1964-07-17

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
Friday, July 17, 1964


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to make a report to the house on the commonwealth conference which has recently concluded its work in London. I should like to thank my colleagues in the house for their warm welcome on my return. From what I have read, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should stay away, since the house seemed to do very well in my absence. Nevertheless, believe it or not, I am glad to be back.
I was assisted in representing the government at this conference by the high commissioner for Canada in the United Kingdom, an old colleague of ours in this house, and by a small group of officials. I believe ours was the smallest of all the delegations. However, so far as the officials are concerned it made up in quality what it lacked in quantity. I should like to pay a very warm tribute to their hard work, and it was hard work.
When I was on the point of leaving for London the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, who has had much experience with meetings of prime ministers of the commonwealth, remarked that I would find it a great experience. Well, he was certainly right, Mr. Speaker. I found it, as I am sure he found it in the past, to be a fascinating and stimulating experience to meet with the leaders of this world wide association or club, as it was continually referred to in the discussions, which has now reached membership proportions not dreamed of in early days.
There were 18 representatives of commonwealth governments who sat around the table this time, a considerable increase since the last commonwealth conference, and they included many new countries which have emerged to independence since that last conference was held in London. I doubt, Mr. Speaker, if anything can do more to bring home to one the problems with which the new countries in Africa and Asia are contending than to participate in the kind of meetings 20220-355J
that were held in London during the last 10 days. I doubt also, Mr. Speaker, if anything can do more to remove doubts about the value the commonwealth can have-and I hope and believe will have in the years ahead-as a link between races and cultures and continents, and as an agency to promote co-operation and understanding among men and nations.
With the permission of the house, Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to have the final communique of the conference appear as an appendix to Hansard today.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree?


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


Lester Bowles Pearson: The final communique which was made public on the last day of the conference, very late on Wednesday evening after a communique session which began in the morning and went through until nine o'clock in the evening, gives an indication of the nature and scope of the discussions and of the most important points on which agreement was reached and on which views were recorded. No previous meeting, I believe, Mr. Speaker, has led to so expansive a statement in a communique on so many subjects. I am now talking about commonwealth prime ministers' meetings; and no previous meeting, I suspect, went through quite so much debate in trying to agree on just what should be said in the communique.
There is nothing surprising about either fact. The communique is long because the discussions were far ranging, because the interests of the commonwealth countries are world wide and the problems for attention are varied. The long debate over the production of the communique was, I think, to be expected when there were participating 18 countries of extremely different views and often contending views on a great many subjects.
The commonwealth today is a far cry from the compact association of a few years ago. However, Mr. Speaker, I think it is a more representative reflection of the world in which we live today and of mankind as a whole

Commonwealth Conference than anything we have known in the past. The change in the commonwealth is perhaps more noticeable because of the character of the increase rather than the extent of the increase. The new members have come from Africa, the Caribbean and Asia; and because of the nature of the new membership, as well as its number, the search for a common denominator of agreement on policy and attitudes and like mindedness, if you wish to put it that way, I suspect is more difficult than it used to be.
But to the extent that this can be achieved the result is more important today, I believe, than it has ever been in the past, more meaningful in terms of the world in which we live. I think everyone who took part in those meetings was deeply impressed and in some cases surprised at the extent to which all 18 delegations sought to find value in this association and sought to strengthen it, irrespective of their background and past history; sought to use it for constructive purposes which could help move the world forward toward the resolution of some of its most difficult problems.
Another noteworthy feature is the fact that the expanded membership has not resulted in a dilution of the intimacy of relationship in contact and discussion which one might have expected following this kind of increase. With such a large membership representing such a wide range of interests, viewpoints and, indeed, emotions, one might have expected to find a dilution of the informality and the intimacy of the discussions which used to take place at commonwealth meetings. Fortunately this does not seem to have happened. I think the conference of last week and this week may go down as one of the vitally important stages in the evolution of commonwealth affairs. It is too early, of course, to state with confidence that this will be the case; it depends on what the various leaders who met and conferred together are able to do during the weeks, the months and the years ahead to carry out the substantial measure of agreement which was achieved in London. But I believe the potentiality for a great step forward by the new commonwealth is there.
As the communique indicates-and I am talking now about the first item on the agenda, which is the usual discussion of the state of world affairs generally-there was general agreement that the reduction of east-west tension which has occurred has helped to produce solutions to some of the most serious threats to international peace in re-

cent years, and that it at least provides an opportunity to work out some of the problems which remain dangerous and worrisome. At the same time there was general recognition that the competition between the free and the communist worlds remains a dominant factor in international affairs. Where once this was seen most sharply in the confrontation, between the Soviet union and the western countries, it emerges now in subtler forms with competition on the continent of Africa for influence among the peoples of the new countries both within and outside the commonwealth. It emerges, too, in the relentless pressure of aggression and subversion in Southeast Asia.
In the discussion of the situation in southeast Asia-and there was very considerable discussion about it-there was naturally a great deal of thought about the position of communist China, which is such a tremendous factor in this whole matter. The view was expressed by the leaders of certain commonwealth countries-and it was expressed without qualification-that the policy of the countries of the west, including Canada if you like, in refusing to extend diplomatic recognition to communist China was unrealistic and unhelpful, and that it did not assist in reaching a solution to the problems of southeast Asia which in this view, and I might add in the general view, could not be solved without the participation of the government of communist China.
Those who held this view without any qualification stated that the policy that had been adopted by certain governments was sterile and fruitless, and that the sooner that policy was abandoned and the sooner communist China was admitted to the United Nations, the better it would be for the solution of outstanding international disputes. This did not imply, on the part of those who held the view, any particular sympathy with the form of government in Peking or with the aggressive policy that China has followed; it reflected, rather, the opinion that the Chinese government should be in the world forum, where it would have to defend its actions and be subject to the pressures of world opinion.
I understand there was a reflection and a report of these discussions carried by a Canadian newspaper, which said that I had said in the discussions that China-and these were the words used-ought to have its place in the United Nations. I did speak along those lines, but that particular report does not reflect what I was attempting to

put forward at the meeting. I agreed that conditions should be such that the government of mainland China should be in the United Nations; but 1 pointed out to those who held this view without qualification that for many years communist China was an aggressor in Korea, which was an obstacle to this kind of recognition and admission, and at the present time there is another and important obstacle to this recognition and admission-this formal admission

to the United Nations in that there are many governments, including our own, that could not accent the extension of communist rule from mainland China to Formosa without the approval and consent of the people of that island, and until that difficulty in some form was removed it was not going to be easy to recognize the right of a government in Peking to be the government of China in the United Nations and extend its authority over the island of Formosa.
The meeting of the prime ministers received a very full report from the prime minister of Malaysia, Tunku Abdul Rahman, on the difficulty between Malaysia and Indonesia and the efforts his country had made to end the fighting, through discussion with the government of Indonesia and other governments. In that connection-and I think this is a very useful paragraph in the communique-the prime ministers expressed not only their hope for an early termination of a totally unnecessary contest forced on Malaysia by a larger country but gave their support to the prime minister and the government and people of Malaysia in their effort to preserve and maintain their own independence against that kind of pressure. This was subscribed to by all 18 members of the conference. We will be welcoming the prime minister of Malaysia to Canada in a very few days, and I am sure we will then have an opportunity to express to him the admiration we feel for the strength and patience of his government in the face of the very difficult situation which confronts them.
With seven of the 18 commonwealth countries now on the continent of Africa, it was to be expected that a good deal of attention would be directed to that vast and important part of the globe, as indeed was the case at the last commonwealth conference. The main concern of the leaders of the African countries, as expressed at this conference, was with two things; first, the attainment of independence for those areas in Africa which still remain under colonial regimes; and second, the achievement of racial equality.
Commonwealth Conference
The discussion accordingly concentrated on three areas where independence has not been achieved, or where racial equality is not permitted, or both; the Republic of South Africa, Southern Rhodesia, and the Portuguese colonies of Angola and Mozambique. The African commonwealth leaders at the conference argued very strongly-indeed forcefully-and very emotionally for the imposition of economic sanctions against the Republic of South Africa in order to bring pressure on its government to end the policy of apartheid. The communique states the reaffirmation, in which all members of the conference joined, of condemnation by the commonwealth governments of that policy, a condemnation which was given at the last commonwealth conference. However, the communique also reflects the doubts of some as to whether a program of sanctions would be effective and whether, indeed, it might not have adverse results through hardening still further the attitude of the present government and the white element of South Africa against the racial equality that the African leaders want to see achieved in that country and in Africa as a whole.
As far as our own position, which was put to the conference, is concerned, we do agree that there should be sanctions in respect of military equipment and supplies. So far as total economic sanctions are concerned, this matter is now before the United Nations. A committee has been set up to investigate the effectiveness of sanctions, and we will certainly wait until we get the report of that committee.
As far as the expulsion, as a form of sanction, of South Africa from the United Nations and from international agencies under the United Nations is concerned, we felt that this was not a very helpful procedure to adopt from the point of view of those who deplore most vigorously the policy of South Africa. We felt it is better to have them in these international agencies, where they can be exposed to public opinion and where their policies can be attacked, than to have them outside of the international agencies, including technical international agencies.
As far as the Portuguese colonies are concerned, the view of the African leaders was clear. They want to see independence for those areas as for the rest of the continent; and in the communique there is an expression of regret-not a very strong expression but a little stronger than it may seem in a diplomatic communique covering 18 countries -

Commonwealth Conference that Portugal has not so far recognized the principle of self determination for her territories in Africa.
In its discussion of the situation in Southern Rhodesia the conference came to grips in real and immediate form with the problem of race relations. That is a problem which the conference also had to face in 1961. No more explosive problem can reach the conference table, and I think it is a tribute to the statesmanship of the African leaders and to the essential moderation expressed by all members of the conference that the exchange of views on this matter was temperate and constructive, and there could be agreement in a way which reflected itself in the communique.
The Canadian delegation, representing a country which is not directly involved in this problem-and I say "not directly"-tried to make a contribution which would be objective and helpful in the evolution of our multiracial community based on racial equality and non-discrimination. A firm stand was taken against racial discrimination and apartheid by the commonwealth conference of 1961. At that conference Canada played an important and very constructive part. I was glad to pay my tribute to the efforts of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition in this matter at that conference, and I am glad to repeat that tribute at this time.
I in my way, tried to follow and reaffirm the position taken then in regard to racial equality. I suggested to the present conference that we around the table were facing a very important moment of decision which would have far reaching implications on the future of the commonwealth, if at a meeting where the majority of the members were from Asia and Africa we did not, all of us, in some form meet this challenge of racial equality and non-discrimination. If we could not take a stand; if we could not reaffirm in the communique the principles of racial equality and non-discrimination-if we could not do that, then the commonwealth was not likely, in the form in which it is now, to go ahead or even to survive. The continuance of racial discrimination and the intensification in many areas of mutual fear between races are both most disturbing features of the present world situation and a great cause of the difficulty with regard to many remaining unresolved colonial problems. That problem exists in the commonwealth; it exists outside the commonwealth.
There has been a good deal of talk about interference or intervention in the affairs of

other areas or countries or colonies that were not represented in London; but the British government, quite rightly I believe-this is how we came to discuss this matter-put on the agenda an item, "Progress of dependant territories toward independence". It seemed to us that under that item we should face up frankly to the implications of the subject, and we attempted to do so; I think all delegations did.
Our contribution was to suggest that the commonwealth might adopt a declaration of racial equality very much along the lines of some of the statements which were made at the 1961 conference, and that we should reaffirm in our final communique the principles for which we stand in the commonwealth on this matter, principles on which our association must be based in the future if it is to go forward. Then we suggested that from this statement of principles we should go forward to discuss its application to particular problems such as Southern Rhodesia, British Guiana and other areas. The conference agreed to this suggestion, and the declaration of principles is included in the communique.
We then went on to suggest how these principles should be applied to Southern Rhodesia and British Guiana. The Southern Rhodesian situation is a very dangerous and difficult one. Southern Rhodesia has been self governing for a good many years in domestic matters. Its government is responsible to a legislature which is elected by only a small minority of its population, largely those of European descent. The constitutional responsibility for a change in the situation rests with the government of the United Kingdom, and all of us at the conference recognized that the authority and responsibility for leading Southern Rhodesia as well as other colonies to complete independence must continue to rest with Great Britain. There was no difference of opinion on this point. The leaders of the African countries in particular attached great importance to the point that it was Great Britain and not the present government of Southern Rhodesia which had this power and responsibility.
There have been many suggestions in recent months-and this was referred to in our discussions-that the government of Southern Rhodesia might seek to issue a unilateral declaration of independence without regard to the views of the African parties in that country or the views of the United Kingdom government. We made it clear in our communique that the other governments of the

commonwealth would not be able to recognize the validity of any such unilateral declaration of independence. That was subscribed to unanimously by all governments around the table.
In my own statement at the conference I had suggested that it might strengthen the hand of the British government and might support the moderate elements among Southern Rhodesian voters if all governments at the conference would let it be publicly known that this was their stand, that many of us feared that unconstitutional action by a minority in Southern Rhodesia would gravely diminish Southern Rhodesia's international status, might lead to economic and political internal difficulties and might also lead to disaster and violence and attempts to organize-this was mentioned at the conference as a possible result if something was not done-a Southern Rhodesian government in exile. We felt that such an exacerbation of differences would be a tragedy for all concerned. All the commonwealth leaders, I repeat, agreed that it would be prudent at this time to take such a stand on this matter and to make it public so there could be no misunderstanding anywhere about the position we would have to adopt if such a desperate and illegal measure were taken.
We also decided to express publicly, and this is in the communique, our welcome of the decision of the British government that for Southern Rhodesia, as for other territories, the existence of sufficiently representative institutions would be a condition of the granting of independence to such a territory. Most of us, including myself, expressed the view that an independence conference should be convened which the leader of all parties in Southern Rhodesia should be free to attend-the expression "should be free to attend", which is in the communique, is of some significance because some of the leaders are not free to attend anything at the present time-and that the object of this conference would be to seek agreement on the steps by which Southern Rhodesia might proceed to independence within the commonwealth, we all hope, and I am now quoting from the communique, "at the earliest practicable time on the basis of majority rule".
Of course when you mention the word "time" you really get to the heart of the difficulty, because it is a problem not of objective but of timing. I think we all appreciate that rash and premature action in these matters can cause trouble. We have had some experience of that in recent years. But it was the feeling of the conference, and I
Commonwealth Conference
shared this feeling after listening to the views expressed, that the greater danger was not speed but delay, and that unless some early progress is made in Southern Rhodesia the African majority might be driven increasingly to despair and to the acts of desperation that despair can engender.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, I was very impressed by the warning given by one of the most moderate African leaders that the continued imprisonment of Mr. J. Nkomo and Rev. N. Sithole and many of their associates would weaken the control that the more responsible African leaders have over their followers and would drive the latter toward increasing extremism. I therefore put forward the suggestion that the commonwealth conference should issue a reasoned appeal that the African leaders in Southern Rhodesia be released as a contribution toward the holding of those discussions that must take place soon, and on which the hope for agreed and early achievement of independence must inevitably be based. Most of the other prime ministers associated themselves with this idea, and this appeal is included in the communique.
At the same time we called upon all leaders and their supporters of both races to exercise moderation and abstain from violence. In this connection I was very impressed by the emphasis placed by the African representatives at the conference on the importance of allaying the fears of the white minority in Southern Rhodesia, perhaps by saying something in our communique to reassure them about their security, and to let them know that their co-operation would be essential in the development of an independent state. We agreed to the inclusion of this point in the communique.
I have gone in some detail into this question of Southern Rhodesia because as I suggested at the conference it is of importance far beyond the interests of its people. What is done about it has now become a symbol, and the stand the commonwealth leaders decide to take on this matter is likely to be, and I am sure will be, considered a test of the seriousness of the commonwealth members about a principle which we have all adopted and on which we now stand.
Perhaps I should mention also, Mr. Speaker, that on behalf of the government I stated we would be glad to provide technical facilities or resources to help in the training of Africans from Southern Rhodesia to take on the new responsibilities of administration, if that should be desired and if those concerned
5606	HOUSE OF
Commonwealth Conference wished to make arrangements with the Canadian government. This can be done out of existing appropriations that will be before parliament or in some cases have been before parliament, if parliament approves of them. It can be done, if necessary, by the transfer of some of these appropriations to Southern Rhodesia. We are already doing a good deal in this regard, but I suggested we might do more.
I have taken a good deal of time, Mr. Speaker, in reporting on this question of race relations because at this conference it was crucial to the success of the conference. I think the communique represents a considerable achievement in regard to the handling of this very explosive and difficult matter. It will take time to weigh the value of this achievement, and it is foolish to be final and dogmatic in our conclusions at the present time. The long term assessment of its importance must depend upon the implementation by those concerned of the principles on which we agreed and on the influence on the thinking and future actions of the governments represented in London.
It is still a convention of the commonwealth prime ministers' meetings that we do not discuss disputes between commonwealth countries, although that convention is becoming a little shaky in the light of the experience of the last two conferences. We faced this convention on the question of relations between India and Pakistan, particularly of course in regard to Kashmir. There is no specific reference to this dispute as such in the communique, but we were all conscious at the conference of the importance within the commonwealth of this dispute, and what a wonderful thing it would be if the conference could do something to encourage the settlement of this dispute which has been making relationships between the two largest members of the commonwealth difficult for some years. At the same time we did not wish to do anything by any formal intervention which would make such a solution more difficult. It is rather apparent that at the moment there is not much an outside nation can do, but the commonwealth conference gave the two governments concerned an opportunity to talk about this in London, an opportunity which would be easier to take advantage of, perhaps, than by arranging a special meeting at this time in Pakistan or in India. I think some progress was made in that direction.
The conference also directed a good deal of attention to two localities, small in area but large in problems and in potential dangers,


Cyprus and British Guiana. The paragraph in the communique on Cyprus includes an appeal to the countries concerned-and we had in mind particularly the countries most concerned, Greece and Turkey-to refrain from any action which might undermine the task of the United Nations peace keeping force to which members of the commonwealth are contributing, or might prejudice the endeavours of the United Nations to find a solution in conformity with the charter of the United Nations. So far as British Guiana is concerned, it is almost a hopelessly confused situation down there, and it is very difficult indeed to see what can be done by the intervention of the commonwealth to clear up that confusion, remove the danger and bring back some order to that very distracted colony.
It was suggested at the conference that perhaps the United Nations could move in there and in some way hold the line while elections were being held. But it became clear from the evidence we received that the basic difficulty, and the underlying danger in that difficulty, is the fact there are two parties in British Guiana organized completely along racial lines, one Indian and one African, and that the leaders of these parties are getting their support entirely from one race or the other. This has aroused emotions, prejudices and fears that can only be removed by some kind of arrangement between the leaders to bring the people together in the way they used to be together before this division occurred. There is no difficulty about independence. The British government is only too anxious to give this colony independence as soon as any government can assure order. In our communique we made an appeal to the leaders of the two parties, that is the leaders of the two races, to get together and do something about this.
There was considerable discussion of trade and economic questions, but I do not propose to go into those in any detail. They are referred to at some length in the communique, and the substance of the matters dealt with in our discussions has been covered in reports to the house by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce at various times during this session. The developing countries attach the very greatest importance, according to their statements and according to their policies, to the United Nations trade conference which has been meeting in Geneva. They called attention to the fact that along with race relations, one of the serious problems and dangers in the world today is the division of nations into the haves and

have nots. We all know that. We have been aware of this for a good many years. However, it was pointed out that this division now sees the "haves" almost entirely synonymous in their view with the whites, and the "have nots" clearly synonymous with the other races of the world.
This lends sharpness to racial as well as economic tensions. The developing countries were at pains to emphasize that while they appreciate the technical and financial help, what they appreciate even more, and I think we can sympathize with them in this, is improved terms on trade for their primary products exports and increased access to the major markets by the developing countries for such manufactures as they are able to produce and will presumably increasingly produce in the future.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there are in the communique a number of proposals for increasing co-operation in the technical and economic fields inside the commonwealth. There is the proposal, for instance, for working out a scheme of commonwealth development projects. We have already some of these under the Colombo plan. There is, I believe, one project in Pakistan now which has been organized and worked out by three commonwealth governments. It was thought perhaps we could extend that. A proposal was made by the British government to that effect.
There was also a proposal for helping new countries by giving administration training to those who will be responsible for administering their governments at a time when there are very few natives who have that experience. At the same time we realized that a good deal of this is being done now by separate commonwealth governments. To set up some new, large commonwealth administration in London might be confusing rather than helpful in this regard.
Then there was a proposal for establishing a commonwealth foundation to administer a fund for an increasing flow of information and contacts in professional fields. There was a proposal to increase the resources available to the commonwealth parliamentary association and give it an opportunity to do even better work than it has done in the past. There was a proposal put forward by Canada to establish consultation and to help the developing countries in the field of satellite communications. That was received with great interest and is going to be examined.
There was one other proposal, which appears at the end of the communique, which in some respects is the most interesting of 20220-356
Commonwealth Conference all the concrete proposals made. It became quite clear from the beginning of the conference that there was a strong desire on the part of the newer countries of the commonwealth, the new African countries, to have some kind of commonwealth machinery, some kind of commonwealth institution, a commonwealth secretariat, established for the service of the commonwealth as a whole.


Mr. Nowlan:: Shades of Mackenzie King.


Lester Bowles Pearson: My hon. friend from Digby-Annapolis-Kings says "Shades of Mackenzie King". I understand exactly what he means, and when this proposal was made I thought it was time for me to commune with those shades.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: How did you get along with them?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I got very good advice. When I say this proposal was in a sense surprising, we remember it is not long since proposals for a secretariat were regarded with fairly general suspicion as a reflection of a tendency toward centralization, which in those early days was interpreted as meaning rule from Downing street. It is significant, then, to realize that the pressure toward this kind of consultative centralization, if you want to call it that, comes from the newer countries which in many ways are or should be most suspicious of the older members in this regard, but they have no fears of any such implications from a proposal of this kind. They are very much aware of its practical value to them in providing a broad range of information which it is difficult for them to obtain with the inadequate diplomatic and government services they now have or perhaps can afford; and so we supported this proposal.
I think the situation has changed a great deal since the early days, and it is something we should try to work out on a genuine commonwealth basis. Yet at the same time this should be done without interfering with the existing channels of communications, without confusing what is already in many respects a very satisfactory method of co-ordination and exchange of information. We must be sure the basis of this new secretariat is sound, and that we are adding an institution of value and not simply an additional agency available for the free play of Parkinson's law; but we will be glad to take part in the study of a possible basis for such an organization, which will be taking place very shortly.
Mr. Speaker, in recent years fears have been expressed-and they were certainly ex-

Commonwealth Conference pressed on the eve of this conference-that the commonwealth had outlived its real purpose and had become simply an amiable club with no real objective, depending largely on the emotional recollection of past imperial greatness. I believe the recent conference has shown that those fears are unfounded, and that the sense of the value of the new commonwealth is felt most precisely and most importantly where one might have thought there would have been the greatest doubt; that is, among the new countries in Africa and Asia. They recognize in the commonwealth an agency of real value to them, and we must try to keep it that way. They realize that it can provide a bridge between the continents and between the races and this, I think, is going to afford a great new role for the commonwealth in the years ahead. In a world in which the associations of peoples and nations are all too frequently on the basis of a common ideology, a common race, a common language or a common geographical location there is, I submit, a unique merit in an institution which transcends all of these and brings countries together on a wider basis than the ones I have mentioned, on a basis which is really founded on a common adherence to human rights and free institutions and a desire to settle our problems by consultation, co-operation and agreement.
One of the most impressive political figures it has been my privilege to meet for some years-he is one the right hon. Leader of the Opposition knows well-was the prime minister of Nigeria, Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, who suggested, in what I thought was a very profound statement to the conference, that it would be well for this new commonwealth to try to work out a statement of general principles on which it stands and on which it could go forward, not only a statement of principle of racial equality but a statement of general principles, and include in these principles this adherence to free institutions, this respect for basic law and basic rights, as well as respect for racial equality and non-discrimination. In serving these principles and in providing a forum for an intimate and friendly exchange of views among nations and among virtually all races of mankind the commonwealth is embarking on a new era in which it could have, and I hope it will have, a value broader and deeper than it has had in the world at any time in the past.
May I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by reading just one short sentence from the communique

which expresses that point of view. Referring to the commonwealth the communique
says:
It is, indeed, a cross section of the world itself; and its citizens have an unparalleled opportunity to prove that, by mutual co-operation, men and women of many different races and national cultures can live in peace and work together for the common good.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my first words must be to express a welcome to the Prime Minister on his return from the conference, a welcome that is most sincere, one that from time to time in the cross fire of political difference is not spoken. I am glad to see him back. I am glad to see him looking so well, although I am sure he needs a holiday after the very trying and onerous responsibilities that rested on him as the representative for our country. I am sure he will now be able to look over some of the things he said just before he departed and will remove from the agenda one of those matters he said must be dealt with before parliament can enjoy a vacation and he too can have that holiday and respite that I am sure the work of the last two weeks demands.
I must say that his recital of the prime ministers' conference does bring to me a nostalgia of other days. The conferences meet. They are all different, but they all have a sameness about them; deeply impressive, most significant, ending with a communique which is generally of nebulous uncertainty; a conference which makes no definite decisions as such but which, in that spirit to which the right hon. gentleman referred in his concluding words, brings about within a family relationship decisions which are not decisions in fact but which do represent something of the philosophy of the peoples who are joined together in this difficult to interpret commonwealth relationship.
Indeed, one has but to look over the record of the years. These conferences began during colonial days. The first was held in 1887. Sir John Macdonald was most anxious to have such a conference. It met on the occasion of Queen Victoria's jubilee, and the records of the time show that it was not taken very seriously by the British government of that day. Then there were the subsequent colonial conferences, three or four in number, followed by the imperial conferences, five in number, beginning in 1921, and finally by the prime ministers' conferences, 13 in number, which have taken place since 1944.

The Prime Minister has placed before the house something of the atmosphere of these conferences. He spoke of the representation of various races and colours, of the representation of four or five of the world's greatest religions. Sitting around that table there were men who were extremists in their day. Their extremism in the light of subsequent events became a virtue as they led their countries first to freedom and then to membership within the commonwealth, the greatest tribute they could pay to that institution. As I listened to the Prime Minister I could only detect an admiration on his part for the commonwealth and all it stands for. That represents the viewpoint of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, and has during the years. It is a commonwealth without organization, without centralized machinery, anomalous because it has no authority. But, strangely enough, it works.
When the right hon. gentleman spoke of various prime ministers I thought of one, Dr. Banda. I saw him during one of the conferences when he was in London. We chatted together for a while, and finally he had to leave. I asked him his destination. He said "I am going to the palace". Two weeks earlier he had been released from custody. That has been the course of many who were sitting around that table; men who were prosecuted for fighting the battles of extremism are now united in that bond which knows no description.
The commonwealth represents all types of government except communist. I am one of those who believe that the commonwealth can and will encompass all the various forms of government, but I do not see the day when it will ever accept a communist nation as a member. The Prime Minister has referred to the secretariat which was recommended. It is a far cry from some of the views he expressed in the past; it is a still farther cry from the views expressed by Mr. Mackenzie King, who feared anything of this kind as a modem prototype of the family compact of 1835, 1836 and 1837. But changes take place in thinking. I recall on one occasion mentioning something of this kind in one of the conferences, and the general feeling was that the time was not appropriate.
The Prime Minister said timing is so important, and in that he is right. The change in a few years in this regard, brought about in consequence particularly of the requests of the African members of the commonwealth, is indicative of one characteristic which one 20220-356J
Commonwealth Conference sees everywhere among the coloured races of the commonwealth. When they were in a colonial status the United Kingdom represented the antithesis of all that was reasonable and responsible; it was subjected to the most extreme tirades of condemnation. But with the passing years and the attainment of independence, that criticism has almost been obliterated and in its place has come admiration for the great contribution Britain has made to the elevation of standards and to the advancement and enhancement of freedom everywhere in the world.
I recall so well, and the Prime Minister referred to this, that at one or two conferences I advocated a declaration of commonwealth rights. I realized the difficulties in the way of such a declaration. Representatives were present from governments of all types and varieties, as I said a moment ago, some of them not having the parliamentary system that we have, others not accepting the Queen as part of their constitutional systems save in her designation as head of the commonwealth.
There is one thing that has represented my view over the years, and it is unchanged now. It is that this commonwealth cannot survive unless it is colour blind, with five of every six people in its population belonging to a coloured race. I contended that discrimination by any nation within the commonwealth as a principle of government was inconsistent with membership in the commonwealth. This was generally accepted in 1961, and I quote in summary what I said in the house at that time.
We -were opposed to racial discrimination and made it clear I could not approve any formula or solution which did not maintain beyond any doubt that non-discrimination in respect of race and colour is an essential principle of the commonwealth association. This was not a stand which was taken then and not before; I have followed that course over the years. All but the prime minister of South Africa were in agreement that no expression of consent to South Africa's continuing membership was possible without an expression of the strongest views on their part regarding apartheid.
Those views expressed then by me were regarded as extremism. Those views, that were then considered as heresy by some, have today become orthodoxy. In the communique there is a declaration that once and for all represents the acceptance by all the members of the commonwealth of this abiding principle. In the present communique these words appear:
The commonwealth has a particular role to play in the search for solutions to the interracial problems which are threatening the orderly development of mankind in general-

Commonwealth Conference
Sir, what happened in 1960 and 1961 was this, and I summarized it in a report I gave to the house on March 17, 1961:
We have declared that non-discrimination on the basis of race and colour is the foundation stone of a multiracial association composed of representatives from all parts of the world. No foundation could be broader or more solidly based than the fundamental principle which, though unwritten, has emerged from this meeting.
Everywhere throughout the world among coloured peoples Canada's stand taken then, and again by the Prime Minister in the recent conference, represents the viewpoint of Canadians. If we as a country had made no other contribution to the commonwealth than this, I believe in that contribution we have made possible what the Prime Minister said in his concluding words, namely an ever strengthening commonwealth and an ever strengthening commonwealth relation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Now, sir, I am going to deal with one or two other matters to which the Prime Minister made reference. He dealt with the question of Rhodesia. I recall so well that in 1961 there was criticism of the stand taken by Canada at the commonwealth prime ministers' conference in relation to South Africa. It was said in this house that there should not be intervention in the affairs of any nation. At that time, speaking as leader of the opposition, the right hon. Prime Minister said this:
But let us not deceive ourselves. The implications of the procedure that has been followed and of the results that have flowed from it at this conference are very important and very far reaching.
Then he went on to say that a position had been taken far beyond non-intervention in the affairs of another nation. Those are the changing things that take place. What was regarded as extremism when we took the stand respecting the maintenance in every part of the commonwealth, including South Africa, of non-discrimination is today regarded as orthodoxy and was respected and approved by the prime ministers at the recent conference. So we go, following this course; and what in the past was regarded as unorthodox becomes, in the light of experience, accepted doctrine.
In so far as Southern Rhodesia is concerned, I wonder whether it might not have been more beneficial to the conference and to the solution of this problem if the prime minister of Southern Rhodesia had been present at the conference in much the same


position that was occupied by Sir Roy Welen-sky, who of course had greater authority and a larger area of responsibility. I say- and this derives from a remark made by the Prime Minister-that if we want to get solutions in regard to difficult matters, the way is to confront one another. In other words he has said, in reference to communist China and its admission to the United Nations, that the view expressed by several of those present at that conference was that if communist China was in the United Nations she could be faced directly respecting those matters that would be subject to criticism. We always have a higher capacity of understanding in looking back, but I do feel it would have been better, using the analogy placed beore the house by the Prime Minister, if Southern Rhodesia had been present.
It is very interesting to read that part of the communique. It indicates that the British government asked for insertion in the communique of its expressed views. I am one who doubts whether, no matter how beneficial it might be in the present case of Southern Rhodesia, the nations of the commonwealth should intervene in matters peculiar and of domestic interest only to a particular country, whether a member of the commonwealth or a colonial possession of one of the members of the commonwealth. I realize the frightful potentialities of what has taken place in Southern Rhodesia, but I wonder- and I am expressing this as a question-will not the prime ministers' conference tend to weaken itself, to destroy its effectiveness, if it acts in respect of domestic matters?
Immediately someone will say, "You did not take that view as to South Africa". That was not a domestic matter, sir. That was a matter that affected peoples everywhere in the world. Apartheid was a denial of the principles of brotherhood that are essential to world peace. Does the situation in Southern Rhodesia compare in any way with what took place in South Africa? I think not; but I hope that the words of admonition and the suggestion by the prime ministers will be given full and sympathetic consideration by the prime minister of Southern Rhodesia.
I remember so well when we were discussing South Africa saying to the foreign minister of that country, in effect, "We are not trying to interfere with you, but you have 12 million blacks and 2J million whites. Give them some representation in the parliament of your country". There used to be three representatives in the days of Smuts and Botha, and I said "Give them that representation".

"No", he said; "nothing". That answer on his part distressed me greatly, tor it represented a viewpoint totally out of keeping with recognition of the fact-that man whatever his colour has the right to equality. That was emphasized again today by the Prime Minister, and it cannot be overemphasized at this time.
Now I come to the question of communist China. Certainly the prime ministers' views are not those which were in general circulation at the last prime ministers' conference or at the several other conferences which I attended. The views then, as I recall them, were that it would have been appropriate to recognize communist China away back in 1950, and it should have been recognized at that time. Recognition is simply the legal application in international procedure of acceptance of the fact that the government which has taken over will be able to continue for a reasonable time in the future. But recognition not having been granted as it should have been at that time, with the passing years it has come to be interpreted, and was being interpreted at the last conference I attended, among peoples in Asia and Africa as the acceptance of communism rather than the application of a principle of international law which dates back some 300 or 400 years.
I should have liked to hear the Prime Minister tell us something of the views of the representatives from Asia, who apparently have changed their attitude since the conferences I attended, as to what measures should be taken, and must be taken, to preserve and maintain the integrity of Taiwan before any action is taken which will result in the sacrifice of the people there who have stood against communism, who have maintained their position through the years, and who have been a bastion for democracy alongside a great communist nation. Certainly one cannot forever place 500 or 600 million people in a position of ostracism; but you can demand as a principle to be accepted in advance that when there is recognition or admission to the United Nations, that recognition or admission shall be preceded by a declaration by communist China assuring the maintenance and preservation, and the lives themselves, of those who have stood with us on Taiwan for so many years.
Another question which was raised concerned the state of affairs in southeast Asia. The Prime Minister said that the communique indicated that the prime ministers had assured the prime minister of Malaysia of their support. The wording of the communique is
Commonwealth Conference slightly different, in that it says that they assured him-
-of their sympathy and support in his efforts to preserve the sovereign independence and integrity of his country.
I should like an explanation of this circumstance. Apparently yesterday in the external affairs committee the Secretary of State for External Affairs stated that Canada was still giving aid in various forms to Indonesia. I should like to find out wherein there is consistency in giving aid or assistance to Indonesia, whose objective and purpose, according to the declarations of Sukarno, is the removal of Malaysia and the extirpation of the government of Tunku Abdul Rahman. I would think that this is one matter which should receive early attention; and any assistance in this regard, to which allusion was made yesterday, should end here and now.
I should also like the Prime Minister when he has an opportunity to do so to let the house and the country know what support Canada undertook to give to Malaysia. The prime minister of that country will be visiting with us in a few days, and I hope at that time it will be made very clear what, if any, are the undertakings given by Canada to carry into effect the particular section of the communique to which I have just made reference.
Now, sir, there is one other matter which is strangely missing from the communique, and that is the subject of peace keeping forces under the United Nations. The communique says the prime ministers undertook to consider practical measures. What about the suggestion which was made by the Prime Minister to the effect that forces should be mobilized in various countries who are members of the United Nations to act as a standby force? That was certainly brought before the conference in London according to the references in the press. What was the attitude of the countries of the commonwealth to that matter? On its face it would seem that the failure of the communique to mention any serious consideration of peace keeping activities as envisaged by the Prime Minister would indicate that there was division in this connection among the prime ministers. These are but one or two matters on which I feel we should have information.
As to the future, I was interested in the recommendations made to education. Certainly when we were in office we advanced the concept of an exchange of university students within the commonwealth. I brought

Commonwealth Conference up this matter myself at the trade and economic conference in Montreal in September of 1958. Two educational conferences were held during our period of office. Another is about to take place in Ottawa in the month of August. All these things are beneficial. All of them, as the Prime Minister showed today, are being expanded, are being altered by being enlarged.
I think one of the benefits of regular meetings of the prime ministers' conference is that instead of going from precedent to precedent, as Tennyson described the British constitutional course, the prime ministers' conference goes from declaration to declaration, ever adding strength and variety to the concept of the commonwealth and ever, in the Prime Minister's concluding words, strengthening that family of nations which defies definition but which in essence represents the greatest body in the world today, which brings together men and women of all races, colours and religions in peaceful association. Indeed, whatever the difficulties between India and Pakistan are and have been over Kashmir, whatever problems have arisen between various countries of the commonwealth, never has there been a suggestion that the peace of the world would in any way be interfered with by these differing countries. This is a tribute that the commonwealth has earned by the informality of its relationship.
The proposal for the expansion of development projects is one that I am sure will command the support of members generally in the house. I suggest that in the future there should not be an interval of well on to two years between prime ministers' conferences. I think it is most necessary that it should meet annually, for the length of the communique indicates that a vast variety of subjects was considered. Instead of waiting for the accumulation of problems, I believe that if there were regular annual meetings the spirit of good feeling, of co-operation, of frankness to which the Prime Minister alluded would add further strength to the commonwealth relationship.
I realize the difficulties, but as I have said before I should like to see a rotation of the meetings of the prime ministers' conference in various parts of the commonwealth. By rotation I do not mean each following the other, for I feel that most of the meetings should be held in London, but occasionally it would be the course of wisdom to have some of these meetings held in other capitals of the commonwealth.
[Mr. Diefenbaker.J
I conclude by referring to one other matter, the informality of prime ministers' meetings. There are 18 members now. When I first attended the prime ministers' conference I believe the number was 11. We were very close. As the membership expanded that closeness, that clubbiness, if I may adopt the expression used by the Prime Minister in describing it as a club although not accepting that definition or description, seemed to be in danger of being lost. He has told us that the fears expressed in this regard in 1960 and 1961 have proved to be without basis.
We faced a very great problem in 1961 when for the first time the coloured races of the commonwealth had the majority. As I saw the situation, if the commonwealth prime ministers' conference had had a vote forced on it to determine our attitude to apartheid, to declare our support for nondiscrimination, the commonwealth might well have foundered there. To have a vote at these conferences would destroy them, for no nation within the commonwealth would accept the determination of its policies on the basis of the majority opinion of the commonwealth membership. As I saw it, we came close to a vote in 1961.
I took a stand against discrimination that was widely criticized at the time. I believe that stand on behalf of Canada made its contribution to the strengthening of the commonwealth. I believe that the conference just ended will add to the strength of the commonwealth relationship, and I express to the Prime Minister my thanks and the thanks of the opposition for representing Canada as he did. When the prime minister of Canada speaks at the commonwealth conference he speaks for Canada. Therefore we must always endeavour so to speak at these conferences as to be able to have the almost unanimous support of Canadians. In what he said and did at the conference he followed the course taken when I had the honour to be prime minister, namely of trying at all times to do our respective parts, to speak for Canada within the commonwealth, to speak in accents authentic, strong and, above all, reasonable. I express my thanks to him for the remarks he has made today.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, the members of this party join with members in all parts of the house in extending a very sincere welcome to the Prime Minister and saying how pleased we are to see him back and in such good spirits after a very strenuous conference of the com-

monwealth prime ministers. I can assure the Prime Minister that the fact the house has made very considerable progress in his absence is purely coincidental. I should like to tell him that he had a very able substitute in the Acting Prime Minister, who handled the opposition very efficiently mainly because we were unable to either decipher or or interpret his answers. At the present time the interpretation is about three days behind delivery.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wish I could do that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Canada, Mr. Speaker, has always been fortunate in the stature of the men who have represented this country at commonwealth conferences. This conference certainly has been no exception. I should like to tell the Prime Minister that all of us as Canadians are proud of the serious diplomacy and moderation of voice which he brought to this important conference. All of us as Canadians were pleased to have him there to speak for this country and represent this country at this great conference of the commonwealth.
This commonwealth, Mr. Speaker, is one of the great experiments in human relations. In the lifetime of many of us, we have seen the largest empire the world has ever known gradually change into a free association of free nations. The fact that some 20 nations, representing 700 million people, with a minimum of bloodshed and violence have secured their independence, is a tribute to the courage of some of our statesmen and to the wisdom and moderation of others. Whether this free association of free people can continue to exercise an influence in world affairs only time will show. It will depend to a very large extent on the kind of leadership which is provided.
I should like to say first of all that I am sure all of us are pleased at the declaration of human equality which was enunciated by the prime ministers' conference. I believe these two paragraphs of the communique are worth putting on the record.
The prime ministers affirmed their belief that for all commonwealth governments, it should be an objective of policy to build in each country a structure of society which offers equal opportunity and non-discrimination for all its people, irrespective of race, colour or creed. The commonwealth should be able to exercise constructive leadership in the application of democratic principles in a manner which will enable the people of each country of different racial and cultural groups to develop as free and equal citizens.
I am sure the people of Canada will endorse these principles. Since there is an old adage
Commonwealth Conference that charity begins at home, I hope we will set an example to the commonwealth by beginning to apply these principles of nondiscrimination, of free and equal opportunity for all people irrespective of race, colour or creed, to those within our own borders, particularly our Indian and Eskimo populations.
I think it was important that this conference should have dealt with the matter of Southern Rhodesia. It seems to me the conference had to deal with this subject. If apartheid is a matter of importance to all members of the commonwealth, surely representative government is equally important to all parts of the commonwealth. Surely it was incumbent on the prime ministers at that conference to make it very clear that they could not accept into partnership in the commonwealth any country which did not grant representative government to all the people within its borders. I am pleased that the prime ministers' conference went on record as saying that they could not accept Southern Rhodesia unless it had sufficiently representative government for all its people, and that they would not recognize any unilateral independence on the part of that country.
When this question of human equality is raised, of course the matter of South Africa immediately comes to the fore. Many of us will regret that the conference did not support the idea of economic sanctions against South Africa as the only means of registering a vigorous protest against the discriminatory policy of apartheid. I think there will be those who will feel that when gainful trade was at stake we were prepared to forego our ringing declarations of human equality and our repugnance against racial discrimination. Even if we could not agree about economic sanctions I would have hoped, and I still hope, that some vigorous steps will be taken to see that arms at least are not supplied from any part of the commonwealth to South Africa.
Of course when we speak about discrimination against black people in South Africa we have to carry the principle all the way and be equally concerned about the imprisonment of black people by black people. I refer to states like Ghana, where it would appear democratic principles are being set aside and that discrimination, not on racial grounds but on political ideological grounds, is being practised.

Commonwealth Conference
The rather tepid condemnation of Portugal does not go nearly as far as we had hoped. I trust that in the not too distant future the members of the commonwealth, especially those who are members of NATO, will exercise their influence to see that arms from the commonwealth and from the NATO countries are not supplied to Portugal, because there can be no way of assuring ourselves that these weapons are not being used in the cruelly repressive measures which are being carried on in Angola.
I was delighted to see the ringing declaration of support for the United Nations which came from the commonwealth conference. I was pleased to see that they advocated dealing with the Cyprus situation within the framework of the United Nations. This is a great improvement over the suggestion that was being made some months ago that this problem should be dealt with either by the commonwealth itself or by the NATO organization. It seems to me that if these matters are to be dealt with, if there are to be international peace keeping operations, then they must be carried on within the framework of the United Nations. I am sure all of us are glad that the prime ministers' conference underlined that necessity.
I too, Mr. Speaker, hope we will get some clarification from the Prime Minister of the statement in the communique that the members of the commonwealth are giving their sympathy and support to Malaysia in its desire to preserve its sovereign independence and integrity. I would like to know whether this support is to be military, and what is entailed in this support. For here again it seems to me while we are all anxious to protect Malaysia, or any part of the commonwealth or any other nation in the world, against aggression, such action must be taken within the framework of the United Nations if it is to be effective and if it is to strengthen the United Nations rather than weaken it.
The conference looked at the question of southeast Asia. The communique says they discussed the great significance of China for south and southeast Asia, and also discussed the question of relations with China and her membership in the United Nations. I was sorry that in making his statement today the Prime Minister found it necessary to qualify this idea of commonwealth support for the seating of China in the United Nations. The Prime Minister was quite right, as was the conference, in saying that we should work toward having mainland China seated in the

United Nations, recognizing that it is not possible to have a quarter of the earth's population outside the world community, and that we cannot permanently ostracize a nation of this size.
Today the Prime Minister made reference to the difficulties of nationalist China, but to me this is not the main problem this country has to face. We are quite right in saying that the nationalist government of China, which is now virtually the government of Formosa, must also recognize as the de jure and de facto government of Taiwan. But if mainland China is prepared to enter the United Nations as the government, both de jure and de facto, of mainland China, and is prepared to accept and abide by the charter of the United Nations, then we ought to be pressing for her admission to the United Nations and we ought to begin with the diplomatic recognition of communist China.
It seems to me that constantly referring to the difficulties rather than enunciating a principle is weakening our stand. If the Canadian government were prepared to say publicly that we feel mainland China should (1), be recognized and (2), should be seated in the United Nations representing the people of mainland China and mainland China only- and if she is prepared to come into the United Nations on that basis and abide by the decisions of the United Nations-we are prepared to support her admission on that basis, it seems to me this would be a much more constructive approach than merely raising all the objections.
I am sure all hon. members of the house will approve the steps which are planned to provide assistance to the developing countries of the commonwealth, assistance in the fields of education, medical training and the training of administrative staff, which is one of the great needs for many of these emerging countries. We will approve steps to provide technical assistance in helping them train the kind of personnel they need for the technological development which must take place in these countries if they are to raise their living standards.
The great need of many of these emerging countries is increased trade and greater access to the markets of other commonwealth countries, particularly for primary products. Their great need is for capital, both social capital and economic and resource capital, capital from other governments and private capital as well, to help them develop their resources and establish new industries. It seems to me this is a field in which Canada

could make a major contribution. When one considers that this country is spending in assistance to undeveloped countries only about one half of 1 per cent of our gross national product we must realize we are not doing all we could do to assist the less fortunate areas of the commonwealth.
I had hoped that Canada would have been prepared to put before the conference that has just been held a bold and imaginative program for financial and economic assistance to the developing countries of the commonwealth. I hope that even yet the government will work out a program which can be put before the commonwealth. Instead of scattering our assistance over a very wide area we could make a much more effective contribution by selecting those parts of the commonwealth which lie at our back door-I am thinking particularly of the West Indies and British Guiana-where by means of technical assistance, public and private investment, trade concessions and training programs to bring many of their potential leaders to this country to train them in education, medicine, engineering and administration, we could do a great deal to help those parts of the commonwealth which are in the western hemisphere.
If we were prepared to adopt that part of the commonwealth, if we were prepared to spend a very considerable sum of money, we would not only raise the standard of living in those areas but would demonstrate to the rest of the commonwealth what can be done in a concentrated program and, in the long run, we would develop a market for many Canadian products in an area which is a natural economic one in which Canada should be interested.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, all of us wish to convey our congratulations to the Prime Minister for the very able report which he has made to the house. I am sure all of us want to assure him that any proposals which the government cares to bring down to advance the propositions that have been outlined in the communique will receive our wholehearted support.
As I said when I started, only time will demonstrate whether this free association of free peoples can wield a decisive influence in world affairs. Today three great powers, the United States, the Soviet union and mainland China, tend to hold the centre of the stage because of their vast populations. I still think it is possible for the commonwealth, though not a unitary organization as are these other nations to which I have referred, if it has the vision and the imagina-
Commonwealth Conference tion and the leadership, to demonstrate to the world that free people by consultation, moderation and co-operation can bring about freedom without violence, can bring about independence, and can establish democratic institutions in their respective countries. We have a chance to prove that democracy will work in meeting human problems. We assure the Prime Minister that any steps his government cares to take toward reaching that goal will receive our full support and endorsation.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: We join very sincerely in welcoming the Prime Minister back to our midst. We assure him that as we followed the reports of the prime minister's conference during the first few days we shared even at this remote distance some of the concern about just how this conference would turn out. Then as we read of his own prominent part in the proceedings, and as what was rather a gloomy picture began to develop into a more positive scene, we were pleased at the stand he himself took and at the part he played as the representative of Canada at these meetings. I assure the Prime Minister that he had our support in his efforts to further the cause of world peace and world development, particularly as they relate to the commonwealth. We were interested and concerned.
One thing which disturbs me is this. As I listened to the enthusiastic report, if I may call it that, from the conference and the remarks made by the leaders of the others parties, it seemed to me that our fault with regard to the commonwealth is that we talk about it with great warmth on occasions such as this and then we forget about it between times. In fact I think we have missed a number of most important opportunities during the last several years to take a more positive approach to questions raised and opportunities offered by commonwealth membership. Certainly the time is most urgently with us when the positive recommendations of this conference must be carried out in every possible way so as to further the principles which the commonwealth represents, and discharge our responsibility to them.
The commonwealth is not just an organization. It is something which has grown. The commonwealth, because it is a living institution, has grown even as plants and animals grow. It has grown from a vital principle within it, without conscious direction from man. In this day of organization perhaps that is difficult to understand but I believe my
5616	HOUSE OF
Commonwealth Conference statement is true; just as we are beginning now to realize that man himself is something more than a cog in an economic machine, something other than a mere mechanism. The time has come for us to recognize that this is so with regard to many of our national institutions. In the commonwealth we have something far superior to a mere organization of governmental authority. Instead, we have an institution which contains within itself something which no machinery can have, namely the principle of life; and with life, growth; and with growth, purpose.
This is not a new commonwealth which we have at the present time; it is just a phase in the continuing growth and development of this living organism. Sometimes we forget the great power and potential of living, growing things. I think we often forget that a block of cement or a piece of concrete paving can be broken by the power of a growing mushroom as well as by a pneumatic drill. Neither we ourselves nor our fellow men are automata to be flitted into convenient economic or political principles. We forget we enjoy the divine gifts of life, human nature and free will. This is one of the reasons the commonwealth could be particularly strong at this time.
Like all growing things, the commonwealth has grown from a seed. That seed goes back to the British empire, but it goes back further and deeper than that. It goes back to the basic principles which developed in the empire as far as government and the freedom of individuals are concerned. This seed has been planted in different lands even as it has been planted here in Canada. For all their local differences, those nations which have grown up from it bear a strong family resemblance. We talk about the differences which exist between the new countries and the old, between the underdeveloped countries and those with highly developed technical resources. Nevertheless they all bear a strong family resemblance. This has been a good seed, because the fruit has been nations respected throughout the world for their civilization, their culture, their prosperity, their peaceable conduct in world affairs and, above all, for the basic principles of parliamentary government which we ourselves uphold.
So while this commonwealth has not really been organized-like Topsy, it has more or less just grown up-while it has no clear constitution, no regular schedule of meetings, no clear order of precedence, no binding contracts or agreements, it has something which in my view is even more important. The 

fact remains; it is still here. It still exists, and in times of crisis and trial its members have an amazing way of presenting a common front in the interests of the type of civilization they enjoy. I think this has been brought home to us in the words we heard from the Prime Minister today.
So as a means of preserving our common interests the commonwealth may be stronger than many much more carefully organized bodies such as the old league of nations or the United Nations organization today. I think some of the immediate results of this conference will be obvious, even though they may not be apparent to us now. A large number of the heads of government attending this conference left immediately for Cairo to attend a meeting of the organization for African unity which opened today; I am thinking particularly of those who attended from the African countries. I do not think there is any doubt that the effect of the commonwealth conference on the attitude of these men will have a profound relationship to the decisions and discussions which are taking place in Cairo. Perhaps there will be many other far reaching results which are not immediately apparent.
I am sure, too, there will be long range results, but these will only become effective if we follow the spirit which was apparent at this prime ministers' conference by some positive action. One of the most definite opportunities which lies before the commonwealth today is in the realm of economics. It was only a few years ago that we turned out backs on an offer by Britain to take a step toward freer commonwealth trade, and it seems to me that this opportunity still presents itself. It is good to talk about freer trade which may develop from the Kennedy round, but as we consider the objective which we believe is necessary in the field of trade at the present time I think it is necessary for us also to realise that this objective cannot be reached in one big stride. The more logical way of growth and development is to take the step you can at a particular moment. In the commonwealth today there is an opportunity to reach some of the objectives we have in mind on a world basis as far as trade and economics are concerned.
This applies to the underdeveloped nations within the commonwealth. I agree with the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam that we in Canada do not do enough as far as trade with and assistance to the underdeveloped nations of the world are concerned. There are many ways of helping these nations other

than just giving technical and financial assistance. We could provide assistance by lowering some of those trade barriers that today prevent many of the underdeveloped commonwealth nations disposing of their primary products, and at the same time we could send to them more of the manufactured products they are unable to produce.
I suggest to the Prime Minister that one of the steps that could be taken to follow up this conference would be to call a commonwealth trade conference and bring together the economic committee of the commonwealth, which committee exists at the present time, to prepare the way for such a conference. We should ask that this conference be convened right here in Canada; we should invite the commonwealth countries to come here. As I have previously mentioned in this house, I am sure if such a procedure were followed, within six months we could have a trade conference relating to the commonwealth which would do a great deal to prove to the newer members of the commonwealth the real benefits that could be theirs within the commonwealth. In this way we would certainly be reaching the objectives which we seek on a world wide basis with regard to which it is so difficult to get agreement. So it is urgent that we do not think just of the problems that are before us, but that in addition we make plans to move in an aggressive way to do some of the things needed to be done in the commonwealth, possible because of the type of organization the commonwealth is.
Mr. Speaker, briefly referring to some of the problems the Prime Minister has mentioned, we realize that the most delicate point of the discussions in London concerned Southern Rhodesia. I know personally a little of the very bitter feelings which exist with regard to this problem, and it is not an easy one to solve. But it is encouraging to know that a statement could come such as was issued in the communique, that states in no indefinite way that we stand upon the basic principle of freedom for all people, regardless of race, colour or creed.
While I do not want to take up more time in putting on the record again, as far as emphasis is concerned, some of the basic statements that were made, it is good that we refer to them. It was a unique, interracial experiment, as the communique mentioned; but it was more than an experiment. I believe it is practical proof that when men get together in a spirit of good will and with a
Commonwealth Conference common determination to solve their problems in an objective way, we can get positive results.
Again I would commend the Prime Minister for the very prominent part he played in this conference, because we realize that the communique contains many of the statements that he included in his presentation at the conference. Problems such as Kashmir and British Guiana are also difficult; but these problems, too, will be resolved only as we understand that within the commonwealth there is that understanding and determination to do what is right, and to do it in the right way. I believe the suggestion the Prime Minister made at the conference with regard to inviting the members of the commonwealth to join in this consortium of nations that proposes to establish a system of satellites around the world to further communications was an excellent one. If this can be brought to pass, then in a much greater way than the cable connections we have today between many of the countries of the commonwealth the communications between us will be speeded up and made much more effective. With all the problems we face, there is no doubt that communication between nations and peoples is one of the most important aspects in reaching understanding and getting along peacefully in the world.
The Prime Minister used this occasion to refer to the problem that centers on China and the recognition of communist China in the United Nations, and how important is the position of communist China in southeast Asia as it specifically relates at this time to one of the newer members of the commonwealth, Malaysia. I think the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam is standing on rather delicate ground when he says it is not possible to have one quarter of the world's population outside the United Nations, and then lays the blame on our own doorstep. As hon. members know, I have spent a good deal of my life trying to clear up some of the mess that was left as a result of the fascist occupation of the country Ethiopia which we refused to stand with in principle and protect as a member of the league of nations. I am thinking now of the 11 million people who live on the island of Taiwan. Certainly we cannot sacrifice our responsibilities to them just because we believe that communist China must be a member of the United Nations.
It seems to me the real fault at this time, as far as red China becoming part of the United Nations is concerned, is her own; because if she would accept a realistic policy

Commonwealth Conference as far as two Chinas are concerned there is no nation or group of nations that would have any justification for preventing her from joining the United Nations.
This is one of the responsibilities that the government of China has to face up to. In this matter I think it is our responsibility to reaffirm our own convictions and our own principles as they relate to the freedom loving people of the world, and we should reaffirm the principles of free democracy and give the assurance to the people of Taiwan that we take a stand, even as the Prime Minister has mentioned, which will guarantee them their protection and their right to freedom. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I agree with what the Prime Minister said in this regard.
We are dealing with motions, and much time has been spent today in discussing this topic. However, I think we are justified in taking this time, because it is a very important matter. I would just close, reiterating that if the commonwealth is to amount to anything in the world and is to accomplish that for which I think it has the potential, we must show a more positive attitude toward the commonwealth at times other than the holding of conferences. I would like to see the enthusiasm, which I believe the Prime Minister has passed on to us in this house as a result of the conference, carried into a very definite program of planning that will put this spirit into motion and produce the results that can be produced and which every country of the commonwealth is seeking.
Again I would say that in a very special way this opportunity comes to Canada. The suggestion has been made by some of the newer members of the commonwealth that we should have a permanent secretariat. In the evolution of the commonwealth this is most significant, and I think there is another opportunity for Canada here. I believe we should move ahead and encourage the setting up of such a secretariat, and I do not believe there is a better place in all the commonwealth for the headquarters of such a secretariat than right here in the capital city of Canada.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I trust that the government will follow through on some of the points the Prime Minister has made so clear to us this morning, which will prove in a practical way just what the commonwealth can mean in our troubled world.


Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, we wish to add our own expression

of satisfaction and pleasure on welcoming back the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) from the conference of the prime ministers of the commonwealth in London.
Judging by his statement, the conference was most successful.
This morning when I saw the Prime Minister entering the house with a happy look on his face and a smile on his lips, I thought he was bringing back from London the Canadian constitution. I also felt that, at the same time, he was going to tell us which of the eighteen countries represented in London had also considered providing their respective people with two national flags.
Mr. Speaker, I turn now to the serious matters dealt with this morning by the Prime Minister. I shall not take much time, because many things have been said. Two most important points emerge from this conference; the economic point of view and the political point of view.
As far as politics is concerned, discussions dealt with the recognition of communist China by the United Nations, the racial struggles going on in certain African countries, the independence of certain countries still considered as colonies within the commonwealth, and various other subjects. Discussion referred also to the understanding or the ties that should bring us still closer together within the commonwealth, so as to give the whole world an example of tolerance, understanding and agreement.
In my opinion, this is a very important consideration, if we want the free countries of the world to remain free. Canada can play a significant part within the framework of the commonwealth, and I have no doubt that the Prime Minister stressed this point strongly in the course of the London discussions.
Mr. Speaker, the question of Africa, China and the independence of all those countries, within the commonwealth as well as outside it, depends to a great extent on three things:
1.	We must be charitable toward one another. Charity is the cornerstone.
2.	The spirit of justice must prevail. We can achieve lasting peace as long as justice exists, but it is not with discrimination or injustice that we will attain the peace so ardently desired by all the countries of the world.
3.	Within the commonwealth we have common problems, political as well as economic problems. But outside it, as a commonwealth

country, there are political as well as economic problems and I think that to solve the political problems of several of those countries we will have to solve or help them solve their economic problems first.
This is not the first time that the 18 commonwealth nations have met in London. They have met several times, and not always with the best of results. This time we are promised that the results will be better. From the economic standpoint, there should be cooperation and mutual aid between member nations of the British commonwealth; they should also, as an association, carry on transactions with non-member countries of the commonwealth.
I am sure that all those questions have been discussed at the conference which the Canadian Prime Minister attended.
As far as Canada is concerned, I have no doubt that they were discussed. We are not in the same position as the other commonwealth countries; we would like to see the commonwealth countries help one another to settle their economic problems through exports and imports among themselves.
But geographically, economically and politically, Canada is in a special position. We are located in North America. Our markets are not as much in the commonwealth countries, as in countries outside the commonwealth. Our larger markets are in our neighbour country, the United States. Others are available to us in South America and in Europe. We do not do too much business within the commonwealth. But it would be advisable that all members of the commonwealth-and again, I have no doubt that the right hon. Prime Minister mentioned it in London-turn to Canada and see its tremendous potentialities as regards the strengthening of that association of commonwealth nations and the development of new markets within the commonwealth.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that that conference of the commonwealth prime ministers will have good results and will enable, not only one nation, Canada, but all nations to improve their economic, and political situation and, at the same time, to improve conditions which prevail in countries outside our association.
As the leader of the New Democratic party said, some countries need our technical aid, our advice, our suggestions and our assistance. The commonwealth nations may give technical assistance to those underdeveloped countries by allocating subsidies to them, by supplying financial and physical as well as moral help, so as to put a stop to those
Inquiries of the Ministry people killing each other as it is now the case, and to the hatred of man for man, because all men, whoever they be, whatever their colour or creed, are, after all God's creatures who have a right to live and to develop freely.
I trust that the commonwealth countries, working together, will be able to give an example to the whole world and to promote a just and durable peace, thus creating a national and international atmosphere in which the human person, the individual may develop as freely, as naturally and as normally as possible.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieiie-L'Assomplion-Monlcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. The d.b.s. publication "Labour Force" for June shows unemployment in Quebec at 105,000, exactly the same figure as in June, 1962. Where are the bold, imaginative plans or has Quebec been left out?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour is not here at the moment. I assume he thought we would take longer on the report on the commonwealth conference, but for him I would say that the considerable improvement in the unemployment situation perhaps answers my hon. friend's question.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: What do you have in mind to do to correct the situation? What are your plans?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I intended to direct this question to the Prime Minister but in his absence I will direct it to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Prime Minister has now returned and we are continuing to hear very disturbing rumours about what is taking place in regard to the arms build-up in Cyprus. Even this morning there was a report that the Greek Cypriots are moving artillery and mortars into position. In view of this expanding and threatening military build-up does

Inquiries of the Ministry the minister have any word for the house to assure us, first of all, as to the safety of our own Canadian troops who are over there and also in a general way with regard to the situation that is continuing there?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, as I previously intimated, there have been discussions in Geneva and, as a matter of fact, in the NATO council with regard to this matter, in addition to the consultations which were taking place even this morning between certain countries, including Canada. There is no doubt that the fears with regard to infiltrations about which we spoke in the house, both by way of interrogation and response, some days ago, were justified and, notwithstanding the assurances by the two countries concerned, have been confirmed. Various assessments have been made by the United Nations and by individual countries as to the extent of these infiltrations. The information that Canada passed on 10 days ago to the United Nations has been confirmed.
Very important negotiations are under way in three different places. I hope that as a result it will be possible even at this date to bring a moderating influence to bear on all parties concerned, including Greece and Turkey, having regard to their membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, let alone their membership in the United Nations.
Our forces are there as part of the United Nations force and the directions issued to that force come from the commander of the force, General Thimayya, the distinguished Indian soldier who has relieved General Gyani. He acts under the authority given to him by the secretary general pursuant to the latter's directions from the security council. Every consideration is being given to the position of our force and to its place in the United Nations operation itself.
I believe that is as far as I can go at this time. I think that what I have said will indicate that the build-up which has taken place, notwithstanding the protests made in the NATO council, and notwithstanding the requests made by the secretary general of the United Nations, is in the judgment of Canada, and I think in the judgment of all countries who have been considering this matter, contrary to the requests made at the last ministerial meeting of the NATO council in May and at subsequent meetings of the NATO council. I would hope that a second appeal made by the secretary general of the United Nations only yesterday in Geneva,

where he is meeting with the mediator and with representatives of the governments of Greece and Turkey, will elicit a suitable response so that the force may be given the opportunity, in spite of difficult circumstances, to discharge its responsibility in trying to maintain some semblance of order in that disturbed island. I am happy to say that the intervention of Canada's forces even within the last few days, as we all know from Colonel Amy's statement, has been productive of some results. The government continues to watch this situation with great care.


Robert Norman Thompson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The disturbing factor is that even though these peace negotiations are going on the military build-up continues. In view of the fact that the president of Turkey and the prime minister of Greece themselves gave the minister their personal assurances that they would do all they could to prevent war and to further a peaceful settlement, has the minister taken the initiative of getting in touch with these leaders in the interval with regard to their own personal obligations?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, not only have I taken an initiative on behalf of the government by speaking directly, apart altogether from ambassadors here in Ottawa, to the heads of the governments of Greece and Turkey, but we have taken an initiative at the ministerial meeting at The Hague and within the past two weeks in the NATO council. Beyond that I cannot go at this moment.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State for External Affairs mentioned three separate meetings being held at three separate places. Would he elaborate briefly with regard to who is sponsoring these respective meetings, what nations are represented at them and where they are being held?


Paul Joseph James Martin: First of all, there is a meeting in Geneva. This meeting has been called by the mediator who announced a week ago Monday that having made assessments with regard to a solution-and this function, exercised under the security council, belongs only to him-he proposed asking the representatives of the governments concerned to meet with him in Geneva. He has been meeting with them individually all week.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister says "the governments concerned". Does he mean Greece, Turkey and Cyprus?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The government of Greece and the government of Turkey. A representative of the United Kingdom, as one of the co-guarantors is present. The United States on the authority of the president has a former secretary of state there in the person of Mr. Dean Acheson for purposes which the government of the United States believes may be desirable. Both Greece and Turkey are members of the NATO alliance and, as Mr. Rusk said a short time ago, war between these two countries is unthinkable, unthinkable for Cyprus itself, unthinkable for NATO.
At the instance of Canada, and pursuant to information which we believe was as reliable as it could be, there have been discussions in the NATO council. The intervention of NATO is not designed in any way to interfere in the work of the United Nations. The function of mediation has been extended to the mediator under the security council resolution, and no effort is being made by NATO in any way to interfere with a responsibility that belongs to the United Nations. However, NATO has an interest, a responsibility and I believe an obligation to see to it that none of its members takes any course that adds to the difficult and complicated task that has been imposed on the United Nations.
In addition, there have been meetings between Canada and a number of other countries with regard to this matter.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he will now advise the house what request has been received from the government of Saskatchewan relative to the supply of fodder or the transfer of livestock to pasture? What has been the position taken by the government of Saskatchewan on this matter and what is the minister going to do about it in view of the continuing drought situation?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I will be meeting the Saskatchewan minister of agriculture tomorrow morning at nine o'clock. The government of Saskatchewan have indicated what they would like to do, and we will be discussing
Inquiries of the Ministry that with them tomorrow. I will be glad to announce the policy on Monday.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not asking about the meeting tomorrow. What is the suggestion from the minister in Saskatchewan? Is he asking for the same kind of terms as were given under my administration, namely 50 per cent?


Harry William Hays: I will be glad to make this announcement on Monday. I do not care to say until I have seen the minister, which will be tomorrow morning.


John George Diefenbaker: What kind of brush-off is this? Did the minister receive a letter from the government of the province of Saskatchewan or the minister of agriculture asking for assistance? What was asked for? This kind of brush-off just will not work.


Harry William Hays: I received a letter. I have been in communication with the government of Saskatchewan and also the government of Manitoba. I am going to see these representatives tomorrow, and I am quite prepared to give out the information on Monday morning.


John George Diefenbaker: That type of answer may have been all right in Calgary, but this is the House of Commons. I ask if the minister got a letter from the government of Saskatchewan setting out the terms-he is getting advice from two ministers. If the Minister of National Health and Welfare would look after her own department she would be a lot better off. I ask him if he received a letter setting out the terms the Saskatchewan government has requested. If he refuses to answer or he takes instructions from the Minister of National Health and Welfare he will be in a lot of difficulty because she made the pension plan a real mess.


Harry William Hays: I did receive a letter, and I will be glad to discuss it tomorrow morning with the minister of agriculture. I will be making an announcement on Monday.


John George Diefenbaker: I simply rise to say that this is another example of the arrogance of this government in refusing to answer questions.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question? Can the minister tell us when this letter was received from the government of Saskatchewan regarding fodder supplies for the drought area?


Harry William Hays: I cannot tell you exactly, but I will be glad to find out.

Inquiries of the Ministry



FARM LOANS-POSTPONEMENT OF PAYMENTS BY FARMERS IN DIFFICULTY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinihe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is it true that terms are granted to farmers who, as a result of some financial difficulties, are unable to meet their obligations toward the Farm Credit Corporation?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I did not hear the first part of the hon. gentleman's question.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I asked the minister if it were true that some delays were allowed to farmers who, because of financial difficulties, could not meet their obligations to the Farm Credit Corporation?


Harry William Hays: For some time now anyone who had great problems, or to whom disasters happened, could make representations to the Farm Credit Corporation which has given them a holiday on their payments. This is still going on.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: As a supplementary question, is it also true that in order to obtain such holidays as the minister mentions it is obligatory to have a letter of introduction from the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve)?


Harry William Hays: No, that is not so. That is not correct. This is something that is done all over Canada.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs who was here two or three minutes ago but seems to have disappeared. Perhaps his parliamentary secretary or the acting minister could answer it.
Since the government of Alberta has now indicated it is no longer interested in taking over the Colonel Belcher hospital in Calgary, has the department given up the idea of turning this hospital over to civilian control? What are the present plans for it?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: I shall be happy to


take the question as notice and refer it to the Minister of Veterans Affairs.



RESEARCH


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martineau (Ponliac-Temisca-mingue):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. Has the government any present plans to participate in the high altitude research program, which was evolved by a Canadian, Dr. Ball, and in which the United States is now participating?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: The Canadian government is now participating in this high altitude research program being largely carried out in the Bahama islands.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Has agreement been
reached on this subject with the United States?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Defence Production, which arises from his further answer. He stated Canada was participating in the high altitude research program. Is the further participation by Canada in that program dependant upon the request that is presently before treasury board, and is it a fact that no further funding for this project may be expected until agreement between Canada and the United States is reached on proposals presently before the two countries?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, this is a continuing program and what is now under discussion are projections of the future of this program. Projects over present limits are under consideration by the government in Ottawa, in consultation with the other participant in the program, the United States.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: My question is for the Minister of National

Health and Welfare. Is the minister yet in a position to give us further information on when we can expect to receive copies of the white paper on the national pension plan?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes. I am sure all hon. members in the house will be happy to know they will receive it before the summer recess.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Actually, Mr. Speaker, my question was almost a carbon copy of the question just asked by the hon. member for Middlesex West, only I was going to put it to the Secretary of State for External Affairs as a supplementary to the question he answered on July 14. On that occasion the minister indicated the white paper was just about ready and it seemed to be merely a matter of waiting for the Prime Minister to get back. Could we not have the assurance that this white paper will be tabled soon?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think the Minister of National Health and Welfare and I have given the kind of assurance which is requested.


An hon. Member:: Not at all.


Paul Joseph James Martin: When I say that, I hope the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquit-lam, for whom I have the greatest regard, will not complicate a very simple question. There will be no delay in this matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The statement made by the minister now is precisely what he said on July 14, that there would not be too long a delay.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How does the government square that with the suggestion that we will get it some time before the recess, which might be months away?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I hope the summer recess will not be too long delayed either.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister asked me not to complicate what is a very simple matter, but it is the government that is complicating the matter by suggesting that a very important document will be brought down at a very indefinite date. The Minister of National Health and Welfare says before the summer recess, and this could be a month away or it could be six months away. Can we not get something more specific in the way of a date, say one
Inquiries of the Ministry week, two weeks or something specific as to when it will be brought down?


Mr.   Marfin@Essex East: The Prime Minister has just returned, and naturally there are certain matters that one refers to the head of a government. I want to assure my hon. friend it will not be too long.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: I should like to reword my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in view of the answer we got. I hold in my hand a clipping taken from this morning's Globe and Mail. The article is entitled: "Pension Still Available If Wife Kills Husband". It seems to me that this is rather dangerous information to be circulated throughout the country. In view of the fact that the article states that these provisions of the Canada pension plan were confirmed by a health department official, and since it goes on to say that-
-in the case of a woman having murdered her husband-assuming she is not executed for the crime-she can receive his pension either out of jail or in jail under the proposed legislation-
-my question is this: Does not the minister think it would be much wiser to make this white paper available rather than have such dangerous rumours circulating in the country?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I did notice the clipping to which the hon. member referred and it is contrary to my understanding of what the general law of Canada says about unjust enrichment. Normally, one cannot obtain a benefit through causing the death of someone else. However, it may be the reporter had been talking to someone from the health branch, as he indicated, whereas the pension plan is to be administered by the welfare branch. That may account for it.
I know hon. members are concerned to know when the white paper will be provided and I think they may be interested to learn that there is a meeting next week of the representatives of all the provinces to consider this question. It is for this reason that the document has not been produced up to this moment. Since hon. members opposite have shown such good temper in the past few days and such a disposition, after so many months, to get down to work, it seems to me that using the words "before the time the house rises for the summer" in my answer was in accord with what had been said by the Acting Prime Minister. There was no attempt to mislead or confuse members of the house.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I might preface my question by saying that the Minister of National Health and Welfare sounded to me as if she were a school teacher talking to us about this subject. Can she not say, in view of the meeting which is to be held with the provinces next week, that immediately following this meeting, say, two weeks from now, the white paper will be produced?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: If I did that and we found that some point not previously explored was the subject of disagreement and necessitated a delay of a few days while it was being clarified, the hon. member would be one of the first to stand up and say that I had misled the house.
I am sure we are all anxious to see the final plan and anxious to get on with it and I would ask all members who are interested in the advancement of this legislation and not in shabby politics to wait for a few days until we can bring it before the house. It will be done as quickly as possible.


Michael Starr: Surely the minister can say that if, during this meeting, the provinces agree on these things the white paper will be produced shortly afterwards.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I do not see any reason why it should not be.


Hon. J. W. Monleilh (Perth):: A supplementary question in connection with a remark the minister made. Does she recall her shabby politics on July 18 last on the first presentation of this report?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Who? Me?


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Can the minister say whether or not representatives of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories will be asked to express their points of view at this important meeting next week and, if so, who will be attending on their behalf?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am afraid the hon. member has me, there. I cannot answer. I will be happy to find out and tell him next week.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry in connection with the Kitsilano


property in Vancouver. Has he anything to report, and has he been advised the matter is receiving consideration from the city of Vancouver, with respect to a bylaw to be placed before the ratepayers, to approve an expenditure of up to $1 million for the acquisition of an adequate site for the C.B.C. other than the Kitsilano site?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of this particular bit of news. I did, however, communicate with the city of Vancouver to assure them that we would not take a decision within the time period-the delay they had asked for-and I invited them to make their proposals in this regard to Ottawa.


John George Diefenbaker: I suggested the other day a period of 60 days. Is that the period within which the government intends to hold back its decision so that this matter may be amicably settled to the advantage of the people of the city of Vancouver?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: We would hope it might be possible to resolve this question rather more rapidly than in two months.


John George Diefenbaker: What was the period the minister had in mind when he mentioned the period asked for by Vancouver?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Sixty days.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



INQUIRY AS TO SHOWING OF FILM ON HEALTH MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, perhaps in view of the mood in which the Minister of National Health and Welfare is addressing the house I might ask her a question based on a report by Victor Mackie in Wednesday's issue of the Winnipeg Free Press. Can she tell us if she knows when the C.B.C. is going to show the film which I understand has been taken of her and which is to be shown in a series to be known as "The single woman"? If she knows the date when this film is going to be shown, perhaps she would tell us, because we would not want to miss it.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I cannot tell my hon. friend- although I should be happy if it never saw the light of day.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice based on a press report of yesterday which stated that two members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had been tried and sentenced for an offence concerning the misapplication of funds, and that their sentences are under review. Could the minister inform the house what body is reviewing the sentences? Further, could he inform the house what the sentences were and explain the matter more fully?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have not been presented with any material in relation to this matter yet.


Erik Nielsen: When the minister has the material at hand will he report to the house on this incident, and will he now inform the house whether it is the government's intention to introduce legislation, similar to that existing in the National Defence Act, which would make the decisions of any court set up within the R.C.M.P. subject to a review board appeal court?


Guy Favreau: Of course, Mr. Speaker, this relates to something which might eventually be the subject of government policy, and for that reason it may only be announced in due course.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I thought the
Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) would have returned to the chamber during the question period, but since he is not here I wish to direct a question of serious consequence to communities in British Columbia to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I have received two protests, one in the form of a telegram from the Kitimat chamber of commerce stating:
This community greatly inconvenienced as well as other points between Vancouver and Stewart by the Northland Shipping labour dispute
And the other is from the community of Alice Arm also protesting inconvenience caused by the seamen's strike. Would the minister bring this to the attention of the
Inquiries of the Ministry Department of Labour because delay in settling the dispute is causing inconvenience and worse in that area? This is a matter engaging the attention of two labour officials and I ask that urgent efforts be made to bring about a solution of the problem as between the C.B.R.T. and the S.I.U. in order to end the inconvenience to these people.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I will see this is directed at once to the Minister of Labour. I will do so as soon as I leave the chamber.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the minister aware of the results of the Gallup poll which will be published tomorrow, showing him as running second behind the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss La-Marsh) in regard to the administration of his department, and was he aware of the fact that his department was in such bad shape?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, may I answer some serious questions put to me in the last few days.



FRENCH TRANSLATION OF REPORTS ISSUED

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday
July 15, the hon. member for Nicolet-Ya-maska (Mr. Vincent) asked about the publication of the French language version of the Canada Year Book. I am pleased to advise the house that the French language version will be available for distribution by August 15, if not earlier.



ANNOUNCEMENT OF SALE TO CZECHOSLOVAKIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in my absence some questions were put to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays), who was then acting minister of trade and commerce, arising out of the statement made on the sale of wheat to Czechoslovakia. First of all, the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Simpson) asked whether assurance could be given that

Inquiries of the Ministry the negotiators had been made aware of the saving in cost to both Czechoslovakia and to western farmers by agreeing to the shipment of a considerable amount of the grain through the port of Churchill.
When I was in the west yesterday I had the opportunity of having a long conversation with the chairman of the Canadian wheat board, who assured me he had brought the advantages of the port of Churchill very definitely before the negotiators of both Czechoslovakia and Poland.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) asked about the rate of interest paid on the credits extended to Czechoslovakia. As the house knows, the Export Credits Insurance Corporation insures the payment, and the financing is done through the chartered banks at commercial rates of interest, plus a charge of one half of 1 per cent for the contract of insurance issued by the Export Credits Insurance Corporation.



UNITED KINGDOM-PROTEST RESPECTING ANTIDUMPING PRACTICES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: I trust my question will be in order. I wish to address it to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister state whether changes in the anti-dumping and customs practices which have hampered normal trade relations between the United Kingdom and Canada as requested by the British board of trade are now being held up by the Canadian government for at least a year?


Mitchell William Sharp: The position with respect to this matter has been stated by the Minister of Finance and by myself and I think it was touched upon by the Prime Minister when he was in London. There will be no unnecessary delay in dealing with this matter. It has been made clear, however, that we will deal with it in the context of our negotiations during the Kennedy round.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Vincent Drouin (Argenfeuil-Deux-Montagnes):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Has the minister re-


ceived a request from the municipal authorities of Oka parish, in connection with repairs to be made to the roads known as "Du Milieu" and "Gabriel" which go through Indian lands in Oka?
Does he intend to take action on these requests?


Mr. Speaker:: This is really a question for the order paper.


Vincent Drouin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Each time a member from this side of the house asks a question, he is declared out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Vincent Drouin: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the question be transferred for debate at ten o'clock.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lawrence Watson (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I was glad to hear he was in Winnipeg yesterday. I wonder whether he can inform the house what the box car situation is in the west. Does he have any assurance from the railways that they will be able to supply enough cars to move the 10 bushel supplementary quota before July 31?


Mitchell William Sharp: I cannot give the hon. member the specific assurance for which he asks. I did have the opportunity of discussing the box car situation with members of the Canadian wheat board and they have informed me that everyone concerned is working to attain the objective he has in mind. However, I would hesitate to say that it can be attained at every point. One of the problems which has been encountered year after year, regardless of the government in power, is that farmers wait in many cases until they see what the new crop is like before declaring the full extent of their holdings. I know the hon. member understands that along the Sault line with which he is most concerned large quantities of grain have appeared which were not reported earlier because farmers

were not sure just how much they would want to deliver. This is a problem which has arisen year after year and there is no way of avoiding it, but I can assure the hon. member that the Canadian wheat board as well as the railway companies are working as hard as they can to see that as much grain as possible is moved out of the west before the end of the year.


Lawrence E. Watson: I realize what the situation is on the Sault line in particular, but I wonder if the minister could talk to the railway companies and use his influence to have them concentrate on the areas which are having the big crop so as to help alleviate storage problems for the farmers in those places. I might perhaps tell the minister that the majority of the farmers concerned knew what the situation would be, and that the principal problem for some time has been the availability of box cars.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to do what I can to alleviate the situation.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES MODIFICATION OF INSTRUCTIONS TO ROYAL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Associate Minister of National Defence.
In view of the confusion created by the answer given to the house yesterday by the Associate Minister of National Defence, does he intend to recommend to the government the amendment of the terms of reference of the royal commission on bilingualism and bi-culturalism, so that the commission will determine the areas in Canada where it is logical to put bilingualism into practice at the federal administration level?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, this affords me the opportunity to tell my hon. friend that he does not have the monopoly of interest and concern in this house for the province of Quebec and the French fact.
It seems to me that following the statements and the speeches just made by the leaders of the four political parties on the rather serious and dangerous problem of racial strife in the world, my hon. friend might show less chauvinism. I do not suggest
Inquiries of the Ministry that bilingualism does not raise any problems in Canada. As a matter of fact, there are some problems. But it is not by raising the same questions over again, which only embarrass everybody without settling anything, that those problems will be solved.
In my opinion there are places in Canada where bilingualism should be practised more than it is. I am working toward the solution of that problem.
On the other hand there are also problems in other places where spoken French is nonexistent. In those circumstances I feel it does not make sense to use bilingual signs if there is nobody to read them.
Bilingualism, in my opinion, is a two way street. It concerns not only those who speak French but also those who speak English.
Bilingualism in Canada is an important matter. However, I am quite convinced that we will not solve that problem by indulging in petty politics.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Associate Minister of National Defence-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: If it is on the same subject, all right.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, following the remark made about me by the Associate Minister of National Defence when he said that I was being chauvinistic in asking the type of questions I have to ask in the house. To begin with, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to him that there are French Canadian minorities in every province in Canada. If he wishes to be logical, he should ask both his colleagues and the government to be less hypocritical and to take action instead of spending half a million dollars on a commission of inquiry on bilingualism and biculturalism.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I agree that there are French speaking minorities in the other provinces but what I mean is this. I fail to see the purpose of putting up bilingual signs in those places or those provinces where there are no French Canadians.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: On the wrong track as usual. [Text]


Mr. Speaker:: At this point may I suggest that we go to orders of the day.

Supply-Post Office SUPPLY
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
1. Postal services including Canada's share of the upkeep of the international bureaux at Berne and Montevideo, $208,861,000.
The Chairman:: Order. House in committee of supply on the estimates of the Post Office Department for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1965, vote No. 1. Shall this item carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):: Mr. Chairman, first I would like to say how sorry I am that my parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Hull, who was to have been with me today, is in hospital. I wish him a speedy recovery and I know the other members of the house join with me in this wish.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: When the estimates of the Post Office Department, or any other department of government, are presented for consideration in the committee, it is customary for the minister concerned to make an introductory statement outlining the work of the department or, perhaps I should say, more frequently emphasizing the achievements of the department. He usually follows that with a forecast for the year covered by the estimates. Such a course, as time has shown, has much to commend it. Usually the accomplishments mentioned are factual and in most instances the performance has been reasonably good and therefore the compliments are justified. Having done a little research in the few months in which I have had the office of Postmaster General-incidentally most of that research has been confined to Hansards of recent years-I find there have been remarkably few suggestions that our postal service in Canada is not, on the whole, doing a good job. To anybody who studies Hansard, it would appear that year after year the ministers and hon. members have been in agreement that the department does a really good job, frequently with some minor reservations -because there is always room for a little politics in the estimates of a department such as the post office. For years the Post Office Department has been recognized as one that works hard and efficiently and does the best it can with the resources at its command.
There has been some criticism that I have noticed, criticism not usually directed to the

department itself but rather to the policies that the department is called upon to administer. I refer to the fiscal and economic policies, primarily the rates that are charged for different classes of mail. I might say that in presenting the estimates for the department this year I will try to be perhaps more factual, if I can, and perhaps a little more analytic than at least some of my predecessors. I propose to give the committee the financial facts and then, rather than be eulogistic myself, leave it to the committee members to say whether the department is in fact doing a good job. I do this because of remarks that were made by several hon. members earlier this session in the course of the discussion of the resolution contained in item No. 12 on the order paper. Then I propose to refer to some of the comments that were made at that time upon the fiscal and economic policies of the department.
1 think this is fitting, and in doing so I should like to pay tribute to the good work that is being done by certain members of this house. I do not think I would be out of order if I referred to the work which is being done by the hon. member for Danforth, whose comments on the reports of the Post Office Department of the last year or two and the report of the Glassco commission show that a lot of research has been done and that some constructive thinking has gone into his speech last April. It is his remarks and the remarks of other hon. members, which have prompted me to take the line I am following here this afternoon.
Over the years, Mr. Chairman, the annual reports of the Post Office Department, one or two of which I have here, have reported either a small paper deficit or a small paper surplus. These reports vary from a reported deficit of some $4,700,000 in 1960-61 to a reported surplus of roughly $3J million in 196263. If you take the published annual reports for the last ten years, perhaps longer, to all intents and purposes the Post Office Department seems to have been operating very close to its stated objective of a break-even basis. But, Mr. Chairman, the hard cold facts from a straight accounting standpoint show something else. The financial statements recording these small alleged surpluses or small alleged deficits are not accurate. I say small because they are relatively small in relation to the annual budget of the department. There are budgets for expenditures ranging in the vicinity of $250 million a year, and when you get down to amounts such as I have mentioned the surpluses or deficits are relatively

small. However, I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that all these statements have failed to take into account several major items not only of cost but of revenue, and these items should form an important part of any cost study analysis of the post office or any other department.
By way of example, the year 1962-63 had a reported operating revenue of $222 million and an expenditure in excess of $218 million, leaving an alleged paper surplus of roughly $3J million. The hon. member for Digby-Annap-olis-Kings will recall that during the year in question there was a retroactive pay adjustment, a salary adjustment, amounting to some $4J million which wiped out this paper surplus, so that in actual fact there was a deficit.
In addition to that there was $32,600,000 odd items in uncharged services, which were supplied to the Post Office Department by the Department of Public Works and the Department of Finance which does not even appear in the records of the Post Office Department. This appears in the records of the Department of Finance and the Department of Public Works. When all these items are taken into consideration, including a credit to which the Post Office Department would be entitled for free mailing services which we provide to certain departments of government, then instead of an alleged surplus in the year 1962-63 of $3,600,000 odd we have an actual operating deficit of $30 million in that year.
During the year 1963-64 the financial position of the department has continued to deteriorate. Notwithstanding rate increases, which were introduced last November and which brought in $1,800,000 odd in new revenue, a very substantial deficit still exists. Our total recorded revenues-and here I will have to examine my notes-during that year show that revenues were up in the fiscal year which finished March 31 last by $13 million. In other words, our revenues were about $235 million. But our expenditures also increased by more than $23 million, and we had an actual operating loss of over $6 million. That is shown by the records of the post office.
There again these figures-and this time I hope the next annual report of the Postmaster General will correct this situation- do not include another figure of approximately $4 million for free mail services which we have provided to the Department of Agriculture and other departments. Even more important, they do not include an
Supply-Post Office
amount in excess of $35 million again provided by the Department of Finance and the Department of Public Works. For instance, in the figures there is no charge for superannuation of the post office employees, and there are about 42,000 such employees. The superannuation has all been charged in the records of the Department of Finance. The same is true of post offices in federal buildings used by post office employees.


George Clyde Nowlan: But is not that superannuation charge true of all departments?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Yes; but nevertheless it is an operating expense of the Post Office Department which I hope will be corrected in other departmental accounting practices, as well as in that of the post office. When all these figures are taken into consideration, as the annual report which I hope will be filed before too long will disclose, we had an excess of expenditures over income in the fiscal year recently ended in excess of $37 million.
This, Mr. Chairman, was a picture of the immediate past. I should now like to comment, because this is what we are here to do, on the current fiscal year 1964-65. During this fiscal year we anticipate postal revenues in excess of $250 million-a little higher than a quarter of a billion dollars. That sum will include the increases, which were brought in last November amounting to some $1,800,000 and the increases which took effect on April 1 of this year, approximately $5 million. Notwithstanding this we will have expenditures ranging in the same vicinity, and we will again come out with an excess of expenditures over income of roughly $34 million during the year. Frankly, that was the basic reason which lay behind the introduction of part of this resolution No. 12 on the order paper to which I have referred. It was hoped that that resolution concerning the abolition of the local rate would bring in, not $30 million or $38 million as some members have mistakenly suggested-they must have confused some figures-but that the increase would bring in approximately $8J million. We would still have a deficit of upwards of $20 million, even if that increase could be taken into account. Deficits of that magnitude are bound to continue so long as the present structure of rates and services continues. There is no alternative to a deficit unless there is a change in the rates.
Even if, as I said a moment ago, the proposed increase brought about by the abolition of the local rates-the dropping of the four cent charge and the substitution of a five

Supply-Post Office
cent charge-came into effect before the end of this year, over the next three years we would have deficits totalling in excess of $70 million in the post office. These are the financial facts of life which we cannot ignore. In so far as the postal service is concerned, no amount of political acumen, as we used to pronounce the word in the maritimes, no amount of financial manipulation will change those facts. The facts will remain no matter what we do about them unless we make some changes.
The department has been carrying on studies of the rate structure and these studies have been intensified of late. It is probably the most intensive study of the rate structures in the Post Office Department in the 100 years of its existence. We have made adjustments in rates, some of which hon. members may not have heard of. We have made adjustments in c.o.d. deliveries and special deliveries. We have increased the air mail postal rate to the United States. Frankly, to me it was absurd that if persons in the United States, including ourselves when we visit there, wish to send a letter to Canada the rate is 8 cents, but if we wanted to send a letter to the United States we paid 7 cents up until the day before yesterday. That has been corrected and I do not think anybody in the house will disagree, when I say that the situation should have been corrected at an earlier date. We have also made adjustments in other postal charges, more particularly in regard to the rate structure for third class mail.
I think the committee will be glad to know that in addition to these changes, which I believe will improve the financial position of the department by somewhere between $74 million and $9 million a year, we have also engaged one of Canada's top consulting firms to look into the matter of cost ascertainment in our department, to try to ascertain the costs of the different types of mail and the different types of services we perform. It is only by having such a comprehensive study that we will be able to determine what each particular class of mail should be paying. I think we now have some reasonably accurate figures with regard to the three main types of mail, first class mail, second class mail and third class mail. But there are subclasses in each of these divisions with regard to which we need more information.
It is only by having a comprehensive study made at this time that we can bring about a tighter control. It is only by doing

this that we can avoid having to introduce at the end of each 10 or 20 year period substantial increases that shock people. If you have a cost ascertainment program functioning all the time, adjustments can be made without disturbing or inconveniencing people too much. From the reports I have received so far arising from the study I am confident that much good will result from it. In the supplementary estimates we are asking for a sum of money to help to pay the costs of the study, but I believe that the study will repay many times the amount of money we are asking be appropriated for this purpose.
It would seem to be fitting at this time to consider certain of the postal rates, particularly one that was the subject of much discussion back in April when we were considering a certain resolution. I refer to the rates on second class mail. There are at least three or four members in the house this afternoon who participated in that debate and I should like to pass on to them the results of the study we have made. I might say they are perhaps getting the information second hand because I did a lot of work on this matter in connection with a speech prepared for delivery at a meeting of the periodical distributors of Canada that took place in Montreal recently. I pointed out to them that we handle some 600 million pieces of second class mail per year. Roughly 134 per cent of all mail is second class mail. When I say "second class mail" I am referring of course to newspapers and periodicals.
Hon. members will recall that I said earlier that even if we got an $84 million increase in revenue from first class mail by abolishing the local rate we would still have a deficit in excess of $20 million. Practically the whole of that deficit would be in the field of second class mail. Some members have suggested that one way to get rid of the deficit was, rather than increasing the rates for first class mail, to jack up the rates to the big newspaper publishers. I can recall two very forceful speeches that were made, but unfortunately the matter is not as simple as that.
It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to jack up these rates in order to get more money. Three or four names were bandied around in the house, but including that group there are only some six or eight big publishing corporations. How can you jack up the rates for six or eight people out of 19 million without at the same time adversely affecting many of the small struggling publishers in the towns and smaller communities

of this country? There is scarcely a town or village of any size that does not have one or more newspapers. These papers could not exist without the free mailing privileges that are extended to them by parliament. Just how are you going to jump in? Are you just going to raise the rates for half a dozen people? I think the Department of Finance and the Department of National Revenue can be relied upon to get the money from these big corporations in the form of corporation taxes, rather than have the post office try to extract more money from the few and at the same time penalize these very important news media, which have been so essential and so vital to the maintenance of an individual Canadian identity over the last 100 years. You cannot have it both ways. You have to make a choice one way or the other. The size of the subsidy on second class mail is of such magnitude that without completely disrupting other rate structures there is no way of handling it except probably by parliamentary action.
I should like to refer to some things that were said in the earlier debate on the resolution. Perhaps here I am anticipating questions that may be put to me later, but I think it is appropriate for me to interject these remarks at this time. During the debate on the resolution to which I have referred the hon. member for Port Arthur said: "Why has there not been more planning?" Perhaps we should have had more planning. At least now, as I have mentioned earlier, we have started that planning. It started before I came into office. It started before the present government took office. There is no sense in our trying to say that we have been doing all these things. Perhaps we have intensified them in the last few months but they have been going on for the last 18 or 24 months at least to my knowledge.
The reports that have been passing over my desk during recent weeks arising from this study have brought out some most interesting inconsistencies. Do you know that you can ship a newspaper published in downtown Toronto to Vancouver for less money than you can ship it to one of the suburbs of Toronto? There are other absurdities. The local rates are higher than the national rates. This again is tied in with the idea of local delivery. If any members are here who are near my age they will recall that when we were youngsters, not 100 years ago, you went down to the post office to mail a letter. There were no mail boxes on the comers. Your letter was actually mailed in the post office 20220-356A
Supply-Post Office
and in the case of local delivery the clerk in that office picked up the letter and put it in a box in the same office.
There was no transportation, practically no handling. There was one clerk there who had lots of time to do the handling. Today you mail a letter, particularly in a city like mine, and there will be a great deal of transportation connected with the handling of that letter. I see some hon. members over here, who live in the general vicinity of my city of Vancouver. I see one of them who sent me a telegram when my appointment as Postmaster General was announced. He sent me a telegram of congratulation and in the second sentence he said he hoped that I would take steps immediately to abolish the difference between the two letter rates that prevailed in his riding.
Now, this hon. member represents an area that is 35 miles from Vancouver. You can mail a letter in downtown Vancouver and it will be delivered to this area 35 miles away. If it is delivered to one side of the street it will cost you 4 cents, but if it goes across the road a distance of 50 feet or so it will cost 5 cents. We can all agree that there is something wrong with that type of rate structure. However this also illustrates the difference in conditions that existed when the local rate was introduced many years ago, when a large percentage of the people took a letter to the post office and put it in a box. Today in any town of any size you have scores of vehicles collecting mail, sometimes several times during the day. This mail is not only delivered to the post office in any metropolitan area but it can be sent several miles and the actual expenditures involved are much greater than sending a letter to either Halifax or Vancouver.
I have been spending a fair amount of time in conducting this research. Perhaps I should have done what the hon. member for Danforth did, that is spend more time on it last spring, earlier in the year. However, I have been working harder on the Glassco commission report. I noticed one very significant thing in that report. They favour the fixing of postal rates at levels that will permit the total recovery of costs, except in one field and that is in the field of newspapers and periodicals. The value of these newspapers and periodicals as distributors of news and cultural instruments is recognized there in the report. If we are going to pay a subsidy of $70 million or $80 million a year for the C.B.C., it might not be unreasonable to suggest we should pay a subsidy to other news

Supply-Post Office
media of approximately $20 million a year. However, this does not mean we should pay $20 million or $30 million per year at the expense of the general taxpayer, if only some people are using the mails.
Now, 55 per cent of our mail is first class mail and over 50 per cent of the first class mail carries the 5 cent rate, not the 4 cent rate. Our studies have advanced this far. The average cost of all first class mail is roughly 5 cents, whether it is local mail or whether it is mail that has to be moved a considerable distance by air, rail or water. I feel the time has come for us to take a firm position that the general taxpayer of this country should not be asked to subsidize the post office to the tune of $10 million for the benefit of the people who are using first class mail or any other class mail that is largely commercial. We have already taken steps to correct the situation in the case of third class mail. Today third class mail, to the best of our knowledge and belief, is paying its own way. First class mail is not, as I will show you in a few minutes.
Before coming to that, and in case I may forget it, a lot of people, even members of this house, have the mistaken idea that when you increase a postal rate you increase taxes. Nothing is farther from the truth. When you buy a postage stamp, you do nothing more than get a little piece of paper that represents prepayment for the service which you expect to receive. If 55 per cent of the mail of this country goes first class, and a very high percentage of that is commercial mail sent out by business firms who are in business to make a profit, why should they not pay their share of the cost for using the mails? Why should the taxpayer pay the difference? It just does not make sense. I think the hon. member for Danforth says we should not start penalizing the users of first class mail and do nothing about the other classes. I agree with him. As I say, we have done it in the case of third class mail. In the case of first and second class mail, it can only be done by this house-


The Deputy Chairman:: Order; I apologize for interrupting the minister, but the time allotted to him has expired.


George Clyde Nowlan: Surely he has the consent of the committee to go ahead.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I should like to express through you, Mr. Chairman, my thanks to the committee for their indulgence.
I want to come back to that point upon which I touched earlier, why should you in-

crease the mail rate, whether it is first or third when it is earning a profit. I said earlier that I entirely agree with that submission. Costs are related entirely to the handling charges, and the average cost of handling first class letters is approximately 4.3 cents; that is on the books as they were kept up to the end of March of this year, but this is not the full cost. I can assure you the full cost of first class mail on the average is just in excess of 5 cents.
I think the house is entitled to some explanation. By their very nature, registration and special delivery services are very closely integrated with first class mail. These services are recognized as part of the first class pattern. Now, it may be recalled that a few months ago the special delivery charges and the registration charges were increased. However, there is still a substantial deficit in both services, nothing of the magnitude of the other figures to which I referred, but there is still a deficit in the handling of special delivery letters and registered mail. This is all in the class of first class mail.
In addition there are some other elements that you overlook in the field of first class mail, I mean in addition to the items I have mentioned. There is something that was touched upon by at least one member in the earlier discussions we have had in this chamber, and that is, what is meant by first class mail?
The scope of the postal service covers a number of things, but its prime function is to carry letters. The service is geared largely to carrying letters. Accommodation, equipment and staff are organized to render priority service for first class mail. I do not think any informed person will deny that. Because first class mail takes up 55 per cent of the volume we must gear all our services to the handling of it. There have to be several pickups daily from mail boxes scattered all over cities, and in addition mail has to be dispatched more frequently than it otherwise would be. It is not a question of just one or two mail deliveries a day. In business areas most of the revenue comes from business mail and there we must have three deliveries a day.
Because we are performing such a service is it unreasonable that a certain percentage of the overhead that is allocated to that priority service should be charged to first class mail? Just think of the shuttle services that go on in any city. You see these pony express and other vehicles moving around continually. It is impossible to allocate to first class mail

the premium that should be attached to giving priority of service to it. It has been suggested that it should carry a premium of 50 per cent. Certainly we in the Canadian Post Office Department have no such figure in mind; we suggest that a premium of 15 per cent or 20 per cent should be allowed. When I gave the figure saying first class mail costs in excess of 5 cents a piece, I have included the premium charge, not of 50 per cent but of 15 per cent for that service, and I do not think it is out of line.
We cannot bring all these figures into the committee, but if any hon. member has a special interest and if he is willing to come out, we will show him the data to show that instead of making 1.8 cents on each piece carried, as suggested in the Glassco report, we are actually losing a fraction of a cent on every piece that is carried.
I think this would be a good point to refer to two figures in the Glassco report, as I notice hon. members have several copies with them. On page 325 of that report you will see a reference to first class mail having a surplus of $35 million, and if you turn over to the next page, and you adjust that to take care of omitted revenues and expenditures, that $35 million drops sharply to $19 million. This very same table shows that if you deduct the loss on registration and special deliveries, which are part of the first class mail service, the $19 million drops to $13 million, and if you add the 15 per cent for preferential treatment of first class mail you end up with a deficit instead of a surplus.
There is another factor that should be drawn to the attention of hon. members, namely that the last increase in first class mail rates was made over 10 years ago and in the intervening period costs, particularly wages and other staff costs, have been rising. Even with improved methods and new techniques deficits could not be avoided, and when I mention these new techniques I think hon. members should see them. Some of them are uncanny. Hon. members should visit the post office in Winnipeg and see some of the interesting work being done there. They should visit our head office at Confederation heights.


Mr. Skoreyko:: You should see the work being done in Edmonton post office.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I have been there and we have our plans for putting in more special equipment there, but we can only do it if you give us an increase in rates.
People seem to be horrified that we might make a profit out of first class mail, but do
Supply-Post Office
hon. members know that first class mail in Britain operates at a profit? In fact in the case of inland letters the surplus is 23.2 per cent of the income, which they use to offset deficits incurred on second class and third class mail. The United States also has a healthy surplus on first class mail operations. I want to point out that in addition to what we are trying to do to make first class mail stand on its feet, and not be subject to subsidy by the taxpayers, we have also taken steps to deal with second and third class mail.
I was particularly interested in references that were made to the costs of distributing newspapers and periodicals, published in the United States, through the Canadian mails. The O'Leary commission report estimated that Canada's loss on second class mail from the United States was approximately $6 million on publications alone in 1960. I now give credit to the previous government because it corrected the situation in 1961. In July of that year the United States rate to Canada was increased, and as a result the loss on U.S. mail was reduced by nearly 50 per cent.
That is not good enough. Perhaps we should try to eliminate the other half, but it takes a little more time and there are a few more obstacles to overcome.
Another development which people have overlooked since the O'Leary commission reported was the establishment in 1961 of the 5 cents per pound rate on United States publications mailed in Canada. This compares with 1J cents per pound on Canadian monthlies and 3 cents per pound on Canadian weeklies. That increase gave the Post Office Department considerably more than $1 million a year. There is another factor in connection with periodicals published in other countries that is overlooked, namely, that a lot of them are not distributed through the mails. They come in by truck and are sold through the newsstands, at station counters and in the hotels throughout the country.
There is another commonly held assumption, one which I had myself until I did some research. There is a commonly held assumption that we are penalized, on balance, as a result of printed matter coming in from the United States suggesting that we buy certain things. In actual fact, this is not the case; we are just about in balance. A lot of literature goes out of Canada suggesting that people invest in our oil fields in the west, in our mines and other ventures in this country

Supply-Post Office
particularly when we have mining developments in process. At least, that is the information the Post Office Department has given to me; they say that the assumption held by a great many of us-and I admit I was one of those who held it-is only an assumption, not a fact.
I am not trying to suggest that the post office feels its scale of rates is perfect. Many of these rates have been in existence for a long time. They have been set for too long and they relate to circumstances which existed 60, 70 and, in some cases, more than 100 years ago. We are trying to get a fair rate schedule which will cover the cost of dealing with the ordinary mail as distinct from newspapers and periodicals. We are also trying to find a formula which will correct the situation with regard to newspapers and periodicals where the latter are making a profit, as is the case in some instances. But this is an extremely difficult question, as I mentioned earlier.
I think I have said enough by way of historical background and explanation regarding some of the things we have done and have tried to do. As I said earlier, I do not think a postal service should necessarily be selfsufficient unless parliament were to decide it should be self-sufficient. It is the job of the post office to enforce the act, and we are glad to do so. But if we can correct the inequities, as we have done in the case of third class mail and, to some extent, with regard to first class mail, that is all to the good, and this may be the proper time at which to come before parliament and ask what should be done in the matter of continuing or modifying the subsidy on newspapers and periodicals.
I indicated that I would ask the committee to judge whether the post office is doing a good job or not. I think the department is doing a reasonably efficient job along businesslike lines. It must be done in a business like way, because this is big business. The post office in this country handles more than four billion pieces of mail in the course of a year for which we received charges varying from one fortieth of a cent to 5 cents. As to the first figure I just gave, that situation has now been corrected, but was the rate until not long ago. In the odd case we get a special delivery charge for a c.o.d. parcel, but as a general rule we receive amounts within the range I have mentioned.
As I said earlier, we have introduced a cost ascertainment study and we are making good progress with it. At the same time we have expanded and broadened our method

and standards program as recommended by the Glassco commission. One of the major objectives of this program is to try to forecast volumes of mail to a finer degree in each of the classes and categories so that we can assemble staff at short notice to handle it at Christmas, Easter, and certain other seasons of the year. The department has also noticeably improved its quality control program over the past two or three years. This is aimed not only at failures in service-and there is the odd failure-but also at establishing preventative measures which will eliminate or at least minimize such failures in the future. We had one out in Trail not long ago. There was a breakdown there, but we shall try to guard against a repetition. The object of the program is to ensure that certain parts of the country do not receive better service than others, taking weather and other factors into consideration, bearing in mind population and accessibility.
Records for the last two years indicate that mail volumes in Canada are increasing by some 5.3 per cent each year and by far the greater part of that increase is in first class mail. Happily, from the standpoint of dollars and cents, there is very little increase in the volume of second class mail. There is some increase in the volume of third class mail. But it should be borne in mind that this increase of 5 per cent is cumulative and we have to anticipate a terrific demand in the light of the population explosion which is going on in this country. We must be prepared for this and get our postal department in a healthy position so as to take care of it. I think the post office will need help and advice. We welcome it, either from members of this house or from anyone else who wants to give it, provided it is constructive.
As an industrialized society continues to grow and demands for service become more complex, the expenditures of the post office department will have to be increased. New buildings, staff and equipment are bound to cost money; our costs cannot remain static. Our rates should not remain static either, and in due course we shall be asking for the sympathetic consideration of this house in dealing with that situation. I will pass on to the committee the thought that on the whole the post office department is staffed with a reliable and, I think, a dedicated body of people whose sole desire is to do a good job, and if hon. members have any suggestions for improvements in the service . they will be most welcome, "fi lu	**a

The items covered by the estimates which are before the committee on pages 350 to 355 represent the considered opinion of my department as to the amounts which will be required to provide an effective and efficient postal administration. The country is entitled to this, and we shall try to give it during the current fiscal year. I invite earnest and careful consideration of these estimates. I trust hon. members will not overlook the supplementary estimates on page 18. There is $804,000 there. They are important, too. I will leave it in your hands, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. McIntosh:: I believe the minister said earlier he would have something to say about third class mail, but I did not hear him make any further reference to the subject. Before he resumes his seat, may I say I represent a rural constituency. The hon. gentleman talks about three deliveries a day, but some of my people do not get three deliveries a week. In these circumstances I cannot see the justice of the argument for increasing the rates on third class mail. According to the Glassco commission report, third class mail is showing a profit, but the minister says it is being carried at a loss. This is what I have to explain to my constituents. Could the minister give us any further information?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I referred in a general way to rate increases which took effect on April 1 of this year. After widespread publicity and discussions with industry and other groups which were involved, rates for third class mail were increased on that date by roughly 50 per cent and our best estimate is that third class mail is now paying its way. With regard to deliveries, I said that in commercial areas more than 50 per cent of the first class mail moves from city to city, from community to community. In these cases there are three deliveries in any city of any size.
It is true that in the residential parts of towns and cities, big or small, the delivery, where there is delivery, is only once a day. I did mention exceptional conditions, and in rural areas there are the odd cases where you do not get six deliveries a week. If my hon. friend is in one of the unfortunate parts of the country where this is the case, I would appreciate it if he would write me a letter and we will see if we can do something about it; because in most cases the rural routes have five or six deliveries a week.


Mr. McBain:: Mr. Chairman, I am sure all hon. members regret the minister's opening remarks this afternoon when he informed
Supply-Post Office
the committee that his parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Hull, was confined to hospital. I join with the minister in wishing the hon. member a speedy recovery.
We of the official opposition are pleased to have the Postmaster General bring his estimates forward at this time, particularly because the estimates of the post office were not reviewed until the last few days of the last session. Of course, we have not forgotten that the former postmaster general had considerable difficulty keeping himself out of hot water, and therefore it was understandable that the government did not bring the post office estimates forward until late in the session. I have done a little research in this connection and have found it has been characteristic of former Liberal governments to leave the post office estimates until the end of the session. Going back to 1956, the estimates of this department were brought forward on August 13 and I believe the house prorogued the next day, August 14. One begins to wonder whether this is an omen that this session is coming close to an end. We hope it is, for a summer recess and not dissolution of parliament.
Mr. Chairman, it is not the intention of the official opposition to delay unduly the passing of these estimates, provided the minister is able to answer our questions with reasonable clarity. I wish at this time to congratulate the Postmaster General for taking such a reasonable approach to postal problems, and I sincerely believe he is endeavouring to curtail the political patronage that had so openly developed under the previous postmaster general. It seems unfortunate that today we only have before us the report of the Postmaster General for the year ending March 31, 1963. Today is July 17, 1964, and we are discussing the spending estimates of the post office for the year ending March 31, 1965. As over three months have expired since the end of the 1963-64 fiscal year it would seem more appropriate if we had before us the report for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1964. I believe that the figures the Postmaster General was using this afternoon were those of the last fiscal year.
The report that we have before us shows an increase in total revenue of $8,781,809.69 over the previous fiscal year and an over-all surplus of $3,486,449.02, and in the past ten years a surplus in five of those years. The minister this afternoon has endeavoured to point out that some of these were only paper surpluses and were not in fact real, and I think he endeavoured to leave the impression

Supply-Post Office
that possibly at the end of the next fiscal year there will be a deficit of some $37 million in his department. Or was that for 1964?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: It will be less than that- about $30 million.


James Alexander McBain: We are pleased to hear that. We know that other departments of government have continually showed a deficit. I am thinking of the Department of Finance. I am wondering whether in the report the minister gave us today he is endeavouring to change some of the accounting system of the Post Office Department in order to shift some of the financial responsibility from the shoulders of the Minister of Finance, and whether other departments will be doing the same thing, so that eventually the Minister of Finance will not have quite as large a deficit in his budget as is anticipated at this time.
The minister dealt at some length with a resolution that was before the house some months ago in respect of increasing the local delivery mail rate from 4 to 5 cents. Of course we on this side of the chamber are opposed to the increase and hope he will hold back this piece of legislation or drop it until we have an opportunity to review the increases that are already in effect in the department. I note also in the report that five communities were given letter carrier service, namely Summerside, Prince Edward Island; Oromocto, New Brunswick; Thornhill, Ontario; Ste. Rose, Quebec; and Hawkesbury, Ontario. I hope that before the minister's estimates pass he will be able to give us the number and names of communities that have received letter carrier service since March 31, 1963.
Speaking of my own riding of Elgin, I hope the minister will soon be in a position to give favourable consideration to the town of Aylmer receiving letter carrier service. I believe the town of Aylmer does not at the present time meet the requirement of 2,500 householders, but they have used all the space available for installing letter boxes within the limits of the post office building and it seems to me some modification should be made of the present requirement so that municipalities which may not have 2,500 householders may obtain letter carrier service. I imagine that many of these people do not at the present time go to the post office every day, and in this type of community I think the people would be satisfied if a nominal service were inaugurated that would

give them a house-to-house mail service at least three times a week.
There are many other problems that I wish to raise, Mr. Chairman, and they are mainly concerned with my own riding of Elgin. However, some of my colleagues have an appointment with representatives of Air Canada at a later time today and I will make my remarks very brief to enable them to make their comments before leaving the chamber. I do hope the minister will make some comment on the number of stamps that have been issued depicting certain floral designs and provincial emblems. If my memory serves me correctly, I believe one has already been issued.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Three.


James Alexander McBain: I notice that the former postmaster general mentioned this matter in his report last year. As reported at page 6071 of Hansard for December 18, last, he said:
I also intend to give a brand new look to Canadian postage stamps and, in the future, Canadians can look for brighter and more interesting stamps as the department produces three and perhaps four colour stamps by a combination of steel engraving and offset lithography as compared to the customary one or two colour designs. Red will be mostly used to make them more attractive.
I wonder if they were thinking of the three red maple leaves at that time. The former minister went on to say:
We plan to begin a series of coloured stamps showing the various provincial floral emblems. We have under way what I think are attractive stamps on the themes of world peace and Canadian unity, and also stamps to commemorate the Charlottetown and Quebec conferences of 1864 which led to confederation. We have decided, for next year, to issue a special Christmas stamp that should be most appropriate.
Issuing these types of stamps is not new to the Liberal party, because again in my research into the Postmaster General's report for 1956 the Postmaster General of that time stated that it was under study to issue stamps representing floral designs of a provincial character. I hope the Postmaster General will at a later date outline the three stamps which have been issued, tell us who designed the stamps, and possibly he could also mention the sort of stamps which may be coming out at a later date which represent the other provinces of Canada, and what date they expect to issue them.
As I mentioned previously, there are many items which I wanted to bring out of concern to my own riding, but before closing my remarks I do feel I would be remiss if I did not refer the Postmaster General to the fact that

the 30 patrons at R.R. 4, St. Thomas, were going to have their mailing address changed to R.R. 1. I know they would wish me to thank the minister for receiving their petition giving the reason they wish to remain at their present mailing address, and they will not have to change their postal address.


Mr. Scott:: Mr. Chairman, like the other speaker before me, I think we are all quite happy today to be able to congratulate the minister on his presentation. Indeed I admit that some of the notes I prepared in the event of a different approach have now been hastily tucked away, and since he has been so charming and sweet with us I think he will find the house will tend to reciprocate. I think all of us who listened to the minister are coming to the opinion that we are perhaps on our way toward getting a fairly intelligent method of accounting worked out for the post office so that those of us who are interested in it-which in fact means most members of the house-can study it and make some sort of intelligent contribution to the minister's job.
I should like to suggest to the minister that these studies that he is publishing are of considerable interest to us. Many people consider his department to be a fairly dry and dull one, but I have found from past examination that it is an intensely interesting department, one which is very important to most of the people of the country. If instead of merely waiting for us to come to the minister-I am sure he will understand that in a busy day it is not always easy to do this- he could make available to the house some of these consultative studies, either by tabling them or preparing a white paper-it is of no consequence how we get the information- we could then study them at leisure and make a contribution.
I am sorry the minister did not feel that he had time to go on longer because I think that for the first time we were getting a fairly interesting insight into the workings of this very important department. I was also impressed by the complexity of the department and the enormous amount of time which the minister has had to devote to preparing these important figures. I think this bears out a submission I made to the government when we were considering the legislation under the National Housing Act, namely that the minister frankly is just going to have too much to do fixing up the Post Office Department and conducting these intensive studies to have very much energy and thought left 20220-357i
Supply-Post Office
over for the carrying into effect of the National Housing Act amendments, which are also very important and far reaching. I think he has given me additional evidence to strengthen my case for the appointment of a full time minister of housing in Canada under a full time department.
This afternoon, Mr. Chairman, we do not want to discuss the resolution dealing with the postal rate increase, but I do think it was appropriate for the minister to lay all this information before us so that we can discuss it and study it over the summer recess, so that when the resolution comes back before us we will be in a position to consider it. The minister will recall that the main objection of our party with regard to first class mail was based on available information to the effect that it appeared to us that the particular mail service was showing a very handsome profit and we could not see any justification for increasing the rates. The minister this afternoon has presented evidence and is prepared to present more which he says will convince us that first class mail is actually operating at a deficit, and if this is the case then perhaps we may find a meeting of minds when the resolution comes back before us.
Before leaving that aspect of the discussion I want to mention second class mail, because in some ways the minister has not really met our objections. He was frank enough to admit that a large deficit occurs in this area of second class mail, some $20 million or perhaps slightly more, and that this is justified on the grounds of economic policy, really.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Political.


Reid Scott: The minister is putting words in my mouth so I will use them. It is political policy. I do not say that this is necessarily a bad policy. It started 100 years ago when newspapers were very small. There was very little advertising so that it was necessary in some way to subsidize them. No one would quarrel with that at that time, but as we have tried to point out to the government times have changed and the newspapers are no longer necessarily the struggling little county papers which required this sort of assistance.
The minister felt that he could not discriminate, but he does that now in his rates between papers over 2,500 circulation and papers over 5,000 circulation. Different rates are set for them, so that if the minister really wants to get at the metropolitan dailies, Time, Reader's Digest, or any of the wealthier

Supply-Post Office
papers which are taking a free ride, I would suggest to him that there are formulae which could be devised to meet this problem without necessarily jeopardizing the small town papers to which the minister has referred.
I should like to suggest that what the minister is doing is the very thing he says he does not want to do. Perhaps we in parliament are doing it. But by forcing these deficits upon the post office, which deficits are based on political considerations, we are forcing the post office to carry out economic and political decisions of this house. This is not something which should be forced upon a public utlity. The post office as a public utility should give maximum service at cost and should not have perpetual deficits forced upon it merely to carry out political and economic decisions of this parliament. If we decide in our wisdom that we are going to subsidize periodicals-and I am not one of those who think we should-it should be by means of some above the table grants, so that they are out in the open, everyone knows what they are for, and the politicians have to justify them, not the civil service.
The criticisms we have been making are not criticisms of the officials. They only carry out policies, or lack of policies, in the circumstances. This is a criticism of the government, of the previous government, and I think it is a legitimate criticism of previous parliaments. However, we do not want to get into that area today, although I do not think the minister has completely answered all of the matters which we raised previously. As I say, we are very glad to have all this important statistical information. We will study it and come prepared to deal with it on another occasion.
There is one other thing I want to suggest to the minister, and I am not wanting to be critical of him today because he has not been in office too long. Last year when the postal estimates were before the house I made a fairly lengthy presentation on other aspects of the postal department quite aside from the rate structure or stamps. I raised the problems of the staff, their lack of bargaining facilities, the inadequacies of appeals against dismissals and of representation on such appeals, the spying that goes on, the inadequate rates being paid for the operation of sub-post offices which make it very difficult to get people to take on this work, and a whole series of problems of morale. As I say, I am not holding the minister responsible in any way. He has not been in the department very long and will not have had an opportunity to go into these matters.

But I hope that when his estimates come up next year he will have had an opportunity by that time to get out across the country, as I know he has been doing, talk to some of these people and try to find out the morale problems which exist. I do not know what advice the minister has received in Ottawa but believe me there are morale problems and none of us wants to see such problems continue any longer than is necessary. I think it is important for the minister and incumbent upon him to get out across the country, get to know the people of the department and then come back to us next year either with accomplished projects or a policy that will deal with all of the issues we have raised in the last two sessions.
I do not think it is necessary to go into the operations of the department at great length today. From what the minister has said and from what he has accomplished to date I think we are satisfied that at last we have a businesslike mind that is going to focus itself upon the problems of this highly important department. We hope that by next year these studies will have been completed and appropriate action will have been taken so that we can really commend the minister on a year's work very well done.


Mr. Leboe:: Mr. Chairman, I have only a very few remarks I wish to make. First of all, may I say we have every confidence in the new Postmaster General. We certainly appreciate very much the statement he has made today. I am inclined to agree with the hon. member for Danforth, however, in what he had to say about second class mail.
I have one particular problem which I should like the minister to investigate. When postmasters in small post offices reach the age of 65 they are in a very unenviable position on being retired, because of their age. We find the Department of Labour is encouraging the hiring of elderly people but yet we find postmasters being relieved of their positions because of their age. In my view there is nothing much easier in the way of work for an elderly person to perform than to look after a rural post office. It provides a little income with which he can make ends meet.
An individual who is retired may have stamps in his unemployment insurance book for the work he has been doing. Yet he is denied unemployment insurance benefits under the act because of the fact that he has to move from where he has been living to some other place in order to be available for work. There is a case of this kind at

Tomslake in the Peace river country at the present time. This man has been relieved of his job as postmaster because of age but he cannot draw unemployment insurance benefits even though he has stamps in his book. He is not available for work unless he moves away from his home to another area where he would be available. Because he is in a farming district there are no jobs available there.
I should also like to ask the minister if the air mail contracts between Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto and Montreal are let by tender or how they are made. I am interested in this matter because both Canadian Pacific Air lines and Air Canada touch down at these various points. Before sitting down may I say that if the Postmaster General gets the Post Office Department in shape perhaps the government would see fit to pay him another $10,000 a year over and above the salary of the head of the C.B.C. at the moment and give him the job of running the C.B.C. If that were done I think we could save a lot of money there and have plenty of money available to subsidize the Post Office Department.


Mr. Perron:: Mr. Chairman, at the outset, I must, like those who spoke before me, commend the minister (Mr. Nicholson) for the attention he pays to that important department, the Post Office Department. Therefore, our criticism will be very limited, because we know that having replaced, not very long ago, a minister we liked to call the minister of patronage, he certainly could not have rectified all the wrong that occurred before his appointment. However, I shall make a few observations about the patronage which seems to continue to exist in certain regions of the province of Quebec.
I wish to air some grievances on behalf of my constituents who recently reported to me that in regard to second class mail that we send and for which, as members of parliament, we pay no supplementary postal charges, because they are circular letters on which we only write the name of the recipient, a great number of those letters do not get to the post office box of those persons or families to whom they are addressed.
According to the complaints, in St. Honore, a community in my riding, over 12 per cent of the families did not receive the letters I had sent them. Therefore, it means that in certain cases, there is still some patronage going on in that department. But I am sure the minister would like everything to be all
Supply-Post Office
right since that service is called the "royal mail" and since the delivery of first or second class mail was always made as honestly as possible.
It is important that those letters should reach the people to whom they were sent. I will make a complaint about that and I will submit supporting evidence because several of those who were supposed to receive letters and who did not get them are having a complaint signed in that connection. The same thing happened in another parish, that of St. Benoit Labre, where the post office serves a population of over 400 and where 10 per cent of the families did not get the mail I sent them.
I know the minister will not consider these remarks as criticism and I hope that when he gets official complaints from my constituents, he will take action against those who treat the royal mail in that fashion in the province of Quebec and Canada. I am convinced that this situation deserves careful consideration.
As regards the rate for mail indirectly subsidized by the taxpayers, as the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) indicated, for second class mail, like newspapers and especially large newspapers, although it may have been necessary in the past to subsidize in some way those publicity mediums and large newspapers, I feel that today, in 1964, they do not face the same conditions as when they were established and they should no longer enjoy special rates.
I think that if postal rates have to be reviewed, they should be reviewed especially with respect to second class matter. In my opinion, the government is no longer justified in granting this subsidy which results in a $20 million deficit which has to be made up by the Canadian taxpayers.
Like the previous speakers, I congratulate the Postmaster General for using his businessman's know-how in the administration of such an important department.
I hope that we will not have to air grievances as we did last year with respect to a patronage postmaster general who was responsible for this department for a few months.
I wish his next appropriations will be passed as easily as it seems these will be today.


Mr. Weichel:: I should like to express to the minister my appreciation of his fine remarks. It is always a privilege for me to take

Supply-Post Office
advantage of the opportunity presented by these estimates to look back over my years of service as a postmaster at Elmira, Ontario. I should like also to express appreciation for the co-operation I received from many friends in the Post Office Department as well as the general public who were exceptionally co-operative over these many years.
Since my retirement about six years ago, I have been tremendously impressed by the many changes that have been made. This is especially noticeable in my own riding of Waterloo North. Recently, I had the pleasure of accompanying the Postmaster General and other members of parliament to the official opening ceremonies of our new office in Kitchener-Waterloo, which is a real credit to the Post Office Department. This building was planned and nearly completed by the former government, and the present government played its part in the final completion of the new building. If we had such co-operation and less politics in some other departments greater strides would be made in the erection of such fine buildings all over Canada.
Waterloo has doubled its population in 10 years and Kitchener has doubled its population in 25 years. This new office represents a great expansion for these twin cities where industrial development has been outstanding and where Waterloo university and the Lutheran university have made tremendous strides. I should like to stray from this subject for just one minute, Mr. Chairman, to say that these universities are certainly in need of government financial assistance. The legislation being passed to assist students with loans for their education will mean a greater expansion by the universities to accommodate the ever increasing number of students anxious to continue their studies.
The Post Office Department has often been referred to as the barometer of business. During my term of office in this department men of business, industry, labour and agriculture inquired often about the increase in revenue in order to analyse the development of Canada's economy as a whole. May I suggest to the Postmaster General that a second look be extended to cities like Kitchener and Waterloo where new areas are being opened and new homes built which are in need of facilities pertaining to sub-post offices. Many letters cross my desk asking for such new sub-post offices. According to my experience as a former postmaster, I find such post offices are invaluable to those new sections and, in

most cases, are able to carry themselves financially.
Another point I should like to make to our Postmaster General concerns the great strides that have been made in the rural mail carrier service. This was previously mentioned in my speech in this house on April 13, 1961. This service has given an additional number of Canadians the opportunity to enjoy this privilege for the first time. We realize that these carriers are spending more time in preparing the mail for delivery and longer hours in covering their routes. Some carriers have been compensated for this extra time, but others have not received any increase for some time. May I suggest that, owing to the higher cost of living, such pay increases be given every consideration.
As one who has been immensely interested in public relations, I realize the fine part that can be taken by these men in this department, and I would recommend that more civil servants be appointed to these important positions. The public relations officer has done a fine job in the courteous behaviour of the post office staff to Mr. John Public. The showing of pictures to service clubs and schools, at which time the officer explains in detail other important matters such as registration, insurance, c.o.d. and special delivery, has lightened the load of the local post office staff. As a former supervisor postmaster covering about ten offices, I realize the extra time involved when the postmaster has to carry out such duties. However, I understand that such supervisors now come from larger offices which greatly assist the smaller office postmaster. This is a step in the right direction.
We well understand how mechanized the post office is becoming, and the amount of research that has been done. Perhaps most of this research is being directed to the larger offices. As I mentioned in my speech of April 13, 1961, this research could also be directed to some of the smaller offices if we are planning from day to day to improve the postal facilities. I should like to bring to the notice of the Postmaster General the advisability of introducing small cancelling machines for the smaller offices, say from grade 30 on. This could be applied in a situation such as the one with which I have some experience in Elmira. At about five o'clock the 30 industries would bring letters, and so forth, for mailing to the post office. This really caused an overload of mail and the staff had great difficulty in attempting to hand stamp the stuff for evening dispatch.

I would ask the Postmaster General to give this matter serious consideration.
For some time I have suggested the possibility that patrons in smaller centres be given more consideration with regard to house to house delivery. Many of these people feel they are paying the same rate of postage as people in the cities. I understand the Post Office Department has certain minimum requirements that have to be met before this service is established. Perhaps these requirements are too high. I hope this problem can be reviewed.
In 1958, one of our area superintendents visited my office in Elmira for the purpose of checking the facilities and in his report to the department recommended that a new office be built by 1960. This was followed up by myself when I became a member of parliament in 1958, with the government of that time, and a new building was approved and will be erected some time in 1964. The present government has seen the necessity for such a building. A site has been chosen, architectural plans have commenced, and tenders may be asked some time in the month of July. The co-operation and interest of the government is deeply appreciated.
May I bring to the attention of the Postmaster General that rates on different types of mail is important to Mr. John Public, especially to some of the larger industrial firms and corporations. Some complaints have reached my desk from such firms who feel the registration fees and special delivery fees are too high. I realize that changes are essential at times in order to avoid deficits in this department.
I am pleased to see the Postmaster General taking steps to take politics out of this department. We know this was very prevalent during the former minister's term of office and could have ruined one of the finest departments in our government.
In order to keep in contact with his huge staff, may I suggest that the Postmaster General visit as many offices as possible. The personal touch is invaluable and is deeply appreciated by all postal employees. I know that in my own riding of Waterloo North, postmasters and staff are doing an outstanding job and naturally are pleased to meet the Postmaster General and other high officials. Such visits create greater unity and uphold all the fine traditions of the service. May I add here a word of praise for the postmaster and staff of the centre and east blocks. They
Supply-Post Office
are extremely courteous and do a wonderful job handling our mail.
Mr. Speaker, in closing my remarks, may I remind the Postmaster General that during his visit to the opening of Waterloo post office, the serious parking situation for patrons of this post office was brought to his attention by his worship Mayor Bauer. He pointed out that the intersection of King street and Laurel street is a very congested one with upwards of 14,000 cars per day using King street, in addition to several thousand on Laurel street. A mailing box is erected in the north elevation of the post office a few feet from the intersection of King and Laurel streets. Many people stop their automobiles in the street adjacent to this mailing box, causing traffic to come to a halt in both directions.
Mr. Bauer feels that the obvious answer to this problem would be to pave the sandholes at the rear of the building and instal a suitable mail box along with a properly marked traffic lane on the parking lot, so that patrons arriving at the post office in cars can drop their mail at this more suitable location. I hope, sir, that this matter will receive immediate attention.


Mr. Herridge:: I first wish to congratulate the minister on his appointment as the administrator of this socialist enterprise-and most successful socialist enterprise. I am sure many of us appreciated his excellent analysis of the financial position of the department and his explanation of certain costs, charges and so on. So far as I was concerned it was one of the most clearcut explanations of the administration of the department and the problems facing it that I have heard since I became a member of the house. We all know the minister has a good reputation as an administrator, and it is no surprise because he has the three qualities needed. He is factual, fair and firm.
I want to thank the minister for his courtesy with respect to any matters I brought to his attention and for his promptness in dealing with them. He referred to one little slip up in administration of postal regulations at Trail, and I must say how pleased I was with the prompt attention he paid to this question and his getting to the bottom of it. Sometimes these things occur. One makes mistakes in life. Even the hon. member for Kootenay West has made an occasional mistake in life, and possibly this was worth the incident, to make sure the law and the regulations will be obeyed in future.

Supply-Post Office
I want to express the appreciation of the residents of the east shore of the Kootenay lakes to the minister for the recently installed rural mail service, which means a great deal to these people living some distance from one another. I also wish to thank him for certain improvements to building in the district, and for improvements in the service of rural mail delivery at other places. I also want to express my appreciation of the courtesy and promptness shown by the senior officials of the department and of the staff generally. I do hope that consideration is being given to doing more for the lower paid members of the staff and to the final institution of a satisfactory form of collective bargaining for these people who perform a varied service throughout the nation and who are so often overlooked. Many of us do not realize how these services are performed daily to make it possible for us to live the lives we do and enjoy the things we do.
I want to pay my tribute to the local postmasters and I may say I have had lots of experience with them. As a matter of fact one of the first times I ever got into trouble was 57 years ago when I contracted to deliver the mail bag to a steamer calling at a small port on the lakes, and I missed it. When I returned the postmaster said, "It won't matter anyway. We will put it on board next week." Conditions have changed somewhat since then.
I want to support the remarks made by the hon. member for Cariboo in respect to these local postmasters who have been retired. I have noticed a similar situation on occasion, and I urge the minister to give consideration to the question the hon. member brought to his attention.
Then there is the question of the mail couriers, particularly in the district I represent, where these couriers go 200 miles up mountainous roads under winter conditions. Every consideration should be given to making certain their contract prices are fair and reasonable. So far as I am concerned, I do not see any evidence of patronage in my constituency. As a matter of fact so far as a lot of post office work is concerned, and mail routes, it is difficult to get people to undertake the service, due to competition from higher paid employment. It is usually the local storekeeper or some other person seeking to supplement his income who takes on the service.
So far as rural mail carriers are concerned, could the minister give consideration to seeking every co-operation from the provincial
[Mr. HerridgeJ

department of public works? I am not going to criticize the department of highways, but there are occasions when mail has to be carried over these rural routes for long distances, with considerable difficulty caused mainly by failure to plow roads or sand extremely steep grades around cliffs. I am sure this matter was discussed by senior officials of the department with respect to certain of these isolated rural routes and I have no doubt those responsible would be willing to co-operate, provided the situation is brought to their attention.
I also wish to tell the minister that in some instances in the employment of temporary or casual labour by these smaller post offices where three or four men are employed, veterans preference has not always been preserved. I know of a few cases where old veterans on war allowances would have been very pleased to have been given a few extra hours a week-often it does not amount to much more. Or perhaps it might apply to a veteran's widow. I suggest that the situation be watched.
As far as the staff is concerned, the only complaint I have had was brought to my attention in March of this year. Some of the staff of two post offices in my riding objected to what they called the seeing eye procedure overlooking their work. I think time studies were being conducted. I wrote to the minister and he gave what I thought was an excellent explanation of the circumstances. He said:
In order that you may be made aware of the policy regarding the role of methods and standards officers a brief outline of the main objectives of their functions are as follows.
(a)	To provide a more efficient service to the public where there is reason to doubt that this is being accomplished.
(b)	To provide a guide for post office management to determine staffing requirements having in mind the volumes of mail to be processed.
(c)	To develop better work methods and to recommend the acquisition of adequate equipment used in the processing of mail.
The realization of these aims helps each supervisor to meet his responsibilities and improves the lot of the conscientious employee by bringing to him recognition of a job well done and making the job easier through better methods and equipment.
The program has been in existence for the past ten years and there has not been a single case where any full time employee has been laid off because of the program. This policy was firmly established at the outset and has been adhered to over the past years.
Then the letter goes on to say that these officers receive an extensive training and

were instructed in the manner in which the work was to be accomplished.
After receiving this letter I explained the situation to a dozen or more of the members of the staff of the two post offices concerned, and they were quite satisfied. But I suggest that this suspicion could possibly have been avoided had the staff been informed beforehand of the over-all purpose of these studies. One can understand their feelings when they suddenly discover that a time study is being undertaken. Some outsider arrives and, you know, the very fact that it is someone from Vancouver arouses the suspicion of people in the Kootenays on occasion. I found it easy to explain the situation after I had received the minister's letter but, as I say, it would have been better if an explanation had been offered earlier.
I also received some requests earlier this year from the city of Rossland urging the removal of box rental charges there because Rossland does not enjoy mail delivery. This is a matter I was asked to bring to the attention of the minister, and I am doing so. While he is giving consideration to it, I suggest some thought be given to the policy with respect to box rental charges in the smaller communities generally. I understand the present policy has been in force for a good many years and I suggest it be reviewed to see whether a system can be devised which recognizes the situation which the patrons of these local post offices face.
I also suggest consideration be given to the policy respecting the allocation of boxes in the smaller post offices. I find that on occasion the present system causes some friction. Firms who need a box of a certain size- "drawer" is, I think, the proper name-are unable to obtain the facilities they require. Sometimes ranchers who live miles away from the post office and who only collect their mail once a week require a drawer in which their mail can be placed, because family mail has a tendency to accumulate and require more space.
I also suggest that further consideration should be given to the ventilation of the Nelson and Trail post office buildings. There have been some improvements made but I am still receiving complaints that the ventilation is not adequate-that the lint comes off the bags when the mail is being sorted, creating a dusty atmosphere which the staff considers unhealthy and undesirable.
These are about all the complaints I have to make at the present time. I wish to bring one further matter to the attention of the 20220-358
Supply-Post Office
Postmaster General. It has been brought to my attention by the stamp collectors in Kootenay West. We have a number of stamp societies and they are of the opinion that not enough imagination is being used in the design of Canadian stamps as compared with states such as Indonesia and some of the Middle East states with far fewer resources than we have. I also suggest-I do not know whether or not the minister would agree- that having published a stamp containing a preview of the three maple leaf flag we might issue one with the red ensign on it in the near future. Anyway, I have been asked to draw this matter to the attention of the minister. These groups are very interested in the quality and design of our stamps and I think it is a good thing they are. My personal view, after looking at hundreds of stamps which have been sent me in contrast to our own rather colourless Canadian stamps, is that their claim is well founded and that we have not yet reached the standard, generally, from an artistic viewpoint, which we should expect in a country such as ours.
With those few constructive and co-operative observations, I resume my seat.


Mr. Hales:: My first words must be words of congratulation to the Postmaster General on presenting to this committee his first set of estimates for the Post Office Department. I should also like to congratulate him on his realistic approach to this subject and on the research and study he appears to have put into the affairs of his department during the few months he has been in charge.
I think we are all interested in the operation of the post office because I suppose there is no department of government which is used more by Canadian citizens than the post office. My first interest in the post office was aroused at a very early age when I had a favourite uncle who was postmaster of the Guelph post office. So I have always been interested in the operation of the post office. The Postmaster General spoke about paper balances, and so on. I think he was so right. I think the time has come when the Post Office Department should give serious consideration to presenting estimates in a entirely new way. At present, all revenue goes into a general account, the consolidated account. Then all the expenditures are paid out of the appropriations which parliament grants. In my opinion-and, possibly this was one of the recommendations of the Glassco commission-it would cut down a lot of paperwork if the expenses could be paid out

Supply-Post Office
of the revenue account, and then the department could come to parliament and ask us to vote the deficit. I think that is something that should be looked into for the future. The minister spoke of the great study of the rate structure and of the different costs involved in handling letters, and so on. He said we should increase the postage rate in order to meet expenses. He did not say anything about the studies they have made into the costs of operation. Where can the department cut down on expenses? In my general observation of post offices I have come to the conclusion that a great many of them have outdated equipment. The equipment with which they are moving and handling mail is very, very outdated and a great many manhours are spent that could otherwise be saved. I think efficiency could be stepped up and a great deal of the cost of operating our post offices could be reduced. If the minister were to undertake the same amount of research into this matter as he took into the question of raising the postal rates, etc., he should be able to balance things out a little better than is the case at the present time.
My remarks will be very brief, Mr. Chairman, and they will be on four subjects only. They are, the rural post office; the post office savings bank; a little bit on public relations as it refers to staff, and so on; and new stamps. With respect to rural post offices-I refer to those which are classified as rural post offices-where the postmaster is responsible for the facilities and the premises from the revenue he obtains, I know of one in particular in my own riding where the revenue from the post office is not sufficient for the postmaster to maintain reasonable premises. This post office is really a disgrace. I do not think the people of Canada should be asked to patronize such post offices and have no other choice. These post offices are in such a condition due to the fact that the operator does not make enough revenue to be able to improve the premises. I am sure this condition exists pretty well across the country. My feeling has always been that the post office in any community should be the No. 1 building in that area. Its appearance, its landscaping, its flower boxes and everything else should make it the No. 1 building on the main street or in that particular area. It should be a credit to Canada, in other words.
The post office savings bank operation is something that we do not hear very much about, but I was very interested in looking

at its operation as described on page 24 of the 1963 report. I see that this operation is going in only one direction, and that is downhill. It certainly is not being patronized to the full extent. I would humbly suggest that if it is the intention of the Post Office Department to carry on this savings bank operation, for goodness sake get out and advertise it; get out and say it is there and its facilities are available. I venture to suggest that very few people know it even exists. I presume that these savings banks are in outlying areas of Canada where there may or may not be other banking facilities available. However, I am sure the house would be interested in hearing a little more about the operation of this branch of the Post Office Department. It is interesting to note that it was set up in 1868 and has been operating ever since. I was also interested to note that the act does not make any provision for dormant accounts. I am sure there must be many dormant accounts in this savings bank. How many are there, and what is going to be the ultimate disposition of these accounts?
With regard to public relations and staff regulations, the hon. member for Kootenay West mentioned this matter, but I have in my hand a circular letter that was sent out by the recording secretary of the federated association of letter carriers, which says in one paragraph:
There Is a directive from the Post Office Department that "unknown checks", or "spying" is to be done on the letter carrier. However, it is known that some offices and postal officials abstain from this, thereby avoiding the use of this method of punishment. On the other hand, there are some offices and postal officials who go out of their way to catch the letter carriers, then punish them with the recommended "salary reduction".
I hope the Postmaster General will give serious consideration to changing this system of salary reduction punishment which was instituted by his predecessor. Postal regulations impose a salary reduction on employees for petty or unintentional discrepancies. By this method an employee is forced to work without pay. I would humbly suggest that it would be better to impose a day's suspension or more, according to the seriousness of the infraction. In other words, why should a man be asked to work and not be paid for it? He is entitled to a day's pay for a day's work. I am sure the Postmaster General will look into this matter.
There is one other minor point in connection with public relations. I think the post office could do a much better job of public relations in communities. I think of the wonderful

opportunity with regard to service clubs throughout the country, where the postmaster, the district supervisor or some other official could show one of the many films the department has depicting the great work of the Post Office Department and what a wonderful organization it is. In other words, I think the Post Office Department is keeping its light under a bushel. The service clubs throughout the country would be most appreciative of having such a film shown to them.
There is one other small matter, Mr. Chairman, which is not altogether a problem of the Post Office Department. As hon. members know, on certain days of each month pension cheques, family allowance cheques and other social service cheques are mailed throughout Canada. They arrive on certain days as regular as can be. These cheques are being stolen at an alarming rate. The people who steal them know the particular day they will arrive and watch for them. I am getting a number of complaints in this connection. In many cases people have told me that the postman is not putting the cheques right into the mailbox. This is occurring mostly in apartment houses. As I say, this theft is growing considerably and I hope the department will take every step possible to ensure the safe receipt of these cheques.
In connection with new stamps I have only one request to make of the Postmaster General. I hope he will give serious consideration to bringing out a new stamp in honour of a great Canadian soldier and physician. I refer to Colonel John McCrae, who was the author of that immortal poem "In Flanders fields". This poem is known and read throughout Canada and all over the world. On November 11 there is hardly an armistice celebration at which this wonderful poem is not referred to. If ever a Canadian was worthy of such a commemorative stamp, I believe it would be Colonel John McCrae.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that our own post office in Guelph is badly in need of a physical overhaul. We have a wonderful staff there who give great co-operation, but the building needs to be remodelled. There should be more mail boxes and a night lobby so that people can get their mail at any time of the day. Renovation of the whole main floor is badly needed, and I hope that this will be taken care of by the Department of Public Works in co-operation with the post office.


Mr. Webb:: Mr. Chairman, my remarks in regard to the Post Office Department will be very brief. I must say at the outset that I
20220-35SJ
Supply-Post Office
was impressed and pleased with the remarks of the Postmaster General at the commencement of this debate. At times in the past I have been a little critical of the department, and I believe I have been justified in my criticisms. At this time there are only two or three matters I want to bring to the attention of the Postmaster General.
First of all, it has been rumoured that the method of calling for contracts to supply rural delivery is going to be changed. I do not know what the proposed new method will be, but I do want to say that I have always advocated that the department should set a permanent or yearly rate over the term of the contract for rural and urban delivery. I feel there are many mail carriers today operating rural routes at a loss. If a rate was set by the department of so much a mile for rural delivery and so much a mile for urban delivery, each and every one on this job would be treated fairly.
Another point I want to bring to the attention of the Postmaster General is that some time ago contracts were called for different positions and duties in the riding I have the honour to represent. One of the officers in the minister's own party organization has been calling on the people who wrote civil service examinations, after having been notified who was going to receive these appointments, and advising them that the civil service examination has nothing to do with the appointment, that it is strictly a political appointment. I know the Postmaster General would not want this practice to continue.
Another matter I want to draw to the minister's attention is that I want him to see to it that ample supplies of stamps bearing the Queen's head are available at post offices. I have had two complaints recently, not from my own riding but from the Napanee area, that people were told that stamps bearing a picture of the Queen's head are not available.
In conclusion I should like to congratulate the Postmaster General on what he is trying to do. I am sure that all members have great confidence in him, and I know that many of the shemozzles we have had in the past would not have occurred had the present Postmaster General held this position. In closing I want to congratulate him on all he is doing.


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, at this time when we are considering the main post office estimates I should like to congratulate the Postmaster General on his businesslike approach in submitting the estimates of his department, particularly as shown in the

Supply-Post Office
introduction to them which is to be found at page 351 of the blue book. Reference is made there to rental charges which should be paid to the Department of Public Works in excess of $25 million a year, and charges which should be paid to the comptroller of the treasury for issuing cheques and for accountancy procedures carried out on behalf of the post office. I should like to make some comments on postage rates at this point, and I sincerely hope on behalf of the publishers of Canada that my comments will bear fruit.
In speaking of the Post Office Department I should like to emphasize that for more than 25 years I was in daily and hourly contact with the department and I know of no more efficient division or department of government. I have never met an employee in more than 25 years contact with thousands of post office employees who was not efficient and not on his toes at all times. I have no criticism to make of the service. I know no man in the House of Commons who has had more experience with the service of the Post Office Department than I, but I should like to make some comments with regard to the financial statement and particularly with regard to rates.
The Postmaster General has advised us today that after accommodation which has been provided by the Department of Public Works is paid for-if cheques are exchanged on that basis-and after the comptroller of the treasury has been compensated, if we consider the cost of carrying franked mail through the post office, in addition to those charges, there will be a deficit of something like $20 million a year. At some considerable length the Postmaster General pointed out that this deficit can be traced practically directly to second class mail. Second class mail, of course, is printed magazines and newspapers.
In the newspaper and magazine business in Canada it is generally recognized that the government of the day is conducting operations which are contrary to the best interests of Canadian publishers, but as hope springs eternal in the human beast we sincerely trust that at some time there may be relief on that score.
There are two items in the short comments I wish to make, directly attributable to the Post Office Department. This is not the time or place to refer in detail to the manner in which the Canadian government allows Time and Reader's Digest to bloodsuck the Canadian periodical industry at the moment. We believe that when the magazine bill comes forward-it has been on the order paper since

March II-we will have time to speak on it. It was introduced on March 11. I do not know when the flag question first came up, but I am waiting for the March magazine item to come forward.
Then we have the Canadian government operating a radio and television service which is drawing off $26 million in commercial advertising, of which Canadian publishers of newspapers and magazines should be getting a share. But these taxpaying commercial enterprises have to buck the national government for the advertisers' dollar, and we hope in time this situation will be corrected.
I should like the department to explain, if they can, why Reader's Digest, which is a monthly publication, has a rate of 1J cents a pound to cross Canada when Canadian weeklies like the Montreal Standard, Weekend magazine, Toronto Star Weekly, and so on, have to pay 3 cents a pound for exactly the same service. I just leave the thought with the members of the committee that it is interesting that the postal service rendered to the Montreal Standard, Toronto Star Weekly, Weekend magazine and other Canadian weeklies costs 3 cents a pound, but this great, shall I say Canadian publication, Reader's Digest, gets the same service once a month for If cents a pound. Then you have great complaints about the terrible deficit arising from the second class postal rates. Has anybody figured out what the contribution to that deficit is from periodicals that move at If cents a pound compared with the Canadian weeklies that have to pay 3 cents a pound?
More important, I should like to draw the attention of the house to a question that has been aggravating the Canadian publishing world for some time. I listened to every word spoken by the Postmaster General with the greatest of interest, but I regret very much that he did not take any time to make a statement on the meeting of the world postal union held in Vienna, Austria, last month. I wonder how many members are aware of the fact that there are millions and millions of copies of American and other foreign produced periodicals moving through the mails of Canada every month for which the Canadian post office receives not a cent in payment. No wonder we have a $20 million deficit in the Canadian postal service when we carry millions of periodicals thousands of miles free of charge.
This situation arises from the fact that as yet there has not been any international

agreement made that when second class periodicals come into this country from foreign sources of publication, be it the United States or Great Britain or France for that matter, the Canadian post office will be reimbursed for the weight carried and the mileage traversed in the Dominion of Canada. This matter has been a sore point with Canadian publishers for many years and has been taken up frequently with the Canadian Post Office Department no matter what government has been in power, no matter who the postmaster general has been.
Always the same answer is given. Nothing can be done about it until the world postal congress meets in Montevideo, Uruguay; Madras, India; Cairo, Egypt; or Rheims, France, where it is going to meet five years from now. The world postal union only meets every five years, so there is no sense in kicking in the intervening four years because nothing can be done. Protests have been made to the Canadian Post Office Department about the fact that millions of American magazines cross the border into Canada every month and the Canadian post office hauls them gladly across this broad dominion without getting any share of the revenue paid to the United States post office for those periodicals.
The Canadian publishing world was told this matter would be taken up at the world postal union convention in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1963. Everything was going to be taken up there and the cards were going to be laid on the table to see if we could not get some revenue for the Canadian postal service from these foreign periodicals that enter Canada, but since they are mailed in a foreign country that country keeps the revenue. Some hon. members may recall that there was some difficulty in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1963 and the world postal union conference held every five years was postponed a year to be held in Vienna, Austria, last month.
Canadian publishers spoke to the Post Office Department and expressed the sincere hope that the Postmaster General, an able businessman, would represent the Canadian government there; but due to the death of Hon. Jack Garland, which we all regret, the Postmaster General was given the onerous task, which he carries out with dignity and efficiency, of looking after the affairs of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and he was unable to go to Austria. But there were representatives of the Canadian postal service there.
Supply-Post Office
I think the Canadian publishing world is entitled to a statement as to what arrangements have been made so that the Canadian post office may be reimbursed by these foreign publishers, who mail in foreign parts with the result that the foreign governments keep the postage revenue for the material which our postal service transports across this broad dominion for them. I should like to quote from a brief, one among many, submitted to the Canadian Post Office Department as long ago as 1959, in which Canadian publishers made this request of our Post Office Department:
-that methods should be established whereby the Canadian Post Office Department will receive from foreign governments compensation for services rendered in the handling of foreign mail within the confines of this country.
For many years past, the Canadian and United States governments have checked the volume of parcel post moving across the international border on two days a year.
They take two days far removed from the Christmas rush and far removed from the summer slump. They take two such typical days and multiply the figure for an average day by 365 to arrive at the weight of mail crossing the border and check the distance it moved by checking the addresses.
Taking those two days as being typical of the year-round volume of parcel post handled by the two countries for each other, post office departments calculate how much money should be paid by one government to the other government for parcel post services rendered in their country. We contend that such a system can be established in Canada for second class mail. Under such a system, foreign governments would pay to the Canadian Post Office Department a proper share of the second class revenue that they receive from publishers in their country, for the haulage services that the Canadian Post Office Department performs in handling the second class mail originating abroad.
During his outline of the affairs of the Post Office Department the Postmaster General referred to the fact that much American mail is trucked into Canada and mailed in Canadian post offices where they pay a rate which the Canadian post office keeps exclusively. That is all well and good. Canadian publishers appreciate the fact that there was an increase in the rate some time ago on such mail to 5 cents a pound. Previously the rate had been very low, ruinous in fact, and the 5 cent rate was welcomed by Canadian publishers.
But there are still hundreds and hundreds of periodicals printed abroad-by "abroad" I do not necessarily mean off this continent- that are mailed at their city of publication and come into this country. I am referring

Supply-Post Office
particularly to mail subscriptions individually wrapped which go to individual homes. These mailed subscriptions are dispatched by large American publications which do not make use of the Canadian mailing rate, as a result of trucking their periodicals into Canada for mailing. These mailed subscriptions come into Canada and no compensation is paid to the Canadian Post Office Department, unless some arrangement was made at Vienna, Austria, on that point.
I would emphasize that in 1956 when the government of right hon. Mr. St. Laurent, of whose cabinet Hon. Walter Harris was a member, imposed a tax on two American periodicals, there were certain legalistic minds who protested to the prime minister of the day that it was impossible to impose this tax on these periodicals because it went against some international agreements. Mr. St. Laurent, who was aware of the problems of the Canadian publishing industry, went to Washington and flatfootedly told the American government he could not abide by the international agreements with regard to periodicals and that Canada was going to impose this tax on the American publications. The tax was imposed despite the agreements.
I hope the Canadian publishing world is not going to be told now that because this matter was not taken up at Vienna nothing can be done about it until 1969, when the next meeting of the world postal union will be held. If right hon. Mr. St. Laurent and Hon. Walter Harris were able to tell the American government they were going to impose an advertising tax on American periodicals, even though some people maintained it conflicted with certain international agreements then in existence, I say that we can tell the American government, the French government and the British government at this time that we would like to be compensated for the mileage over which we haul tens of thousands of pounds of second class material originating in their countries and destined to readers in Canada.


Mr, Winkler:: Let us tax them.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Supply-Post Office
"printed matter." Telephone bills can be mailed to customers at the lower, printed matter rate if the bills are only for a flat monthy telephone charge, and do no contain any long distance tolls or other extras.
The printed matter rate used to be 2 cents and the local first class rate 4 cents. The company was saving 2 cents, therefore, on every bill that was mailed out as printed matter.
Earlier this year, I suspect that Bell Telephone executives pondered far into the night when the post office presented them with an unexpected problem. The printed matter rate was going up to 3 cents.
Is it worth the bother, gentlemen, to sort out all the bills with no extra charges on them and send them through the mailing machines at 3 cents to save a penny?
Well, gentlemen, save a penny, make a penny, you know.
The Bell Telephone Co. decided to continue mailing these bills at the printed matter rate, and this save-a-penny program saves the Toronto office of the Bell Telephone Co. $2,000 a month.
Ron Haggert writes that this saves the Bell Telephone Company $2,000 a month but I prefer to look on it as costing the taxpayers $2,000 a month to help the company mail out their invoices. I do not believe any such favoured treatment should be given to any firm in Canada, and I think this $20 million deficit the postal service is building up can be mastered. I believe Hon. John R. Nicholson is the man to do it. It can be eliminated by careful attention to business details and by applying the business acumen he accumulated down there in the maritimes, with the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings and other maritime members.
If such things as contributions to superannuation accounts and surgical-medical charges are properly paid out of current revenue and not set up as a funded charge against the post office, and if papers and magazines enjoying Canadian postal service are made to pay for the service they now enjoy, and if such special favours as that shown the Bell Telephone Company are stopped, I think the department can be put on a paying basis and will be a credit, not only to the Postmaster General but to the government of the day which is presently faced with the problem of clearing up situations that have existed far too long in the Canadian postal service.


Mr. Barnett:: The plaudits which the Postmaster General has been receiving from all corners of the chamber have been so many and generous that I hesitate to add any, lest they go to his head. I shall merely confine myself to saying I always enjoy a fellow British Columbian being well treated.

Along with my colleague, the hon. member for Danforth, who spoke earlier, I too appreciated the kind of factual information given to us by the minister, especially with reference to the question of postal rates. In saying this, I speak as one who was a member of the house and took an active interest in the discussion the time we last had a general increase in the rates on first class mail. The kind of information which we got at that time, on which to assess a decision as to the advisability of the step, was woolly, to say the least. We had a very affable postmaster general but he was not able to present us with any convincing evidence concerning the need for an increase in the first class rates.
When the minister introduced his estimates, and if I heard him correctly, he said something about a policy that all should be treated alike in regard to postal service; but then he added the words, "in relation to population and accessibility". That amounts to saying that all people are equal, but some are more equal than others.
Like most hon. members I have encountered many aspects of the postal services, problems of rural post offices, and of compensation and conditions under which postal employees work, but the particular matter of concern to me is the problem which arises out of the transportation of the mails. I am sure the minister is familiar enough with conditions as they exist along the coastal areas of B.C., of which Comox-Alberni is a part, to understand what I am talking about.
I have had many discussions with a lot of the very able people who are in charge of the administration connected with the transportation of mails, and I have always found that the responsible officials of the department have bent every effort, within the general policies established by the department, to give the best possible service which the available transportation could provide. But always when I find that the service provided is not very adequate it comes back to the argument that the Post Office Department is not in the transportation business. That, of course, is true, and I cannot have any quarrel with that situation at this time. In other words, I am not suggesting that the Post Office Department should accept the responsibility for the creation of the actual physical means of transporting the mail, as a matter of broad policy, across the country. It is obvious in most cases that for some time to come it will be much more logical that mails be transported in connection with other commodities, or in connec-

tion with passengers, but the fact remains that the question of transporting the mails is a very complicated one in some parts of the country.
The minister said that business concerns were getting three deliveries a day in certain areas. I would remind him there are business people in parts of my constituency who, if they get an exchange of correspondence in three weeks, are doing as well as it is possible to do under the existing arrangements for the transportation of the mails. I am referring to people who live no further apart than 25 miles as the crow flies, and therefore I urge the minister to assume a somewhat different role from that undertaken by any previous postmaster general.
I think he will agree with me that by and large the Post Office Department runs itself. In other words, if the minister went off on a six months round the world tour, the mails would continue to be delivered quite adequately, because the people who are in charge of the administration of the department are very highly qualified.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: One of my officials here said he would not agree with the hon. member's suggestion related to my going away for six months.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Well, I will just say in reply that my remarks were made entirely out of my own observations and my assessment of the capabilities of some of the people the hon. gentleman is fortunate enough to have in his department. The point I am trying to make is that in my opinion the Postmaster General can assume a very useful role at the point where administration ends and policy begins, because in addition to being the head of his department the Postmaster General is also a member of the government, and my plea is that aside from his particular duties as Postmaster General he should take a particular interest in the development of transportation policy and transportation facilities in this country. This is a job which the officials of his department at various levels-and I have discussed this with them-quite rightly cannot enter upon. I feel that if there is a cabinet committee which has a particular responsibility for the development of transportation policy the Postmaster General should certainly be a member of that committee. This should be a matter of government policy so that the Postmaster General can put in his oar in an area which is so important to the improvement of mail services in this country.
Supply-Post Office
I suppose all of us in this house tend to consider the postal service in relation to the type of constituency we represent. This is because the service provided by the post office is so varied that it is tailored to meet the needs of those who live in densely populated urban communities, or in rural areas or even along the coast of British Columbia in small communities almost isolated from each other. I know the minister cannot work miracles in this field but I am sure if he raises this matter with some of the officials in his department he will learn that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has pursued this question over a considerable period of time in an effort to resolve some of the anomalies which do exist with respect to giving people a reasonable mail service in relation to their accessibility.
I think that will be sufficient as far as I am concerned in the discussion of the estimates at this time. I do not wish to repeat matters which have been dealt with by other members. But in view of the approach-some members have referred to it as the businesslike approach-which the present minister is taking toward the development and organization of the mail service I felt I should like to make this plea that he should take a special interest in the policy decisions made in an effort to improve the transportation by which the mail is carried.


Lawrence E. Watson: I should like to say a few words on the estimates of the Post Office Department. My remarks will concern the smaller post office in the rural communities. I feel that over the years postal accommodation in these small towns has been neglected. I notice in the 1964-65 estimates that the total figure of $25,298,000 shows a decline of approximately $500,000 spent on accommodation compared with the estimates of the previous year.
I have always believed that large projects, including dams, seaways, and so on, take up so much of our attention that the smaller works, the smaller buildings, are neglected as a result. I am not thinking only of the post office, but of all departments of government. I could refer to an item which appeared in the newspaper the other day with respect to a defence establishment no longer required; the assets were being sold for a trifling sum compared with the original cost. I know it is always said that finances are the problem when it comes to building these small post offices. I intend to refer to small post offices which have revenue of, possibly, $3,000 up

Supply-Post Office
to $5,000 a year. I notice that in 1961-62 fiscal year 110 small post offices were put up in Canada. In addition there were 52 under consideration, and 1,121 were situated in federal buildings. At that time there were 940 post offices still in rented accommodation. I do not know whether this means post offices which occupy the whole of the rented premises or not; I do not think it would include small post offices occupying space rented in a store or some other business of that type. Checking the figures I find that in the 1962-63 fiscal year there were 106 small post offices under consideration, 59 occupied, of which 52 had been started in the previous year. The number of post offices located in federal buildings had increased from 1,121 to 1,310. This left 700 or 800 post offices in rented accommodation.
I believe it is a good thing that the construction of post offices now comes under the jurisdiction of the Post Office Department. Previously the Post Office Department decided whether or not a building should be built and made suggestions as to its location, and then the Department of Public Works carried out the actual construction. I have become convinced over the years that plans for building small buildings of this kind become smothered under the paper work which goes on in the departments. I know that on previous occasions when we have been trying to get some action with regard to buildings of this type, the department here felt it was co-operating but the men in the field never got around to finding and securing suitable lots on which to place them. If these buildings are to be constructed under the winter works program, sites must be secured in the early summer or in the early fall.
I have in mind one small post office in particular that was built in 1905. Then it was moved into the town where the railway came through in 1912, and it has been moved once since then. On checking this post office I found that in 1962 the Post Office Department spent $937 in renovating a building that could have been bought from the owner for $700. I feel that this type of expenditure is wrong and there should be more concentration on looking into the question of building post offices.
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Wellington South when he said the post office should be the No. 1 building in a town. I endorse what the hon. member said in this regard. I have in mind a particular town that is completely modern. Within the last four or five years the town has spent

$120,000 on installing sewer and water systems, we have gas in the town and there are 2j miles of cement sidewalk; but the building in which the post office is situated is the most deplorable type of building one can imagine. I would urge the minister to look into this type of post office and see what he can do to improve the accommodation and working conditions of the postmasters who run these offices. I would like to make a comment on an item which is to be found on page 353 of the estimates book. This is just a passing remark, but I notice that in this item, which relates to the Post Office Department, the mileage allowance has been reduced in the 1964-65 estimates by $25,000. In the next item one sees that the boot allowance has been increased by $26,000. Perhaps when the minister replies to these questions he will explain whether he thinks that shoe leather is cheaper than rubber on automobiles.
Mr. Chairman, the minister has given a very brief outline of Post Office Department revenues. I have always been one that believes that wherever possible a department should be made to pay its own way. If the rates which apply in various departments should be raised slightly in order to cover the deficit in those departments, I would support any legislation to this end.


Mr. Plourde:: Mr. Chairman, my first words will be to congratulate the Postmaster General (Mr. Nicholson) for the prompt and attentive manner with which he replies to our requests, and the clearness of his answers.
On the other hand, I want to point out to him a gap which seems to exist in his department and which is prejudicial to the letter carriers in the province of Quebec. As a matter of fact, I am told that the number of families which each carrier has to serve, in the course of mail distribution, number about 800 in the province of Quebec. If we compare the cities of Halifax and Quebec, which cover about the same surface expressed in square miles, though one is less populous than the other, we find that the average number of families allotted to each letter carrier ranges from 500 to 600.
I am told that in Ottawa a mail carrier serves from 600 to 700 families.
If that is the case, the route of our mail carriers in Quebec is too long-we might even say excessive-for the same salary.
I therefore ask the Postmaster General to be so kind as to give consideration to the matter in order to be equitable to our mail

carriers in the province of Quebec and correct this gap if it really exists.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Supply-Post Office
an observational study of the situation myself, and I must agree with the township council, with the reeve and his council, the staff of the post office and the drivers of the buses and vehicles concerned that they do need more land. Therefore I would remind the minister that we need more land in connection with this new post office so as to give us complete facilities in this growing village- because it is now growing appreciably. There is a vacant portion of land available at the rear which can be purchased at reasonable cost, I dare say at the same rate per square foot as the land purchased last autumn to erect the building now occupied by the department.
We are hearing quite a bit these days about federal buildings, and we have been hearing about them for some time since the 1950's, or previously. Quite often these new buildings replace buildings which are just as good and structurally sound in their old age as are the new buildings. In the town of Nap-anee, where I live, we have a case in point. Last summer we were informed of the desire of this present administration to build a so-called federal building in the town of Nap-anee. They claimed that the facilities in the old post office were just about reaching the stage where they were inadequate for the community, and so some efforts were made to ascertain the availability of sites and other matters pertaining to the relocation of buildings for the building of a new federal building. This would also house the unemployment insurance commission office and other facilities which ever since their conception have been housed in rented quarters.
Some protest was made vocally to the effect that many of the local people did not wish to abandon the old post office. The post office in Napanee was built around 1890. It was built of a red sandstone. The walls of the building are in as good a condition as the walls of this centre block of the parliament buildings or of any of the parliament buildings at the present time. The building occupies a central location just off the market square and complements the market square arrangement. It is one of our landmarks and has a venerable clock tower. The building itself with its sandstone walls is of a sturdy yet pleasing classic design.
Not being an architect, I cannot tell the committee what design it is but it is very pleasing and every year the building stands it seems to be more appreciated by the public. In fact, in the post card racks of the local stores the post card showing the

Napanee post office is always one of those available to tourists along with others depicting older and historic public buildings in the community. I took it upon myself to get out a questionnaire which I circulated.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Shall I call it five o'clock?


Mr. MacNaughl:: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the present speaker is probably the last one on these estimates, and if Your Honour would not look at the clock for a few minutes I think that would meet with the wishes of all hon. members.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Skoreyko: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I had intended to speak for a very few minutes. The minister left the impression that the present speaker was the last speaker for the Conservative party but that is wrong.


John Watson MacNaught: One more.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Lucien Lamoureux: Perhaps the committee would suggest that I report progress so that we could suspend the five o'clock rule and return to committee.


John Watson MacNaught: It is not the intention to suspend the hour but probably we could sit for another 15 minutes in committee to see if we could get these estimates passed.


Lucien Lamoureux: I suggest to the committee that we should report progress and return to committee for a few minutes. I believe this is the only way it can be done if we follow the rules properly.
Progress reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the desire of the house that we return to committee of supply for a few moments and that we suspend the five o'clock rule for a certain time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

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



[Stage Direction]
1. Postal services including Canada's share of the upkeep of the international bureaux at Berne and Montevideo, $208,861,000.
Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had just informed the committee that I circulated the following questionnaire to the citizens of Napanee:

The question is now before the government as to what is best for the accommodation of postal and other federal services in the town of Napanee. Knowing that you are interested in the policies, expenditures and working of government, I submit the following to you that your wishes in the matter may be recorded and brought to the attention of the federal authorities.
We require in Napanee a building that will accommodate the postal, customs and unemployment insurance commission services. With this in mind, I respectfully ask you for your personal opinions in the following:
Are you in favour of the federal government abandoning the present post office at the corner of John and Bridge streets and building a new federal building at another location in the town?
Provision is made on the side of the sheet for people to cast their vote either yes or no.
Or are you in favour of the federal government maintaining the present post office at the corner of John and Bridge streets, acquiring adjoining property either south of or east of the present building and erecting an architecturally suitable addition to the existing building, the whole of which would then provide space for all of the abovementioned services?
I asked the citizens to state their preference. There was a a very good response to this questionnaire. There were 640 in favour of maintaining the old post office, 116 in favour of a new building on a different site and 19 spoiled ballots in that we could not determine what they wished.
I remind the minister and the committee of the value of following, wherever possible, the wishes of the local people, and as the representative for Prince Edward-Lennox and the town of Napanee I must recommend to the minister that any building activity take the form of an architecturally suitable addition to the venerable building already there, thus making the whole, the old and the new addition, a credit to the community and to the town.
Third, I wish to refer to the plight, and it is nothing less than that, of the village of Rednersville with regard to a post office. The minister is fully aware of the situation. He will recall that last fall we both tried hard to grant the wishes of the community in that regard. I believe the department decided to curtail any more activity with regard to a post office for that community but, as I told him some time ago, I am still pressing for a post office in that village, and will continue to do so.
In that regard I would refer again to this historic directory which indicates that Rednersville is much older than Ottawa and contains the following:
Rednersville, a village situated on the bay of Quinte, in the township of Ameliasburg, Prince
Supply-Post Office
Edward county, Canada west, distant from Picton, 22 miles, from Belleville, 5 miles. Population about 175.
I would estimate that the population of the village now, 112 years later, is probably around 300 people. It is not up to me this afternoon to prove to the Post Office Department that Rednersville needs a post office because it has always had one up to a few years ago when for some reason or other it was included in the Belleville postal district. This growing village needs a post office. It has been proven by petition that the people want one, and I still call on the minister to work toward granting their request in the immediate future.
I think that is all I have to say, Mr. Chairman, save that I made a note here that I cannot agree with the hon. member for Kootenay West who referred to the Post Office Department as a socialist enterprise. Its functions are of a social nature but the work performed by the Post Office Department is all done by private individuals who are hired to do it. I do not understand how this can be called socialism. The people who use the service pay a fee for each piece of mail handled. So, there is nothing politically socialist about it; it is just a service that the people require.
I have very little to say about rates, Mr. Chairman, except that considering the sound basis upon which this department has been founded we should make a concerted effort to set economic rates that make a more efficient service available to the public. We should open more offices and facilities for the use of the public, and I refer to my request for a new post office in Rednersville. More people will be able to use the facilities that the minister and his department have to offer. If we do open more offices and facilities for the use of the public, make it progressively easier for more people to use the mails, then the greater the revenues will be. The minister has stated he is losing a fraction of 1 cent on each piece of first class mail. I say he should not raise the rate because the additional patronage will take care of the deficit. I am not referring to the kind of patronage that has been bandied around here of late, but the patronage of the people who use the mails.


Mr. Aiken:: I have a number of points to raise that might just as well be raised on the public works estimates. I understand we are going to try to conclude this department this afternoon, so I will let a lot of these things stand. However there is one item I should

Supply-Post Office
like to mention and I will do so very briefly. This concerns the railway mail clerks.
It has come to my attention recently that the jobs of the railway mail clerks are in some jeopardy due to the general change in the nature of mail transportation. There is a larger and larger amount of mail being carried by highway service. I really feel that the highway service cannot do the job the railway mail clerks can do. This is a very highly skilled group, and it seems to me it is the most suitable arrangement that mail should be sorted en route and dropped off at the various stations. It has, in the past, been an exceptionally good service.
Now, I know of two or three instances, and I have spoken to the minister about them, in which the railway mail clerks have been taken off in exchange for highway service. Highway mail services are let out to the man who offers the lowest tender. This idea is not a good substitute for trained railway mail clerks who have been carrying on this service for many years. I should like merely to take this opportunity to ask the minister to give consideration to sorting the mail wherever possible on the trains. I know there is a great deal of difficulty in this regard because of changing railway schedules, and the extensive shifting by railway companies in the types of service they are operating. I recognize that the Post Office Department has to follow along. I have seen several things, one of which relates to trains numbers 46 and 47 from Toronto, north, from which the railway mail clerks have been removed recently. I do not believe the service is as good.
This is all I want to say at the moment. I hope that this policy will not be continued because I think the highway service, which is carried in some cases in open transport and has to be sorted at some terminal point, is no substitute for the skilled job done by the railway mail clerks.


Mr. Crouse:: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to speak at any great length to delay the passage of the estimates of the Postmaster General. However, I do wish to congratulate him upon his appointment to his present position. In my opinion, there has been a marked improvement in the administration of his department since his appointment and this augurs well for the future.
I wish to speak very briefly on the small post offices construction program. Under the present minister's predecessor, the defeated Liberal candidate in my riding announced in the press the planned construction of seven

new post offices in my constituency. One of these was to be built at Blockhouse in Lunenburg county; one at Rose Bay in Lunenburg county; one at Petite Riviere Bridge in Lunenburg county; one at Barss' Corners in Lunenburg county; one at Mill Village in Queens county; one at Hunts Point in Queens county and one at South Brookfield in Queens county. What has happened to this program? The figures that were originally announced kept getting smaller and smaller and the excuses for lack of construction became even more vague.
I should like to ask the minister the reason for this change in plan, because to date none of the seven post offices announced have been constructed. Certainly, if the surveys showed that small modern post offices were required in those areas less than a year ago, there is still a need for improved facilities at the present time. Proposals had been made for small post offices in some of these areas prior to the change of administration and I like to think that the present government is concerned with providing an improvement in the facilities wherever necessary.
I am grateful for this opportunity to bring this matter to the minister's attention. I hope that this will result in the continuation in the near future of the building program that has been announced by his department.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I should like, first, to thank all the members who have participated in this debate, particularly for their kind references to me and to the department of which I have the honour to be the head. I can assure hon. members that their suggestions have been carefully noted and will be further studied. If I do not deal specifically with the points that they have raised here today in the limited time available, I will deal with them by a personal letter to each of the members.
I should like, however, to comment on one or two points made by the hon. member for Elgin. He remarked that it was unfortunate that the annual report of the Post Office Department for the year ending March 31, 1964 was not at hand. I can assure hon. members of the house that the reason resolution No. 12 was not proceeded with was that I realized very quickly it would be unfair to proceed with it until the report is in the hands of hon. members. We do hope it will be available within a few weeks, and not later than the first of September.
Then, in so far as stamps are concerned, I may say that we have some very interesting stamps on the horizon for next year as

well as this year. We have a Christmas stamp coming out this year, which is an innovation and which is a really Canadian stamp. There is also going to be a stamp that will appeal not only to a lot of members on this side of the house but will have a special appeal for hon. members of the official opposition. It will be a stamp with the Queen's head commemorating the royal visit this fall. In so far as the alleged shortage of stamps bearing the Queen's head is concerned, I may say it is a standing order that every post office must carry stamps in the denominations of ones, twos, three, fours and fives. If any member has a complaint and he wishes to write me I will see that it is corrected.
We have five very interesting stamps coming out next year. However as a native of the maritimes I am happy to say that in my opinion three of the loveliest stamps I have approved are the violet for New Brunswick; the mayflower or trailing arbutus for Nova Scotia and the dogwood for my adopted province of British Columbia, which are coming out next year.
Reference was made to the postal union and I am happy to say my deputy minister has just returned from a six weeks meeting of the postal union in Victoria. I have had a most interesting verbal report from him covering some of the matters referred to by hon. members. I welcome him back and I can tell the committee it is a great thing to have him back after six weeks' absence.
With regard to the question of stamps, I may say the suggestion made by the hon. member for Wellington South for a stamp to commemorate the late Colonel MacRae is one that commends itself to me. The practice of the department is to issue commemorative stamps every 10 years, every quarter century and every half century. The hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi, who has been assisting me today in the absence of my parliamentary secretary, tells me Colonel MacRae was born in 1872, so that in eight years time we could have a commemorative stamp, following the practice established.
I was queried concerning the increase in the number of rural routes and letter carrier walks. The number of rural routes decreased by one during the past year, but the reason for that is that letter carrier delivery has taken over from the rural route and there has been an increase in the same period of
116,000	calls.
Reference was made to public relations. During the 17 years I was in industry I was
Supply-Post Office
a strong believer in devoting more time to public relations, and I shall do what I can to encourage them in every way. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni asked whether I was a member of any cabinet committee dealing with transport, and I can tell him I am a fairly active member of that cabinet committee.
The hon. member for Assiniboia stressed the importance of new post office facilities in smaller communities, and this was also referred to by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg. The department has a regular building program averaging in excess of 100 post offices a year. We have somewhat fewer than 12,000 post offices in Canada, of which 9,000 are rented. The program to which the hon. member referred was brought in as part of the winter works program last year. It was a supplementary program, but the stage was reached when it became obvious that the post offices could not be completed during the winter and a halt was called to it. Sites had not been chosen and there were other factors as well. The matter is under study and I hope the government will have a program to announce at an early date.
I am not concerned so much with the costs of construction as with the costs of operation after they are built. I find these add considerably to the costs of the department.
The hon. member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka referred to the railway mail clerk problem. Their jobs are definitely affected but it is because of railway changes, railway abandonments, and alteration of railway schedules. I have discussed this matter with several district directors, with the deputy postmaster general and others. We have a high regard for the experience of these railway clerks and we use them wherever possible.
With regard to the other matters raised, as I said earlier, I shall have to deal with them by letter if that is agreeable to the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: The
house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills and private bills.

Genocide



GENOCIDE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, July 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Klein for the second reading of Bill No. C-21, respecting genocide.
Mr. J. E. Walker (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank those members of the house who last Friday, in an unusual move, gave unanimous consent to the request by the mover of this bill, the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Klein), that this debate be carried forward to today's sitting so that adequate time could be given to it without danger of its being talked out.
Just so there will be no doubt in anyone's mind regarding our intentions as to the disposal of this extremely important subject, as co-sponsor of the bill I wish to tell the house that the acting house leader will be moving a motion that the said bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on external affairs. This will be done before six o'clock. I sincerely trust that all hon. members will agree to this procedure and allow this motion to be put before the hour of six o'clock this afternoon.
If there are hon. members, and I am sure there are, who wish to speak and are not able to do so before six o'clock today without killing the bill, then I believe their sincerity will lead them to realize that there will be the greatest scope for talking and thinking -maybe that should be reversed-once the matter is before the external affairs committee. My hon. friend from Cartier (Mr. Klein) in his calm and reasoned speech last Friday made it clear why the committee on external affairs is the proper committee to go into the whole matter.
Since last Friday's debate, an excellent and thoughtful editorial has come to my attention in connection with the opening statement of the debate. I quote from a translation into English of the column "The Crime of Defamation" which appeared in Dimanche Matin of Sunday, July 12, 1964.
A Liberal member of parliament, a Montreal Jewish lawyer, Mr. Milton Klein, has raised one of the most complex problems which lies at the root of all the evils of our time.
And Mr. Klein must have reckoned all the implications of this bill which he is submitting as a private member's bill for the consideration of his colleagues.
In a few words, it Is a question of inscribing into the Canadian Criminal Code clauses on genocide (mass murder) and the defamation of groups.
[The Acting Speaker.]
This is a point which goes to the heart, all that is at the source of the poisoning of national and international relationships for the past few years.
Under the pretext of ideology, diplomacy, the most immoral situations have been created, and largely entertained, like soft cankers on a body in decrepitude. And the nationalist argument (we discuss the ground for complaint of this doctrine in itself) has placed hatred as the foundation of its allegation and claims.
I read, not long ago, a publicity text emanating from a Montreal source, which was most revolting! Was the author of this text responsible enough to measure the effect of his words?
Certainly prejudices have success (since anti-Britishism has developed like an octopus here at home, to the segregation of the whites from the southern American, in passing through all these genocidal movements which swarm in Asia and in Africa and which are turned against the whites) in more ways than one. Hatred engenders hatred. Defamation calls for defamation and violent action and the useless massacre of groups of human beings.
I have not tackled this problem from the viewpoint of its being just a problem of my Jewish constituents. To me it is a matter which concerns every Canadian citizen regardless of his race or creed because it was in an atmosphere of hate and distrust that the late President Kennedy was assassinated.
I think all Canadians must do some clear thinking about what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is evil. As far as I am concerned, the current hate campaign is a very evil thing and I am committed to fight against it from the very beginning, before it has a chance to produce the conditions which allow would-be Hitlers and Stalins to gain a foothold.
People who forget the past are sometimes condemned to relive it. Spiritual terror usually precedes physical terror by the mad exponents of racial or group supremacy. I had hoped that by now some government would have found itself in a position to place proposals before this house which would have made unnecessary a debate on this Bill C-21, an act respecting genocide.
This is a matter about which I feel very deeply and I will be excused, I am sure, if I speak strongly on the subject. My remarks are directed at all members of this house and to Canadians generally when 1 say that governments at all levels have deferred long enough in finding a solution to vicious and intimidating attacks on groups of Canadian citizens. Fair comment is one thing but incitation to sedition is another. Surely, the legal talents of this country can come to grips with this problem and find the formula which will give protection and peace and comfort to all Canadians while at the same time

protect the traditional democratic right of free speech. Bishop Wilkinson recently said:
We strongly resent and protest the crude and vicious attacks against Jews, Negroes and other minority groups that are being distributed through the mails. It is an affront to Christianity that these attacks insinuate that hatred of minority groups is in defence of Christianity. Christians fought and died to wipe out the disease of hatred engendered by the nazi philosophy. It is intolerable that this hatred should now be allowed to incite violence in a country where the price of freedom from it came so high.
It is to be hoped that the present investigation into this matter will be pursued and that those responsible will be prosecuted under the present laws, but unfortunately it may well be that existing legislation is inadequate.
An extract from a recent editorial in the
Toronto Telegram reads:
The perpetrators of this kind of malice are hiding under laws which make no provisions against group libel. They are using the mails for the dissemination of their lies. It is time we took a hard look at suggestions to amend the Criminal Code with a view to outlawing such incitement or at least banning it from Her Majesty's postal facilities.
The Toronto Daily Star says:
There should be a change in the law to provide that when a defamatory charge is made against a group-the hoary 'ritual murder' accusation against Jews for example-any member of the group may bring a civil action against the publisher. Similarly the Criminal Code should be amended to make libel against a group a criminal offence under the same conditions as libel against an individual. This would require action both by the federal parliament, which has jurisdiction over criminal law, and the provincial legislatures which have jurisdiction over civil law.
Historically, a feeling of racial superiority has proven to be a latent emotion, explosive and violent when aroused, that lies just under the surface of the thin veneer of the civilized behaviour of society. It is time we put an end to the kind of soft compromise that makes allowances for this fault in our character. The protection of the principle of freedom of speech must not be extended to the point at which it condones licence to slander and to vilify and incite. Only at great peril can we remain indifferent to the persecution of groups of Canadians. The wreckers and soul destroyers are at work today and, as the Globe and Mail says: "We believe that these haters should be fought by all men of good will". We are shocked when we frequently read in the daily press of citizens who stand idly by and watch a policeman getting beaten up in a street brawl, or a young woman mauled and raped while spectators watch with dulled eyes and senses. We Canadians all too often point the hypocritical
Genocide
finger of shame at other nations who do not appear to handle their civil rights problems in the manner we think they should. It is time we took a look at our own backyard to make sure that we are setting the right kind of effective example.
We hear from the attorney general of the province of Ontario that there is no law under which prosecutions could be successful in dealing with the following kind of vicious appeal to our basest natures:
"On the Jewish question our policy is much stricter. We demand the arrest of all Jews involved in communist or Zionist plots, public trials and executions. All other Jews would be immediately sterilized so that they could not breed more Jews. This is vital because the Jews are criminals as a race, who have been active in anti-Christian plots throughout their entire history."
If there is no law against this kind of viciousness, Mr. Speaker, there should be and it is time we made one.
These enemies of society, these wreckers and destroyers of other people's lives use freedom of speech to destroy other freedoms equally important-freedom from fear, freedom from persecution. The next step is the use of democracy to destroy democracy. The racists always use these methods. Surely the persecuted, the good citizens, deserve the same sympathy and consideration and freedom which apparently exists under the present laws for the rotten racists and their followers. These bestial unbalanced bitter people are using our laws to make fools of us all.
The rationalizing has gone on long enough. For years the Canadian Jewish Congress has presented briefs to various governments asking that action be taken. They are doing a job for all of us. My hon. friend and colleague from Cartier who is sponsoring the present bill and with whom I am gratified to be jointly associated in his efforts is to be commended for taking this action.
We heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) today in his statement to the house upon his return from the commonwealth prime ministers' conference, stress the need of an immediate beginning toward the solution of human and race relationships within the commonwealth. At this moment Canada is generally free of this problem, but there is a cloud on the horizon and I believe it should be dispelled now before it casts an ugly shadow across our beloved land.
I want to point out that there are flaws in the wording of this bill. I do not agree, for instance, with the severity of the automatic death penalty in clause 1. But the purpose and

Genocide
intent of the bill is clear, and I urge this house, before six o'clock is called, to allow the subject matter of this bill to be referred for study to the standing committee on external affairs.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I notice that there are two or three other members rising, so I will compress my remarks into a very few minutes. I want to say that we share completely the motives of this legislation. We agree with those who have said that it is not good enough just to outlaw actual genocide, the actual killing of people; we must go further and do something about the hatred and defamation of character that lead to the actual crime of genocide. We agree that the taking of human life is a crime. We also say that the defamation of character, the destroying of a man's soul, is likewise a crime.
Therefore we are in sympathy with the motives of the bill introduced by the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Klein). However, I am particularly glad that it was announced by the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Walker) that we are not going to be asked to vote on the bill as it is now before us but, rather, that there will be a motion to refer the subject matter to a committee. I am particularly glad about that because, like the hon. member for York Centre, I cannot go along with the confirmation in this bill of capital punishment. It is not my purpose to indulge in a debate on that particular point, but I would like to take, my stand on this question with three distinguished rabbis of the city of Toronto, just one of whom I will take time to quote, who had something on a very high level to say at a time when the whole world was concerned about a certain man, one Adolf Eichmann, who was found guilty of the crime of genocide.
Hon. members will recall the feelings there were at that time, and if ever a Jew was entitled to feel that capital punishment was in order, that entitlement was due to a Jew on that occasion. But listen to the words of Rabbi Feinberg. I have quotations also from Rabbi Stuart Rosenberg and Rabbi W. Gunther Plaut, but one quotation will do. Rabbi Feinberg said, in part:
Eichmann's neck in a noose will contribute nothing to the Jewish people or to the world except as a temporary release for outrage.. .It will not advance by one iota the continuous fight we must all wage against nazism and anti-Semitism.
The 6 million Jews were not destroyed by Eichmann but by an idea that infected many of the German people, the idea of contempt for human life. It can be defeated only by the opposite idea, the sanctity of human life.

I quote this from a clipping which I saved from the Toronto Globe and Mail of Saturday, December 16, 1961. I give the house this quotation because I feel these words of Rabbi Feinberg, along with the words of Rabbi Rosenberg and Rabbi Plaut are classical statements. I take my stand with them, and I hope that in the committee on external affairs when this matter is discussed there can be general agreement that the principle of this bill should be supported; but we do not go along with the idea of capital punishment.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am very much interested in the subject which is before us. I am not sure that I approve of the rushed method that is put in front of us now, without the opportunity for debate. I think a bill of this character should have a good discussion in the house rather than being shifted to a committee immediately. Surely there must be some way, by arrangement, of having the bill, if it is generally considered by the house of major importance, discussed on another occasion before being shifted out of this chamber to a committee.
The government whip has attempted to put people who want to speak on this bill in a rather awkward position if they spend any time discussing it. There will not be a single member of the House of Commons who does not approve of the law established against genocide and the convention that was ratified in this House of Commons 12 years ago in the month of May, and not March as it says in the bill. There was general agreement with regard to ratification of that measure on that occasion, but in the subsequent years nothing has transpired in the way of additional legislation and I can give the reason for that in a minute or two.
Now we have put before us a bill respecting genocide, as it is called, but from the statement made by the sponsor of the bill, the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Klein) and the supporter of the bill from the Liberal side, the major item in the bill has to do with, as has just been said, the crime of defamation or, as the sponsor of the bill called it, group libel. I do not find that this is at all a part of the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide. This does not put me in the position of being opposed to any measure which may be advanced to protect society against group libel or the crime of defamation. If our laws are not satisfactory in that respect, they should be amended. This is an instance, surely, where a

government should consider the matter very carefully and bring forward and take responsibility for any measure that it deems wise in order to meet the present situation.
I am not sure that a private member's bill such as this, with regard to which the intention is to refer it to a committee, is necessarily the best way of dealing with this matter. I think the external affairs committee could, without a bill being before it, discuss the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide which was before that committee 12 years ago, and could quite reasonably ask the government what it is going to do about it, if anything. But here we are now, being rushed into a position of referring to the external affairs committee a bill ostensibly dealing with genocide and actually dealing with a different subject.
I would like to have the full 40 minutes, of course, to deal with this subject, but in the private members' hour we have only 20 minutes and we have to restrict our remarks very, very seriously. Anybody interested in this subject should refer to the proceedings of the standing committee on external affairs which met in May, 1952, when this subject was discussed at some length. They should refer to Hansard of May 21, 1952, when there was a very good debate in the House of Commons on the subject of genocide. Having made that preparation I think people would be in a better position to deal with the bill as put before us. There is a third reference which perhaps should not be overlooked, and that is a debate in the house of commons at Westminster on July 23, 1962 dealing with the genocide convention which at that time had not been ratified by the United Kingdom.
I draw attention, Mr. Speaker, to these matters in order that members of the House of Commons may be able to consider this matter perhaps a little more fully than was suggested to us a few moments ago. I would hope that some device could be arrived at to bring this subject before us again on private members hour, or alternatively it could be raised separately from the bill in the external affairs committee. Third, the real subject matter of this bill could be divorced from genocide, with which it is not actually concerned, although the sponsor of the bill in his statement-and I use his own words as reported at page 5357 of Hansard, said:
-I maintain that group libel is the seed of genocide.
I did not discover that in the reading which I did several years ago of the debate which occurred in the committee of the
Genocide
United Nations when they were drafting the convention, but I do not say that that is not necessarily the case and perhaps it is from group libel that eventually you get to the actual physical destruction of a race.
Before I give an opportunity to somebody else to speak, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that in the bill there are errors other than the ones which have been drawn to our attention. It is not written into the convention that genocide is restricted to a member of a group. The convention uses the plural always, and where this bill says "a member of a group" it is not in conformity with the convention itself, which speaks of "members of a group". So you are not dealing with the killing of one person. You are not dealing with doing mental harm to one person. It is killing or doing mental harm to more than one person.
On the question of mental harm the present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), who was secretary of state for external affairs in 1952, in the House of Commons on May 21 of that year, as reported at page 2442 of Hansard, set out what the government and the House of Commons generally considered to be the meaning of the words "mental harm". This came about through our discussions in the committee on external affairs, and I would quote his words in just a short paragraph on page 2442:
I therefore suggest to the house that the use of the words "mental harm" would and should be interpreted, as a measure of both our domestic and our international responsibility, as meaning "physical injury to the mental faculties".
I think that has to be kept in mind as well as some of the other matters which will be coming before us.
That, Mr. Speaker, very briefly, is part of the submission I should like to make in regard to this particular bill.


John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Speaker, I think it is the desire of all hon. members that this bill be debated further. I would therefore move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau):
That it be an order of the house that this bill be placed at the head of the list of public bills so that it can be debated next Friday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do you not need unanimous consent?


John Watson MacNaught: Yes, of course. I thought we had unanimous consent for this.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?

Business of the House


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, before agreeing to the motion, why could not the government allot an extra hour next Friday? After all, you will recall that when we debated capital punishment we allowed two days, I think, for that subject. Why not allow an extra hour and let the government surrender an hour because of the importance of this matter, and make private members' hour last two hours next Friday?


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I believe we should allow for more time on this bill because a number of us would like to speak on it but have not yet had the opportunity to do so. Therefore we would be in favour of what has been suggested by the Solicitor General (Mr. MacNaught), or we would consider some other alternative which would give us an opportunity for further debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, why do we not do exactly what we did a week ago today? Let the bill retain its position on the order paper so that it will again be called a week today, the same as it was today.


John Watson MacNaught: Yes, that is practically the effect of my motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Is it
agreed that Bill No. C-21 retain its position on the order paper?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Gelber:: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. The hour allotted to the consideration of private members' business has expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I would just ask the house leader if the order of business as announced holds for Monday?


Guy Favreau: Yes, Mr. Speaker; the order for Monday will be exactly as announced last night; that is, second reading and committee stage of the students loans bill, then second reading and committee stage of the fiscal arrangements measure, after which we would take in order third reading of each bill.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply this day]:

[Stage Direction]
1. Postal services including Canada's share of the upkeep of the international bureaux at Berne and Montevideo, $208,861,000.
la. Postal services, $804,800.


[Stage Direction]
The meeting of commonwealth prime ministers ended today. Pakistan, Ghana and Tanganyika and Zanzibar were represented by their presidents. Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ceylon, Malaysia, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, Kenya and Malawi were represented by their prime ministers. India was represented by the minister of finance; Cyprus by the minister of foreign affairs; and Jamaica by the deputy prime minister and minister of finance.
This was the first meeting at which Uganda and Kenya were represented as independent members; and the other commonwealth heads of government were glad to greet their prime ministers. They expressed their satisfaction at the establishment of Malaysia which they had welcomed at their last meeting in 1962 and they greeted Tunku Abdul Rahman as prime minister of Malaysia. They also welcomed the attainment of independence by Malawi on 6th July, 1964 and agreed that Malawi should be admitted to membership of the commonwealth. They invited the prime minister of Malawi, Dr. Banda, to join their meeting; and Dr. Banda took his seat on 9th July. They noted that Northern Rhodesia would become independent on 24th October, 1964 as the Republic of Zambia; and they looked forward to welcoming Zambia as a member of the commonwealth on the completion of the necessary constitutional processes.
In the course of their discussion, the presidents and prime ministers reviewed the major issues of the day.
They agreed that one of the most important of these is race relations. It was agreed that the commonwealth has a particular role to play in the search for solutions to the interracial problems which are threatening the orderly development of mankind in general and of many particular areas in the world today. As a community of many different races, the commonwealth is itself an almost unique experiment in international co-operation among peoples of several races and continents. Within their own borders many of its members have faced and are facing issues raised by the co-existence of differing cultures within a democratic society. The prime ministers affirmed their belief that, for all commonwealth governments, it should be an objective of policy to build in each country a structure of society which offers equal opportunity and non-discrimination for all its people, irrespective of race, colour or creed. The commonwealth should be able to exercise constructive leadership in the application of democratic principles in a manner which will enable the people of each country of different racial and cultural groups to exist and develop as free and equal citizens.
The prime ministers recalled the critical international situation which had developed shortly after their last meeting in the autumn of 1962 and the grave threat to peace which it had implied. They believed that the fact that it was successfully resolved may have been in some sense a turning point in the relations between the major powers and may have marked the beginning of a new period in international affairs in which the world may hope for a gradual relaxation of tension. This will not be a short or simple process; but the prime ministers noted with satisfaction the further steps which had already been taken to reduce the causes of friction, particularly the conclusion of the tests ban treaty and the subsequent agreements between the governments of the United Kingdom, the United States and the Soviet union not to place nuclear weapons in outer space. They also welcomed the reductions in the output of fissile material for military purposes which these governments have made.
Against this background, the prime ministers expressed their hope that these steps would lead progressively to general and complete disarmament. They reaffirmed their support for the work of the Geneva disarmament conference and their determination to seek to extend the scope of disarmament in accordance with the principles expressed in their statement of 17th March, 1961, particularly by endeavouring to promote an agreement to prohibit the further dissemination of nuclear weapons and of knowledge relating to their manufacture and use. They will maintain their efforts to reduce the areas of
[Stage Direction]
international disagreement by all the means within their power, while maintaining both the strength and the resolution to resist aggression from without or subversion from within. In this connection they assured the prime minister of Malaysia of their sympathy and support in his efforts to preserve the sovereign independence and integrity of his country and to promote a peaceful and honourable settlement of current differences between Malaysia and neighbouring countries.
They discussed the great significance of China for south and southeast Asia. They also discussed the question of relations with China and of her membership in the United Nations. They expressed anxiety about the continuing tension in southeast Asia and affirmed their support for all measures which might promote a just and peaceful settlement and help to re-establish stability in the area.
The prime ministers noted with satisfaction the friendly public statements by the president of Pakistan and the prime minister of India and expressed their hopes that the problems between their countries will be solved in the same friendly spirit.
While recognizing that it was not a function of the commonwealth to act as an arbiter in disputes between member nations, the prime ministers agreed that commonwealth countries could play a role of conciliation and, where possible, consider using their good offices to help toward the settlement of disputes between member nations provided the parties concerned accepted such mediation.
The prime ministers renewed their support for the United Nations in its efforts to resolve disputes in various parts of the world. They reaffirmed their adherence to the principles of the charter and emphasised the importance of reinforcing the strength and capacity of the United Nations to respond to the demands which it must meet if the charter is to be fulfilled.
The prime ministers expressed concern about the situation with regard to Cyprus. They reaffirmed their full support for the United Nations security council resolutions of 4th March, 13th March and 20th June, 1964. The prime ministers asserted that the Cyprus problem should be solved within the framework of the United Nations and in accordance with the principles of democracy and justice.
They appealed to all countries concerned to refrain from any action which might undermine the task of the United Nations
peace keeping force, to which a number of commonwealth countries are contributing, or might prejudice the endeavours of the United Nations to find a lasting solution in conformity with the charter of the United Nations.
The prime ministers undertook to consider practical measures to strengthen the peace keeping machinery of the United Nations and to reduce the degree of improvisation required in an emergency. They agreed that consultation and co-operation among interested governments in this matter could be of great value in contributing to the improvement of the peace keeping effectiveness of the United Nations.
The prime ministers expressed their concern at the possible effect on United Nations operations in all fields of a prolongation of the United Nations financial crisis. They expressed a common desire to work toward a long term equitable solution of the problem of financing large scale United Nations peace keeping operations and agreed that any such solution should be based on the principles of collective financial responsibility and relative capacity to pay.
Britain made the following statement to the meeting about the progress of British colonial dependencies toward independence.
Already more than 20 countries with a total population of some 700 millions had achieved sovereign independence under British guidance. This process was continuing all the time. Northern Rhodesia would be independent in October and the Gambia very soon after. Basutoland had been promised that she could have independence in about 18 months' time; Bechuanaland would be free to follow when she wished; and Swaziland's new constitution had now set her on the same course. In addition it had been agreed that the federation of South Arabia should become independent within the next three and a half years. British Guiana would become independent as soon as she was able to assure internal peace. Southern Rhodesia would attain full sovereignty as soon as her governmental institutions were sufficiently representative.
There were a number of other colonies which already enjoyed a wide measure of self government. These included the Bahamas, Barbados, British Honduras and Mauritius. In addition there were some 20 other colonies and protectorates with a combined population of about five million. Of these over three million were in Hong Kong where the circumstances were exceptional. Of the

remainder only two territories had a population of more than 100,000. Several had less than 10,000. The smallest, Pitcairn, in the Pacific had only 90 inhabitants. It was clear that no uniform pattern would fit all these very different territories. Some might feel strong enough to proceed to independence on their own. Some might join with others to form larger and more viable units. Some might wish to couple independence with a treaty of friendship such as western Samoa concluded with New Zealand. Some would for the present prefer to remain as they were.
The prime ministers of the other commonwealth countries welcomed the progress of British territories to independent membership of the commonwealth. They recognized that the authority and responsibility for leading her remaining colonies to independence must continue to rest with Britain.
At the same time, prime ministers of other commonwealth countries expressed their views to the Prime Minister of Britain on the question of the progress of Southern Rhodesia toward independence within the commonwealth. They welcomed the decision already announced by the British government that, as in the case of other territories, the existence of sufficiently representative institutions would be a condition of the grant of independence to Southern Rhodesia. They also noted with approval the statement already made by the British government that they would not recognize any unilateral declaration of independence; and the other prime ministers made it clear that they would be unable to recognize any such declaration. The view was also expressed that an independence conference should be convened which the leaders of all parties in Southern Rhodesia should be free to attend. The object would be to seek agreement on the steps by which Southern Rhodesia might proceed to independence within the commonwealth at the earliest practicable time on the basis of majority rule. With a view to diminishing tensions and preparing the way for such a conference, an appeal was made for the release of all the detained African leaders. The prime ministers called upon all leaders and their supporters to exercise moderation and to abstain from violence; and they affirmed their belief that the best interest of all sections of the population lay in developing confidence and cooperation, on the basis of tolerance, mutual understanding and justice. In this connection they recognized the necessity for giving confidence to the minority community in Southern Rhodesia that their interests would be protected.
The Prime Minister of Britain said that he would give careful consideration to all the views expressed by other commonwealth prime ministers. At the same time he emphasized that the government of Southern Rhodesia was constitutionally responsible for the internal affairs of that territory and that the question of the granting of independence was a matter for decision by the British parliament.
The meeting expressed concern at the political rivalries in British Guiana which had led to disorder and interracial strife and had prejudiced the attainment of independence. While several different views were expressed on the methods to be employed, a number of prime ministers expressed the hope that the political leaders of British Guiana would seek urgently a basis for collaboration in the interest of their fellow countrymen of all races in order to restore mutual confidence among the races and to strengthen a spirit of national purpose and unity. Only in these circumstances could British Guiana hope to sustain true independence.
The question of the progress of the smaller dependent territories in the Caribbean to independence was raised. It was emphasized that the problem for the territories was mainly one of viability: and the hope was expressed that every practicable effort would be made to help them to strengthen their economies and so enable them to sustain the obligations of independence whether in a federation or in some other form of association.
The prime ministers reaffirmed their condemnation of the policy of apartheid practised by the government of the Republic of South Africa. Some commonwealth prime ministers felt very strongly that the only effective means of dealing with the problem of apartheid was the application of economic sanctions and an arms embargo. It was recognized, however, that there was a difference of opinion among commonwealth countries as to the effectiveness of economic sanctions and as to the extent to which they regarded it as right or practicable to seek to secure the abandonment of apartheid by coercive action, of whatever kind. But the prime ministers were unanimous in calling upon South Africa to bring to an end the practice of apartheid, which had been repeatedly condemned by the United Nations and was deplored by public opinion throughout the world.
The prime ministers expressed their regret that Portugal had not so far given recognition
[Stage Direction]
to the principle of self-determination for her territories in Africa.
The prime ministers agreed that the issues of commonwealth and international relations which confront them in the political field, however complex and contentious, must be seen in perspective in relation to the many factors which bring together the peoples of the commonwealth and enable them to make a unique contribution to the promotion of peaceful development. The commonwealth now consists of 18 independent member countries, widely distributed over the globe and accounting for nearly a quarter of the population of the world. It is, indeed, a crosssection of the world itself; and its citizens have an unparalleled opportunity to prove that, by mutual co-operation, men and women of many different races and national cultures can live in peace and work together for the common good.
The prime ministers reviewed the world economic situation as it affects their countries and reaffirmed the resolve of their governments to promote the economic development of their countries. To this end they emphasized the need of developing countries for improved and more remunerative outlets for their trade and for increased financial aid on easier terms and on a continuing basis. They took note of the problems presented to developing countries by the conditions and terms often attached by donor governments to their aid of the desirability of the encouragement of private investment in developing countries and also of the upward trend in the level of financial aid extended by the more developed countries in the commonwealth and of the easier terms on which it is offered.
There was agreement on the importance for all commonwealth countries of following up the work of the United Nations conference on trade and development, in particular with regard to expanding international trade in primary products through freer access to markets and, in appropriate cases, through commodity agreements and stabilized prices at equitable levels; working out arrangements for increasing access by preferences or otherwise to markets in developed countries for manufactured goods from developing countries; and elaborating proposals for supplementary finance to assist countries whose development might be threatened by adverse movements in their export earnings. The prime ministers affirmed their intention of working for a solution of these and other problems of the developing countries through
the new institutions resulting from the conference as well as through existing international bodies such as the GATT.
The prime ministers reaffirmed the resolve of the member countries of the commonwealth to promote the economic and social progress of developing countries. They wished to maintain their support of the work of the United Nations, its specialized agencies, the Colombo plan and other similar arrangements in this field. At the same time they wished to establish how best the members of the commonwealth could make a further distinctive contribution of their own to the development of its member countries. They conceived that the purpose of any new initiative in this respect should be not merely to increase the economic strength and material well-being of the recipients, vital though these considerations are, but also to strengthen the links between the countries of the commonwealth by encouraging their peoples to work more closely together in a variety of practical ways. For this purpose they selected for further examination several fields of action in which they believed the practice of commonwealth co-operation might be extended; and they agreed that these schemes should not be in substitution for existing arrangements but supplementary to them.
Commonwealth Development Projects
In particular they considered a proposal that development projects might be launched in individual commonwealth countries, which would be implemented by various members acting in close collaboration and contributing whatever resources-in men, money, materials and technical expertise-they could most appropriately provide. Such projects, which would be additional to the support which commonwealth countries already provide to the United Nations special fund and expanded program of technical assistance could be directed to a number of different purposes- the improvement of agricultural production and the development of natural resources through extension services, training and research; the enlargement of professional and technical training; the development of new industries; and so forth. But they would all be inspired by the common purpose of promoting the development of the commonwealth by a co-ordinated program of joint or bilateral projects. The British government said that they would be prepared to make a substantial contribution to projects of this kind within their expanding program of development aid. The other member govern-

ments expressed support for the objective of the proposal and agreed that further consideration should be given to the basis on which such a program might be established.
Administrative Training
Development projects of this kind would need to be planned, carefully and thoroughly, at all stages in their execution; and the prime ministers therefore considered that it might be valuable to supplement the existing arrangements for promoting the study of the techniques of administration and development planning throughout the commonwealth. They considered that there might be advantage in making arrangements, which could include the formation of a new institute, to provide facilities for specialized training and research for senior administrators concerned with administrative and development problems in relation to the needs of new countries. They agreed that further consideration should be given to the most appropriate form for arrangements for additional training, including the strengthening of existing institutions.
Education
The prime ministers took note of the scope which exists for co-operation between the government and peoples of the commonwealth in social, as well as economic, development. They noted with satisfaction that the third commonwealth education conference will be held in Ottawa in August; and they expressed warm wishes for its success, together with appreciation of the British government's offer to increase to an average of £5 million a year, over the five years starting in 196566, the capital assistance which they already provide for higher education in developing commonwealth countries, both independent and dependant.
Medical Conference
They decided in principle that an initiative similar to that which was launched in the field of education by the first of the commonwealth education conferences several years ago should now be taken in the field of medicine and that for this purpose consideration should be given to the convening of a commonwealth medical conference during the course of 1965. Such a conference would enable the members of the commonwealth to discuss mutual assistance in medical education including links between institutions; the provision of ancillary staffs; the development and planning of health services; and the 20220-359
supply of medical equipment and facilities for research.
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association
The links between the countries of the commonwealth are strengthened not only by co-operation between their governments in initiatives of this kind but even more by frequent personal contacts between individuals who share common professional interests.
The prime ministers recorded their support for the valuable work which the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association performs in bringing together members of the parliaments of all commonwealth countries. The British government stated that they would be prepared, if other commonwealth governments would do the same, to increase their contribution to the association.
Commonwealth Foundation
The prime ministers considered that further steps should be taken to promote contacts in other fields and that it might be desirable to establish a commonwealth foundation to administer a fund for increasing interchanges between commonwealth organizations in professional fields. This foundation could be administered by an independent board; and, while it could be financed by contributions from commonwealth governments, it would also welcome support from all quarters, whether public or private.
Satellite Communications
The prime ministers also took note of the current international discussions on the establishment of a global system of satellite communications. They endorsed the desirability of establishing such a system and considered how commonwealth countries could best cooperate with each other and with other countries in its development. They discussed the provision of technical assistance to the developing countries in this field, particularly as regards the establishment of ground stations and interconnections in commonwealth countries. They agreed that further consideration should be given to the feasibility of such a plan and the basis on which it might best be implemented.
The prime ministers directed that the commonwealth liaison committee with the assistance of special representatives should now give more detailed consideration to all aspects of these new initiatives in the hope that they could be launched and carried forward at an early date. They noted that thereafter
[Stage Direction]
further opportunities to review many of these projects would be afforded by the third commonwealth education conference in Ottawa in August and by the commonwealth economic consultative council meeting in Kuala Lumpur in September.
Commonwealth Secretariat
Finally, they were anxious that some permanent expression should be given to the desire, which had been evident through their deliberations, for closer and more informed understanding between their governments on the many issues which engage their attention and for some continuing machinery for this purpose. They therefore instructed officials to consider the best basis for establishing a commonwealth secretariat, which would be available inter alia to disseminate factual information to all member countries on matters of common concern; to assist existing agencies, both official and unofficial, in the promotion of commonwealth links in all fields; and to help to co-ordinate, in co-operation with the host country, the preparations for future meetings of commonwealth heads of government and, where appropriate, for meetings of other commonwealth ministers. This secretariat, being recruited from member countries and financed by their contributions, would be at the service of all commonwealth governments and would be a visible symbol of the spirit of co-operation which animates the commonwealth.
Marlborough House.
[Stage Direction]
15th July, 1964.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, July 20, 1964