1967-11-28

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to make a correction in Hansard for Friday, November 24, at which time I took part in the debate on the situation in Montreal harbour, which matter was put before the house by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) under standing order 26.
I was interrupted in my speech by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) who pointed out to me at that time that there were only three members from the island of Montreal present in the house. You will note, Mr. Speaker, that I did not mention those figures and that it was the hon. member for Lapointe who did so. I did not mention any figures at the time, Mr. Speaker, and I continued as you will find on page 4662 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, I had indeed noticed it. I am not as blind as some hon. members opposite who do not see the importance of that problem, etc.-
Thereafter, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson), as recorded on pages 4673 and 4674 of Hansard, that is 14 pages further on following the dinner recess, said this about me:
There is one point that I do not think should go unanswered. The hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Langlois) said there were no members on the government side from Montreal present during the debate.
I never said such a thing.
I should like to point out that throughout the whole debate my colleague the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) was here-
I admit that I also saw him.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau) was also here as well as my parliamentary secretary (Mr. Mackasey) who is from Verdun-
I referred to him during my comments and I agree that he was here.
The hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Laniel).
He is not from the island of Montreal but from the outskirts of Montreal.


An hon. Member:: He was here.


Raymond Langlois: Yes, he was here. And the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) who is from Quebec, was even mentioned.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member indicate the nature of his question of privilege and tell the Chair whether it will be followed by a motion?


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, here is the nature of my question of privilege.
According to the statement or the conclusions of the minister, nine or ten members from Montreal have taken a keen interest in the debate. It seems to me, that instead of speaking through their hats, some members should be a little more reasonable and moderate in their statements about their colleagues in the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, I am not making preposterous and untimely statements. When the Minister of Labour credits me with having said those words, he is acting irresponsibly, and that is unthinkable on the part of a minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I doubt very much that the hon. member can claim that there are actual grounds for a question of privilege. If there really was such a question of privilege it should be followed by a motion, but the hon. member did not move any.
It is in order to point out also that a question of privilege must be raised at the first opportunity. That does not mean at the first opportunity which suits the hon. member but rather as soon as the breach of privilege takes place. The incident now in question dates back to last Friday. Therefore, it seems to me that the question was not raised at the first possible opportunity.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
Indeed, even if the hon. member had raised his grievance at that time, I should hav emade the same ruling.
An hon. member claims there were a certain number of members in the house at a given time; the minister claims that there were more. According to the standing orders, both
November 28. 1967
4774	COMMONS
Comment on Statement by General de Gaulle statements must be accepted even if they are conflicting. However, the member for Megan-tic cannot be allowed to pursue the matter by way of a question of privilege.


Raymond Langlois: I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I will consider that as a correction to the official report.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short statement commenting on one made yesterday in Paris by General tie Gaulle, a statement made as I was leaving London to return to Canada and which I did not see until I arrived back in Canada. Perhaps it is just as well that I did not have the opportunity of reading it before I spoke in London yesterday.
Before I make that statement, Mr. Speaker, perhaps you will permit me as Prime Minister to express my appreciation for the kindness I received from the British government during our visit to London last week and for the privilege, during a very difficult time for that government, of discussing with them some matters of commonwealth and international concern. We discussed in particular the situation in Cyprus, which has remained so dangerously explosive during recent days and which, if it were permitted to explode into armed conflict between two members of NATO and on the territory of a member of the commonwealth, could have an almost fatal effect on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
I said in my statement of July 25, 1967, Mr. Speaker, commenting on some earlier remarks of the president of the French republic, that Canada has always had a special relationship with France, which is the motherland of so many of her citizens. I said we attached the greatest importance to our friendship with the French people; that it had been and remained the strong purpose of the government of Canada to foster that friendship. I should like to confirm those words today, Mr. Speaker.
I do not propose to deal in any detail with General de Gaulle's statement of yesterday, a statement very carefully prepared and made to the press. General de Gaulle's statement will obviously arouse discord in Canada. I am sure the people of this country will be


restrained in their response to it, as I am in mine today, so as not to serve the purposes of those who would disunite and divide our country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I believe the statement distorted some Canadian history, misrepresented certain contemporary developments and wrongly predicted the future. This statement was not merely a commentary on Canadian domestic or foreign policies, which could have been ignored; it was an intervention in those policies by the head of a foreign state. As such it remains unacceptable. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, in this case it is intolerable that a head of a foreign state or government should recommend a course of political or constitutional action which would destroy Canadian confederation and the unity of the Canadian state.
The future of Canada, Mr. Speaker, will be decided in Canada, by Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have confidence, and I know all members of this house have confidence, in the ability and good sense of all Canadians, French speaking or English speaking, to make the right decision. They will do it in their own way and through their own democratic process. I believe this decision will require further constitutional changes to bring our federalism up to date and to ensure, among other things, that French speaking Canadians who form one of our two founding cultural and linguistic groups, or societies if you like, will have their rights accepted and respected in Canada.
I agree also that the federal government, any federal government, should encourage and promote special and close cultural relations between French speaking Canadians and France and other French speaking countries. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we are doing that. There should be no argument on this score except with those who wish to use these relations to destroy the federal government's responsibility for foreign affairs, and that we do not accept.
Canada is a free country and its people govern themselves. Canadians in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada have the right to exercise fully their political rights in federal and provincial elections. Self determination is no new discovery for us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
November 28, 1967
COMMONS DEBATES	4775


Lester Bowles Pearson: We do not need to have it offered to us. To assert the contrary is an insult to those who discharge their democratic privileges as Canadian voters and to those who serve their country in this house or in provincial legislatures.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
To those who would set us free, we answer "We are free". To those who would disunite us, we answer "We remain united, in a federal system which is being brought into line with the requirements of our time and of our origins and history". On April 19, 1960, the gallant and illustrious head of another state, speaking in Ottawa, had this to say; I quote from his speech:
And now, how do you Canadians appear to us? Materially, a new country, of vast size, mighty resources, inhabited by a hard-working and enterprising people. Politically, a state which has found the means to unite two societies, very different in origin, language and religion:	which exercises
independence under the British crown and forms part of the commonwealth: which is forging a national character even though spread out over three thousand miles alongside a very powerful federation; a solid and stable state.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with those words of General de Gaulle in 1960. I disagree with his words in November 1967.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, may I welcome the Prime Minister back to the house and back to Canada, and congratulate him upon the honour bestowed upon him by the city of London in extending to him the freedom of that city. May I also assure him that in welcoming him back in this manner I do not wish to be understood as casting any reflection upon the manner in which the Acting Prime Minister presided over the house in his absence.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Canadians will certainly
resent the statement made by President de Gaulle and regard it as an intrusion into our domestic affairs. We in Canada, a free democratic country, are quite capable of running our own affairs, so we must certainly object to the statement, just as the Prime Minister has objected to it.
It may be there is no practical way of stopping this kind of interference. This is the second time it has occurred, and it may occur again. I say that while we must object to this
Comment on Statement by General de Gaulle kind of interference, our maturity as Canadians requires something further of us. While objecting to this unfortunate attempt at interference we are, I hope, mature enough not to allow such an attempt by somebody outside of Canada to affect the relationship among Canadians inside Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It seems to me we would do ourselves a disservice if we allowed this incident to provoke us to any word or deed which could poison the climate in our own country or make it more difficult to arrange our own affairs satisfactorily. It would in effect make this attempt at interference effective if this statement by General de Gaulle were to give rise to immoderate exchanges within our own borders which could undermine the earnest efforts of Canadians themselves to work out their own arrangements to strengthen confederation.
At the present time in Toronto a constructive conference is being held at which provincial representatives and others are examining the problems within our own country. There are, of course, other constructive efforts going forward in our country. Mr. Speaker, I suggest in all earnestness that we should not allow this attempted outside interference to distract us in any way from our own purpose, which is to build a stronger Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the words of the Leader of the Opposition in welcoming back the right hon. Prime Minister, and to say we are glad to see him in such good form upon his return to the House of Commons.
I am very glad the Prime Minister has made a statement with reference to the pronouncements by President de Gaulle. I think our response to those pronouncements ought to be restrained. I feel much the same about President de Gaulle's statements at this time as I felt about his famous "Vive le Quebec libre" last fall; that is, that we ought not to allow this to provoke us into hysterical and provocative replies. We ought to make it perfectly clear to President de Gaulle, or to the head of state of any other country in the world, that we Canadians are quite capable of resolving our own problems without unsought or uncalled for advice from any quarter whatsoever.
November 28, 1967
4776	COMMONS
Comment on Statement by General de Gaulle
I am sure that French speaking Canadians throughout Canada will resent the fact that the head of state in another country should seek to advise them as to what course they should take in advancing their best interests. As one who was born in the United Kingdom I know I would deeply resent any suggestion by the government of Great Britain as to how we Canadians ought to conduct our affairs in this country-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -and I think French speaking Canadians will have a similar feeling of resentment. I think they will also resent the reference to them as abandoned children; abandoned, yes; but children, no. After two centuries of abandonment they are a mature people working with their fellow Canadians to resolve whatever differences of opinion we may have, and seeking to work out a great destiny for Canada, to do this by ourselves, knowing we can do it without any intrusion by anyone else.
I think French speaking Canadians will not be enticed by any nostalgic appeal for a new form of imperialism. In Canada this year we are celebrating our one hundredth anniversary, and our pride in that anniversary is in the fact that we have shed all forms of imperialism and are now a sovereign nation. I do not think French speaking Canadians, any more than any other Canadians, want to shed one form of imperialism only to assume the shackles of some other form of imperialism.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this is a time for members in all parties to make two things perfectly clear. The first is that we believe in a strong, united and viable Canada; that we want people of all races and tongues to work together to make this a great sovereign power in which we can provide a good life for our own people, and through which we can play an increasingly important role in the community of nations.
I think the second thing we want to make clear is that we recognize that in Canada there are two linguistic and cultural communities, and that those of us who belong to the English speaking part of Canada are desirous of seeing the legitimate aspirations of the French speaking community fully realized.
To that end we have problems we must resolve; but we will resolve them in our own way and by our own methods.


[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
I hope that we will try very quickly to resolve these problems. The longer we delay, the greater opportunity we provide for others to fish in troubled waters. This is the reason we in this party have been pressing for the setting up of a parliamentary committee to discuss the constitution. We are convinced there is a greater consensus among the members of this house than might at first appear to be the case. We believe that the quicker we grapple with this problem the sooner it will be resolved, and the sooner it is resolved the greater will be the opportunity to build a strong and united Canada.


Mr. Real Caoueile (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Ralliement Creditiste and my colleagues, I am happy to endorse the statement of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), and I am doing so as a French Canadian from the province of Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: When the Prime Minister says: "Canadian policy will be determined by Canadians" and "French-speaking Canadians have the ability to find their own place in confederation without stepping on others", that is true, and will become even more so since the French fact is being recognized throughout Canada as never before in the past.
Everyone admits that we have lived through squabbles since 1867. But, Mr. Speaker, under the British North America Act, one thing has nevertheless been granted to all Canadian provinces and, particularly, to the province of Quebec, and I am referring, for instance, to rights in matters of education, where the federal government has never intruded and where the provincial government had all the necessary powers in matters of highways, health, agriculture and natural resources development. In fact, if the province of Quebec decided to develop one source of wealth rather than another, neither Alberta, Ontario nor British Columbia would be entitled to intrude in the problems of the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, when General de Gaulle states that Quebec will obtain its sovereignty, I say that the province of Quebec has had more sovereignty within the Canadian confederation than any country connected with France has ever obtained since France exists.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
November 28, 1967	COMMONS


David Réal Caouette: To look at history, Mr. Speaker, some time ago, I was speaking on television in my area of northwestern Quebec. At that time, I was giving the history of the second world war when General de Gaulle had to leave his country and go into exile for some time in Great Britain, when Marshal Petain had to take over and move the seat of the French government from Paris to Vichy. At that time, Mr. Speaker, I was a young man of the province of Quebec, a member of the Societe Saint-Jean-Baptiste and all French-Canadian associations in Quebec. At that time, the intellectuals who met in Montreal these last three days were defending Marshal Petain just as we were. We were then blaming the actions of General de Gaulle, because we felt that Petain, standing up to the invader in his own country at a time when France was unprepared to face a world war, had no other alternative to what he did. At that time, we were supporting Petain and condemning de Gaulle, and some people of the Societe Saint-Jean-Baptiste, gathered in Montreal two days ago, were of that opinion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: It was said Petain has been charged with collaboration. But I have an explanation. When an armed bandit breaks into a home, waving his gun, Mr. Speaker, many people are forced to do his bidding, because they are driven to the wall, and this is what happened to Marshal Petain. Nevertheless, Petain was sentenced to death; his sentence was commuted to life imprisonment and after having been dishonourably discharged by General de Gaulle's followers, died stripped of his rank and of all the glorious titles he had won during the first world war.
Mr. Speaker, General de Gaulle may try today to tell Quebec: Liberate yourselves, liberate yourselves, but it was not so long ago that Algeria, under the French regime, and the Algerian people fought an internecine war for 7| years to obtain their independence, which led them where? Where they are now, with a standard of living decidedly lower than the one they formerly enjoyed, and surely that is the example General de Gaulle has in mind at this time.
Mr. Speaker, all this means that we can get along without the advice or intervention of General de Gaulle or any other head of state, whether from Great Britain or any other country in the world. Our people,
DEBATES	4777
Comment on Statement by General de Gaulle whether they speak English, French, Ukrainian, Polish or Italian, in brief, all Canadians, are able to develop policies that are respectful of each and every one of their countrymen. The aspirations of the Frenchspeaking Canadians are the same as those of the English-speaking Canadians. By showing mutual respect, we will set an example to the world with regard to political freedom and economic security.
Mr. Speaker, reference was made earlier to this conference of all the Canadian provinces which is now taking place in Toronto and where changes to be made in the constitution are being discussed. Everyone agrees that certain changes should be made in our constitution, but the provinces are not meeting simply to discuss the problem of language, French or English. It is a question of life or death for each of the provinces, for each one of them is faced with great economic and financial difficulties which prevents it from developing according to its own aspirations and possibilities.
And here, I appeal to the Prime Minister. The central government can help all the provinces, it can co-operate to maintain the unity so greatly desired by enabling each province, from an economic point of view, to make the most of its possibilities, its intellectual resources, its potential. Then, it will no longer fear the intervention of foreign leaders, of foreign countries in the administration of our national aff airs.
Canadian affairs are our concern. We do not interfere in the affairs of France, England or any other country. Let us continue in that direction and through mutual respect by all, we shall build a greater Canada, a more prosperous Canada, which doubtless will set, from every point of view, an example for the whole world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, we in the Social Credit party join with the others in this house in deploring this further intervention by General de Gaulle in the affairs of this country.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
Availing himself of the opportunity presented at the time of Expo, General de Gaulle chose to make his first unwarranted intervention into our national affairs. This most recent intervention is completely unwarranted, uncalled for, distasteful and unacceptable to Canadians everywhere.
November 28, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry
In his address this afternoon the Prime Minister urged restraint in response to this latest statement, but I must say that a great many Canadians are becoming increasingly impatient over such statements. They require the Prime Minister to make his protests on behalf of this country both very loud and very clear. General de Gaulle's statement must be rejected firmly and without apology, so it is made abundantly clear that we in Canada are determined to govern ourselves in accordance with our own decisions and in harmony with our national aspirations.



TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. H. Pit Lessard (for Mr. Macaluso) moved: that the sixth report of the standing committee on transport and communications, presented to the house on Friday, November 24, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in view of our great concern about what is going on in Cyprus, can the Secretary of State for External Affairs give the house any further information as to how matters now stand and what action the government of Canada may be taking in this regard?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the situation in Cyprus continues to be tense. There is really no change in the situation since I reported to the house yesterday. The special representative of the government of the United States has been engaged within the last few hours in trying to compose further differences between the two Mediterranean countries, Turkey and Greece. He has succeeded, I believe, in narrowing the differences.
Having regard to the suggestions made to the parties by the Secretary General of the United Nations I would hope that before the day is out we might see some more definitive statement from the United States emissary as well as from Mr. Rolz-Bennet, the representative of the Secretary General. At this moment I cannot report a final decision.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the mandate under which the peace keeping forces are operating in Cyprus requires authority from the security council before they may be withdrawn. Will the minister take the necessary steps to obtain that prior authority from the security council so that if war breaks out the Canadian troops can be withdrawn without delay?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of National Defence would confirm that there is every confidence in the effectiveness of the plans of the United Nations itself and of the components of the force should they be required.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, it is unusual for me to ask for clarification from this minister, but will he obtain prior authority from the security council so the peace keeping force may take action in withdrawing if that becomes necessary?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, there is of course a difference between the evacuation and the withdrawal of a force. When the withdrawal of the United Nations force in the Middle East took place we took up with the Secretary General what position would be taken with regard to the withdrawal of the force in Cyprus. The Secretary General said that before that force would be withdrawn or disbanded he would refer the matter to the security council.
Having regard to the evacuation or withdrawal of the force for security purposes, that is a matter which in accordance with the plans already made, rests with the commander of the United Nations force.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Defence. Is he in a position to report to the house in respect of dissatisfaction among the ranks of Canadian troops under UN command in Cyprus? I ask this question as the result of a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation interview with non-commissioned officers in the force.


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the question of the hon. member is much too general. What he is apparently referring to is a purported declaration by a sergeant that he did not know whether to stand or run. My suggestion to this sergeant would be that he ask his commanding officer, who knows what to do.
November 28, 1967


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: In view of the fact that this situation was brought to our attention by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, an emanation of this parliament, I am wondering whether the minister will investigate the matter and report to the house in a day or two.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I should like to address a further supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. During discussions of this matter will the minister propose to the security council that additional powers and personnel, if necessary, be given to the UN force in Cyprus so as to prevent any future build up of forces and war materials which might result in an outbreak which would be in contradiction of the Zurich agreement?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that has been borne in mind in recent discussions. My hon. friend will recall that the Prime Minister made some reference to this in London the day before yesterday.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. I am sure members of the house and the country generally would be grateful for any report the Prime Minister could give about his discussions with the British government in respect of the problem in Cyprus, particularly as to whether any concrete steps were discussed or projected during his conferences.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I discussed with them the proposals that had been made and the discussions which had taken place among the governments of the United States, Britain and Canada. The results of these discussions have been made known in this house by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Certain proposals were put forward which have been used as the basis for subsequent negotiations by the representative of the President of the United States. He is making an effort to get an agreement on these proposals, with the modifications which may be required. Those are the steps being taken now which we hope will result in the solution of this crisis.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance and Receiver General.
Inquiries of the Ministry
In view of the fact that gold is being sold very readily on the world's market at the present time, can the minister indicate whether a possible increase in the price of this very precious metal is considered?


Hon. Miichell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: No, Mr. Speaker.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. I believe the injunction to which the minister referred yesterday in answer to a question put by the hon. member for Fraser Valley has been granted. Can he report today on the effect that it has had on the St. Lawrence dock situation?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the longshoremen gangs were called up for one o'clock today. I am hoping for a report at any moment on the number of gangs that have shown up. I do welcome this question, however, because it affords me an opportunity to say that I think that the action taken by one of the parties to the dispute, which resulted in the interim judgment yesterday and the outome, fully vindicate the stand taken by the government throughout the last few weeks.



PROTECTION AGAINST IMPORTS OF SUBSIDIZED FOODS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack A. Irvine (London):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister received a brief from the Canadian Food Processors Association and the horticultural council asking for assistance to protect our Canadian food processors and producers against unfair subsidized competition from abroad?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether the hon. member would have a supplementary question. It is not acceptable simply to ask whether a brief has been received by the minister. That does not constitute an urgent matter.


John Alfred Irvine: Mr. Speaker, this is a very urgent item, and I will rephrase my question. In view of the subsidy that is now being paid
November 28, 1867

Inquiries of the Ministry by Italy on processed food entering Canada, is the government contemplating any immediate action to protect Canadian food processors and producers against this type of unfair, subsidized competition?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we have had meetings with the organizations in various processing areas. Certainly the government has under advisement the problems with respect to imports into Canada of processed foods which are in fact subsidized by the countries from which they emanate. We will certainly consider very seriously appropriate action to protect our processors and primary producers from any unfair competition in this regard, and any such action will of course be announced in the proper manner.


Mr. H. W. Danforih (Kent (Onl.):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture arising out of a question put to the minister today regarding the importation of subsidized processed fruits and vegetables. Have any conferences or consultations been arranged with the governments concerned with a view to establishing voluntary quotas or the reassessment of previous trade agreements?


John James Greene: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: May I ask
a supplementary question of the Minister of Agriculture. Can he inform the house whether his department is giving consideration to the setting up of a central marketing board for all agricultural products?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This also is a very general question which should not be asked at this time.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance in connection with his promise a week ago that an investigation would be made into the action of the Noranda mining company in raising the price of copper. In view of the fact that since that time they have changed the formula but the price is still fixed at 51 cents and in view of the fact that the Hudson Bay Mining and

Smelting Company has now instituted a similar action, may I ask the minister two questions; first, is the investigation continuing in spite of this change of formula, and second, will it include as well the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows the Noranda company changed the formula under which they were going to price copper. They were going to relate the price of copper to the price in the United States. I felt that this was hardly consistent with the statement they made that they had increased prices in Canada because of internal inflationary conditions here.
We are continuing to make inquiries about the basis for the increase in price to 51 cents, the price at which it is now fixed, and the actions of other companies.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Minister of Finance when he thinks such an investigation will be completed?


Mitchell William Sharp: I cannot answer this question, Mr. Speaker, because this is a matter which I should also like to discuss with my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is directly concerned.



NATIONAL CAPITAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. Is it the intention of the government to propose next January the establishment of Ottawa as a bilingual federal district, as announced by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in Hamilton last Friday?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that the question is not urgent and could be placed on the order paper.



CANADA PENSION PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The advisory committee on the Canada Pension
November 28, 1967
Plan will hold its first meeting in Ottawa on December 4 and 5. Would the minister inform us whether this meeting will be open to the public, to enable the committee to hear the views of individuals and briefs from groups?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: No, Mr. Speaker.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: My question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of Canada's determination, as expressed here today, to resist any interference in our internal affairs, will the government now cease its attempt to overthrow the government of Rhodesia by the imposition of sanctions?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend should know that the two situations are not comparable.



NOVA SCOTIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I realize he is a very busy man and his shoulders are heavily burdened, but could he possibly advise the house of the day when he may meet the premier of Nova Scotia with regard to possible financial assistance from the federal government in dealing with the steel crisis? May I also express the hope he will deal with that matter as commendably as he has dealt with the ravings of General Charles de Gaulle.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I hope to meet the premier with the least possible delay. A communication from him was forwarded to me in London, and I hope to discuss it with him and with some of my colleagues with, as I said, the least possible delay.
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, may 1 direct a question to the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Has the minister any progress to report concerning the two young Canadians who are detained at the present time by the Burma authorities in Rangoon?


Hon. Paul  Marfin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, our ambassador who is accredited to Burma is there at this time and I am expecting his report. The day before yesterday, we received the visit of the parents of one of the young men.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question.
Did the minister send a note of protest to the authorities in Burma concerning the way these young prisoners were held incommunicado for five months and were denied the right to legal counsel? Does the government intend to protest against such action in order to protect Canadians in foreign countries?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That also will depend on the reports received from our ambassador and that of the United Kingdom.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is Canada considering recognition of the southern Yemen people's republic, Aden and the federated states?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must admit that I cannot tell whether this is a very urgent matter. However, I suspect it might not be.



DIVORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Justice. A little more than a week ago the Minister of Justice told the house, I think in answer to a question from the hon. member

November 28, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry for Peace River, that a bill with regard to changes in the divorce law of Canada had been printed. May I ask when the bill will be given first reading and whether, in view of the great and natural public interest in this matter, there is any chance it will be given second reading before the end of the year.


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, there is surely a possibility that the bill will get second reading before the end of the year; I expect that the resolution to introduce this bill will be moved any day now.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the increased knowledge available and increased interest in the subject of cigarette smoking, when will this matter be referred to the health and welfare committee as promised some time ago?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out yesterday the health and welfare committee is presently considering a very important matter assigned to it by the house. As soon as there is some indication that this consideration will be completed, we will consider the reference to that committee of the subject matter mentioned by the hon. member.



REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF REGULATIONS RESPECTING VITAMIN SUPPLEMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the government house leader. Will the hon. gentleman consider referring the matter of the directions from the food and drug directorate regarding vitamin supplements to the committee on health and welfare?
Hon, Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will consider it, but I think I have prejudged the matter.



POLLUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and ask him whether in view of the serious, continuing problem of water pollution he can assure the house that the agreements with industry will be continued after the new year.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, we are presently inquiring into that matter.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Will the incentives to industry in regard to water pollution be put on a permanent basis rather than the ad hoc basis on which they are now?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I feel that the question is much too general to be asked at this time.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Will the incentives to industry in regard to water pollution be put on a permanent basis?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether this is not the same question the hon. member asked previously.


Michael Starr: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask for your guidance as to how I can evoke an answer within the rules, because of the importance of this situation.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I may not have been very clear when I answered a previous question on this subject. What I meant to say was that I am working on it now. The idea just mentioned is one aspect we are studying.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that farm
November 28. 1967
improvement loans are no longer attractive to the banks because of the interest rate, and farmers therefore find it difficult to obtain financial assistance under the farm improvement loan plan; and in view of the severe cost-price squeeze prevailing in the agricultural industry, will the minister institute a search for ways and means to encourage the banks to continue to provide assistance to farmers under the farm improvement loans legislation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is making very general representations and submissions to the minister. I do not think this question could be considered acceptable at this time.



ATLANTIC AREA-REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION IN BUDGETARY PROPOSALS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the recent statements and representations by the four Atlantic area premiers, will the Minister of Finance assure them and this house that his budget proposals on Thursday night and proposed expenditure cuts will be sufficiently flexible that they will not adversely affect the economy of the Atlantic region?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is a speech, not a question.



MANPOWER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of manpower. In view of the fact that recent amendments to the vocational and technical retraining program have resulted in a drastic decrease in enrolment, notwithstanding the worsening unemployment situation, would the minister take immediate steps to restore the effectiveness of this program?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I think I have already explained in this house the reason for the decrease in the number of persons assigned to retraining. The situation is correcting itself and I think that, in a few weeks, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) will not have any questions to ask on this matter.
4783
Inquiries of the Ministry


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Inasmuch as the Indian citizens are most seriously affected by this problem, will the minister give special consideration to their situation?


Jean Marchand: I have already stated, Mr. Speaker, that Indians and Eskimos were treated exactly like all other Canadians.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister of manpower. In view of the fact that Atco Industries in Calgary laid off 200 men last week as the result of a decline in the construction industry, has the minister been able to find any alternative employment for these men?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but I did not hear the name of the company.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The Atco Company, the Alberta Trailer Company of Calgary, which I believe, is the foremost producer of trailers and mobile homes in Canada.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will inquire about the work done by the manpower officers and report on this matter soon.



CHEESE-REQUEST FOR EXPORT ASSISTANCE FOLLOWING CURRENCY DEVALUATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lee Grills (Hastings South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. As a result of the deleterious effect on Canadian exports of cheese of the devaluation of the English pound, has the minister or his department given any consideration to correcting this situation and giving some encouragement to the cheese industry? I may say there was no cheese sold through the local cheese board last week.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I believe the hon. member will recall a similar question was asked just two or three days ago.



November 28, 1967
Post Office Act



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. First will you permit me a word of explanation, since the Secretary of State for External Affairs does not understand the significance of my modest boutonniere. The name of the game is rugby. We from the west are proud of the achievements of the Saskatchewan Roughriders. I want to ask the Prime Minister if he will take the house into his confidence and let us know whether he has again made a wager against the Saskatchewan Roughriders with the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, I have, Mr. Speaker, and my hon. friend will be feeling yellow and black next Monday.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: A supplementary. Would he welcome wagers from other western members?



POST OFFICE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, September 29, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Cote (Longueuil)- Mr. Batten in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Post Office Act to increase by one cent the postage rates for letters posted in Canada for delivery in Canada: to provide an amended rate structure for newspapers and periodicals; and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act, more especially in relation to tenders and contracts.
Mr. McCutcheon:: Mr. Chairman, this will probably rate as one of the longest speeches ever made in this house. It was commenced on September 29 and if we had resumed consideration of this measure tomorrow it would have taken two full months. We are being asked to approve an increase in postal rates which will result in an increase in the cost of living for every Canadian and in the cost of doing business. The burden will fall chiefly on ordinary citizens because businesses will pass on the increase to the consumer while at the same time charging up additional expenses when computing their income taxes. Therefore in the case of business firms the increased rates will in reality only net the government a fraction of the amount they hope to raise. It follows then that the main burden of these increased rates

will fall on the ordinary citizens of the country. Further, I suggest that these increases should only be considered as a last resort after all other avenues have been explored.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
With this in view, Mr. Chairman, I have a few questions I should like to pose to the Postmaster General. The post office has 44,244 employees at the present time, or rather did have two months ago when my figures were prepared. In 1963 the total number of employees was 26,520. The question bothering Canadians is: Why was there a personnel increase of 69 per cent during this period while the volume of mail reportedly rose only 9 per cent? During this period the number of post offices has decreased from 11,336 to 11,172, a drop of 164.
If I may refer again to personnel, Mr. Chairman, in 1954-55 the post office operated quite efficiently with four or five so-called branches. Between then and 1959 the number of branches was increased to six with the appropriate number of directors. During this period the maximum growth of our cities took place. This was the period when the poor postman frequently found new subdivisions seemingly appearing overnight in what had previously been a cow pasture.
If ever a department did a job well, Mr. Chairman, it was in this period of maximum growth in our developing urban areas. All of this was accomplished with six branches. Now, in 1967, the post office has 13 or 14 directors, three assistant deputy ministers and five directors of personnel. I would suggest there are quite a few chiefs and that the increase in the number of these high priced individuals is taking place at an alarming rate.
This is just one of the mysteries of this department, Mr. Chairman. The fact that such a gigantic increase in personnel was not accompanied by a similar increase (a) in efficiency and (b) in volume of mail handled seems to indicate that the department probably needs considerable overhaul.
The committee has had the benefit of the minister's statement in regard to income and expenses, but I can find no accounting sheet or annual report that allows me to find out-indeed, I suggest it is impossible to find out-how much was spent on and how much was received from each kind of mail. Surely these figures exist somewhere.
In May, 1966 the minister said that he agreed with his predecessor that certain efforts should be made to follow up some of
November 28. 1967	COMMONS
the recommendations made by the Glassco royal commission. I have no way of knowing whether any of the recommendations in the Glassco commission report have actually been implemented, but I should like to refer to them for a moment. The commission made some specific recommendations, which are contained in the report on government organization volume 3, pages 350 to 351. Extensive changes were suggested in the operational scheme, the financial methods and in almost all aspects of the post office's work. The commission foresaw an annual saving of at least many millions of dollars if its recommendations were heeded.
The following, Mr. Chairman, is a summary of some of their money-saving recommendations: a time study approach in all offices, with a potential saving of $7J million; reduction of wicket staff, with a potential saving of $2.8 million; an analysis of sortation methods, with a possible saving of $4.8 million; and a thorough analysis of highway transportation, with a projected saving of $1.2 million. These in total would provide a saving of $16.3 million. Therefore my second question to the minister is: Have any of these recommendations been followed? What action has been taken toward the implementation of cost-saving programs? Has there been any real effort toward economy? All indications are that there has not been any real effort in this direction.
Having this in mind, Mr. Chairman, I think that we should delay implementation of this legislation until the minister can come before the house and say: We have saved X dollars by reducing inefficiency; we can save X dollars by making certain changes in operation and sortation. In other words, when the minister is able to say that he has actually tried to cut costs and to maintain service, only then should we support the government on this new bill.
W hether or not the post office has instituted these recommended changes we do not know. However, before the post office raises its rates to the Canadian public we should be assured that every opportunity has been taken to reduce costs. Not only is there a lack of information available but there is a stupendous amount of misleading information, and it is my guess that greatly increased efficiency should be possible.
I suggest, sir, that this bill be delayed for say six months so as to give the Postmaster General the opportunity to initiate some innovations and to streamline procedures, but 27053-302 *
DEBATES	4785
Post Office Act
particularly to curtail expenditure. Perhaps if he really goes at the task properly he can lead the way in demonstrating to his colleague the Minister of Finance how a sincere effort coupled with action might obviate the easy way out of simply raising rates.


Mr. Mather:: November 28, 1967
Post Office Act
would be on first class mail, on letters written and received by the people generally. In the case of second class or business mail, which covers magazines, newspapers and periodicals, the increase is not spelled out. It seems to be less than what has been proposed for ordinary, first class mail.
We object to three things, Mr. Chairman. The increase in mail rates generally comes at a strange time, considering that the government itself is urging everyone not to increase costs. If the deficit which the government aims to meet by increasing mail rates is $30 million, as reported, then the increase will be to cover that amount and will be paid directly by the general public through increased postage rates; or by commercial establishments such as telephone and hydro companies whose bills make up a great deal of the first class mail. Can anyone imagine that business will absorb the extra $20 million, say, that it must lay out in meeting increased postal costs? I submit that as usual businesses will pass on their extra costs to the consumers, the ordinary letter writers of this country. We submit that the government's proposal to increase postage rates will increase living costs for many people. They in turn will seek to offset their increased expenses by trying to obtain a higher return in earnings.
We also object on this ground, Mr. Chairman. Though for many years first class mail, the mail of the ordinary citizen, has been paying its way and making a profit in some years, and though over the same period second and third class mail, that mail which is distributed to make a profit for someone, has been carried, at a deficit and to that extent has been subsidized by the ordinary consumer who uses first class mail, suddenly the government says. Let us wipe out the postal deficit on commercial mail largely by imposing increases on the consumers' first class mail. If postal rates are to be increased at all, surely they ought to be increased in those areas where over the years they have been proven to be too low to meet costs. I am preferring to second and third class mail.
It is said, Mr. Chairman, that first class mail is beginning to show a deficit and that it may lose money. I suggest that we should wait and see. Before increasing postage rates for consumers, why does the government not find out exactly where the deficits occur? It is too early to say exactly which way the trend is going with regard to deficits on first class mail. It is not too early to say what has

been happening to second or third class mail, that mail which has to do with commercial, private profit-making business.
The public accounts committee of the House of Commons this year made a report which contained this unanimous recommendation:
The committee first drew the matter to the attention of the house in its 1958 report-
That is almost ten years ago:
-and while minor changes have been made the annual loss has continued to increase and the committee is of the opinion that sufficient consideration has not been given to the solution of this problem. It considers it essential that the Post Office Department or parliament immediately find ways and means of covering the loss of the Post Office Department in handling second class mail . .. without this being done at the expense of other classes of mail, keeping in mind, however, the need of assistance to small independently owned newspapers circulated in rural areas.
Similar recommendations have been made by similar committees during the past six years. I make a similar recommendation today. The recommendations of the House of Commons committee, and I urge the government to heed them, have repeatedly been drawn to the attention of Postmasters General over many years. Possibly some post office difficulties have arisen owing to the high rate of turnover of Postmasters General. We have had no less than seven in the past six years.
Returning to my argument, I ask why should the Post Office Department face a deficit when ordinary first class mail has made a profit and mail having to do with private business has been carried at a loss which must be paid for by the taxpayer? I wish to quote from another source. The royal commission on publications in 1961 made this statement:
Periodicals do not carry the full cost because it is believed to be in the national interest that there be the widest distribution of periodicals and newspapers-
According to the commission, much of this deficit, which increased from $20 million in 1960 to $30 million in 1966, can be attributed to periodicals which are mailed abroad and delivered in Canada. The Canadian post office derives no revenue from the delivery of foreign second class mail. Under the terms of the universal postal convention, all governments are required to handle free of charge whatever is passed to them by foreign post offices. This arrangement is reciprocal and, in theory, equitable.
Between Canada and the United States that theory fails completely. Canadians
November 28, 1967

receive far more second class mail from abroad, largely from the United States, than they send abroad. We believe that the agreement which has brought about this situation should be renegotiated. It is not enough to say that boosting ordinary letter rates will take care of everything. We do not want to protect this situation any longer and we will not support any move that will add to the cost of living of the ordinary consumer of this country.
We ought to concern ourselves with other aspects of the post office. On the one hand the Post Office Department receives subsidies and benefits of approximately $25 million a year. These include provision for accommodation, buildings, and so on. On the other hand, the post office performs various services free of charge. Because of the free service it provides to members of the public and to members of parliament with respect to parliamentary correspondence, the post office is loaded with extra costs which according to the 1965 figures amount to approximately $4.5 million. It is not enough for us to tinker with post office rates at the retail level. In fairness we cannot increase or decrease those rates until we have a clear picture of the factors which interfere with the ability of the service to break even.
We regard the post office service as a basic service which the Canadian public has organized and which it uses and pays for. The service is a natural, public monopoly and we want it to pay its way, but that is all. We want no one class of the community to pay more or to pay less than in equity it ought to pay.
I should like the government to answer some questions so as to provide us with a clearer picture and better perspective of the dimensions of the post office service and what it costs to maintain that service.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
For instance, what was the approximate value of subsidies to the post office, including accommodation, for the year 1966? What was the approximate value of the franking service and other services that were performed free of charge by the post office in 1966? What was the loss in 1966 incurred by the post office in the carrying of newspapers and magazines? What was the loss to the post office in 1966 in connection with second class mail posted in the United States for delivery in Canada? What has been the loss to the post office in the last ten years as a result of carrying Time and Reader's Digest? What
Post Office Act
was the value of printed matter imported into Canada in the last ten years and carried by our post office without remuneration under the terms of the universal post office convention?
In conclusion I summarize the position of my party with regard to the proposals to increase postal rates. We propose to let the first class mail rate alone. It is said that the rate may be resulting in a deficit. Let us study this for at least a year so as to be sure of what is happening, just as we are sure that the second class rate is incurring a loss.
In the second place we propose that the deficit which has all along been caused by subsidizing private business mailings be eliminated by increasing the rate in the area where it is low enough to cause a deficit, that is, in the second and third class rates.
Third, we ask that the government renegotiate the international treaty which has involved us in losses and bring about parity with the United States postal service in order that our consumers and publishers may not be subsidizing non-Canadian competitors.
Fourth, we want an examination-it might be through a committee or a commission or a special inquiry within the post office itself -of the various subsidies and charges borne by the postal service in order to bring out the facts and provide a clear picture showing who pays for what.
Fifth, we would like a study to be made in depth of the reported advantages of turning the post office into a public corporation, that is, a crown company operated quite separately from itinerant postmasters general.
Finally, what we in this party would like to see is a further advance in the modernization which has already taken place within the postal service. We should like its procedures and techniques brought increasingly in line with the era of technological production and distribution in which we are living. Today the post office faces a situation similar to that which the telephone companies faced a few years ago before they made their operations as automatic as possible.
We in this party aim to do what we can to bring about the most efficient service possible, the best service to the most people in the shortest time, and it is not in line with that philosophy for us to support the proposed increase in the first class mail rate.

November 28, 1967
Post Office Act


Mr. Roland Godin (Porlneuf):: Mr. Chairman, I shall take this opportunity to extend my sympathy to the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote), sponsor of this resolution. It is unfortunate to note that after less than two years, he has been forced to come begging to us again.
I remember that 21 months ago, the minister had accepted his appointment with the best intentions in the world and at the time, he had made his plans known to the whole country at a press conference. It is realized today that the minister is faced with the increased cost of living.
He has to administer a department which employs a great number of workers scattered throughout the country. Those workers must pay taxes like any other, in order to meet the requirements of financiers who are asking for a larger share year after year. Taxes and charges must be raised. Our businessmen, our industrialists, through force of circumstances, have become tax collectors have to hire additional personnel and this increases costs and requires an increase in the price of their products. The present minister faces all these increases: Increases in the cost of services, rents, wages, and so on.
In view of the problems brought about by the increase in the cost of living, the Minister of Finance last spring brought down a deficit budget. Nevertheless, the Postmaster General being an intelligent man, wants to run his department on a business basis. To meet the increases in rentals of departmental premises throughout the country, to meet the demands of contractors who supply the trucks, to meet the costs of transportation either by railroad or by air, it is obviously necessary to resort to a new increase in rates. I am not opposed to this plan, because I think that it is the department where the employees work the hardest. It is also a department which generally gives excellent service.
Personally, I had the opportunity to go to Vancouver last winter and I noted that a letter mailed on Monday afternoon had been delivered in Quebec Tuesday afternoon, 24 hours later. It is also known that from Ottawa to Quebec is a twelve-hour service.
I take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. minister who uses modern means in modern times. We know that trains or trucks are still more advantageous for short distances, and that planes are better for long distances.

There still are some rural areas which are served according to old methods because certain rules apply which date back to the days of wax candles when much of the transport was handled by ox-carts. Unfortunately, a few parishes in the riding of Portneuf, which I have the honour of representing, were served that way. Their service must be improved. Some time ago, I pointed out the situation to the hon. minister and I know he will do everything in his power to give satisfaction to the people concerned.
I take this opportunity to thank him for his co-operation. I wish also to tell the minister that the part of the resolution in which I am most interested is the last paragraph, and I quote:
-to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the Act, more especially in relation to tenders and contracts.
It is interesting to note that the minister is looking for reform because the old system was really obsolete, and I could quote many examples to this effect. I have here the list of all the contractors of my region, and it is deceiving to note the numerous price differences between the various parishes for contracts providing for the same mileage and about the same number of subscribers.
This situation is caused by civil servants who work for the party. I have noticed in the past two years-I imagine that things were the same before I came here-that when the time comes to renew a contract awarded to a member of the party, the government never calls for tenders. When citizens who do not belong to a specific political party are involved, however, tenders are called. That is when people try to cut each other's throat, when unemployed persons, faced with the problems of survival and an insecure future, make unreasonably low bids and are unable to discharge adequately the responsibilities involved in the circumstances, I cannot but welcome the projects of the minister for improving those methods.
I should like to ask the minister to make a limited personal investigation in another area, more particularly in respect to closing times of rooms where post office boxes are located. In three post offices located within a few miles of one another, hours during which access may be had to post office boxes differ. In one post office, access to the boxes is prohibited after 6:30 p.m., since the facilities are locked. Ten miles farther, in another post office, the public has access to the boxes till
November 28, 1967

7:30 p.m. Then, another 10 miles farther, the post office boxes are open till 9:30 p.m.
I made a telephone call again this morning; I was somewhat concerned because of the irregularity of the situation. In the light of these facts, Mr. Chairman, I come to the conclusion that the closing hours are related to the wishes or whims of certain employees.
In some post offices, the postmaster is responsible, but in others, we must get in touch with the Department of Public Works because the time during which we can have access to these boxes is decided by this department's officials. No matter who is in charge, standards should be established for such cases.
Moreover, as the rates for a letter or a parcel post are about the same, I imagine that for towns and villages of the same size, services should be comparable.
I hope that the minister will take into consideration the remarks of all hon. members. As far as the improvement of the few defective areas are concerned, I hope also that the minister will get in touch with the postmasters concerned because most of those employees work conscientiously. They work in the field and, in my opinion, they are really neglected. As a matter of fact, I am under the impression that they very seldom get a chance to speak. I suggest to the minister to consult those employees who would like nothing better than to put their intelligence at the service of the department by making suggestions that will benefit the Canadian postal service as a whole.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, in taking this opportunity to comment on the resolution with regard to the proposed postal bill I wish to emphasize as vividly as I can that any remarks I make with regard to the post office are in no wise intended to reflect on the Postmaster General, whom I consider possibly the most conscientious member of the cabinet in the administration of his department. My reflections with regard to the resolution and the bill which will follow are directed primarily to the method by which legislation is placed before parliament, and I wish to comment on the manner in which so-called representative government never gives an opportunity to the people's representatives to do any governing.
When the broadcasting bill was introduced in the house I spoke at length on the manner
Post Office Act
in which it was brought in, pointing out that members of parliament other than members of the cabinet were in no wise considered with regard to the bill or its contents, that neither the caucus, nor the party in power, nor individual members of parliament outside of the cabinet were asked anything about the proposed legislation, and pointed out that pieces of proposed legislation are never shown to them. I said at that time that when the post office bill or resolution was brought forward I intended to make the same comments, and I do so again, if possible with a little more vehemence. If the members of the House of Commons wish to consider me conceited, that is their privilege. It is a free country. But I still stand here, as I have said on more than one occasion when the post office estimates were up for consideration or a post office bill was being discussed, and say that I believe I know more about the Post Office Department than any other member of the house.
I had 25 years close association with the post office in a business way for 24 hours a day, seven days a week. I am not exaggerating, because in the publication of newspapers with a circulation of one million a week, or 400,000 a day, you are in continuous contact with the Post Office Department. Yet as a private member of parliament, elected to this house from the riding of York-Humber, and as one who is conceited enough to say he does know something about the post office, I have never been asked a single, solitary question about it by any member of the cabinet, by anybody connected with the cabinet side of the so-called parliamentary system of government. But being on the right of Mr. Speaker I am immediately supposed to vote for anything which emanates from the cabinet mind because it is bound to be wholly right, wholly true, wholly correct.
I am not one who subscribes to the belief that the hand-picked members of the cabinet are right in every decision they make. How can you believe that every decision the cabinet makes in secret is right? When a general election comes around and a cabinet is unhorsed then you are supposed to criticize members of the former cabinet for what they thought were wholly right decisions when in office. I do not believe that any man is ever wholly right or wholly wrong, but I do believe that the representatives of the people should be given an opportunity to represent the people who elected them and present their views on the matters of the day that may be brought before the house.

November 28>
1967
Post Office Act
I came into this chamber just now, after having been over to the committee reporting services branch checking on the reporting of some committees, when the hon. member for New Westminster was speaking. As a member of the Liberal party sitting to the right of Mr. Speaker I wish to say I personally endorse everything the hon. member for New Westminster had to say in commenting on this resolution. I do not believe for one moment that first class postage rates should be raised without the house having been advised what are the details of the losses on other classes of mail, second class, third class and parcel post, if there are losses. It is not satisfactory to this country to have members of the cabinet stand up and say, "There is a deficit in the post office operation. Therefore we are going to raise first class postage rates." First class postage rates affect everybody in the entire country, and why should all the taxpayers of this country be asked to carry the load for the business firms that are being subsidized by too low rates on the classification of mail in which they are primarily interested?
When the broadcasting bill was introduced I commented on the number of times that the minister introducing it, the Secretary of State, stated: Under this bill we will be doing this and we will be doing that and we will be doing the other thing. Never once did she say that the cabinet was asking parliament to approve their suggestion that such and such be adopted as the policy of the parliament of Canada. We were simply told straight from the shoulder what parliament was going to do with regard to broadcasting, because didn't she have a broadcasting bill to lay before the house? Now here we are again with another representative of the cabinet introducing other legislation.
I have before me Hansard for September 29, 1967, and as recorded on page 2685 the Postmaster General, a friend of mine, moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Post Office Act-
Et cetera. As recorded on page 2686, during his speech he said:
The new rate on a letter for delivery within the postal area in which it is posted will be five cents-
There was no suggestion there that members of the cabinet were in fact asking parliament to approve a rate of five cents for the

first ounce or fraction of an ounce. Then he continued:
The rate on a letter posted within one postal area for delivery in another postal area will be six cents for the first ounce-*
What are we meeting for? Why do they not just put it into effect? They are telling us what they are going to do. Why waste our time discussing the matter if that is what the rates are going to be? But I agree with the hon. member for New Westminster that we want a lot more facts before parliament should be asked to approve an increase in the first class mail rate, which affects all the people of Canada and, without doubt, will be a subsidy to business firms using other sections of the postal service.
I was here when the minister made his remarks on September 29 and it was interesting to me to hear him say-I suppose the facts are given to him by officials of the department-as recorded on page 2689 of Hansard:
The hon. member who has just made his speech-
That, by the way, was the hon. member for New Westminster.
-suggested that the ordinary citizen would have to pay the bulk of the revenue to be provided by this increase.
e (4:20 p.m.)
Let me tell him that the average citizen spends on the services of the post office $1.89 a year: the increase will bring this up to $2.12, so the ordinary citizen will be paying 30 cents a year more.
Then listen to this big business cabinet:
But consider the position of the Bell Telephone Company, for example, which has telephones in every home and sends a bill to every house once a month. What about companies and corporations of this kind? It is they who will really be carrying the burden.
Well, I do not shed any tears over organizations the size of the Bell Telephone Company, but I like to ask the members of the cabinet where they think the Bell Telephone Company will get the money to pay the increased postage rates. If you increase the postage rates of the Bell Telephone Company they will increase their rates to their subscribers. I know of no reason why we should force the domestic taxpayer, the home owner, to pay more for first class mail service on the ground that outfits the size of the Bell Telephone Company will share the increase in the rate too, because any increase in the postage rate they pay they will get from the consuming public, and then suggest that there should be no objections and no argument about an increase in first class rates.
November 28. 1967

Since I am referring to what the Postmaster General said on September 29 regarding the Bell Telephone Company, I might ask him a question which I brought to the attention of the house a year or two ago. I asked whether the Bell Telephone Company had a special mailing rate for sending out its monthly invoices. Has that special rate been wiped out now?


Mr. Cole (Longueuil):: On your recommendation.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I am very glad to know that one slight change was made on my recommendation. I can hardly believe that that amount of attention was ever paid to a private member of parliament. I do not think, however, that this is great enough that we should throw our hats in the air in glee. The Bell Telephone Company for years had a special rate. When this was brought to the attention of this very able Postmaster General, action was taken so that they would be forced to pay the same rate as every other business firm in Canada when sending out invoices.
The question of the revenue from second class and third class mail and from parcel post has been gone into many, many times. The hon. member for New Westminster in the course of his remarks asked what loss we sustain by delivering throughout Canada second class mail originating in the United States from which the Canadian Post Office Department does not secure any revenue. When the hon. member for New Westminster asked about the United States he might have been even broader in his question and have asked about all the other countries in the world. A tremendous bulk of mail is pouring into this country from other nations of the world which comes in as second class mail and is delivered throughout the whole country, and the Canadian Post Office Department does not secure a cent of revenue from it. When the hon. member for New Westminster mentioned the United States no doubt he realized that the great volume of second class mail which comes from outside Canada comes from the United States, but there is a heavy mass of second class mail from other countries such as Great Britain and France, to name two more other than the United States.
In discussing this question of the loss on second class mail I should like to point out something which I have pointed out several times before. It is said that constant dripping 27053-303
Post Office Act
wears away the hardest stone. I hope that with constant repetition we may get some action.
I do not know how many members of this house are aware of the fact that second class mail which crosses international boundary lines pays its postal revenue to the country in which it is mailed but that that revenue is not shared with any other country through which that mail may progress. To refer again to the hon. member for New Westminster, I may say that if mail is placed in a mail box in Chicago, Illinois and addressed to Vancouver or New Westminster, British Columbia, or St. John's, Newfoundland, the mail going east may come into Canada at Windsor, Ontario, and the mail going west may cross into Canada at Emerson, Manitoba. The Canadian government carries that second class mail from Emerson right through to New Westminster without a cent of compensation, and if it is going to St. John's, Newfoundland, it is transported from Windsor without a cent of compensation. The United States post office department retains the full revenue for moving that mail from Chicago to Emerson, Manitoba, or from Chicago to Sarnia. I do not see how any man can believe that this is a fair and proper division of the revenue from second class mail mailed outside of the country.
As I have said before and repeat now, for over 30 years definite requests have been made to the government of the day-this involves the Bennett government, the King government, the St. Laurent government, the Diefenbaker government and even the present government-for a proper adjustment of the revenue on international second class mail. We have the example of parcel post coming from the United States into Canada and parcel post going from Canada into the United States. On two days in the year all the parcels are hauled to the border and the post office departments of Canada and the United States very quickly analyse and calculate the weight moving on these two days, check how far the parcels are going in either country and, using these two days as the best example, they multiply by the number of days in the year and come up with the weight of the parcel post movement from Canada to the United States and from the United States to Canada, and the distances travelled in both countries. The revenue then is divided equally according to the ton miles carried.

measure goes through the way it is proposed. Why should all first class mail be moved by air? Not all first class mail has to be received the day after it is mailed. If people want that kind of service they should pay for it as they do in the United States. If surface mail is satisfactory across the country for much of the mail, why should the government worry about giving all-up mail service for all first class mail?
I have mentioned in the house before and I repeat that it was possibly 30 years ago when I heard the president of Trans-Canada Air Lines-before my confreres from Quebec jump to the rescue of Air Canada let me state that I am talking about 1937 when it was Trans-Canada Air Lines-make a statement in the Langevin block that he was not going to see T.C.A. operate at a loss and he would bill the Post Office Department with any deficit he thought he had, so he could show a block figure in the T.C.A. annual statement. I suggest to you that that is one way to run a postal service but it is not one of which I approve.
Why can we not have an analysis to find out what it costs to send mail by air services on a basis of weight and distance travelled compared with the cost of surface mail? There is no reason that we should use the most expensive method of transportation for first class mail, even if we do want to brag about the speed with which mail is carried in Canada, which we are told is an example to every postal administration in the world. If this is such an example to every postal administration in the world I should like to ask how many other postal administrations are following our example of using the most costly service possible for all first class mail even if not demanded.


The Chairman:: Order. I must advise the hon. member that his allotted time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I presume you need agreement.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee give unanimous consent in order that the hon. member may continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and through you I thank the members of the committee for their kindness. I should like to make some further remarks on the matter of postal rates.
27053-303*
Post Office Act
We were told in an explanation given on September 29 that there will be some substantial changes in second class mail. Why have not members of the house been informed since September 29 what those changes are to be? Why do members of parliament who represent 265 constituencies have to sit here in the dark waiting for the cabinet to release the details of the substantial changes in second class mail at some time at their pleasure? I believe we should be allowed to discuss these matters fully and frankly and then adopt legislation according to the representations made by the elected representatives of the people. But oh, no. That is not the way of government today.
As found on page 2689 of Hansard for September 29 the Postmaster General had this to say:
Some of the magazines or newspapers now enjoying second class statutory rates will cease to have the benefit of these rates because we are working out a new definition of a Canadian newspaper or a Canadian periodical.
Note the words "we are working out". Are the members of parliament not allowed to work out a new definition of a Canadian newspaper, or do we have to rely on officials to work out that definition? Perhaps it is the cabinet which works out the definition. What are we sent down here for, just to act as rubber stamps on a piece of legislation once it has been worked out by someone, because we are not told who "we" is? I brought this to the attention of the house when the broadcasting bill was brought down.


John Cole: It is the members of parliament.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: November 28, 19S7
Post Office Act
he would amplify his remarks about support from the postal rate for these little publications. These remarks are to be found on page 2685 of Hansard. If the Postmaster General means that the former support is to be continued, then I think these newspapers would be satisfied on this point, and I would be also. However, if he means some additional charge is going to be imposed upon them, perhaps not the full charge, then I would not be satisfied. I hope, therefore, he will make that point clear.


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: Will the hon. member tell me what he means by "small publications"? Does he mean the weeklies?


Robert Jardine McCleave: I refer to the very small weekly newspapers. I am glad the minister did not give me an answer at this moment because this affords me an opportunity to put on the record some comments made in an editorial entitled, "M.P.-Irresponsible Talk". After making several comments on the remarks made by the hon. member for York-Humber, the editorial reads as follows:
Thus we generously estimate (the exact figures have been supplied to the postal authorities by the C.W.N.A. Postal Committee) that the Post Office Department handles, free of cost, at the most some 500,000 copies a week.
During the publishing year, with most newspapers closing one week for a plant holiday, this number amounts to 25,500,000 copies. At the usual mailing rate-3 cents for the first two ounces-the annual" lost revenue to the Post Office Department is $765,000 at most.
This isn't 4 per cent of that far more worrisome $30 million.
Then the magazine, in language which should appeal to the hon. member for York-Humber because it is as rough and ready as his own remarks, takes him to task for some of his statements. I do not intend to read that part into the record. What I do want to read is this:
Mr. Cowan would like to know what other reasons there are to provide free mailing privileges to the smaller weekly newspapers.
This may come as a surprise to the self-professed expert on publishing business, but Mr. Cowan should be aware that a small community newspaper is no money-maker to many a publisher. This service to the public is, if the publisher is fortunate, made possible by the job shop and stationery store run in conjunction with the newspaper.
The publisher keeps putting out his newspaper also because it is the only means that provides a voice to the grass roots community and lends it some identity. Quite often the small newspaper is the only voice through which the government by publicity releases or advertisements-

This should appeal to the hon. member.
-can reach the isolated or furthest corners of this country. Thus the newspapers not only provide service to their readers but help the government to communicate with its citizens.
I am sure, Mr. Chairman, the Postmaster General realizes the point I am trying to make. We must not look at this matter of postal rates as a simple matter of business efficiency and the recovering of costs according to the particular items to be mailed. We have to have some regard in this country for a policy which will enable the small weekly newspapers to survive. I hope the Postmaster General will clear up my questions on that score later in the debate.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in connection with some comments made by the hon. member for Halifax.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I am sure the hon. member will recall the conditions under which the committee is debating this resolution. Standing order 61A provides the hon. member with 20 minutes during this debate and he has already exceeded that limit.


Mr. Mackasey:: Mr. Chairman, I suppose it is just a coincidence that you have reminded us of the 20 minute limit just when I am rising to make my contribution. My first task, of course, is to congratulate the Postmaster General who has responsibility for the problems connected with the post office. Since I am a Montrealer I am very much aware and appreciative of the courage and initiative the Postmaster General has shown in connection with some of the internal labour problems of the post office and the forthright and direct manner in which he has intervened to the benefit of everyone concerned. I feel this is a tribute to the Postmaster General who has taken his role very seriously.
I do not share in the general criticism of the ambiguity of the resolution, at least in comparison with other resolutions with which we have been faced. However, I believe the hon. member for York-Humber has a legitimate grievance to some extent at least. The resolution does outline four general areas in which the Postmaster General intends to introduce legislation. We are given at least some idea of what he has in mind.
In reviewing the speech made by the minister I was impressed by the fact that 70 per cent or more of the first class mail in this country originates not from private citizens but from businesses. The bulk of any
November 28, 19S7

increase in the cost of first class mail, therefore, will fall mainly on the shoulders of business. My observations at this moment are made from a rather intimate knowledge of the graphic arts industry. Prior to five years ago, when I first came to the House of Commons, I earned my living as the president of a graphic arts firm. I severed my connection with that firm very reluctantly when I realized I could not be a publisher and a member of parliament and do justice to the business of which I was head. However, I have retained my interest in that particular field of endeavour.
I am participating in this debate because of the effect, directly and indirectly, that the postal service and postal rates have on the graphic arts industry. I think there is no member in the House of Commons who is not aware that in his own community or his own constituency there are several one-man shops, some two-man shops and perhaps some rather sophisticated and efficient printing plants. In fact, Mr. Chairman, as of 1965 there were over 78,000 people engaged directly in the graphic arts industry in Canada. I know of no other industry in which 78,000 people are so widely distributed from one end of this country to the other. It is only natural that the graphic arts industry should view with apprehension any changes contemplated in our mailing services.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The hon. member for York-Humber made an excellent point when he said that owing to the population of Canada and the size of the nation we are by international agreement expected to absorb more than our share of providing mailing facilities for other signatories to the agreement. I think that at the next conference, which will be taking place in a few years, Canada should advance the proposal that the fund be pooled. As the situation is at the moment the fund is weighted very heavily on the side of the United States of America, with its vast population, and other countries with large populations and therefore with large mail flow.
One of the greatest inequalities suffered by the Canadian graphic arts industry in recent years results from the fact that so much direct mail coming into Canada originates in the United States. Years ago when I was associated with a printing firm I remember that nothing upset me more than to receive mail soliciting my business and asking me to purchase another piece of equipment or a new type of ink or a new can of solution,
Post Office Act
something I needed for the day to day operation of the business, which originated from the United States. I thought it was an insult to our graphic arts industry, which is so dependent on business from Canadian corporations, to openly approach me for business by mail which originated in the United States.
If you go into a supermarket today, Mr. Chairman, you will find that many of the labels on cans of food originate in the United States of America. The country of origin must be indicated by law. It gripes me, realizing the contribution the graphic arts industry makes to every little community, that when I buy a can of pears or peaches the label on the can bears the rather unobstru-sively printed words, "Printed in the United States of America".
A question of cold economics, of course, is involved here. In the United States there is the advantage of the over-run. More and more Canadian firms have been trying to offset the competitive advantage of the United States which merely has to run its presses a few hours longer to print labels for Canada. Canadian firms have met this competition not only by being efficient but by being on the Canadian scene. However, I am a little apprehensive, as I mentioned to the Postmaster General if the mailing rates in Canada are increased in respect of third class mail. This class of mail includes the bulk of direct mail, and any increase in rates will mean increasing the competitive advantage of direct mail originating from the United States. Many subsidiaries of international firms will once again find it expedient to send direct mail from the United States, taking advantage of United States postal rates to solicit business across Canada in competition with local representatives of the graphic arts industry.
People ask me why the government should subsidize the graphic arts industry. Why should the government subsidize small printing firms in communities across the country by carrying their mail at a low rate? It would be equally logical for the representatives of the graphic arts industry to ask why the government should subsidize those who advertise not by direct mail but on the C.B.C. This form of advertising is subsidized through the amount of money the Canadian taxpayer puts at the disposal of the C.B.C. When a program on the C.B.C. is sponsored jointly by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Ford Motor Company, or whoever it is, we all know this is a form of

November 28, 1967
Post Office Act
subsidy to a specific type of advertising. If it is not correct to do it in one case then it is not correct to do it in another.
I therefore would not view with any tremendous degree of alarm the fact that the post office may subsidize directly or indirectly, certain segments of the graphic arts industry. Sponsors who advertise on television and on the radio are equally subsidized. In fact, the story of Canada is one of subsidy, whether it relates to farming areas, the cities, the advertising industry, the graphic arts industry, radio or television. I am sure hon. members are all familiar with the amount of subsidization that exists in this country.
I am very resentful when speakers refer, as sometimes happens, to all direct mail as being junk mail. I think this is unfair. Whether we like it or not, the amount of direct mail is increasing. Whether we like it or not, at the present moment the pulp and paper industry is badly depressed in Canada. Because of overproduction and increased competition in foreign markets, one of the godsends to firms like the E. B. Eddy Company, Abitibi and others in Canada is the amount of fine paper that is used by the graphic arts industry in the production of direct mail. We may find ourselves in the ridiculous position of trying to increase the income of the Post Office Department by increasing rates on third class mail which could result in a decrease in revenue from the 12 per cent tax that is applied to all pieces of direct mail produced in this country.
I do not pretend that every piece of direct mail produced in Canada is tasteful any more than every advertisement seen on television is tasteful. In this regard I think particularly of advertisements for the drug or pharmaceutical industry depicting men with hammers banging on their heads or their stomachs, and other similar exaggerated advertisements. They are no more tasteful than some of the direct mail which is sent out every day of the week in Canada. However, by and large the direct mail distributed in Canada is tasteful and attractive. If it is not it does not capture the imagination of the people, and if it does not do that people stop using direct mail and turn to other media of communication such as television, radio and the daily newspapers. Before hon. members condemn direct mail per se I would ask them to reflect a little and to realize the good effect that direct mail does have on the graphic arts
[Mr. Mackasey.l
industry, with the resultant good effect upon their communities as well as mine.
It is for this reason that I am not concerned about the fact that direct mail may or may not be handled at a loss to the Canadian taxpayer, any more than I am concerned about the fact that advertising on radio and television is subsidized from the huge grants we give the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. But I am concerned about any increased charge to the graphic arts industry in the form of a further increase in third class mailing rates. I say further increase because there was a substantial increase on October 1, 1967 which had to be absorbed by the graphic arts industry. This added burden, which may or may not be imposed by the Postmaster General-the resolution is not too clear about this-could very well mean the difference between further expansion in Canada of the graphic arts industry or a return to the old practice of mailing direct from the United States. This practice is to the complete and total disadvantage of the 78,000 people employed in the printing industry in Canada, as well as the fine paper merchants and others who benefit from direct mail.
I could go on, Mr. Chairman, during the short time at my disposal to point out that there is more to printing than somebody merely running a printing press. The graphic arts industry of Canada gives work to artists, to creative people, printers, translators, copywriters, proof readers, and all those other trades so familiar to the hon. member for York-Humber and other members who have been more directly associated with newspaper work.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
As I mentioned, the resolution lacks information. As found at the bottom of page 2685 and the top of page 2686 of Hansard the minister said that he intends to define clearly those publications that will be carried as second class mail and those publications, weekly or otherwise, which will be relegated to third class status.
I am concerned about the following remark to be found on page 2686 of Hansard where the minister is reported to have said:
Publications which do not qualify as Canadian will come out of the second class statutory rates category.
I hold no brief for magazines which do not qualify as Canadian magazines. Hon. members who were here in 1963 may recall that
November 28, 1967

as the member for Verdun I rose in the house and suggested that Reader's Digest and Time Magazine ought to be run out of the country. I spoke for half an hour and gave my reasons. I said that since many employees of the firms that publish these magazines reside in my riding it was high time to stop procrastinating with respect to the O'Leary report, as it was known, and that we ought to decide whether these magazines were Canadian. A long debate followed and from it emerged comprehensive legislation which, among other things, prevented a further decline of Canadian magazines, reduced the possibility of United States publications competing unfairly with domestic publications and prevented Canadian newspapers from ever becoming foreign owned or dominated.
From my understanding of the law, and I expect that the minister will make a statement on second reading, first class mail rates are statutory and third and fourth class mail rates are non-statutory. I believe that everybody understands what that means. For instance, on October 1 the minister in his wisdom-and I say this objectively-decreed that matter which is classified to be carried as third and fourth class matter would be subject to an increase in postal rates from that date. It was not necessary for the minister to come before the house because any action he took was authorized under existing legislation. I expect the minister's reasons for his action were that he felt that the burden of cost of third class mail was such that these categories should pay higher postal rates. I do not object to that.
Nevertheless, I am concerned about magazines and newspapers being placed in the non-statutory category, and for this reason. They will find themselves in the onerous position of being subject to increased rates by regulations which may be applied, and these new rates imposed by regulation need not be scrutinized by the House of Commons. To make my point clear, let me say this. A government-any government-in one year, two years, five years or ten years, which may be upset by the editorial comment of a magazine or newspaper falling in the third class rate category, may resort to using the psychological weapon that it has in its hands. At the top of page 2686 of Hansard the minister said that publications which do not qualify as Canadian publications will be removed from the statutory rate category. The minister did not say whether such publications are to be included in the third or fourth class categories. Conceivably, a new category could
Post Office Act
be created for such publications. My point is that I do not think it advisable to remove any publication, Canadian or non-Canadian, from the statutory rate category and place it in the non-statutory rate category. I have given my reasons for saying that.
Once a publication is placed in a nonstatutory category the government of the day-and this includes my government-has in its hands a weapon that may be unfairly used. Should the government not be pleased with the editorial comment of a magazine it may use the weapon it has in its hand and threaten that magazine-


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired.


An hon. Member:: Carry on.


Mr. Webb:: Mr. Chairman, most of my remarks will take the form of questions directed to the minister, but first I wish to thank the minister and his department for the cooperation I have received in the past.
I am concerned about the thousands of small post offices which are being closed. I realize that the department thinks that closing these post offices will result in economies. I remind the minister that many small post offices, most, in fact, are run by merchants who operate small stores. The post office brings in extra revenue which helps to defray general store expenses. The post office also attracts customers to the store who buy goods. By closing post offices the department will inevitably put many hundreds of small businessmen out of business, and these businessmen are all taxpayers. The country as a whole will not benefit from these economies and the department ought to strike a balance between the benefits that may accrue to the country from the economies of closing small post offices and the benefits that will accrue to the country from allowing taxpayers such as small businessmen to continue paying taxes. It is convenient to have a post office in a small store. Those who visit the post office get their mail, buy stamps, money orders and what have you, and buy goods from the merchant.
I wish to bring to the minister's attention that in the previous fiscal year-I am not referring to this year-171 new revenue post offices were built, 139 of them in four provinces. It is nice to have a new post office; every small town would like to get one. But

November 28, 19S7
Post Office Act
when 139 out of 171 post offices are built in four provinces and the country has ten provinces and two territories it becomes evident that there ought to be a better distribution of post office buildings. Newfoundland has more post offices per capita than any province of Canada. No doubt the minister is aware that Newfoundland post offices are all monuments to John Whitney Pickersgill.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: I should also like to ask the minister whether he would not consider setting a rate for rural and urban mail carriers so as to eliminate the cutthroat practices which go on today. As things are, tenders are called and one person can take a contract away from another by bidding say $10 less, though possibly his equipment is dilapidated and the service provided will not be as good. I believe this situation should be looked into. A few years ago I was talking to an official of the department and he told me he had tried to promote such a course as I have suggested but had not got very far. If the department would set a rate of 20 cents a mile for urban deliveries and 25 cents a mile for rural deliveries I believe we would get better service. Today many carriers are operating at a loss. They bid a little less than the other fellow and are awarded the contract but get little benefit from it. As to cost, I am sure that when the department calculates at the end of the year how much is needed to keep a postmaster and caretaker in all these new post offices it will be found to exceed the cost of the local deliveries which are being made now.
I should also like to ask the minister whether it is true that today there are some janitors who are receiving larger salaries than the postmasters.
On the subject of newspaper rates may I say I am very sympathetic toward those who publish and read weekly newspapers. Many of these papers are ceasing to be published; those who put them out are finding it increasingly difficult to get along. I can appreciate the government's objective in trying to reduce the deficit which the department is incurring. At the same time I believe we should take a look at what is happening in some of the other departments of a government.
I am thinking particularly of the C.B.C. which is subsidized to the tune of many millions of dollars a year. I am sure many

hon. members will agree that many C.B.C. programs are scandalous and shameful. Only a few weeks ago my attention was drawn through letters and personal representations to a program on abortion. People were ashamed to sit with their families and watch it. Many of the corporation's programs are in this category. I contend that if we subsidize the C.B.C. to the extent of millions of dollars we can subsidize the little weekly newspapers which bring personal and local news to the people of the area. These papers have to depend on very limited advertising and, as I say, they are finding it difficult to get along. As to the program I have mentioned, I certainly agree with what was said by the minister in charge of the C.B.C. and I am sure the majority of the Canadian people do also.
Finally, can the minister tell us how much revenue this additional one cent in postage will bring to the government?


Mr, Grills:: Mr. Chairman, may I say a brief word on this resolution. I agree with what has been said by my hon. friend and others in connection with the closing of many small post offices. I learned from the minister himself that it was the intention of the department to close some 700 or them across Canada. Would the hon. gentleman not give some consideration to factors other than revenue which are involved when some of these small post offices are closed? Would he not consider the services rendered and what a post office means to our small communities? Closing the post office is equivalent to destroying the identity of some of these small communities.
As hon. members can appreciate, there are common bonds which unite these communities-the church, the school, the local store and the post office. Often the local store includes the post office, and the post office has a value which cannot be measured in dollars and cents alone.
I know that several of these small post offices in my own county are to be closed. The people who use them are unhappy about the way in which the department has gone about this. There has been no opportunity for protest, just an announcement that the office will be closed. I hope the minister will not be too hasty about proceeding in this direction and that he will consider the feelings of the people who use these services. I agree we are facing economic problems but the social benefit which arises from the presence of these post offices is surely something which must be balanced against purely economic
November 28, 1987

Post Office Act
considerations. It should be remembered also that it will be necessary to pay someone to deliver the mail. In any case, the loss of post offices will affect our communities adversely to a large extent.
Turning now to another matter, when I first came to this house complaints arising from post office service could be directed to a district supervisor who lived somewhere in the area concerned. This officer would investigate individual cases and if he found evidence of fault on the part of the post office the situation would be corrected. This system worked very satisfactorily.
I do not know when the change occurred, and I am not blaming the minister for it, but I now find that the administration has been centralized and that complaints must be made to Ottawa. The service of investigation is slower, and it seems to me that the extra mileage cost must be considerable. As to the over-all service, I have received more complaints in the last 12 months than I ever received previously. Various factors may have contributed to this situation. Whether it is the attitude of the postal workers or not, I am not prepared to say. But I do believe that the removal of the district supervisors, as we knew them, has been detrimental to the service as a whole.
I hope the minister will give careful consideration to the points I have raised, particularly with respect to my plea concerning the small post offices. Some of them, I know, could be closed without any complaints arising; the people would accept the decision. But in other cases they will accept it only with the greatest unwillingness after closure has been forced upon them.


Mr. Oito:: Mr. Chairman, I intend to support this resolution. Indeed, I would have been pleased had the minister gone further than his proposal to raise postage rates by one cent and give effect to some amendments to the rate structure in connection with newspapers and periodicals.
From time to time I have heard the minister make remarks to the effect that it is about time we put the post office on a businesslike basis. This prospect, of course, shocks the daylight out of a great number of people who regard the post office as an institution which is independent of normal accounting. Any change intended to make it a businesslike organization fills them with consternation.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
When we are talking about the post office organization as part of a government department we must remember there was a time when the delivery of mail was very difficult and costly. That was during the days of the steamships, the pony express, and so on. Today we have so many other methods of communication that I am sure all of us must wonder whether the business of carrying messages and information is so essential that it cannot be self-sustaining like any other business, and whether it must continue to receive a government subsidy.
Let us get down to basics. In part we are talking about pesonal letters, and objection has been raised to a one cent increase in the postage rate on them. Today, with Canadians being the greatest users of telephones in the world, I doubt that any citizen sends more than one personal letter a week. In that case the increase in the rate would mean approximately 50 cents a year. If a person sends two personal letters a week the increase would be approximately $1 per year. Of course there is the Christmas card business, and I am at a loss to know whether the great increase in mail around Christmas time is so essential to our way of fife. I am sure that individuals would have no objection to paying a proper proportionate increase on their personal correspondence if the Post Office Department were organized as a crown corporation and were self-sustaining. But then we must consider business firms which might say: Well, this would be very costly to us.
Some time ago I calculated the cost of sending a letter in an ordinary law office, and I am sure the same cost would apply in most other business offices. The total cost was $2.22 taking into account the typewriter, dictating time and staff wages. That cost has now risen to $2.76 per letter. I am of the opinion that business would be much improved if it cut out about 75 per cent of its correspondence by mail and conducted its business in a more efficient manner. American corporations have gained a lot of ground in office management, and in most offices in the United States letter writing and memo writing are frowned upon. There are other methods of conducting business apart from the sending of letters.
Turning now to the question of direct mailing I point out that when it was introduced it was a good system of promotional selling, but that was 30 years ago. It was cheap and one did not expect more than a 2 per cent or 3 per cent return. In effect the

November 28, 1967
Post Office Act
government subsidizes such advertising through its postal rates. But if we are concerned about production, as I am sure the Minister of Finance will remind us on Thursday night that we should be, then business should adopt the most efficient and forwardlooking methods of selling.
I am not too concerned about direct mail advertising. Some of the people engaged in that industry will be concerned, but their talents can be used in other directions. Time and time again it has been proven that direct mail is not the best way to sell, but as long as it continues to be the cheapest way it will be used.
I would disagree with the minister a little on the question of periodicals and newspapers. If we are to sustain and promote Canadian magazines and periodicals it will be a difficult task considering the large area of Canada which our magazines have to cover and our relatively small population compared with that of the United States. I think the low postal rates for newspapers and magazines should be considered as a worth-while contribution to the promotion of Canadian magazines, but I would stress not of all magazines. We must have competition. Magazines are not good merely because they are Canadian. They must be good magazines in themselves, competitive with American magazines. When they are, then they should be supported. A magazine published in the city of New York can have a very profitable circulation in the state of New York, even in the city of New York alone. By contrast Canadian magazines have to be sent all across Canada, and therefore I favour consideration being given to our magazines and periodicals.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I seriously think it is about time we got down to putting the post office on a business basis, and not necessarily by arbitrarily setting postage rates. I support the minister in his thinking that it should be a crown corporation properly run in a businesslike way. There is a relative, comparative cost for all articles which are mailed, whether they be magazines, newspapers, personal letters or business letters. This cost can be measured accurately. One can calculate the weight of magazines, how many of them can be delivered compared with letters, and having arrived at the total I believe these articles should be charged accordingly. The same applies to direct mail and to business correspondence. If businessmen want mail delivered six times

a day, six days of the week, there is no reason why they should not pay for that privilege.
It is about time that the House of Commons considered transforming the letter organization of the Post Office Department into a self-sustaining, efficiently run business organization. Not for one moment do I imagine that this can be done overnight, and I do not think it should be done overnight. However, improvements should be made and thought should be directed toward establishing an efficient crown corporation that will have complete charge of all post office matters.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest that the government seems to be following rather strange methods to signal the approach of Christmas. We have had an announcement that on Thursday night the Minister of Finance is going to introduce another budget to impose increases in taxes. This does not seem to be a very nice Christmas present. Now we have the Postmaster General introducing legislation which calls for an increase in postal rates. I hope we do not get any more such Christmas presents at least for some time.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I should like to refer to the minister's statement on June 2, 1967 as recorded on page 1083 of Hansard. He said:
The Canadian post office is something more than a mere processing plant. It is not only a matter of receipts and expenditures. It also concerns the people. It is a matter of buildings and working conditions. It is also a matter of a service rendered to the entire population and to the country.
On the basis of that statement I should like to raise a question concerning the advisability of the suggestion just made by the hon. member who preceded me in this discussion. We ask whether it is absolutely necessary that a service such as this be self-sustaining in every respect. Reference has been made today to the subsidizing of other media of communication. If we are to subsidize from the federal treasury such institutions as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and others which carry on an advertising operation, then perhaps there is some justification for continuing some kind of subsidy in the Post Office Department, at least with reference to some of its operations.
The resolution before us deals particularly with an increase in the rate on first class mail. I think one member raised the question
November 28, 1967



today whether or not it is absolutely necessary to raise the rate on first class mail in order to make this phase of the operations of the Post Office Department self-sustaining. I do not believe the minister has given any proof that this operation is going to be in a deficit position. Possibly, therefore, we should have a clarification on this matter first of all.
I suggest that a further increase in postal rates will, of course, contribute once again to the increase in the cost of living. We should look at it from that point of view. We are endeavouring to find every possible means by which to hold the line and possibly lower the cost of living. But here we have one more indication that there will be an increase because we all know that any increase in this respect will be passed on to the people involved.
The hon. member for Verdun in speaking this afternoon referred to the fact that the bulk of the burden of this increase will fall on the business community. 1 think he indicated that about 70 per cent or 75 per cent of the first class mail is from business enterprises. I suggest that this group is in a much better position to absorb the increase than are those who fall within the other 25 per cent.
In discussing this matter with a friend today he indicated to me that involved in it are the old age pensioners and those on other types of pensions and that many of these people employ their time in writing letters. As members of parliament we realize that they sometimes are not aware that they can send mail to us without any postage. Many of these old age pensioners carry on a fairly voluminous correspondence. If these people in this category employ the postal department as a means of transmitting their messages, then this increase will place a considerable burden on them in view of their very limited income. Therefore I believe we should consider whether it is absolutely necessary for the Post Office Department, at least in some of these areas, to be self-sustaining.
There are one or two other matters to which I should like to refer briefly this afternoon. I understand there are certain communities in Canada which are required to pay additional transportation costs in order to obtain their mail. The mail is sent to a certain community and delivered to the closest post office. Then it is up to the residents of the community involved to pay the additional transportation cost in order to get
Post Office Act
the mail from that post office to their community. Would it not be possible and desirable to have all transportation of mail handled under a contract and not handled in some cases at the expense of the small communities which may be concerned?


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question? When he refers to mail going to small communities, is he referring to communities which do not have post offices?


Alexander Bell Patterson: Apparently this is the case. The department is not prepared to establish post offices in these communities and does not make any provision at all for the transportation of mail. It would only seem proper, if there are communities where a post office is not located, that there should be a contract whereby the mail is delivered to that community.
The other matter to which I should like to refer is the department's program of closing so many of the small community post offices. I support the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac in this connection. Even though the government or the department may say this is an economy measure and that they are trying to cut down expenses, there is the question of how much this will reduce expenditures. In addition, there is also the other matter of convenience and the fact that over quite a number of years these post offices have rendered a service to their communities. Real hardship is incurred when an announcement is made, many times without any notice whatsoever, that as of a certain date a particular post office will be closed and the people concerned will receive their mail from a post office a considerable distance away. Even though in some cases provision is made for rural delivery, I think we must consider the other services rendered by the post office in the community which will be taken away from the people in the area. I suggest, therefore, that the minister should reconsider this policy as it applies to many of these communities. I think he should recognize that these post offices have rendered, continue to render and would render in the future a service which is very acceptable and beneficial to small communities across the country.


Mr. Roxburgh:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words on this matter. First of all I should like to assure the Postmaster General that I certainly support his resolution and would like to see the post office put on a

November 28. 196?
Post Office Act
paying basis under a crown corporation. However, I wish to support the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac and the hon. member for Hastings South in regard to small post offices located in grocery stores or elsewhere which give so much service to the people in the community. I certainly feel that the minister should not proceed too fast in this regard. I believe that they should be phased out slowly and that provision should be made so that the people in these small communities will still receive the service that is so necessary to them.
Another matter is the job of the mail carriers. As the minister knows, I have spoken to him personally on this and therefore I know his thoughts on the matter. I feel it is going to be handled properly. However, we must remember when talking about royal mail in Canada that one letter going astray can be just as important to an individual living in a rural section as it can be to the man who runs a large business in the city of Montreal or Toronto. I know of a case of one letter going astray which cost the future livelihood of a widow. I should like the minister to consider seriously this aspect of the situation.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Like all members who represent rural communities I should like the minister to give a great deal of consideration to rates in respect of weekly newspapers before making any change. I hope he does not move too fast in this direction.
Lastly, but very far from being least, the world ice hockey championship games are to be played for the first time in our history in Canada in 1970. Let me say to some of my friends, especially those in the N.D.P., that no matter what anyone says the people of this country now claim hockey to be their national game.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member-


John Maxwell Roxburgh: I will not have any interruptions from the hon. member for York-Humber.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I just wanted to-


John Maxwell Roxburgh: No, no, absolutely no. I should like to see the Postmaster General sponsor the issue of a new stamp to commemorate this event in Canada. I hope my friend at the other end will keep quiet so the Postmaster General will listen to me rather than to him, because this is a matter which should be given serious consideration. Hon.

members may smile at the suggestion of issuing stamps to honour athletic events, but many great countries in Asia and Europe have issued series of athletic stamps commemorating events and athletes. Athletic endeavours are valuable not only for the preparation of our young people in the event of war but generally to keep the population in good physical shape, and athletic endeavours should be recognized. This is one opportunity the minister has in this regard.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: In speaking at this time, Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to hold up the resolution or repeat anything that has already been said or the representations made to the minister. I should like to refer to one aspect of postal rates in order that the minister will be prepared to deal with the situation and provide an explanation when we consider the bill itself. I refer to the postage rates voluntary associations must bear during fund raising campaigns.
I am sure the minister has received representations from some of the voluntary fund-raising organizations in Canada, particularly those involved in health fields, regarding the increasing cost of postage. These people are contributing to the country through their services. Over the years they have been successful in their efforts to raise the funds required to provide these services at a saving to the government of both trouble and cost. As a result of the efforts of these organizations the government's contributions in many of these fields have been negative or nil.
During recent years the increase in the amount obtained through these campaigns has not kept pace with the increased cost of providing these services. The increase in cost in recent years has been substantial, particularly in respect of postage rates. Instead of letters and receipts being sent out at a two cent rate or at the bulk rate they now have to go out at the four cent rate. This has added greatly to the overhead of these organizations. One organization with which I am familiar has found that its postal costs have increased by more than 35 per cent.
It is my belief that the Post Office Department should be run efficiently but I argue with some of those who say it must be run on a business basis in order to show a profit. The hon. member for Verdun has suggested that postal services are indispensable to the unifying of this country and keeping it together. Perhaps the subsidy required today in respect of postal services is not as great
November 28, 1987

because of the improved communications available, and the use of postal services may be less in the case of some than in earlier years when it was the only means of carrying on business. In any event there are some elements of this service which must be considered seriously, particularly in respect of certain areas where rates should be maintained.
We have heard a great deal about postal rates for mail that comes in from that great country to the south. I am sure that country has had the same problem the minister is now facing in respect of increasing costs. That country still maintains a quarter cent rate in respect of the mail campaigns of voluntary organizations. When we consider the bill itself I hope the minister will be in a position to indicate the position of the Post Office Department in this regard. If he has any doubt about the type of organizations to which I am referring let me refer to the Canadian tuberculosis association and its associates, the Easter seal organization and the council for crippled children.
The stock answer given by the department to representations made by these organizations is that it is difficult to determine which of these organizations warrants this consideration. Let me remind the minister that the regulations of the Income Tax Act require registration of these associations. Surely that eliminates any difficulty. I hope the minister will give us some explanation as to the position of the department in this regard.


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. It being six o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely private bills, public bills.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: It is my
duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard), Airports-Dorval, Que.-attitude toward French of certain con-cessionnaires; the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave), Royal Canadian Mounted Police-possible purchase of U.S. weapons for riot control; the hon. member for Jacques-Cartier-Lasalle (Mr. Rock), National Defence-Lasalle, Que.-layoffs at naval depot.
Private Bills
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in commitee on Bill No. C-113, to incorporate Commercial Solids Pipe Line Company-Mr. Basford-Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
On clause 1-Incorporation.
Mr. Howard:: Mr. Chairman, I thought for a moment that the hon. member for Van-couver-Burrard would tell the committee of the change which was made to the bill in the standing committee on transport and communications. That is why I hesitated in rising. Although it is a small change in terms of the number of words involved, it is a rather important one so far as the impact of the change upon the authority being sought by the company is concerned. In view of the fact that this change will not be considered by us until or unless we reach clause 6 of the bill, perhaps I should mention in passing that it relates to a restriction of the authority of the company with regard to the operation of aircraft, aerodromes, radios, communication systems, and the like. The company, therefore, does not seek a general licence to operate but rather authority to do so for the purpose of a particular undertaking. Thus we are not in the process of incorporating another nation-wide television or radio system by the change that has been made to the bill.
Yesterday during private members' hour the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra talked out a very reasonable resolution relating to old age pensions. In view of the fact that the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra also moved the second reading of the bill now before us and gave us an outline of it, perhaps we will fall into the habit which he established yesterday in dealing with items which come before us in private members' hour. It seems to me that if there is anything of value with which the house should concern itself it should have been the proposal relating to old age pensions moved yesterday by my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
The bill before us contains two important factors. One is the authority of the company for its project and plan to establish a pipe line through which it could move solid materials, and the other is the overriding factor of Canadian ownership and involvement in this and similar companies. This subject has interested parliament for some time. To underline our interest I think it is

November 28, 1967
Private Bills
necessary to re-emphasize the declarations made by the Prime Minister regarding his desire to see a larger degree of Canadian ownership in the exploitation of our natural resources and in the industry which transforms these natural resources into usable and consumable commodities.
It is well known that the President of the Privy Council, along with many other members of the cabinet, holds this view. It is regrettable that the whole cabinet has not come to a decision on this matter because it puts us in a rather odd position in that on the one hand the first minister of the Crown has enunciated what we took to be government policy on Canadian ownership and on the other hand there is a persistent flood of bills before the house whose sponsors have ignored the declared policy of the Prime Minister, who naturally speaks for the government.
We recall the time that the Prime Minister was asked whether he spoke for the government on particular matters or whether someone else did. The Prime Minister then made it quite clear in the house that he and only he, makes announcements on behalf of the government of Caanda. As my friend the hon. member for Megantic said, these policy declarations are not always sound. I think we could spend a fair amount of time in the house speaking about the damaging features of some of the policy decisions made by the government. However, I do not wish to dwell on this matter but simply to emphasize that the Prime Minister himself declared that it is he who announces government policies and no one else.
One of the policies which he announced on a nation-wide television broadcast related to Canadian ownership. He said he was in favour of it and he hoped it would be possible to have a larger degree of Canadian ownership than exists at the present time. I do not think we can have a smaller degree of Canadian ownership in the oil industry than exists at present because I understand that the whole oil industry is foreign owned by people who have no direct political or emotional responsibility to Canada.
In the bill before us we are dealing with the oil industry, and in particular Shell Canada Limited. Some interesting aspects of the bill were placed on the record at an earlier stage of the proceedings when mention was made of the degree to which this company is the sponsor of the bill and the major shareholder in the company which the bill seeks to incorporate. The hon. member

for Vancouver Quadra in moving second reading of the bill in the early part of June this year placed this information on the record. He pointed out that Shell Canada Limited, will be the principal shareholder of Commercial Solids Pipe Line Company. The public holds 17.5 per cent of the voting power in Shell. Its shares are traded on the stock exchanges of Canada. The remaining
82.5	per cent is held by another Canadian company called Shell Investments Limited whose head office is also located in Toronto.
In looking at this situation casually we might assume that this is a Canadian owned company because it is called Shell Investments Limited, its office is located in a major Canadian city, and 17.5 per cent of its stock is traded on the market. The fact of the matter is that Shell Investments Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of a Netherlands company located in The Hague. The ownership of the company is divided, 60 per cent in the hands of Royal Dutch Petroleum and 40 per cent in the hands of Shell Transport and Trading Company in London, England. We often find involved foreign ownership when one company is owned by another which in turn will be owned by a foreign company or a couple of other companies. The final, effective ownership of any particular company, in my opinion, must always be traced back to the company which in fact controls and operates that particular company.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
In this instance we find that Commercial Solids Pipe Line Company is in fact, in the final analysis, going to be controlled by a couple of companies, one in The Hague and the other in London, England. So far as I have been able to ascertain, there has been no indication of a desire to divest the foreign ownership structure of this enterprise.


Mr. Basford:: I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question?


Frank Howard: Gladly.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am not sure whether the hon. member has had an opportunity to read the transcript of the proceedings of the committee on transport and communications for Thursday, November 23. This is quite understandable because it only became available this morning. When the bill was before that committee, it was made very clear that it was the intention of the company to make shares in the pipe line company available to other
November 28, 1967

producers in southern Alberta and to members of the public. This intention was documented before the standing committee on transport and communications.


Frank Howard: As the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard said, I did not have a chance to read the minutes of the proceedings before the committee. My colleagues, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and the hon. member for Timiskaming, are deeply involved in that project at the moment and undoubtedly will have an opportunity to deal with the proposition put forward in the question by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard. If the hon. member is saying that this will be a Canadian owned company, then that puts an entirely different light on the situation. In that event perhaps I should curtail my remarks at this juncture. However, I rather suspect, not having heard anything to the contrary, that even though there may be an offer of shares to other producers in Alberta or to the general public, the ownership of the company will still rest in the hands of Royal Dutch and the company in England, Shell Transport and Trading Company. If I am incorrect in that assumption, perhaps the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard could, by way of another question, correct my impression. Then I could leave the matter there. Not having heard anything to the contrary I must proceed on the assumption that even though shares may be held by Canadians, effective control will still rest in the hands of someone else because, as we all know, in any corporate structure the important fact is not that you own a share or two but how many shares you hold.
I have had an opportunity of reading the first page or two of the minutes of proceedings of the committee, but I did not have an opportunity of gaining the information that was given to the committee and put forward by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard. However, some interesting information was provided by a Mr. Ritchie, who is vice president of the transport end of Shell Canada. I take it this is the same Robert Pierce Ritchie mentioned in clause 1 of the bill as one of the shareholders and promoters of this company. He pointed out that this was an important new venture in the field of transportation by pipe line. At the outset of his remarks he said, as reported on page 287 of the committee evidence:
The pipelining of solids is not a new concept. During the last 50 years short pipe lines have successfully been put into operation in England and the United States for the carriage of coal and salt.
Private Bills
More recently there have been built a 72-mile gilsonite in the United States and a 50-mile iron ore line in Tasmania. The application for the bill before you, however, represents a major advance in that the applicants contemplate construction in Canada of pipe lines many hundreds of miles in length transporting solids that have never before been moved by pipe line.
Apart from the fact that we may be embarking upon a new form of transportation which in total length surpasses what has been developed in other countries, the fact is that if the pipe line is to transport solids that have never before been moved by pipe line the assumption must be that the solids they contemplate moving have up until this time been moved by some other form of transportation. This brings us to the nub of the question of transportation policy. We know that when the massive omnibus transport bill went through parliament a while ago it was supposed to reflect a very deliberate, conscious, thought-out policy on transport following upon the heels of royal commission and interdepartmental studies of modes of transport.
I do not hold any particular brief for the maintenance of our railways but they have provided a tremendous service to some areas of the nation and have contributed tremendously to the tying together of different parts of Canada. It would seem to me that the other form of transportation which has been used to transport the solids they contemplate moving by this pipe line probably is the railways since railways can carry items in bulk quantities. It may be that truck transport or airlift from Calgary to Vancouver or some other form of transport is used. I do not believe that in this context this is really putting another form of transport into the picture in addition to those we already have. It may be that the development of the concept of moving bulk materials by pipe line which are now being moved by other forms of transport is on the increase. If so, it will undoubtedly detract from the possibility of these commodities being shipped by railway or by some other form of transport.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
My concern is about the total contribution that this may make to the well-being of the people of Canada. We all know that the Minister of Finance is supposed to have been working very hard on this during the last little while and that the greater the injection of money into certain areas of the country the greater the contribution to inflation and, if there is a duplication of services in this case,

November 28, 1967
Private Bills
to a potentially uneconomic situation in one or other of the forms of transport. I reiterate that I hold no particular brief for the railroads as the only means to transport commodities, but the railways may find they will have to alter their concept of transportation in order to meet this new venture which undoubtedly will confront them, whether or not this bill passes at this time.
This brings me to another extremely important aspect-


Maurice Rinfret: Order. I regret I must interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted for his speech has expired.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, by some coincidence, just at the point where the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard asked a question of the hon. member for Skeena-I might digress to point out that at one point in the history of our province the area which now comprises the constituency of Skeena was within the area now represented by the city of Vancouver, though that was a long time ago-I was reviewing the proceedings before the committee on transport and communications where the very point raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard was dealt with.
I might say that as far as I can ascertain there is nothing in the evidence before the committee to indicate that there was anything in any way incorrect in the remarks of the hon. member for Skeena who was dealing, as I understood it, with the question of the basic ownership of the Shell oil interests in Canada and indicating that the control of those interests lies beyond the boundaries of Canada. He was not directly raising the question of the share ownership of this company except to the extent that he was indicating that this company was being sponsored by and presumably would be controlled by the Shell oil interests in this country, and therefore indirectly controlled by interests outside this country.
I have been giving serious attention to the evidence of Mr. Ritchie before the committee. He acted as their chief spokesman and is vice president, transportation, of Shell Canada Limited. As far as I am concerned the statement of Mr. Ritchie and his replies to various questions merely confirm for me the situation which someone suggested was probably the case when we dealt with the bill at the second reading stage. In the first instance, if we were to pass the bill we would be creating a company basically

foreign owned and controlled and, second, we would be perpetuating a situation which has existed in the past in the case of many oil and gas pipe line companies incorporated by acts of this parliament whereby large foreign interests maintain effective control. So far as share ownership in Canada is concerned, this would simply be a matter of throwing out a few crumbs so that a few Canadians might feel they had an interest by virtue of holding a scattered and small percentage of the share capital of these companies.
As reported on page 289 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence for Thursday, November 23 last, Mr. Ritchie said:
Prior to construction of the pipeline facilities ownership shares will be offered to other sulphur producers in Alberta as well as the public. Following start-up and proven success, a further public offering of shares to Canadians will be made by the owner-producers.
Prior to making those remarks Mr. Ritchie had pointed out that the estimated cost of the line is $60 million. He stated that while research is under way the Shell oil company is bearing the full financial burden of this phase. So I think it is very evident that the situation as outlined by the hon. member for Skeena is a correct analysis.
As reported on page 292 of the evidence, in answer to a question by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace Mr. Ritchie said:
As we envisage Commercial Solids Pipe Line Company, it would be owned by a number of shareholders, including the public. However the producers would all want a share interest in it, and once they had that, I would think they would continue to support it.
This question relates generally to a pipe line operating as a transport concern which is affected by potential competition by the railways.
As reported on page 295 of the committee's proceedings, the hon. member for Kindersley asked this question:
I am interested too in what you said about the shares being offered to the public. Would you care to give us an opinion as to how soon, if you get the pipe line into operation, these shares would be offered, and perhaps what percentage of capitalization might then be offered to the public?
Mr. Ritchie replied:
You are asking two questions. Relating to the first one, we would envisage that there would be some shares offered to the public at the inception. We try to spell this out in that very short statement. This is a new project. We feel that it would not necessarily be in the public interest to have a large share in the hands of the public at the inception. As soon as the project is operating and
November 28, 1967

there is no question as to its success and the statement is made, we would have an offering and expect that there would be additional shares offered to the public.
Once you have the public in a facility, even though it is a very small percentage of the public, you have to operate the facility in the public interest and not in the interest of the producers. So really the total number of shareholders I do not think really makes that much difference in the way the facility would be operated.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
That leads us back to a point which was raised previously in this house on a number of occasions with respect to the operation of pipe line companies. In sponsoring this pipe line company, Shell wishes to perpetuate a situation that has existed in Canada with respect to the transmission by pipe line of gas and oil. It boils down to this: The major producers such as Shell, Imperial or B.A. maintain effective control and management of pipe line companies and retain the bulk of the shares. While a small percentage of shares is made available to the Canadian public, allegations that pipe lines, such as the one proposed in this bill, operate in the public interest are highly debatable, to say the least.
Mr. Ritchie's statement did nothing to allay my fears. Rather, it confirmed my suspicion that the proposition which was being put before us would perpetuate the intolerable situation in the pipe line transportation field. Some may argue that we have gone too far with respect to transmission by pipe line to turn back now, but I am not prepared to admit that that is so. In other words, I think we are now entering a new phase of transportation by pipe line. This is an opportune time for parliament to examine again the entire question of pipe line transportation. In this field we need not perpetuate the mistakes we have made in the past. I refer particularly to those mistakes we have made since the end of world war II and to the manner in which we allowed pipe line transmission systems for gas and oil to develop.
The hon. member for Jacques-Cartier-Lasalle, who was one of the committee members, asked Mr. Ritchie about Shell's interest, generally, in pipe lines. The answer confirms what I have said. Shell seeks to perpetuate a situation that exists with respect to the transmission of oil and gas by pipe line.
On page 303 of the committee proceedings the following is found:


Mr. Rock:: ... how many pipe line companies is Shell, directly or indirectly, financially involved in at present?
Private Bills


Mr. Ritchie:: I am not sure that I can tell you.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Mr. Rock, are you thinking of oil pipe lines or ...


Raymond Rock: Mr. Chairman, I am leading to something that is very important.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I am asking: is it oil pipe lines or commodity pipe lines?


Raymond Rock: All kinds of pipe lines.


William Gordon Ritchie: Well, there are no commodity pipe lines in Canada.


Herman Maxwell Batten: No, it is oil.


William Gordon Ritchie: As far as oil pipe lines are concerned, let me see; ...
He is trying to recall, obviously. Apparently there are so many. He says:
... I cannot name them all, sir. But there are Trans Mountain, Inter-Provincial, Portland Montreal, Trans Northern, Sun Canadian, Peace River, Westpur Producers .,.


Raymond Rock: So there are quite a few of them, then. This is what I want to know. How many of these run to the west coast at the moment?
The hon. member discovers that Trans Mountain pipe lines only run to the west coast and could transport sulphur, the commodity which is of immediate concern to Shell. Mr. Ritchie says that Trans Mountain pipe lines will require some modification, and he does not think they would be as economical as a separate system.
Clearly, the applicants before the house have detailed a situation which is designed to perpetuate something that has become intolerable in the field of transportation of oil and gas by pipe line in this country. I am prepared to argue that the kind of development being sought here has not been and will not be in the interest of Canada; it will not enable Canadians to enjoy fully the benefits of the natural wealth which is being drawn from the soil of their country, that country of which we like to call ourselves citizens.
Having said that, I wish to emphasize that I do not underestimate the importance of the proposal to move solids through a pipe line. Though I have no detailed knowledge of the matter, from my limited reading I have become convinced that there is an enormous potential for such a development. As we move into the field of transporting solids by pipe line, I want this country to start off on the right foot with respect to the development of new techniques.
Mr. Ritchie said to the committee that the Shell Company of Canada had been engaged in research with respect to the techniques of transportation of sulphur in slurry form. He referred to work that was done by the Alberta Research Council with respect to techniques of transporting solids in capsule form

November 28. 1967
Private Bills
through pipe lines. As reported on page 280, Mr. Ritchie says:
We are convinced that slurry and capsule pipelining will each take its appropriate place in this country's future transportation system. The distinct difference between the two concepts will undoubtedly dictate the circumstances in which each may be appropriately employed.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
This statement confirms what one has read elsewhere about the breakthrough which may come about in this field of transportation.
I was interested to note that the usual points were made in letters from the Minister of Transport and from the parliamentary agent about the jurisdiction of the National Transportation Commission and the National Energy Board. We are told that what we are considering now is nothing more than an application to parliament to incorporate a company; the bill does not confer upon the company any right to construct a pipe line. This has been advanced in the past as being good and sufficient reason for passing the bill and incorporating the company, leaving the transportation commission and the energy board to deal with the details. It is pointed out to us at some length that the energy board must give consideration to a number of factors when deciding whether or not-


Maurice Rinfret: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to his speech has expired.


Mr. Peters:: This is a bill in which I have had a great interest for some time. I would have thought the government itself would have paid some attention to it. Indeed, I was surprised to learn, when I received the report, that none of the government departments which would normally be concerned with the subject of this measure was represented before the committee. I was surprised that the Department of Transport did not suggest that the Canadian National Railways should intervene in this application. I would have thought that several other government agencies would have been interested in attending, not necessarily to oppose the bill but to bring out the relationship which this company could have with other agencies in the transportation field.
I was interested in the way in which the chairman introduced the statement of the Minister of Transport. Rather than ask that the minister be present, he read a letter from the minister. I was surprised at the statement made by the minister to the effect that while

this proposed pipe line would come under the new transportation legislation, part II of that legislation had not yet been proclaimed. And he gave no indication of when part II relating to pipe lines would be put into effect.
I had been of the opinion that the whole of the legislation would have been proclaimed by the governor in council at the same time. I understand now that it is likely that this matter will be dealt with within a few months. In the meantime I presume the present application is having some effect on the date of proclamation. The operation referred to in the bill before us should, I believe, be classed as a commodity pipe line, thereby bringing it into the transportation field.
I noticed on reading the annual report of the National Energy Board that it is very pleased with the growth of Canadian oil production. Since the late 'fifties the production level has about doubled. The statement goes on to say that Canada's petroleum resources have been extended even more rapidly, a development which poses an urgent need for further expansion of markets for Canadian oil. As we are well aware, Shell Oil is interested in this type of pipe line operation because of the problem created by the large residue of sulphur left after oil refining. Sulphur is a commodity which is rather difficult to transport. As the committee report indicates, the transportation cost to the railway is $10 plus an additional $2 in handling charges. The company is of the opinion that transporting the sulphur by means of a slurry operation in an oil carrier would reduce the cost of transportation considerably below that level.
There is an indication that 5,000 cars of sulphur need to be transported. Since I am not in a position to know the total transportation costs involved, I am not able to determine whether or not they constitute an important factor in the operation of the railway as far as revenue is concerned. But in establishing the transportation commission the government obviously took the view that all the transportation facilities in Canada should be united under the control of one commissioner, so as to improve transportation for the Canadian people and reduce costs to producers and consumers.
The bill before us might have been modified in a number of instances. I should not comment unfairly on some of the remarks which were made in the committee, though I think the chairman did a very good job of running interference against some of his colleagues who were concerned about this
November 28, 1967

November 28, 1967
Private Bills
My interest in this bill was met to some extent by the passing of the Transport Act, under which commodity pipe lines are considered to be a means of transportation to be regulated by an agency other than the National Energy Board. But the fact that that part of the act has not been proclaimed makes me wonder whether the government is playing namby-pamby with this company, or is playing around with members of parliament.


Stanley Ronald Basford: If I may reply to the hon. member about the proclamation of part II of the act, I wish to point out that in a letter to the committee the minister made it clear that it would be proclaimed soon. I have since discussed this with the minister, and I am authorized to say that part II will be proclaimed as soon as there is a need for it, as soon as someone starts arrangements to build a pipe line, in order to make sure that the pipe line is regulated by part II.


William Arnold Peters: I am quite pleased to know that this is the case, but I still do not know why it was not proclaimed along with the rest of the act. This bill has been on the order paper for two years, and it is the reason that that section was written into the Transport Act. This was the first time anybody thought of building a commodity pipe line in Canada, and so there was need for legislation to cover it. Obviously the reason for that part being placed in the Transport Act was the application made by Shell for this pipe line. The point I am trying to make is that this application was made under the old legislation, and we do not want this type of window dressing in the new bills which will follow the Transport Act.
I am quite prepared to say that the transportation bills passed in years gone by cover everything that is in this bill. I am sure the railways have the right to do everything that is suggested here, but I think many hon. members agree that a lot of this should be cleaned up. We are interested in eliminating window dressing. Companies themselves do not want it, but it seems lawyers insist on putting this in bills.
I am pleased that Shell has been interested in this application. I know that success in the moving of sulphur is going to mean success in the moving of iron, and possibly of wheat and a number of other commodities.


Maurice Rinfret: The hour appointed for the consideration of private members business has expired.
Progress reported.
[Mr. Feters.l


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: The
house will now resume the business that was interrupted at six o'clock.



POST OFFICE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Cote (Longueuil)-Mr. Rinfret in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Post Office Act to increase by one cent the postage rates for letters posted in Canada for delivery in Canada; to provide an amended rate structure for newspapers and periodicals; and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act, more especially in relation to tenders and contracts.
Maurice Rinfret: It being seven o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At seven o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. House again in committee of the whole on a certain proposed legislation to amend the Post Office Act.
Shall the resolution carry?


Mr. Knowles:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Michael Starr: Call the vote, Mr. Chairman.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Those in favour of the resolution please rise.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Chairman-


Michael Starr: The vote has been called.
Motion (Mr. Cote, Longueuil) negatived: Yeas, 11; nays, 14.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I declare the motion lost, and I do now leave the chair.



EMERGENCY GOLD MINING ASSISTANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, November 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pepin for the second reading of Bill No.
November 28, 1967
COMMONS DEBATES	4813
C-155, to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee and reported.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.I
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time?


Michael Starr: By leave, now.


Mr, Pennell (for Mr. Pepin) moved: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



TRANSPORT


Hon. L. T. Pennell (for the Minister of Transport) moved: the second reading of Bill S-7, respecting interprovincial and international teleferries.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 2-Definitions.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, would the minister who is sponsoring this bill give us an explanation?


Mr. Byrne:: Mr. Chairman-


Stanley Howard Knowles: You mean when we defeat the government we get him?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The hon. member will have to be satisfied with what he gets.


Michael Starr: Don't take up too much time; we want to get some business done.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The bill is self-explanatory, and if hon. members are prepared to leave it at that, we would be glad to do so.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 14 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Michael Starr: By leave, now.
Government Employees Compensation Act


Lawrence T. Pennell: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Government Employees Compensation Act to provide coverage under the act to employees and prospective employees on training courses and to extend the coverage provided under the act to certain employees located outside Canada.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.


Michael Starr: Carried.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman-


Michael Starr: By golly, we can't carry
anything.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I think most hon. members know the purpose of this measure. Its purpose is to make sure that federal government employees in all parts of Canada and elsewhere are covered by this legislation, the Government Employees Compensation Act.
This act really is the counterpart of the workmen's compensation acts of the different provinces. In the Northwest Territories and the Yukon government employees are covered by arrangements with the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia under their workmen's compensation acts. Certain situations have arisen as a result of comprehensive new programs introduced by the present government. Among others I might mention retraining programs under way in technical schools.
The purpose of this bill is to extend coverage so as to cover not only federal employees, but federal employees who cease work to take training or retraining courses. The second part of the bill relates to employees in our foreign services, employees of the Department of External Affairs, of the Department of Trade and Commerce and latterly the Department of Labour. The Department of Labour now has a number of employees posted to several key places outside Canada.
4814	COMMONS
Government Employees Compensation Act
It should be pointed out that when these federal government employees go to countries in Asia and Africa they are subject to certain tropical diseases, unless they have built up an immunity. I can speak from experience, having incurred an occupational hazard during the first year that I lived in Brazil. I will not say that this has had a serious effect on security for the foreign service but it has had some effect, and it is also unfair that our civil servants who happen to be serving in the areas I have mentioned, particularly in some of the developing nations in Africa and Asia, should not be covered by the Government Employees Compensation Act.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
These are the two objectives of the bill, and that is all I have to say at the resolution stage.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the resolution carry?


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with the principle of this measure, which extends the coverage to the persons suggested in the resolution; but I have one question to ask of the minister. Is it the intention of the government to charge income tax to those who receive compensation in the public service of Canada?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I am sorry that the Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board is not here. I cannot answer the hon. member's question. I can deal with what we do in the field of compensation, but I will not attempt to answer that particular question. I shall refer it to the President of the Treasury Board.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Nicholson thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-184, to amend the Government Employees Compensation Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a second time? At the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, earlier today I spoke to the government house leader and asked him whether item No. 29 on the order paper regarding the C.N.R. financing bill

DEBATES	November 28, 1967
could be held over for a short time. He agreed with me. I would ask then that in lieu of that item we deal with item No. 39, the Judges Act.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to call item No. 29. The Minister of Finance will be coming to the house shortly. There has been an unexpectedly speedy passage of the previous items, but he is now coming from his office.


Michael Starr: I asked the government house leader whether item No. 29 could be held over, and that we go on to item No. 39 instead. I spoke to him about this earlier today and he said he would hold it over.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I suggest we call item No. 40, and come back to the other items if it is passed speedily.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is it agreed that item No. 40 be called?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



FINANCE


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That the regulations made pursuant to section 92 of the Bank Act and section 80 of the Quebec Savings Bank Act. tabled on October 12th, 1967, be referred to the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs.


Mr. Herbert E. Gray (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker-


Michael Starr: This is a filibuster. We are agreed to pass the resolution.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -the house might be interested in having a word of explanation on the resolution.


Michael Starr: We will get it in committee. This is an obstruction.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: It may be recalled that at the
request of various members of the house, in particular the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), the Minister of Finance undertook to introduce a motion which would permit reference to the finance committee of the house of the regulations made pursuant to the new Bank Act, setting forth the method by which the required banks have to disclose the rates of interest on various forms of loans. This was requested by various members of the house including, as I
November 28, 1967

said, the hon. member tor Edmonton West and other members from various parties including members on this side. I believe it was felt desirable that those who were concerned with these regulations should be able to express views on the way they were operating, whether they were carrying out the intent of parliament as reflected in the clause under which they were issued, whether changes should be made, and whether it would be advisable to make modifications in them of one sort or another.
It is for this reason the request was made that the Minister of Finance permit these regulations to be referred to the finance committee. This is the purpose of the resolution and I hope it will meet the support of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, can we now proceed to item No. 39, in view of the fact that the Minister of Justice has arrived?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I hope we will pass it quickly and thus be able to deal with the C.N.R. financing bill this evening, and also perhaps the bill on capital punishment, now that members of the opposition are in the right mood.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the house now proceed to item No. 39?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)



JUDGES ACT


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Judges Act to provide salaries lor two additional judges of the Supreme Court of Ontario; one additional judge of the Superior Court of Quebec; two additional judges of the Supreme Court of British Columbia; one additional judge of the Supreme Court of Alberta, and three additional judges of the county and district courts of Ontario.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Asselin (Richmond-Wolfe) in the chair.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Asselin, Rich-mond-Wolfe):: Shall I report the resolution?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Judges Act
Mr. Trudeau thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-185, to amend the Judges Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Are copies of the bill
available?


Michael Starr: Are there sufficient copies of the bill available to distribute to members?


Mr. Trudeau:: Yes.


Michael Starr: Will they be distributed first before we discuss the bill?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am advised by the table that copies of the bill are available from the law branch. It will take a few minutes before they are ready. Perhaps the house will wait patiently.


Richard Albert Bell: Perhaps in these few minutes we could proceed with other business and pass the bill later when we have had a chance to see it.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a second time? Later this day or at the next sitting of the house as the case may be?
Some hon. Membrs: Now, now.


An hon. Member:: First let us have the bill.


Michael Starr: No, I think we should see the bill before we pass it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, while the bill is being brought down I could make a brief explanation. This is the type of bill with which hon. members are familiar, since many such bills have been passed over the years.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister is assuming we are now on second reading. However, I gather the opposition would like an opportunity to look at the bill to ascertain whether or not they will agree to have second reading at this time. May I suggest to hon. members that it might be better to go on to the next item, and when the bill is here, then we could proceed with second reading. I think this would be more orderly procedure. When shall the bill be read a second time; later this day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Will someone on behalf of the government indicate what the next order of business will be?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Item 29.
4816	COMMONS
C.N.R. Financing and Guarantee Bill CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS



PROVISION FOR CAPITAL EXPENDITURES, ISSUE OF SECURITIES, ETC.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, November 24, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-151, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system for a period from the 1st day of January, 1967 to the 30th day of June, 1968 and to authorize the guarantee by Her Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company-Mr. Chretien (for the Minister of Finance)-Mr. Batten in the chair.
Herman Maxwell Batten: When the committee rose on Friday, November 24, clause 3 of the bill was under consideration.
On clause 3-Capital expenditures authorized ior 1967.


Mr. Laprise:: Mr. Chairman, I would have liked to make some remarks and put a few questions to the minister about clause 3 of Bill No. C-151.
In the absence of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer)-I do not see him in his seat at present-I think it would be appropriate, especially after what happened in early November, to ask ourselves a few questions about the future of the C.N.R. It will be recalled that on November 1, practically without warning, the C.N.R. decided to lay off a great number of employees, most of whom were taken completely unawares. The reason given then was that those lay-ofls were mainly due to a decrease in railway traffic.
Mr. Chairman, I do not know exactly what the situation is in other areas of the country, but so far as northwestern Quebec is concerned, when 127 section-men are laid off in a rather small area compared to the full railway network we tend to wonder what the C.N.R. is up to; we also wonder if this crown corporation did not give this reason to lay off its employees simply to get around a clause in the contract negotiated with the union representing the section-men.
So, Mr. Chairman, when we realize what is happening-and I am speaking mostly of northwestern Quebec-it does not seem that railroad traffic is falling off when new industries are being set up.
Recently, a paper and pulp mill started operations. I am sure that when a mill such

DEBATES	November 28, 1967
as this one, which represents outlays of over $75 million, starts producing and shipping products there is an increase in shipments by rail, and not a decrease. In the mining industry for instance, shipments between various points are as high now as they were last summer or last year.
Consequently, Mr. Chairman, people wonder. I have here letters from presidents of railroad unions, from railroaders, who are alarmed, and rightly so, at this massive layoff which has spread confusion and chaos amongst the employees. I feel that the Canadian National should at least have notified its employees a few weeks ahead of time; it might have spared them considerable losses in time and money, e (8:40 p.m.)
I should like at this stage to put on the official record the following letter, which I received from president of local 399 of the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen, Mr. Leonard Gilbert; I quote:
Dear sir:
Following our interview in your La Sarre office, I would ask you to find out whether the C.N.R. lay-offs which took place on November 1, on only 3 or 4 days' notice, were intended to annoy the employees, or whether, after calculating approximately the loss in time involved, the C.N.R. decided that it would save the same amount of money by not paying the salaries of the workers.
If we had only had 2 weeks' notice, the loss in time could have been reduced to a maximum of 1 or 2 days. Had Quebec been chosen as the centre for these operations, everyone would have known where to go according to seniority, before the date scheduled for these lay-offs, whereas, since no notice was given, some workers were moved two or three times, and time was lost between each move.
That, Mr. Chairman, is the problem raised by such a lay-off without notice. As these employees are entitled to seniority, vacancies in the maintenance sections of the track were filled by other employees, while the employees laid off, not knowing exactly where to go, had to move two or three times, and had to suffer loss of time and money each time. However the Canadian National may have succeeded in saving a few dollars.
Because of that situation, I think that the president of local 399 is justified in complaining and in insisting that, in the future, if a lay-off is necessary, notice should be given long enough in advance so that the employees transfer centre has enough time to inform those who have to change job, so that they can do so without losing too much time.
I also have a letter from Mr. Louis Boudreau, president of local 328 in Senneterre, which is just as hard on the C.N.R. I will
November 28, 1987

quote part of that letter, which is self-explanatory.


Mr.   Minister@: 
[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
But here is what we see in the estimated requirements:
Estimated requirements in the calendar vear 1967:	J
Road property ...
On clause 4-Issue of Securities.
Mr. Deachman:: Mr. Chairman, I have some comments to make on clause 3. An item appears on page 2 of the bill in the amount of-
Mr. Chairman, I should like somebody to explain to us what this item means. Road property for an amount of $79,701,000.
I should like also to be told-tonight if possible-to what purpose the item "Equipment, $85,304,000", which we are asked to vote, will be used.
27053-304*


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. 1 must
advise the hon. member that the committee is considering clause 4, clause 3 having been carried.


Mr. Forrestall:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Saint John-Albert on previous: occasions raised one or two matters with
November 28, 1967

C.N.R. Financing and Guarantee Bill respect to this bill that demand some explanation on the part of the government. Those matters have to do with the desire of the opposition to separate the accounting procedures with respect to Air Canada from those with respect to the Canadian National. Failure to separate accounting procedures lies at the root of many problems that we are experiencing from year to year. As the amount of money that is involved in funding with respect to Air Canada and the C.N.R. grows, so grows the responsibility of the government for greater and more detailed disclosure of accounting procedures. I say that, because the Canadian people ought to have some idea of what is happening to their money.
I wish it to be understood that until the matter I have raised is rectified, members of parliament who represent constituencies in the Atlantic provinces will not be satisfied that all is well with the accounting procedures of the C.N.R. I say this because of the serious situation that has recently arisen in Atlantic Canada. Matters dealing with accounting procedures which have come before the house on numerous occasions have not received adequate consideration in the house. I am talking about disclosure of revenues, costs, financing and so on with respect to the C.N.R.
Private carriers are competing with the Canadian National Railways and with Air Canada. There is a great need, therefore, for the government to make full disclosure of financing methods with respect to those two entities. The government must fulfil its responsibilities. Manufacturers of secondary commodities in the maritimes are greatly concerned about proposed changes in freight rate structures, which may impair their economic well-being. They feel that the new structures are being imposed and that the accounting system under which the C.N.R. operates is not being disclosed for public scrutiny.
Air Canada, too, must disclose its financing methods. That body is in direct competition with other private carriers. It can take the voluntary step of disclosing the information I think it ought to disclose, or steps may be taken in this house to force that disclosure. The railways, also, might volunteer to disclose the information that I think it is incumbent upon them to disclose.
The necessity for such disclosure arises, I submit, because of the serious consequences that face secondary and primary producers in the Atlantic provinces. Our manufacturers

are at a disadvantage in competing with other manufacturers, unless they know the accounting methods of the C.N.R. Another argument for disclosure is that the Canadian public has no concept of where its money is going; and it ought to know. The public does not know whether current Air Canada and C.N.R. financing methods are in line with practices that are accepted by government and industry.
It is wrong in principle for the C.N.R. and Air Canada to refuse to disclose their accounting procedures. Already we have seen the consequences of certain hidden procedures which the C.N.R. and other government agencies adopted. Those consequences became apparent when we discussed the Canadian Transport Commission, and the operations of the railways in central and western Canada. The Crowsnest pass agreement is an outstanding example of what I have in mind. The failure to disclose has equally serious consequences for eastern Canada, and particularly the maritime provinces. Our primary and secondary producers must know how they stand with the mammoth crown agency known as the C.N.R.
To emphasize my point that it is wrong in principle not to disclose Air Canada accounting methods, it must be remembered that Air Canada now spends about a quarter of a billion dollars in its annual operations. Most of that money is spent for capital purposes, operating expenditures and so on. I submit that members of the House of Commons and the people of Canada have the right to know how that tremendous amount of money is spent, and what accounting procedures are adopted with respect to it. I do not suggest that there is anything wrong with the expenditures or that there is anything misleading in the way they have been presented to us. Nevertheless, it is wrong not to disclose accounting methods.
Though it may be difficult to bring before the house, estimates with respect to the two entities of which I have spoken, I think the government has an obligation to show how the money is spent and to which part of each operation varying amounts of money are allocated. For example, how much money does the Canadian National, in co-operation with the Canadian Pacific, spend in the telecommunications set-up? How much public money competes with money from the private sector in the operation of that set-up?
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Parliament can exercise control over its expenditure only on the basis of disclosure.
November 28, 1967
COMMONS DEBATES	4819
This disclosure has not been made. Speaking in a very partisan sense, and I make no apology for doing so-I have some responsibility toward those who are trying to earn their living in Atlantic Canada-I say that until such time as there is disclosure, and a degree of frankness which has so far not been evident, the passage of this bill or any other dealing with Canadian National Railways is going to be a little difficult. Unless there is full disclosure, the people of Atlantic Canada are entitled to question these matters, they are entitled to be suspicious. As one member from Atlantic Canada I am fed up to the eye teeth, thoroughly disgusted and infuriated that-


An hon. Member:: Resign.


J. Michael Forrestall: I have no intention of resigning. Until this matter has been corrected, we cannot know what is going on within the C.N.R. and we cannot realistically criticize them. We were given no basis for the compensatory principle adopted in the legislation which was passed last fall, other than the superficial statement that it was desirable and necessary.
The livelihood of Atlantic Canada depends upon an adequate rail service, priced not beyond the means of primary and secondary industry to pay, both in connection with the transport of goods within the maritimes, and outside the maritimes and return. If you will pardon me, Mr. Chairman, I use the terms "maritimes" and "Atlantic Canada" synonymously. Part of the difficulty has been caused by the inability of parliament to drag out of the C.N.R. disclosure of its accounting principles. This cannot continue unless parliament and Canada are prepared to write off the four Atlantic provinces.
It amazes me that hon. members from Atlantic Canada on the government side have remained so silent on this critical question during the last few years, and certainly during the last 24 or 30 months. I cannot see any of them on the other side of the house, oh yes, I see one, but I shall not name him for fear of embarrassing his colleagues. This is a crucial time in Atlantic Canada. It is crucial in terms of what the railways propose. If the government expects the producers in the maritimes, those who are the basis of our economy, to accept any motion at all in parliament in connection with the C.N.R., the railway itself will have to accept its responsibility to tell the people what is going on-to tell them why it is thought necessary to do
C.N.R. Financing and Guarantee Bill such things as abandon class and commodity rates.
They have to explain in terms of their accounting, in terms of dollars and cents, the reasons for the decisive step they have taken in the face of all the promises made by the former minister of transport that nothing detrimental would happen. They have to explain these things, and the best way in which to do so is through full disclosure of their accounting principles. What great secrets does the C.N.R. have to hide? Or is it that they do not understand their own accounting procedures? Perhaps someone says: We need X dollars; we anticipate moving Y tons of freight; divide X by Y and you get a freight rate. The public is confused, and I say a full disclosure must be made.
It has been indicated to us that disclosure will be forthcoming in the case of Air Canada. It has not been done to date; there has been no separation of the two organizations. There has been a clear indication from the C.N.R. that the company is not willing to make the kind of disclosure which is required, so that producers and manufacturers in Atlantic Canada can determine the basis upon which those responsible for rail transportation arrive at their freight rates or their transportation costs and expenditures.
In conclusion I will repeat the second point I made. I deplore the expenditure of government funds in the absence of a full understanding on the part of parliament of the need for this money to be spent, especially When it is being spent in direct opposition to private industry. To the best of my knowledge the government has yet to do anything as efficiently as private industry. I am not suggesting that the C.N.R. is unnecessary or that we do not require it. This applies to Air Canada as well. But this "holier than thou" attitude adopted by the C.N.R. has to come to an end. As one member from Atlantic Canada I shall not permit this bill to go through until we have been given some explanation of what is going on in that region.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Grant Deachman: I am in sympathy with the remarks just made by the hon. member for Halifax. As a member of the committee on transportation I cannot think of anything more discouraging than the business of examining the C.N.R., or indeed a number of other powerful crown corporations. The problem raised by the hon. member for Halifax is not one that we should lay entirely at
4820	COMMONS
C.N.R. Financing and Guarantee Bill the door of the C.N.R. It is one which we in parliament could solve to some extent ourselves. It is the problem of acquiring in the committee structure of parliament a little more expertise in our capability to examine crown corporations such as the C.N.R., Air Canada and others.
I recall the days when Donald Gordon used to appear before the transport committee. He would appear before that committee surrounded by a coterie of experts, each carrying a black bag filled with a profusion of statistics to prove any particular case he wanted to make. All the expertise was on the side of Donald Gordon. There was no expertise whatsoever on the side of the committee members. Planked down in front of us, he could parade an endless array of statistics that we could not understand, and so he was able to make a brilliant appearance before that committee year after year. We knew nothing of what went on within the confines of the C.N.R.-only what Mr. Gordon slipped out to us from behind the pullman curtain while the body of the C.N.R. remained concealed behind that curtain.
I suggest we could overcome this problem by employing some expertise within the committee structure, and building up some expertise on our part to confront the crown corporations, and indeed the ministers who come before committees with expert witnesses and with vast volumes of information and statistics. Within the committee structure we have the responsibility to oversee what the government is doing, and although the hon. member for Halifax and I sit on different sides of this house, we share that responsibility. Neither one of us is a member of the government. Each of us has the responsibiltiy of explaining to his constituents what the government is doing, and we have the responsibility of intelligently overseeing what the government is doing.
Can the hon. member and I oversee what the government does if in the committee system we do not have some expertise on our side, so that we can make deeper inquiry into what the government is doing? Under the present committees structure we simply serve on committees. We call ministers and heads of crown corporations before us, ask them questions without real preparation, get answers which are backed by their experts, and then retire puzzled, but not really informed, and not really any wiser.
I think I speak for members on all sides of the house when I say that I do not think we

DEBATES	November 28, 1967
can continue as intelligent members on the back benches and perform a duty useful to our constituents unless we develop within the committees system an expertise that is capable of confronting the ministry in an efficient manner. So I make this appeal to the hon. member for Halifax tonight, as I have often made it in private conversation with individual committee members, that in the evolution of the committees system we must begin to develop to a status of something more than a mere clerk who sits there and takes the minutes of a committee. On our part we must have some form of examination which goes deeper into the work of government and the work of crown corporations than we are able to go under our present system. There is an inability on the part of the ordinary backbencher to come face to face in an expert fashion with a proliferating number of crown corporations and vast public enterprises, which we are quite incapable of examining at present.


J. Michael Forrestall: I wish to ask the hon. member one question. Would he mind removing himself from the chamber, call the Minister of Transport and find out why he is not here right now? I agree that the hon. member is absolutely right in his conclusions.


Mitchell William Sharp: Just to keep the record
straight, Mr. Chairman, this bill provides for the financing of the C.N.R. and I think it is not really appropriate that questions relating to transportation policy should be raised at this time. I have no objection to listening to them, and I must say that some of the points made by hon. members on both sides about the difficulty of obtaining the information they need may have some justification; but I think it would really be stretching the meaning of the words in this bill to expect that questions of the kind raised should be answered at this time.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Chairman, I shall have some remarks about C.N.R. financing later this evening, but just on the point brought up by the minister I would like to say that when everything is going all right with the railways, what he says may have some validity. We usually give routine passage to the financial bill, after having examined the company's budget in committee; but the present situation is different. The Minister of Finance is connected with the problem because across this country, particularly in the eastern and western areas,
November 28, 1967	COMMONS
freight rate increases are causing much concern. Therefore I suggest that what has been brought forward by the two previous speakers is very important. I do not know whether it is worth while trying to get the Minister of Transport and the officials of the company here tonight, but I do say we have to look at this matter in an entirely different manner in view of the abdication by the government of the transportation field.


Mr. Fane:: Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister of Finance was a little out of order when he suggested that we should talk only about financing. Clauses 3 and 4 of this bill deal with the operating of railway lines and the building of branch lines. They provide money for road property, branch lines, telecommunications, hotels and investment in affiliated companies such as Air Canada to a total of $264,800,000. Therefore I cannot see any reason why we should not discuss all these things, and it is my hope that I may be allowed to do so.
The first thing I wish to mention briefly is the subsidy of $67 million to be given to Air Canada. I know this will provide extra aircraft and other facilities, and I wish to point out that in this day and age there should be a much better air service into Alberta's capital city of Edmonton. The present situation there is simply appalling. One can hardly get a flight to it, and once one gets there it is difficult to get a convenient flight out of it. Also the capital city of Canada is very badly served with flights to other parts of Canada. If any place should have an adequate air service, it is our capital city of Ottawa.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Mr. Woolliams:: Hear, hear.


Maurice Rinfret: I regret to interrupt the hon. member for Vegreville, but I am endeavouring to determine whether he is on sound ground or a little up in the air in speaking about Air Canada. Perhaps he would be more on the right track if he were to speak about the expenditures of the Canadian National Railways or about what assistance the federal government should give them.


Frank John William Fane: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will agree with you about that, provided Air Canada is entirely divorced from the business of the Canadian National Railways. I think the management of the Canadian National Railways has made such an appalling mess of administration that it would be a
DEBATES	4821
C.N.R. Financing and Guarantee Bill crime to have Air Canada subjected to that type of management.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. With regard to the remarks of the hon. member, may I point out to him that I intend to speak on Air Canada under clause 10. He will find that clause 10 has to do with Air Canada.


Frank John William Fane: Both clauses 3 and 4 also refer to Air Canada. In any event, I have made my few remarks about Air Canada. I should like to say, however, that the service provided is very wonderful, but the trouble arises in trying to get it.


Mr. Walker:: It is nice when you can get it.


Frank John William Fane: It is wonderful, but not when you cannot get a flight from Ottawa to Edmonton.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. I think perhaps the hon. member for Vegreville should go along with the suggestion of the hon. member for York-Humber and go up in the air on clause 10.


Frank John William Fane: Very good, Mr. Chairman; you will hear it all over again on clause 10.
This amount of $264,800,000 in respect of the Canadian National Railways angers me so much that I would be inclined to cut that figure down to $1, until they learn how to treat the people of Canada properly and until they provide the services they are supposed to provide, and for which they have been kept in business so long at such a great expense to the taxpayers of this country.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Hear, hear.


Frank John William Fane: The Canadian National Railways has restricted its services. It is not necessary for me to tell anyone here how they have restricted services. They have closed stations and have provided freight services, carload lots, less than carload lots, express services and telecommunications by remote control. This might enable them to operate with a great deal less staff, but it certainly does not provide for efficiency and convenience for the people.
Let us not forget that it is only a few weeks since the railways brought into being a plan whereby they wished to charge $6.75 for sending a can of cream to the city and return. I realize, as was stated by the minister the other day on the late show, that that now has been delayed for, I believe, 90 days.
4822	COMMONS
C.N.R. Financing and Guarantee Bill
The less than carload lot facilities for freight are positively appalling in most cases. There is reference in the bill to branch lines and road property. I would like to use as an example the Canadian National spur line from Fort Saskatchewan to the subsidized Imperial Oil fertilizer plant at Redwater. The officials of the C.N.R. have advised us that they are building this 12J miles of spur line through some of the finest farmland in Canada, and through farms which have been established for a longer period than any others in Alberta, in order to save expense. The railways have a line within six miles of that plant. Why could they not build that spur line over the shortest route to connect with the main line?
They talked about rolling up one part about 20 miles in length in order to save money. That is absurd. They did not need to build this line at such a cost. God only knows how much it will cost to provide this spur line. I am darned sure that if I had anything to do with it the whole amount of $264,800,000 would probably go toward paying for the damage they have done in the area. They also advised me that they were saving money in building this line, because they had to do a little fixing up of the existing lines that are there. How silly can they get. If they just built four or five miles of line up to the town of Redwater where the railway already is, they would not need to buy any land. They could go along right beside the road allowance into Redwater. In this way only a matter of perhaps six miles at the most would be involved.
They told me they were saving money by building this spur line. Well, if they can save money by building a line like that, why can they not save a little more money by building the railway line from Heinsburg in Alberta to Frenchman Butte in Saskatchewan. This railway ends in a dead end at Heinsburg, Alberta, near the salt plant there. They have to bring all their production from that area back to Edmonton on the railway, a matter of perhaps 140 miles back, while all they would have to do is complete 39.1 miles in order to finish that line to Frenchman Butte in Saskatchewan. Part of the road bed was built 35 years ago.
I cannot understand this kind of poor management. I remember one occasion when five of us went to Montreal to see the then president of the Canadian National Railways. When we presented this proposition to him he said, "What do you fellows think you are doing; are you going to tell me how to run

DEBATES	November 28, 1967
my railway?" One of our members just about jumped across the president's long, wonderful, beautiful mahogany desk and yanked him over to our side to beat him up. He would have been able to do it too, even though the then president was a pretty big man physically.
Why is the Canadian National Railways not able to come up with some realistic program of management? I do not wish to go into too much more detail. I have already spoken about the spur line from Fort Saskatchewan to the Redwater plant. Why in the name of heaven could they not have surveyed a more suitable line, and done so by some other means than the use of an aerial photograph of the area? I cannot understand why the land could not have been surveyed properly and located along a route to avoid the destruction of so much good land. It appears to me and to the 23 farmers whose land was confiscated-perhaps expropriated is the polite word-that whoever laid out the line and approved of it crowded the idiot fringe pretty darned close.
o (9:30 p.m.)
The C.N.R. is also abandoning lines in the west without any apparent rhyme or reason. They suggest the lines are not paying. It is understandable why they are not paying if they provide no facilities. The railway certainly cannot expect this to be a paying proposition when they cut off passenger traffic.
Before you call me to order again, Mr. Chairman, I shall defer the remainder of my remarks until we reach consideration of clause 10. At that time I probably will tell the committee again about a matter in respect of Air Canada.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a point or two on clause 4, which I understand deals with the capital financing of the Canadian National Railways system. Before doing so let me say it is regrettable that the Minister of Transport is not in the house, because I think some pretty relevant questions could be asked as to the breakdown-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Let me direct hon. members attention to the fact that the bill now before the committee comes within the purview of the Minister of Finance. When the Minister of Transport left the house this afternoon he delegated me to look after certain legislation which, I am thankful to say, has been dealt
November 28, 1987
COMMONS DEBATES	4823
with by the house. The minister also asked, during a communication with me since, that I take into account all matters brought to the attention of the committee in respect of the Canadian National Railways. He indicated that he would be happy to discuss them at the earliest possible moment.


Mitchell William Sharp: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, my attention has been drawn to a remark made by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert as reported at page 2527 of Hansard for September 26. He said:
In the effort to be helpful we have checked over here and we find there is some agreement-
I hope that agreement continues. He then said:
-I am certainly not speaking for everybody- that this is a routine measure and that there is little change, if any, from what has been done in other years. It has been customary to allow second reading without extended debate.
He seemed to be speaking for someone. He then said:
I wish to say quickly, though, that there are some on this side who are experiencing problems which they might have raised on this occasion, but they are willing to wait for the debate on the budget or some other occasion before doing so.
I am wondering whether there has been a change of mind.


Mr. MacEwan:: You changed our mind.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply. I think my remarks of a moment ago covered this. At the time referred to by the minister I said that this was a routine bill. I still admit this; but since September 26 the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Finance started to fool around with rates in the transportation field. I give notice to the minister, in case he did not understand me last Tuesday-and he is certainly aware of the situation in the maritimes and out west-that we no longer consider this to be the normal bill. Any previous statements made have been forgotten, and we plan to bring out in the open the full story about the abdication of this government in so far as the transportation field is concerned. I say this with all sincerity: The record of this government is horrible in the field of transportation. If we have to follow this procedure, all I can say is that we do so according to parliamentary processes. This will be done this way as far as I am concerned. That is my answer to the minister.
C.N.R. Financing and Guarantee Bill


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, let me say that I was not objecting, but merely trying to draw attention to the statement made previously by the hon. member.


An hon. Member:: And you got your
answer.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I hate to interrupt these points of order, Mr. Chairman, but perhaps I could continue to make the few points I have in mind. I was not aware that the parliamentary secretary had been given the task of representing the Minister of Transport here tonight. I have sat patiently through three points of order, but if the hon. gentleman would like to reply to those points already made by those who have taken part in the debate before I make other specific points, I will defer to him.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Chairman, I think I made quite clear what I meant, and if the hon. member was not listening that is surely no fault of mine. The minister is engaged elsewhere in very important consultations. He did not anticipate that this bill would be considered this evening but he did ask me to note carefully all matters being discussed and indicated that he would be pleased to deal with them when an opportunity presented itself.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I thought the parliamentary secretary had offered to act as spokesman in the house for the minister. He is now telling us that he is merely an errand boy for the minister.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Michael Starr: There is no point of order.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I had the privilege of sitting on the opposite side when the hon. member was on this side performing substantially the same duties.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I recognize the fact that at one time I was a parliamentary secretary, Mr. Chairman, but I had a different concept of my duties than perhaps the hon. member has. Perhaps he can indicate whether he has been provided by his grateful minister with a list of the projects for which capital is sought under clause 3 of this bill. Is that sort of information to be made available to us tonight?
4824	COMMONS
C.N.R. Financing and Guarantee Bill


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I think it is quite obvious, since this bill is in the name of the Minister of Finance, that he will have all the relevant information.


Robert Jardine McCleave: This is like playing ball, and I am now in the big leagues. Let me ask the Minister of Finance whether he has the information for us this evening as to the capital projects covered by the borrowing transaction set forth in this measure.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, some time this spring the operating and capital budgets of the C.N.R. for 1967 were tabled in the House of Commons. These are a matter of record in the house.


Robert Jardine McCleave: 
Michael Starr: May I beg the indulgence of the hon. member for Halifax and interrupt him to bring to the attention of the government the fact that it appears we will not be able to complete consideration of this bill tonight. However, for the sake of expediting the business of the house, I suggest that we terminate the debate on this bill, and proceed to items No. 39 and 43 which we are prepared to pass before ten o'clock. We are now on second reading of item No. 39 and we are prepared to pass this item as well as item No. 43, the second reading of Bill S-18.


Mr. Prittie:: Mr. Chairman, before the house leader gets any wrong ideas about what can be accomplished, I should like to say that we are not agreeable to passing item No. 39, although we might agree to the passage of item No. 43.


Michael Starr: In that case may I suggest that we consider item No. 43 first, and then go on to item No. 39?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I wonder whether the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond realizes the seriousness of the situation and the need for additional judges in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. It is impossible to have cases heard in that province today with less than a year's delay, because of the shortage of judges. Now we have an opportunity to correct that situation.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Chairman, I realize the seriousness of the situation, but I do not think one day will make any difference. We could have dealt with the matter in September and October, if it were that urgent.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall I rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.
November 28, 1967	COMMONS



PUBLICATION OF STATUTES ACT


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: the second reading of Bill No. S-18, to amend the Publication of Statutes Act.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, with regard to this particular matter I think we should have a brief explanation of what is involved in the bill. I notice that certain clauses are very ambiguous, and the regulations seem to be quite broad. Would the minister explain to us what is actually involved in this bill?


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, this bill intends to give to the governor in council authority to publish the statutes in a certain form. Under the present Publication of Statutes Act, statutes have to be published in separate volumes in French and in English. The intention of this bill is to allow the government to provide that the statutes be printed in some other form. The bill is introduced now because the Revised Statutes of Canada, which are to be published some time in the coming year, will be printed in the form recommended by the commission for the revision of statutes. The recommendation of that commission, which I believe will be accepted by the government, is to publish the statutes in French and in English in the same volume, the intention being to have on the same page a column in French and a column in English. In view of the fact that this will be done with regard to the revised statutes, the government feels it would be desirable to publish the annual statutes in the same form, o (9:50 p.m.)
I may be out of order, Mr. Speaker, by going further than that, but if the house allows me I could say a few words in anticipation of the report of the revised statutes commission. The intention of publishing the two texts in the same volume, as I indicated, is in order to ensure that the laws of Canada are published in their entirety within the same set. As hon. members know, the British North America Act has stated that the laws of Canada shall be published in both languages. It has been the interpretation of the courts that both languages have equal authority, and that in the case of some doubt arising in the interpretation of a statute, the language will prevail which appears to the court to be closest to the intention of parliament. This being the case, for strictly legal
27053-305i
DEBATES	4825
Publication of Statutes Act and constitutional reasons alone, to say nothing of the political and symbolic reasons, with which I could gladly deal, it has been decided by the government that it would be prudent to make sure every edition of the statutes is printed in both languages in such a way that any lawyer, judge or person who uses the statutes would have at his hand the complete statutes, and not half of them in one language or in the other.
In that very real sense, Mr. Speaker, a lawyer pleading before any court of Canada, upon the statutes of Canada, is entitled to use both languages. I am not saying any court in any province allows pleadings in both languages because the constitution does not say that. The constitution does say, and the courts have so interpreted, that any lawyer in any province can use a statute in whichever language appears right to him. The court will use whatever language appears to correspond most closely to the will of parliament. This is the main reason the government intends to publish the statutes in this form.
There are of course other reasons, less legal, which have to do with the special intent of this government to ensure that the French language is given equality in the laws, in the sense the constitution decides it shall be given equality. Once again, Mr. Speaker, mainly speaking, this is for the publication of the revised statutes and is not an act for the publication in any special form. It gives the government the latitude, if it so desires, to pass orders in council or regulations which will permit the statutes to be published in this form if the government so desires. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that is a succinct explanation of the purpose of this bill.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, most of what the minister has said is irrelevant to the subject matter here. No one is questioning the status of the two languages. The minister has, with a great wealth of words, tried to conceal exactly what is intended here. What is intended, as I understand it, is to put in one volume both the French and English versions of the statutes. I do not know why the minister did not say that, and leave it at that. I ask the minister, then, what real purpose is served by so doing, other than enlarging the volumes?
4826	COMMONS
Publication of Statutes Act
Every court, every person in Canada, can have access to the statutes in either English or in French. Many people keep both versions; but one does not have to have them on adjoining pages. In any case, the languages do not correspond exactly line for line when translated. You will have to run over the page for the translation from one language to the other. All that it is desired to do is to put in one volume both versions of the statutes. I do not believe this is necessary at all.
What size of book are we going to have? Right now, the revised statutes average about
1,000	pages per volume. Are they to be enlarged to 2,000 pages or will we have a much longer reach of volumes? The same can be said of the annual statutes. The statutes for 1966-67 are contained in a very large volume. I believe 85 bills were passed in that long session, which ran for a year and a half because of the bad management of the government. If that volume were printed in both languages, would it be contained in two volumes, three or four? What will be accomplished here will be just the inconveniencing of people who have to make use of the statutes. I make a great deal of use of them during the course of a session. There is not a year goes by but that I do not look through the statutes for some purpose or other with regard to bills coming before us. It is inconvenient enough now to search through the revised statutes, plus the amendments, when the volumes are of a fair size. I do not see why I should be saddled with double sized volumes in the future.
I am surprised that the minister did not really deal with the issue. It has nothing to do with whether or not the languages are recognized in this country. It is simply a dodge to put both languages in one volume, and there is no other purpose served by this measure.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: If the
minister speaks now, he will close the debate.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister how many copies of the Statutes of Canada are now printed in English and how many copies are printed in French? With these figures we could calculate what the extra expense is going to be in printing this number of copies in both French and English. As the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) has said, an increased amount of space will be required to file these books

DEBATES	November 28, 1967
in libraries, judges' offices and lawyers' offices.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I rise to a point of order, in order to answer the hon. member. I have the floor, so I intend to answer him.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: The minister understands that he will close the debate if he speaks now.


An hon. Member:: Order; ten o'clock.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Smith:: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock has been called.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: It is ten
o'clock.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I want to make it clear that I have the floor.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no you don't.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Michael Starr: I wonder if I could ask the government house leader what the house will be engaged in tomorrow and Thursday, and whether he can tell us at what time the Minister of Finance will make his budget speech on Thursday, as well as what we might be doing on Friday?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we will begin tomorrow with the committee of the whole stage of Bill No. C-168, an act to amend the Criminal Code. We will take second reading of the Judges Act; second reading of the Government Employees Compensation Act; and second reading of an act to establish a corporation for the administration of national museums for Canada. It is intended, Mr. Speaker, that on Thursday the Minister of Finance will give his message at eight o'clock.


Michael Starr: What about Friday?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am not in a position to advise my hon. friend about the business for Friday. Depending on the progress we make tomorrow, I hope to be able to give it then. If my hon. friends make such rapid progress in the next day or so they might look forward to an early Christmas adjournment.
November 28, 1967

[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to elaborate tonight on the question I put to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) on October 12, 1967, as follows:
Has the minister been advised that, at the Dorval airport, some concessionaires, such as the duty free shop, prevent and discourage the use of the French language by the customers who shop there. Will he take immediate steps to ensure that no discrimination is exercised with regard to the two official languages of Canada?
I want to protest strongly against the refusal to speak French on the part of certain persons and concessionaires at the Dorval federal airport.
Our days of humiliation are over. The time of persecution and discrimination is past.
We, French Canadians, have had enough of being insulted by representatives or concessionaires of the Ottawa government or crown corporations. And when, in addition, these insults take place on Quebec territory, our exasperation knows no bounds.
Often in this house or elsewhere, the question is asked as to what Quebec and French Canada want or complain about. Here is another example among thousands to illustrate our frustrations and our determination to demand substantial reforms.
I have already had the opportunity in this house to denounce such iniquities by certain employees of the Canadian Pacific in Montreal suburbs and by certain officers of the R.C.M.P. here in Ottawa.
If the two official languages of Canada are to be developed and given equal treatment, if national understanding is to grow and flourish the Ottawa government must first set an example, adopt legislation and make rules to prevent such discrimination and to promote the harmonious respect of the two cultures.
The federal government should advise all its employees and those of crown corporations or agencies within its immediate or
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion indirect jurisdiction, that it intends to lay oft or withdraw every privilege from Canadians who are so narrow minded as to behave like the individuals from the above-mentioned concerns.
Ottawa should also officially protest, after inquiries have been made, in respect to any instance that is brought to its knowledge where its recommendations in this area have not been needed.
Finally, any contract or lease entered into by Ottawa or any of its corporations or agencies should provide for the respect of both official languages in advertising and as working languages.
I hope the hon. minister will take these suggestions in serious consideration and that he will protest vigorously in the case which I have just brought to his attention.
Talking about bilingualism, I should also like to draw the attention of the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) to the unacceptable fact that the new manpower centre at Sherbrooke has employment application forms in English only, when 85 per cent of the people of my riding are French speaking. Therefore, I ask that measures be taken immediately to provide employment application forms in the two official languages.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I think all members of the house are in sympathy with the objectives of the hon. member as I understood them through the translation system. However, I want to assure him that this particular matter has been brought to the attention of the concessionaire. At the moment there are no regulations that permit the government to insist that a particular language be used. The minister is completely sympathetic, and if the hon. member deems it necessary will again bring the matter to the attention of those who are responsible.
Speaking personally, may I relate something that happened to me quite recently. I sent a message to the cafeteria, and in that message I ordered a toasted lettuce and tomato sandwich. I received a cooked meat or a smoked meat sandwich. When the messenger returned I was told that no one in the cafeteria could read what I had written. That, I presumed, was because my writing was not legible.
4828	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE-POSSIBLE PURCHASE OF U.S. WEAPONS FOR RIOT CONTROL

Robert Jardine McCleave: The matter which causes my intervention in the late show is two programs on the production entitled "The Public Eye", each of which was carried by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and each of which was hosted by Warner Troyer. The programs were shown last week and the week before and dealt with special devices-vehicles, chemicals and machines-which are used in riot control and which, in my question to the Solicitor General, I described as satanic. The matter was of sufficient interest that I felt I ought to rise in the house and speak about it.
Among the vehicles which are being developed in the United States for riot control are special armoured cars, small but high powered pistols, gas which leaves one helpless for 15 minutes, and a chemical which, when sprayed on one, leaves him completely helpless. He cannot walk or roll away, or do anything. I suppose that eventually the chemical wears off. Also shown on the program were methods of handling tear gas, and finally-and I must be careful with my language here-noise producing machines which cause those near to them to lose complete control of their lower intestines. I suppose this machine is not used often because it affects its operator as much as others who get in the path of its unusual sonic boom. All these devices were shown on the television program.
Also shown was a mounted police sergeant who had attended a school in order to learn riot control techniques. The sergeant was asked if Canada was interested in acquiring the devices which I have mentioned; to the best of my recollection he said, "no"' Earlier in the program a United States businessman from one of the companies which manufactures these infernal mechanisms said that some of these things I have detailed have been bought for Canada. To be fair, he tried to be close mouthed and left the question up in the air.
The Solicitor General has been good enough to attend in the house. I wish to ask him whether the R.C.M.P. are to acquire any of the various things I have mentioned during my brief intervention.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the hon. member that, apart from a few cans of a new spray type gas which were purchased for experimental purposes only, and which were found

DEBATES	November 28, 1967
unsatisfactory, the R.C.M.P has not purchased any of the new weapons, chemicals or vehicles which apparently are being developed in the United States for crowd and riot control. The R.C.M.P. has no plans to purchase any of these devices in the forseeable future.
* (10:10 p.m.)



NATIONAL DEFENCE-LASALLE, QUE.- LAY-OFFS AT NAVAL DEPOT

Raymond Rock: Mr. Speaker, yesterday morning I
put the following question to the Minister of National Defence.
Is the Department of National Defence laying off employees at the naval depot situated in the city of Lasalle, giving only two days notice to its employees? If so, is this the department's normal procedure with respect to such notice?
Later I addressed the following question to the Minister of Labour:
Since railway employees receive two weeks notice before lay-offs, does he not feel that defence employees should receive equal treatment?
Mr. Speaker, it has been brought to the attention of the house recently that the railways have realized the immorality of laying off employees without sufficient notice. This was the result of questions asked in this house and promises made by the Minister of Transport to draw to the attention of the railways that they had a moral obligation to their employees to give them as much notice as possible in the event of lay-offs.
For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I was disappointed and surprised that the Minister of National Defence should have permitted layoffs at the Lasalle naval depot with less than 48 hours notice. Mr. Justice Freedman in an historical document emphasized the need for more co-operation in matters of this type. It is little wonder that employee-employer relations are at times very difficult. The morale of the people of my riding who work at this naval depot is low because of continued and persistent rumours of the closing of	this depot	and	its transfer to
Longue-Pointe.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: As my hon. friend is aware, the Department of National Defence hires casual labourers for certain projects for which funds have been allocated. These men are not permanent employees, but it has been the departmental practice to give those concerned as much advance warning as possible about lay-offs.
November 28, 1967	COMMONS
There are cases, however, when these projects are completed ahead of schedule, or when the funds allotted to the project have been exhausted in advance of the estimated time of completion. In these instances, we cannot give much advance warning because we make every effort to employ the casual labourers for as long as the money is available for these projects. For example, we may employ a painter as a casual labourer on one project and, when that project is completed, re-employ him on another where his services are required.
I must also point out to my hon. friend that it is the policy of the department to release first the last man employed, to protect
DEBATES	4829
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion the seniority of the others. I regret very much that those casual labourers employed in Ville Lasalle were laid off on such short notice but I am told we have made every effort to keep them employed for as long as was possible. I must point out, Mr. Speaker, that although we have no legal obligation to give casual labourers any advance notice of impending lay-offs, we have a moral responsibility to give these men as much notice as possible. In the case at Ville Lasalle we gave them as much as we could, although it was not as much as we would have liked.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.15 p.m.

Wednesday, November 29, 1967