficit.
I did not follow something that was said in this debate; perhaps it was the translation or my inability to follow the argument. I heard one hon. member from the province of Quebec use the figure of $36 million. Then the minister rose and said, "No, it is not $36 million for the province of Quebec; it will be $8 million". Surely we are not dividing off how much this tax is going to cost each particular province and naming them by provinces and saying, "This is going to be your contribution to the $200 million or $300 million that was arranged in the agreements arrived at recently by the federal government". Surely the post office is not going to be the first of the departments that will come before us with the suggestion that this is the contribution to the $200 million that you have to be prepared to make.
I believe there is not a member of this house who, if he has the opportunity of sitting on this resolution for two or three weeks, will not do so. By that I mean, having the opportunity of going back to his riding after the discussion has taken place in the house and before the advent of this bill. If they did this, hon. members would come back here firmly convinced that the people of Canada do not want Reader's Digest or Time magazine, and certainly do not want them if it is going to cost them one cent more to mail a letter. I think this is a fact, and I think the minister will find it very difficult to sell that kind of proposition. Arguments have been raised, some of which have not, in my opinion, been ethical, by some of the magazines in question in the lobbying they have done that is not normally undertaken in this sphere of our Canadian parliament. But I believe that, laying aside the promises which the Prime Minister has made to Reader's Digest and Time and the statements that have been made, the Canadian public are not prepared to subsidize second class mail at the expense of providing additional revenue by reason of first class mail.
The minister has had much experience in the realm of business and I wonder just how he justifies dividing the difference off into departments, and then saying that the one that is making the money today should bear the increased cost, and the one that has a deficit should have the deficit position worsened by not increasing the rate with regard to periodicals. I subscribe to one of the Thomson newspapers and it is a fact that this paper has gone up year after year in subscription rates. They have been in the position, in my opinion, to take care of some additional costs in the mailing of their papers.

I am sure this is true of all the other magazines in question, and it is certainly true of many of the technical magazines which the minister mentioned specifically. If you go to the newsstand you will find these have increased substantially in recent years, and they are now in a position where part of the profits they have made could be used for their mailing services.
I do not know whether the minister really wishes to consider this resolution. A resolution, as you know, Mr. Chairman, concerns the putting before parliament of the idea of a bill to come, and ascertaining from the house and its members their wishes and aspirations in terms of the resolution. The practice of this house has been to bring a resolution in because it is demanded by our standing orders, and to have the bill drafted, prepared and all ready to present as soon as the resolution is presented. If the house leader really wishes to consider the mood of the house I think he will give very serious consideration to this resolution and the representations that have been made, because it is my opinion that this is going to be "knock 'em down, drag 'em out" fight and the Canadian people and their representatives in this house are not prepared to allow an increase in the rates on first class mail at this time, for the reasons outlined by hon. members.


Mr. Cardiff:: Mr. Chairman, I would first like to congratulate the new Postmaster General on his position. I congratulate him, too, on bringing forward this resolution to try to help the Post Office Department. But I think he was in too close conversation with the Minister of Transport when he drafted the resolution, and to his own detriment, I believe, before he is through. I do not think this is where the trouble is at all. I do not think it is in the increase of mailing rates at all that action is required. If we had some of the money spent in transporting and delivering the mail I think we would be hitting the nail on the head.
I can remember very well a few years ago when the trains were carrying the mail. The trains belonged to Canada, and in order to discontinue some of the feeder lines of the C.N.R. the mail was taken off the trains and carried by truck. I think if hon. members would go back over the books they would find that a great deal of expense has been created right there. You cannot carry mail by truck as cheaply as you can carry it on the train, as long as the train is travelling on the track.
I think this is one place where the department has lost a great deal of money.
I have been in this house long enough to remember very well that the revenue of the

Post Office Department was always very high and they helped many other departments of government that were in the red. If they had not taken on such a volume of truck delivery
I	think the Post Office Department would still be paying their way and would not be in the red, and it would not be necessary to increase the rates on first class mail. There is such a difference in the amount of mail coming in from the United States, out of which we get nothing compared with what we send into the United States, that there again we lose money, although I do not know how that could be corrected. I suppose there is an agreement with regard to that, but something should be done about it. The population in the United States is ten or
II	times that in Canada so we could not be expected to keep up with them; yet we buy far more from the United States than they buy from us. However, that is not a problem for this minister.
I should like the minister to remember back a few years when mail was taken off the trains and trucked all over the countryside, with the result that the railways were deprived of revenue. In some cases lines were discontinued altogether because they did not make enough money. We have a side line in our area through Kincardine to Stratford which they have been trying to discontinue for 20 years, but it is still there. There is one train a day, although there used to be two, but they cannot declare it is not making money because it is. However, I expect that before too many moons have passed that line will be taken out too. Therefore I advise the minister not to pay too much attention to some of his colleagues on the government side of the house when a measure like this is brought before the House of Commons, because I think there are other steps which he can take.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I had no intention of taking part in this debate, Mr. Chairman, and if I do, it is simply to give my support to the convincing arguments put forth by my colleagues on this side of the house.
As opposed to what some hon. members have said, I believe that the resolution the Postmaster General-incidentally, I must congratulate him on his recent appointment; he is a businessman and has a great deal of experience-has brought forward suggests that he is inclined to consider the administration of his department, and especially the postal services it provides, as a business enterprise which should show some profits or at least balance its budget each fiscal year.
The postal service does not exist to yield a profit to the Post Office Department. I do not think either that it is logical to state that 20220-178
Post Office Act
the postal service must pay its way, that is the Post Office Department must derive a sufficient income to meet its expenses in order to provide their service.
It is a vital service for the country, and its costs should be borne not by an increase in rates, which according to everyone, are sufficiently high, but on the contrary, out of the general revenue levied through the Department of Finance.
I think that on such an occasion, the Postmaster General should turn towards his colleague the Minister of Finance. He also is a businessman with a wide experience. Before being named Minister of Finance, he often held forth on the necessity of balancing the budget. Since he is Minister of Finance, he manages to submit the largest budgetary deficits since the war. He realizes therefore that the administration of the country costs much more than he thought and too much to enable him to balance the revenues with the expenditures.
But the main concern of the Postmaster General should be to provide the Canadian people with the essential postal services called for by everyone, without considering an increase in postal rates which are already too high. With the introduction of this resolution, he is just imposing a new tax by a devious, indirect means.
I respectfully submit that this is one of the most odious types of tax and that the burden of such a tax will fall precisely on the Canadian people, the modest taxpayer, the owner of a small newspaper-and when I talk of a small newspaper I am speaking in general of course and I am not referring to the Petit Journal-in short, about the owners of all those publications which can hardly afford such an increase in their general budget.
I hope that after hearing the serious objections raised by all the members from this side of the house, the minister will reconsider the resolution he introduced in the house and that he will withdraw it in the interests precisely of a good administration which must ensure, at all times, an adequate service at prevailing rates.
Should the minister definitely wish to effect economies, all he has to do is to read over again the Glassco commission's report, where he will find many suggestions in regard to the way of doing it.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask just one question to find out whether the Liberal lieutenant for the province of Quebec, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau), intends to speak his mind as to this $36 million tax increase which will have to be borne by the Canadian people; if he refuses,
27S6

Post Office Act
then we will put the question to the former Liberal lieutenant for the province of Quebec, who has now been reduced to the ranks, namely the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamon-tagne).


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the resolution carry?


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, in attempting to put the question to members of this committee you phrased it as follows: "Shall the resolution carry?" I do not think it should carry now. I do not think it should ever carry because it is, as other hon. members have pointed out, merely an attempt to gouge one portion of the population of Canada in order to protect another portion. In keeping with the historical actions or attitude of the Liberal party whenever it has been the government of this country and has dealt with postal rates, that process of gouging and protecting has been in keeping with their tradition, namely the protection of their friends at the expense of the general population.
Earlier today, in an exchange between the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister, occasioned initially by an off-the-cuff comment by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, there was some reference to a summer recess. The Prime Minister intimated that if the business of the house was not conducted more expeditiously there might not be any summer recess. We realize that one party in this house, namely the largest one numerically which sits in opposition, has done its utmost to obstruct matters to the point of grinding parliament to a halt, without sort of being too open about it; but if the intimation of the Prime Minister is that we have to rush things through or there will not be any summer recess, then I think that at least the members in opposition-we know the government backbenchers, even though many are privately quite critical of the resolution before us, will not say anything openly or publicly because of the rule of rigidity which exists on that side-should be prepared if necessary to grind this parliament to a halt over this particular item now before us.
I say that, because it means precisely what I said earlier, that it is merely an attempt to gouge the average citizen, the fellows in the low income groups, the small businessman and the old age pensioner, who a little while ago got $10 a month increase but who now, if he lives in a large metropolitan area and wishes to write a letter to a friend of his on the other side of the city, has to pay an extra penny each time. It is a disgraceful situation. Maybe it is only a penny. Maybe the Postmaster General, paraphrasing the 
late C. D. Howe, instead of saying "What's a million?" says "What's a penny?" However, if one were to count up those pennies in the pockets of the old age pensioners, people on fixed incomes or on other types of pensions, he would find it totals many millions of dollars. This is all designed to protect the friends of the government opposite, who protect the government editorially in their various newspapers.
This is a disgraceful state of affairs. Those of us from British Columbia thought that our province had been sort of insulted when the Prime Minister shuffled his cabinet and demoted the present Postmaster General from his prominent position as minister of forestry. We in British Columbia thought that with his background and knowledge of forestry he would have been quite an asset to British Columbia in that position. We thought it was an insult when he was demoted, but perhaps we see the reason why now.
It may not be that members of the opposition are desirous of filibustering or obstructing or delaying this particular measure, and if that is not the general desire then there is not much point in attempting to do so. But from my own point of view in matters such as these, I think that every means possible within the rules of the house should be used to delay the passage of the resolution, to prevent the introduction of the bill and to attempt to defeat the bill. If in the process of delay, obstruction and objection to this very iniquitous resolution the government happens to collapse and we have an election on our hands then, whether or not the people of Canada generally are desirous of having an election, we should blessed well have one, because there is no better issue to go to the country on than an attempt by the government to gouge the little people of this country in order to protect millionaires and others in preferred positions.
I do not have much more to say, except to leave that thought with the committee. Once again I express my own regret and sorrow, and the sorrow and regret of the people at home that such a measure as this is before us at this time. If and when this measure is passed by the house I know there is going to be great wonderment why this phalanx of Liberal backbenchers, the nouveau Liberals with the new ideas, did not stand up and say anything about this matter in parliament. I am not going to mention the names of any individuals. This is certainly not in keeping with common practice or what is correct, but people generally will wonder why some of these people on the backbenches, including the Minister of Fisheries who has, I see, relegated himself to the backbench, did not get up and say something

about this measure. Is it because they are afraid? Is it because they do not mind whispering privately that they wish the government had not brought in this measure, but publicly they do not want to say anything? Where is this emergence of response between the grass and the brass?


An hon. Member:: Jealousy.


Frank Howard: Jealousy? I would never in my life be jealous of anyone holding any position within the Liberal party. In particular I would not be jealous of the position held by my hon. friend who is pounding his desk in glee. Perhaps he is one of those who secretly really does not like the resolution before us, but does not want to get up and say anything.


Mr. Moreau:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member addressing his remarks to the Chair or to me in particular?


An hon. Member:: A brilliant interruption.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Made in a public place, too.


Frank Howard: The hon. member obviously was not serious about that interjection, Mr. Chairman, which was not in the least a question of privilege. Hon. members can laugh and chortle if they like. What is serious is the whole attitude of the government toward the general public of Canada.
When the election took place last year and there was a change from a Tory to a Liberal government the expectation in the minds of many people in Canada was that there was going to be a change in attitude, that there were going to be new ideas and concepts and the people of Canada would realize that finally they had elected a government that was going to pay attention to their individual needs, and was going to protect them. But obviously this is not the case. Oh, fine words come forth by way of press releases from the Prime Minister's office, from the Minister of Justice's office and everybody else's office about what they would like to see; but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. This, coupled with all the other things that have taken place, is proof that the Canadian people were hoodwinked and flummoxed the last time they went to the polls if they expected to get anything worth while from the election of a Liberal government.
I might as well point out in a rather direct way what I am attempting to do, and that is to retain my position until ten o'clock because I do not think this resolution should pass.


Douglas Mason Fisher: You would concede to a Liberal backbencher.
Post Office Act


Frank Howard: I would gladly sit down if a Liberal backbencher would care to get up and express his own opinion.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The Minister of Fisheries.


Frank Howard: If the Postmaster General is ready to make any sort of sensible reply or, better still, if he is willing to withdraw this resolution I will gladly sit down. Good heavens, in the last few months this government has shown that apparently its sole desire is to introduce things and then withdraw them, or revise, alter and change them when the least criticism of them is offered. How about doing that with this measure? How about it, Mr. Minister? Tell the house publicly what your backbenchers are saying in caucus about how much they object to this measure. How about telling us that? If the minister wants to stand up and say anything at all about this resolution I will gladly sit down.


An hon. Member:: What does your leader say about you in caucus?


Reid Scott: He is a nice fellow.


Frank Howard: These figures have been put on the record so often that perhaps some people will think they are merely put there for purposes of repetition, but they need repeating. We find that on first class mail, which is four cents or five cents postage- although if this measure passes it will all be five cents,-the profit has been 1.827 cents per piece of mail handled. As a matter of policy I do not particularly believe that we should consider a service such as the Post Office Department supplies in terms of profit and loss. However, in the case of periodicals and other such publications we find that the loss is a substantial one.
As my colleague, the hon. member for Port Arthur said earlier, this measure is merely an attempt to make old age pensioners and other such people subsidize the Thomsons, the Sifton-Bell interests and people such as that, so they can continue to flood the mails with their material. Mr. Minister, won't you please withdraw this measure?


Reid Scott: Don't plead: Demand.


Frank Howard: The minister sits there. Did
he say yes?


An hon. Member:: Certainly not.


Frank Howard: I would be very happy to hear the minister say that he would be willing to withdraw this resolution, but as such is not the case perhaps we might call it ten o'colck and wait until tomorrow.
Progress reported.
2798	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Is the order of business the same as announced last night?


Guy Favreau: Last night I stated the order of business from now until next Tuesday. Tomorrow, of course, we will deal with the estimates of the Department of Public Works and on Monday we will have a supply motion.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
(Subject matter of questions debated under adjournment motion).
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved:
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In accordance with provisional standing order 3 9A, a motion to adjourn the house is deemed to have been made and seconded at this time. Therefore the question is that this house do now adjourn. The hon. member for Lapointe.



LABOUR CONDITIONS-REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF WINTER WORKS PROGRAM

Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to mention the fact that a few weeks ago we suggested to the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) that the winter works program should be prolonged in designated areas. The Minister of Labour did not say yes or no. He said he would take the matter into consideration. We do not often see a minister ready to take a matter into consideration and to study a suggestion made by a member of the opposition. For that reason I would like to congratulate the Minister of Labour because he agreed to study that suggestion we made, and he did so, but in the end we received the answer that there would be no continuation of the winter works after April 30.

Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Labour has agreed to take the matter into consideration and to report to us, I would like to know what has taken place in his mind and in the minds of his officials between the minute he agreed to take our suggestion into consideration and the minute he answered no.
What were the arguments in favour of the extension of the winter works program in the month of May and what were the reasons against such an extension after April 30 in designated areas?
As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, I have come to the following conclusion. According to the estimates tabled recently, that would not have cost the government one cent more. Most designated areas have a


harsher winter than others. Applications for various winter works to keep the unemployed busy have been submitted by those areas in November, December, January and February. What is happening today, or rather what is going to happen tomorrow is that just because the work could not be completed in those designated areas on account of the severity of the climate, projects will come to a stop even though they have been approved by both the federal and provincial governments and the necessary funds have been allocated.
When one knows that in the ridings of Roberval, Lapointe, Villeneuve and others there are still today six, eight, 12 inches, even two feet of snow, that permission was asked to carry out various projects, for instance, in-stal sewage systems, dig trenches or pour cement for sidewalks, and that in some municipalities, such projects, even if they were approved-the hon. members for Timmins (Mr. Martin) and Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) tell me that the same conditions prevail in their ridings, as well as in a Liberal riding of the Gaspe peninsula-have to come to a stop, one wonders why. Those projects had been proposed by the federal and provincial governments; they had been approved, funds had been allocated, but they are stopped before completion because weather conditions make it impossible to keep them going.
However, those amounts were provided for in government expenditures.
And those designated areas get the same treatment as other regions, like southern Ontario, British Columbia, or southern Alberta, which are very much privileged because even in February, March or April, digging, street repairs and sidewalks projects can be carried out.
I contend, Mr. Speaker, that there is discrimination against some regions in Canada, because the regions favoured by a better climate can take full advantage of that winter works legislation, while others less privileged in regard to the climate, can take advantage of it only to the extent of 40 to 50 per cent.
So, let the Minister of Labour try and give us an explanation on that score. I am sure that he could not do it because the climate is not the same all across Canada and all regions cannot be treated on an equal footing and be enabled to take full advantage of that federal legislation, because too many of those ridings are handicapped by the severity of the weather.
I am not suggesting that the Minister of Labour is responsible for the weather, but I do say that he should be clever enough to see to it that the act is amended so that it will take into consideration the various circumstances which may exist in different regions.

The Minister of Finance was the first one to recognize that the main problem in Canada was that of unemployment and that especially in certain regions, it was a regional problem of unemployment. Besides, did not the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Tremblay) talk about various types of unemployment: regional, cyclical, structural, frictional and other unemployment. But it remains that unemployment is the most important problem, the first problem facing this country, and the Minister of Labour refuses to do his share by extending the winter works period in designated areas, where unemployment is most acute and where it would be most profitable.
There is still one more day, tomorrow. The Minister of Labour can still announce tonight that in designated areas the works already accepted and approved might be continued, but only the works approved in designated areas. By taking such action, he would prove his good faith and would show initiative at a time when this government lacks constructive ideas to fight unemployment.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I wish to thank the hon. member for Lapointe for his vigorous appeal for an extension in the municipal winter works program to cover the designated areas. I share with him an interest in this problem and in any proposal which may be used effectively to extend employment opportunities in these and in other areas of Canada.
However, one must not forget the original purpose of this program. As originally developed it was intended to provide additional jobs in the period of high seasonal unemployment in the winter months, when seasonal unemployment accounts for 25 per cent of the total number of unemployed. For the past several years the municipal program extended over a period of seven and a half months, and the practice in certain parts of the country has been to begin the work in the fall, reduce it in the winter months when unemployment was really high, and then take it up again in the milder spring months and complete the work. The effect of this was to destroy the purpose of the program which was, as I said, to create jobs in the period of peak unemployment.
This year we reduced the duration of the program from seven and a half months to six months and as a result we have created a much greater amount of employment over fewer months of the year. This has been the best year, ever. More jobs have been created in a shorter period of time and the province with the most definite improvement is the province from which the hon. member comes. So it has been a distinct success.
30, 1964	2799
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
As far as designated areas are concerned, we have increased the federal payroll contribution from 50 per cent to 60 per cent in those areas so as to assist them more.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret very much that I must interrupt the hon. minister, whose time has expired.



AIR TRANSPORT


David George Hahn: This afternoon I asked the Minister of Transport if he would tell us what progress he is making in bringing into being a national policy for civil aviation in this country. In the few minutes I have at my disposal I should like to say why I think this is an important question.
The air carriers of this country and the air transport industry generally have been crying in the last few years to have a statement of policy from the government. The aviation press, the reports from the various segments of the aviation industry and the number of visits made to Ottawa are ample testimony of this fact. The previous government attempted when in office to provide competition. It provided unlimited competition in the unscheduled charter section of the business-


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: On a question of privilege,-[DOT]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There can be no point of order or question of privilege raised at this time under the terms of the standing order governing this debate.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Surely, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has said something which constitutes-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must ask the hon. member to resume his seat. If we follow this procedure, which is very strict and which has been recommended to the house by the committee on procedure, the hon. member asking the question is allowed seven minutes and the minister has three minutes in which to reply. We cannot allow points of order or questions of privilege. I believe this is the way in which we have operated up till now and I certainly urge hon. members to continue along those lines.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: With due deference, under standing orders as they now exist I am obliged to raise a question of privilege as soon as I understand that a breach of privilege has occurred-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the hon. member kindly resume his seat? As he has said, a member has to raise a question of privilege at the first opportunity, but since it cannot be done now I presume that the earliest it could be done would be some time tomorrow.
2800	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Mr. Nielsen: Do I understand that your ruling is that the amendment, the provisional standing order, does not allow the raising of a question of privilege or a point of order in any circumstances?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is so.


David George Hahn: I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that the previous government introduced competition to the charter segment of the industry. They also introduced competition to the scheduled carriers across the country. They created competition, but in so doing they created a certain amount of chaos in the industry because they failed at that time to also create a comprehensive policy for air transport in the country. This is something that the industry desperately needs, because it is a highly complex industry comprising several parts all of which are inter-related. I would like to take just a minute to look at some of these parts and some of the problems.


Mr. Starr:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question at this point?


David George Hahn: I am sorry; I do not have the time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The provisional order under which we operate and have this adjournment debate does not permit any questions by hon. members. Even if the hon. member were to allow a question, I do not think the Chair could allow it.


Michael Starr: The hon. member will only be expostulating a lot of nonsense if he does not answer a question.


David George Hahn: We have heard a lot of nonsense from that side; I think it is time for a few facts from this. The first segment of the industry is the international, trans-oceanic section of scheduled carriers. It is very important in this section that our two national carriers not compete against each other, but they must together compete against the carriers from the rest of the world. They have to sit down together, with one voice, when Canada is negotiating air routes; they have to be in agreement when we are trying to negotiate in ICAO air fares, and so on, that extend internationally.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder if Your Honour would draw the attention of the house to where it says in the amended standing order that we cannot raise a question of privilege or a point of order in this period.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I might say, if the hon. member will co-operate with the Chair, that I do not have before me the amended


order; but I was a member of the committee, and it was definitely the understanding of the members of the committee that this was the basis on which we were to proceed. The hon. member might allow the Chair the opportunity to look at this matter when the opportunity affords itself.


Erik Nielsen: I have the order before me, Mr. Speaker, and I can see nowhere-and perhaps the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) can assist us in regard to the question I have raised-that a question of privilege or point of order cannot be raised during these proceedings.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have resisted offering any advice, because anything that is said now detracts from the seven minutes allowed an hon. member. I thought this had been clearly outlined in regard to our procedure at this time. But the words are there:
There shall be no appeal against any decision made by Mr. Speaker under the provisions of this standing order.
That is in provisional standing order 3 9A. You have made decisions, Mr. Speaker, and those decisions cannot be appealed.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I please have order for just a moment. It seems to me the reference that has just been made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is quite clear. It is clear to the Chair in any event, and I am sure it is the intention and purport of this provisional standing order that during the brief period of time, seven minutes, allowed to hon. members on both sides of the house to ask questions or make statements during the adjournment debate, and the three minutes allowed to ministers, there can certainly be no question that we should engage in debate or raising points of order or questions of privilege, which would obviously defeat the whole purpose of the provisional standing order.
I might also refer hon. members to Beau-chesne's fourth edition, citation 105 at page 96, which says:
It is the practice in the House of Commons to bring up a question of privilege after prayers, and before the house has taken up the orders of the day. Only in very aggravated cases, requiring the immediate interposition of the house, will any business be suddenly interrupted.
The point was raised by an hon. member a moment ago that he wanted his question of privilege raised at the first opportunity, and I suggested to him-and this is supported by this citation-that the time to raise his question of privilege would be tomorrow, as is suggested in the citation which I have just brought to the attention of the house.


Erik Nielsen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the rule, quite apart from the interpretation put upon it by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), refers only to appeals from Your Honour's ruling; it says nothing whatsoever about raising points of order, apart from the citation Your Honour has just quoted, during this period. I think hon. members have every right to raise a point of order during any proceedings of the house. If the order was intended to-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. That is, in any
event, the well considered and, I believe, objective ruling of the Chair at this time, and I would ask hon. members to abide by this ruling. The seven minutes which had been allowed the hon. member have actually expired. I fail to see anywhere in the provisional standing order any provision whereby we may supplement the time the hon. member has lost by taking questions of privilege, which means that the whole premise of this debate would be defeated every time by hon. members raising points of order, thus depriving an hon. member of the short, brief time set aside for him. Actually the only conclusion I can come to now is that the hon. member's time has expired and I would ask the Minister of Transport to make his statement.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I have given the decision of the Chair. A point of order has been raised and the Chair, after considering the matter, has decided there is no point of order or question of privilege. The standing order clearly says there can be no appeal. Therefore, I suggest to hon. members that as we are operating under a new standing order which is being put to the test from day to day, and in view of what has happened tonight perhaps the matter might be referred to the procedure committee for further consideration.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member for Lapointe has followed the short debate which has just ended, he will recognize that the ruling of the Chair is to the effect that there can be no point of order on the adjournment debate. So I shall ask him to be kind enough to abide by this ruling of the Chair.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I merely want to say a word to ask whether your decision is a precedent-
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: -under the new standing order because it is not at all in that way that we have understood it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Minister of Transport.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker-


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, this house has surely not come to the position-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have the floor and I intend to proceed even if the baying across the way-


Michael Starr: -that a member of this house cannot raise-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I fail to see how the hon. member for Ontario can have the floor at this time. The Chair has recognized the Minister of Transport and I would ask the Minister of Transport to speak now.


Michael Starr: I am rising on a point of order. I do not think you can-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Maclnnis:: On a point of order; the minister's time has also expired.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the obvious solution to this difficulty into which we are now getting is to recognize that the time allotted to the Minister of Transport has now expired.


Michael Starr: That is right; he cannot speak.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Therefore I call on the hon. member for Queens.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, that is not what the new regulation means. If an hon. member is not permitted to speak because of the opposition, the new rule does not provide an answer to such a situation.

Mr. Speaker, the ordinary rules apply. The Minister of Transport is not to blame if he was prevented from speaking, the opposition is. In that case, he should be given the floor. What has happened tonight is not normal.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Lapointe is also a member of the special committee on procedure which tried, up to now, to improve the rules of the house. It is possible that the interpretation given to the new standing order tonight is neither exact nor in conformity with the spirit thereof. I
2802	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion think it is up to the Chair to give a ruling in this matter. I thought it had been agreed during the proceedings of the committee that discussion would never extend beyond 10.30 p.m. What I would suggest, and once again I rely on the co-operation of the hon. member for Lapointe, is that our committee be given the opportunity to review that interpretation in the light of this difficult and complex situation that has developed this evening.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, what I cannot accept is that you allowed the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to express his opinion, while refusing me that privilege, though I was sitting on the same committee.
To my mind, this is discrimination. All hon. members should be treated alike, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre as well as myself. I had the right to air my views, as well as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, because I was a member of that committee, and indeed, so were you. The views you expressed a few moments ago did not tally with the section which was passed when the committee discussed the matter. I do not accept your ruling, and would like to know whether you established a precedent or not. I expect a decision thereon.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I shall not rebuke the hon. member, but I did hear his argument. He might have wanted to expound it more fully, but he has-


Gilles Grégoire: You did not leave me enough time to do so.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member submitted the essence of his argument, and I asked for his co-operation, so as to enable the committee, if it served some purpose-and I think it would-to reconsider the provisions of the new temporary standing order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might suggest that the hon. member for Queens should not be penalized because of the disgusting conduct of his colleagues.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I do not think there should be any comment about the dis-

cussion we have had so far. If it is the unanimous desire of all hon. members that the hon. member for Queens be allowed his full seven minutes to make his presentation, I would certainly be prepared to hear him.


Michael Starr: May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the gratuitous remarks of the Minister of Transport not be included in Hansard, because they were gratuitous only and did not add anything to the dignity of this house.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we all agree with the minister's suggestion, as long as he agrees that none of the remarks were intentionally disgusting.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, all I can say to hon. gentlemen opposite is that they ought to remember December 20 a year and a bit more ago.


Michael Starr: Any contribution the Minister of Transport makes does not add to the dignity of this house at any time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not even allowed to speak.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Do I understand we have the unanimous consent of all hon. members to hear the probably somewhat more gentle remarks of the hon. member for Queens?


Michael Starr: But not from the Minister of Transport.


Gilles Grégoire: I agree, provided the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) is allowed to make the statement he wished to make a moment ago when he was prevented from doing so by hon. members opposite. I feel that such a solution would be fair to both parties.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Obviously things are getting a little more complicated and perhaps a little bit out of hand. We have now reached the time of adjournment. There is a motion before the house for adjournment and the motion is deemed to have been carried. Therefore, it being 10.30 pm. this house stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.30 p.m.



APPENDIX


[Stage Direction]
1.	UN peace keeping force in Cyprus, on the date of issuance of this report, will have been operational for about one month, that is to say, for one third of the time foreseen in the security council resin of Mar 4. This initial period has been devoted to the deployment of the force, to intensive efforts to prevent a recurrence of fighting and to contributing to the maintenance and restoration of law and order in accordance with the mandate given to the force by the security council. The commander of the force and his staff, during this period, have had the opportunity to become intimately acquainted with the nature and complexity of their tasks and the situation in Cyprus, and to establish contacts with all the parties concerned on the island. In this period, at least until last week end, there had been a relative improvement in the situation in Cyprus, in the sense that except for some sporadic fighting in the Kyrenia range area no-repeat "no"-major military clash has occured and situations which might lead to such major clashes were being contained. For such developments UN operation in Cyprus may claim no-repeat "no"-small credit. The outbreak on Apr 26 of serious fighting in the area of the Pentadaktylos range (Kyrenia mountains) is, of course, a setback.
2.	Ultimate responsibility for a return to normal conditions in Cyprus must, obviously, rest primarily with the authorities and people of Cyprus themselves, since normality can come about only as a result of a determination by the two communities, so many of whose members on both sides are now armed and active as a sort of loosely organized militia, to lay down their arms and seek to live again in peace. The relationship and the tension between the two main groups of the population continue to be a cause for gravest anxiety. Since UN force became operational in Cyprus, there have been a number of isolated incidents of shooting in which innocent civilians have been the victims, incidents which have been utterly senseless and are disturbing in their indication of an attitude of irresponsibility and callousness toward human life on the part of those doing the shooting. UNFICYP received reports of a large number of persons missing before UN operation began, and since
then further reports have been received that cases are still occurring of persons missing, whose whereabouts are unknown.
3.	UN cannot-repeat "not"-be indifferent to savage acts of this kind and I appeal in strongest terms to all concerned to take immediate steps to bring an end to them.
4.	UNFICYP, on its part, has the duty to take all possible steps available to it which might facilitate the resumption of normal life in Cyprus. It must seek always to prevent a recurrence of fighting, while also taking reasonable initiatives designed to lead to a return to conditions in Cyprus under which an ordinary man may move about freely and carry on with his day's work without fear or hindrance. Only slight progress has been made so far toward implementing this third aspect of UNFICYP's mandate. But much careful thought has been given to this aspect of the task and the conclusion has been reached that there are initiatives which can be taken by the operation holding out at least a hope for success, and that these must be undertaken without delay by means of intensive discussion and negotiation with the parties concerned. Toward this end, the mission in Cyprus needs urgently to be strengthened by the addition of a top level political officer, who, on behalf of SecGen, could conduct negotiations for the implementation of the program mentioned in para 10 below and outlined in annex I to this report. This need has been underscored by General Gyani, who for too long now has been carrying, with devotion and distinction, the dual load of commanding the force and conducting negotiations on a variety of essentially non-military matters. Nothing in this sphere, of course, has been done or will be done which would in any way impinge upon the efforts of the mediator to find solutions to the basic problems. I wish to reiterate my full confidence in both General Gyani and Ambassador Tuo-mioja as mediator. As commander of the force, General Gyani, with great ability and complete impartiality, has sought to make the force effective in the discharge of its mandates from the security council.
5.	General Gyani, in pursuance of my instructions and, indeed, in accordance with his own views, has consistently sought to achieve the desired and defined objectives of the force
[Stage Direction]
in Cyprus by peaceful means, that is without resort to armed force, the arms of the force being carried only for clear purposes of self defence. Despite concerted effort by General Gyani and the force, and my own earlier appeals, fighting persists in Cyprus, with lives of Cypriots-Greek and Turk alike-being needlessly and pointlessly sacrificed. 1 wish here to emphasize my view that UN force was dispatched to Cyprus to try to save lives by preventing a recurrence of fighting. It would be incongruous, even a little insane, for that force to set about killing Cypriots, whether Greek or Turkish, to prevent them from killing each other. Yet, that is exactly the dilemma which is almost confronting General Gyani in Cyprus today.
6.	On the other hand, the force cannot- repeat "not"-stand idly by and see an undeclared war deliberately pursued, or see innocent civilians of all ages ruthlessly struck down by snipers' bullets. In view of the security council's objective of ending fighting, the action at St. Hilarion of the past few days is especially serious since it clearly was a planned and organized military effort.
7.	Both sides have given to General Gyani their versions of the present fighting situation and their reasons for it. Greek Cypriot authorities assert that the action was urgently necessary because armed Turkish Cypriots occupying positions in the hills of the sector were harassing Greek villages by firing against them, endangering lives of the inhabitants and preventing them from cultivating their fields and grazing their animals; because of the building by the Turkish Cypriots of an air strip at the bottom of the range, and the blocking by them of the Kyrenia road, the only access to Kyrenia. The Turkish Cypriots, on the other hand, justify their holding on to this area militarily because to the south of the range there are three main Turkish villages and in the north one, which, they assert, would be endangered and harassed if Greek Cypriots controlled the range.
8.	Moreover, General Gyani had no-repeat "no"-notice or knowledge of the action in advance, and therefore he could take no- repeat "no"-steps to prevent it. He immediately took up this question with the Cypriot authorities, pointing out the implications of a military action of this kind for the future status and effectiveness of UN force in Cyprus. Ever since the fighting began, General Gyani has been exerting every effort to stop the fighting and toward this end has been seeing top officials on both sides. On Apr 28, he received assurances of peaceful intent from both the president and vice president of Cyprus. The two statements in connection with these matters issued by General Gyani
in Nicosia on Apr 28 are appended as annex
II.	As of Apr 29, the fighting has stopped and quiet prevails. There was no-repeat "no"- interposition of UN force in this situation because the fighting broke out unexpectedly and an interposition under heavy fire would be neither feasible nor-repeat "nor"-helpful. The effort of the commander, therefore, has concentrated on bringing an end to the active fighting, which now seems to have been achieved.
9.	UN force, in view of its mandate to use its best efforts to prevent a recurrence of war, must do all that it possibly can to stop fighting. It has been seeking to do this by all means short of bullets, and it should be solidly backed in this endeavour by all members of UN. In this it has my fullest support. In this context, I also call attention to para 1 of the security council resin of Mar 4 (U/5575).
10.	The force was deployed in Cyprus because govt of Cyprus, the govts of Greece, Turkey and UK, and all of the members of the security council had reached the conclusion that there had been too much fighting, bloodshed and destruction in Cyprus and it should now come to an end. There was no- repeat "no"-assessment of blame for what had happened and none is made now. But there must be an end to fighting and it will surely become necessary to determine responsibility if it continues.
11.	It is the parties themselves who alone can remedy the critical situation of Cyprus. The authorities of the govt of Cyprus and the leaders of the Turkish community must, with a high sense of responsibility, act urgently to bring completely to an end the fighting in Cyprus, if that island country is to avoid utter disaster. This can mean only that high officials of the govt and the Turkish Cypriot leaders will voluntarily and immediately renounce recourse to force as the way to solution of the problems of Cyprus. That is the critical and decisive need at this juncture. Because it is so, I feel bound to appeal most strongly to President Makarios and Vice President Kuchuk to announce publicly, without delay, that, in accordance with the letter and spirit of the security council resin of Mar 4, and in view of the operational presence of UN force in Cyprus, there is no-repeat "no"-reason for further fighting in Cyprus and therefore they renounce it, calling upon their respective adherents throughout the island to heed their call. Then, UN force in Cyprus could begin to function effectively, for it could underwrite security for all, for both Turk and Greek Cypriot, and help to restore normal conditions of life for all Cypriots.

12.	The mere presence of UN peace keeping force in the island and its day to day efforts at the military level to prevent or stop armed clashes and to help in the maintenance of law and order are not-repeat "not"-alone enough to effect the kind of improvement in the over-all situation which can really bring about a basic relaxation of tension and a fundamental betterment of deplorable conditions of fear, insecurity and distress in which very many of the inhabitants of Cyprus now live. Such an improvement is also vital if the efforts of the mediator to promote a peaceful solution of the problem are to bear fruit. On the other hand, in the prevailing climate of mistrust and hostility, the communities concerned in the Cyprus problem are themselves often inhibited from taking the kinds of initiative which might lead to a substantial reduction of tension and conflict, and when proposals are put forth they are likely to be rejected-less on their merit than on the fact of their origin in one group or the other.
13.	Taking such factors as the above into account, and in particular having in mind the urgent necessity of making progress in order to avoid having the operation in Cyprus stand still and eventually bog down, I have formulated, with the assistance of the force commander based upon his experience of the past four weeks, a program of steps and objectives toward the implementation of which, I believe, UN peace keeping operation should now concentrate its efforts. This program, about which, as a matter of course, the several parties and govts concerned have been informed, will require the co-operation of all those involved as well as their good faith and their confidence in UN peace keeping operation, if it is to be effective in producing the improvements which all desire. I believe, however, that the security council resin demands no-repeat "no"-less than earnest co-operation from all concerned, in the interest of the people of Cyprus and of the maintenance of international peace and security. The program which I have in mind, and which is annexed hereto, is by no-repeat "no"-means exhaustive, but it can serve as a yardstick against which the govts and peoples concerned, and the members of the security council, may measure the progress that is being made towards the objectives outlined in the security council resin of Mar 4, and reaffirmed on Mar 13.
14.	In situations as complex as that now prevailing in Cyprus, the worst enemies are suspicion, fear and lack of confidence, breeding, as they so often do, hatred and violence. I believe that it may be useful, therefore, for SecGen of UN to make public at this particular time a program of reasonable objectives
which all parties should readily find it possible to support. I earnestly hope that on the basis of the practical goals set forth in this program, Cyprus, with the assistance of UNFICYP, may be able to move significantly toward peace and normality.

[Stage Direction]
Objectives and interim aims of a comprehensive program of action for UNFICYP:
1.	The task of UN force, as given in the security council resin of Mar 4, is to use its best efforts toward the following objectives:
(A)	to prevent a recurrence of fighting; (B) to contribute to the maintenance and restoration of law and order; (C) to contribute to a return to normal conditions.
Efforts in any of these directions must, to have their maximum effect and durability, be made in a concerted manner, bearing in mind that (A) and (B) above are decisive steps leading to the over-all objective of the restoration of normal conditions in the daily life of the people.
2.	The following is a suggested list of some of the objectives that could be defined as part of the program of action designed to imple-hensive program of action for UNFICYP:
(A)	Achievement of freedom of movement on all roads in Cyprus, including the Kyrenia road.
(B)	Achievement of freedom of movement for all communities within the whole town of Nicosia and other cities under conditions of security.
(C)	Progressive evacuation and removal of all fortified positions held by Greek and Turkish Cypriots, with priority given to Nicosia.
(D)	Exam of the problem arising from the div that has taken place in the Cyprus police between the Turkish Cypriots and the Greek Cypriot members and the negotiation of necessary measures for their progressive reintegration.
(E)	The progressive disarming of all civilians other than the regular police gendarmerie and the Cyprus army by the Cypriot govt and the Turkish community. UNFICYP, if requested, would assist in facilitating and verifying the disarming and the storage of arms under conditions of security.
(F)	The control of extremists on both sides.
(G)	The formulation of appropriate general amnesty arrangements.
(H)	The arrangement of security measures and other necessary conditions to facilitate return to normal conditions and particularly of economic activity.
(I)	The facilitation of the return of Turkish Cypriot civil servants and govt officials to
[Stage Direction]
their duties, including the public services, such as postal, telecommunications, etc.
(J)	The normal functioning of the judiciary.
The process of consultation and negotiation on these aims would continue side by side with the day to day efforts of the force to carry out its mandate.
3.	While efforts to make progress on the above points continue, certain interim aims should also be established and pressed in selected localities and on particular problems. The following are suggested:
(A)	The removal of emplacements, fortifications and trenches in selected areas of Nicosia with a view to repeating this measure subsequently in other areas.
(B)	A determined effort in selected areas of Nicosia to re-establish normality by returning to their homes, under UN security guarantee, refugees, as, for example, those from Hamed Mandres to Omorphita who would not-repeat "not"-carry arms, and attention to the development of a program for the rehabilitation of their dwellings.
(C)	A careful formulation of ways in which UNFICYP might be helpful in meeting the problem of the excesses by individual policemen in the course of searching and seizing civilians which at present causes much tension. Such a plan, which would largely depend on the use of UNFICYP police, would require a reliable system of reporting of abuses and a regular follow through by UNFICYP in every case, and would also require a high degree of liaison and confidence with all Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot members of the Cyprus police.
(D)	The institution of procedures for inquiry into every serious instance of shooting, especially when casualties occur, so that a full record of such incidents, the reasons and responsibilities for them, can be determined and maintained.
(E)	The elaboration of a plan for the reintegration, with UNFICYP assistance and guarantee, of the Turkish Cypriot policemen into the Cyprus police force, perhaps starting in one or two carefully selected Turkish Cypriot communities.
(F)	The use of UNFICYP good offices with both sides to improve the existing unacceptable living conditions through resuming essential public utilities and services and finally to ensure normal living conditions for the Turkish Cypriot community in tense areas, such as Ktima and Polis.
(G)	Initial efforts to facilitate the return of Turkish Cypriot officials and civil servants to their positions in govt service.
(H)	An appraisal of the possibility of establishing in certain areas Cypriot Greek-Turk-ish-UNFICYP joint patrols as a means of restoring confidence and promoting a return to normality.
(I)	Efforts, with UNFICYP if necessary providing security, to revive meetings of Greek and Turkish Cypriots, both official and non-official, and at all levels.

[Stage Direction]
Statements issued on Apr 28, by Lt General PS Gyani, commander of UN force in Cyprus.
1.	Quote-The scale of and the manner in which the operations have been carried out by forces under the authority of the govt of Cyprus in the areas of Pentadaktylos range (Kyrenia mountains) on Apr 26 and 27, indicate that these operations had been preplanned. They were a complete surprise to UNFICYP as there had been no-repeat "no" -sudden developments in that area in the last three or four days, and more particularly because I had put forward proposals for a cease fire on the eastern side of the pass.
Quote-As such action can have serious implications regarding the obligations of the govt and the role of UNFICYP vis-a-vis the security council resin and the task given to UNFICYP, I discussed the matter with the president and have also sent a full report to SecGen. Unquote.
2.	Quote-His beatitude the president has told me that he wants a political solution to the problem of Cyprus under peaceful conditions and he wants peace and normality immediately in the country and that he is prepared to assist the UNFICYP in every way to achieve this aim.
Quote-Similarly his excellency the vice president has reassured me that peace and normal conditions to the maximum possible extent is his aim and he is convinced that peaceful conditions in Cyprus are essential to negotiate a political solution.
Quote-It is my firm belief now, that peaceful conditions can be restored and maintained in Cyprus and we in the UNFICYP will work relentlessly to bring about active measures to reduce tension and eliminate fear and assist in every way possible toward achieving quiet and peace in the island. I appeal to all the citizens to refrain from any action that would disturb the peace and to do everything possible to promote good will. Unquote. Text ends.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 1, 1964