1967-06-02

Mr. H. Pit Lessard (Saint-Henri):: Mr. Speaker, at the opening of the sitting yesterday the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade) rose on a question of privilege, charging me with sending him an abusive and defamatory letter; I want here, in this house to deny categorically such an accusation. I have never written a word to the hon. member for Sainte-Marie.
Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that the hon. member for Sainte-Marie has availed himself of one of my rare absences from the house to make false and unfounded charges.
Mr. Speaker, I know that this is a means taken by the hon. member for Sainte-Marie to get free publicity.


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainle-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, about the question of privilege, I do not intend to repeat what I said yesterday when I mentioned the name of the hon. member for Saint-Henri (Mr. Lessard), because such information, as I said, was given me by the sergeant-at-arms following inquiries I had made to Your Honour to find out who had written that letter. Therefore, it is in the light of such information that I mentioned the name of the hon. member for Saint-Henri.
If the hon. member denies that he wrote that letter, I think that the information given me by the sergeant-at-arms was inaccurate and I would therefore like to know who wrote the letter.


Mr. Choqueffe:: Table the letter and we will know.



On the orders of the day:


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare
in his capacity as government house leader. Following the statement by the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade), will the minister make an inquiry in respect of the mysterious letter received by that hon. member and see that it is tabled?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



FISHERIES ACT


Mr. Joseph P. O'Keefe (St. John's East) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-126, to amend the Fisheries Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mr. O'Keefe:: Mr. Speaker, there have been complaints, many and serious, that fishing vessels off the coast of some parts of Newfoundland have been in some cases destroying the fishing grounds and equipment of inshore fishermen, and in other cases that these vessels have hampered their fishing operations. It is with a view to restricting fishing operations of these vessels that this bill is introduced, and by so doing restricting certain inshore fishing grounds to the exclusive use of inshore fishermen.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND DISPUTES INVESTIGATION ACT


Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-127, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (Meaning of "Unit").


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill, as requested by the Confederation of National Trade Unions for the last 13 months, is to amend the federal Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act so as to allow recognition of the natural bargaining unit and thus to better promote freedom of association of employees directly or indirectly under the jurisdiction of the central government.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
June 2, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister and ask him if, as a result of his talks with the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Wilson, he can inform parliament whether Canada has given any undertakings as to a joint statement regarding the gulf of Aqaba. I ask this question because I am sure the Prime Minister is aware that such a suggestion was made in the House of Lords the other day by Lord Avon, who was prime minister at the time of the Suez crisis in 1956. I wish to ask whether Canada is to participate in a declaration to the effect that the gulf of Aqaba is an international waterway.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the question of participation in a collective declaration regarding action of this kind has not come up. There has been no discussion of participation with other governments in any declaration of this nature. On the question of a declaration by this and other governments expressing the views they have taken in the past-I am now thinking of Canada-as to the right of freedom of passage, innocent passage, through the strait of Tiran into the gulf of Aqaba, we have already made a declaration as a government that we take this view, and if it is necessary to repeat that declaration we will do so and are willing to do so. That is quite apart from any general collective declaration as to what might or might not be done in this particular situation.


Michael Starr: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether during the discussions with the British Prime Minister or any other discussions the government might have had with U Thant at the United Nations the government has committed or is committing Canada to any definite course. If so I wish to ask the Prime Minister, if there are any commitments or if there will be commitments, will he undertake to consult parliament prior to entering into commitments on behalf of Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the only commitments we have in this matter are the commitments we have undertaken under the charter of the United Nations. No other commitments have been given; no other commitments have been asked. This general matter is being considered now at the United Nations

in the security council. No doubt there will be resolutions submitted to the security council dealing with the matter my hon. friend has raised, and we shall take our position at the security council as a member of the United Nations in respect of these particular resolutions if and when they are produced; but we have no commitment to anyone beyond the commitments we have undertaken in this country and in this parliament arising out of our membership in the United Nations.


Michael Starr: I would ask the Prime Minister this question. Will he undertake to advise parliament or seek parliament's advice before making any commitments beyond the commitments that we have with the United Nations?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I answered that question yesterday, I think, Mr. Speaker. I said if there was any question of this country undertaking any commitments that involved the use of force in any way, parliament would be consulted.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: May I follow up the same problem, Mr. Speaker. I ask the right hon. gentleman whether an earlier answer of his means that in the view of the government of Canada there is no purpose in a declaration by the maritime powers at this time such as I understand Mr. Wilson to have proposed, because that would be merely reiterating a previous declaration.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Consideration has been given to this point by the government of the United States and the government of the United Kingdom, and Mr. Wilson indicated to us yesterday the kind of declaration he thought might be desirable in certain circumstances-and by "circumstances" I mean if the security council were completely frustrated and unable to take any action at all. But that point has not yet been reached.


David Lewis: I should like to ask the Prime
Minister whether the latest developments in the security council hold out any hope that some effective result may be obtained.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, I am always optimistic, Mr. Speaker, but I quite agree with what the hon. member has implied in his question; they are having great difficulty in the security council at the present time in agreeing on a resolution which would be acceptable to everybody.
June 2. 1967


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: We know the attitude of the Canadian government toward this waterway, but does the government intend to sponsor or seek a collective declaration by the security council respecting the gulf of Aqaba?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is exactly the matter which is now before the security council, or at least which is being discussed at the United Nations by consultations among individual members of that council.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Although I constitute only 1.05 per cent of the second largest party in the house, might I presume a broader representation and ask the Prime Minister whether he would convey to the C.B.C. appreciation for airing the press conference of the British Prime Minister this morning, and to that distinguished gentleman for his lucid, thoughtful and helpful contribution to our understanding of world affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: should like to ask the Prime Minister another supplementary question. In his discussions with the Prime Minister of Great Britain was any consideration given to the unfortunate situation of some 750 Arab displaced persons? This appears to be a festering point, one which has caused a lot of this difficulty. Was there any discussion of this matter with a view to finding permanent settlement for these people?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is a question which has been under discussion at the United Nations and outside it for several years. It is not a question of 750 displaced persons but of 750,000 displaced persons. I agree with the hon. member that this is one of the complicating and tragic elements of the whole situation and one which over the years has been causing trouble.



FARM MACHINERY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melfori-Tisdale):: My question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that last night the Minister of Finance failed to offer any assistance to farmers faced with the high cost of farm machinery, would the hon. gentleman not now consider bringing in

Inquiries of the Ministry a moratorium in connection with farm machinery prices until his colleague gives this matter consideration in his budget?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: I think the hon. member is aware, since we have discussed this matter previously, that to my knowledge we have no authority at the federal level to fix or set prices even if we wished to do so. I believe the farm machinery inquiry under Dr. Barber is progressing satisfactorily, responsibly and at a good pace. Certainly any action that is recommended by it in respect to farm machinery costs will be given very serious consideration.


Reynold Rapp: As a supplementary question, when does the minister expect that the report of the commission will be presented to this house?


John James Greene: Dr. Barber has not given us any date, and I do not wish to hurry him with the job. We want a full and complete job done, but if it is going to be any considerable length of time I will ask him to consider the possibility of an interim report.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Would he consider using his good offices to make an appeal to the farm machinery manufacturers not to increase their prices, as he did previously with respect to another industry?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in my budget I directed a general appeal. I do not think I would want to select any particular industry at the present time. I hope all industries in this country and all those concerned with production will observe the general admonitions I gave last night.



EXPO '67 POSSIBLE CLOSING OF PAVILIONS OF ARAB COUNTRIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Is the minister aware that one Arab country and several others, namely the United Arab Republic, have already expressed their intention of closing their pavilions at the World Exhibition in Montreal? Since the minister realizes, I am sure, that such a situation
1078	COMMONS DEBATES	June 2, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry could compromise the success of the exhibition, could he tell us what is the position of his department regarding the possible closing of the pavilions of some Arab countries at the Montreal World Exhibition?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I know there is one country that has decided to close its pavilion.
I am in contact with the minister for foreign affairs of Kuwait, but I have no reason to think, for the time being, that any other country will follow the decision taken by Kuwait. I am in contact with the minister of foreign affairs for that country and I hope that the authorities will reconsider their decision.


Martial Asselin: Has the minister been advised by the United Arab Republic of its intention to close its pavilion as a result of the position taken by Canada concerning the Middle East?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. This being the fourth day since I sent him written notice of this question and the third day since I raised it in the House of Commons, when he replied he would take it as notice, in view of the increasing urgency may I ask whether the minister is now in a position to tell the house what decision has been reached by his department on the passports and the retaining of Canadian citizenship by those who may be volunteering for civilian and perhaps other action in Israel.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course, Mr. Speaker, there can be no question of the right of a person to obtain a passport if he has Canadian citizenship. As I said the other day, the question of the implications of the Foreign Enlistment Act is being referred to the law officers of the crown. I have not had an opportunity this morning to consult my colleague the Minister of Justice to see whether an opinion has been received. I shall certainly look into the matter again.


Harold Edward Winch: As a supplementary question, and because I think the matter is rather important, may I ask the minister whether in the consideration being given to volunteers leaving Canada for Israel the decision of the government will also apply to Canadians who have moved across the border and are serving in the United States forces in Viet Nam?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is not so much a question of the decision of the government as an interpretation of the law. I certainly can see no reason why there should be any differentiation made.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Labour.
Did the minister or members of the cabinet meet yesterday or recently with representatives of the C.N.T.U., and is the government now in a position to accede to the request of the C.N.T.U. concerning the bilingual qualifications of the chairman of the Canada Labour Relations Board and the recognition of the national unit of negotiations?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minisier of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, dealing with the last part of the question, may I repeat what I have said more than once, if and when the government has any changes in legislation to recommend they will be made known to the house in the usual way.
As regards the first part of the question, I can only say that no request was ever made to meet with the Minister of Labour yesterday, though I understand that certain officials, no doubt representatives of the organization in question, have met with some of my colleagues from the province of Quebec. I was not present at any such a meeting, however.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
June 2, 1967	COMMONS
Did the minister receive a telegram from the Canadian Council for the Blind, which held a convention in the maritimes last week, requesting the abolition of the means test for blind persons applying for pensions? I would ask him at the same time whether it is his intention to consider that request from the blind during this session?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I received a telegram from the blind persons. In replying to the telegram I stated that under the Canada Assistance Plan, which has been passed by parliament and in respect of which agreements have been signed I believe with all provinces now, it is possible to provide assistance to blind persons without the application of the means test and without limitation whatsoever by the standard ceiling. We are prepared, in respect of the needs test application, to share in any amount granted by the provinces to recipients of blind persons allowances.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry and is in connection with the talks that are now being held in the maritimes concerning the designated areas. Could the minister say whether such talks are based on the new program or the old program? I am wondering whether the minister can give us any information which would be helpful concerning the changes which were proposed in the throne speech.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, in relation to the review of the designated area program currently in progress I would hope, perhaps later today, to have more news.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforlh (Kent (Onl.)):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance regarding information contained in his budget address of last night. Because of the serious implications to the
DEBATES	1079
Inquiries of the Ministry industries in Canada as a result of the tariff changes agreed to in Geneva, can the minister indicate the manner in which such changes will be made public? Will they be released to the press, will they be released to the House of Commons first, or will they be released to the various industries? I think this is a matter for serious consideration.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in saying that if the house is in session when we reach the point where all the countries agree that the information should be made public, the information will be given to the House of Commons first. On the other hand, if the house is not in session at that time publicity will be given through the press under the ordinary security regulations, so that everyone in the country is informed at the same time.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg Norfh):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. I should like to ask him whether, in the study being made regarding revisions to the Criminal Code, consideration is being given to an amendment to the code which would spell out the right of every person being questioned by the police to be represented by legal counsel at a very early stage in the proceedings, along the lines spelled out in recent decisions of the United States supreme court.


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: can inquire into that. I know of no such study being made at this time.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Is it the intention of the minister to cause an investigation to be undertaken into the substantial delays associated with the completion of the young offenders penal institution at Springhill? If so, what type of investigation can be expected and when might a report be available?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that this question should be placed on the order paper.
1080	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry DOMINION DAY



INQUIRY AS TO OBSERVANCE OF JULY 1 HOLIDAY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the statement made yesterday by the Minister of Justice, which appears at page 845 of Hansard, to the effect that the government can by proclamation declare July 3 a holiday and thus enable the country to have a long weekend for our one hundredth birthday, will the government give consideration to making such a proclamation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the situation the proclamation in question would only cover federal civil servants, the banks and certain institutions. It would not in itself bring about a national holiday on that day. However, I will be glad to look into the possibility of the limited action to which my hon. friend refers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have a supplementary question. Will the Prime Minister discuss this matter with the Minister of Justice, whose position yesterday was much broader than the Prime Minister now suggests?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any difference of opinion between us as to the legal effect of a proclamation, but I will be glad to discuss it with him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will you agree to do something?



NATURAL GAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Lind (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the new order issued by the National Energy Board to the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company to construct sections of an additional pipe line over areas in southwestern Ontario where they have drainage, so they will not interfere with the existing planned or unplanned municipal drainage both public and private, will the minister assure us that the farmers' rights in respect of damage to the surface property will be looked after, and will he also assure us that any damage which has been caused in the past will be looked after by the National Energy Board in the

DEBATES	June 2. 1967
granting of this order to the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member will want to commit these questions to the order paper.



STEPS TO GIVE CONSUMER BENEFIT OF TAX REDUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Has his attention been drawn to the fact that many manufacturers of drugs have increased their wholesale prices since the possibility of the removal of the tax has been known? If so, what action is being taken to ensure that the tax reduction will be passed on to the consumer?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have not received any definite information about what has been happening to the price of drugs, although like the hon. member I have had one or two intimations that some increases have taken place recently. There is only one effective way the federal government can bring about a reduction in the price of drugs, and that is by removing some of the protection now being given drug manufacturers. That is our purpose and that is our policy as announced by the government last night.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. I should like to ask him whether he is making any analysis in depth of the representations that I am sure have been made to him by prairie agricultural organizations, alleging that if the present dairy policy is continued it will result in the closing down of a great number of creameries and small dairy plants in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I met with the dairy farmers of Canada some time ago, and western representatives formed a part of that delegation. We are giving very serious consideration to the views presented at that meeting.
June 2, 1967



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
When he has to choose experts to study constitutional matters, does the minister intend to add to Messrs. Goldenberg and Head two other Canadians of a high calibre, namely Messrs. Marcel Faribault and Jacques-Yvan Morin?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think that question is in order.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Associate Minister of National Defence, who was unable to answer the question I put to him last week. On May 24 the Minister of National Defence announced that three ships were being sent to the eastern Atlantic to be available in case of emergency. Have these ships been recalled, and will the Minister of National Defence be present at the Atlantic port to welcome the crews back to Canada for publicity purposes?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: So far as the ships are concerned, Mr. Speaker, they have been reassigned.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, asking him whether, in light of the world silver situation, he intends to advance the time for replacing certain silver coins with nickel coins?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that this question should be placed on the order paper, unless there is some urgency to it which is not readily apparent to me.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think this is an urgent matter, and I should like to assure the hon. gentleman that it is under active consideration.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Defence Production. I learned about this matter just this morning through the press, and I should like to ask the minister whether the order for 800 jeeps for the Department of National Defence valued at approximately $3 million is being given to Canadian manufacturers. If not, is there still time to make sure that this is done?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, if I understood the question correctly it related to an order for 800 jeeps. I have no personal knowledge of this order or rather of the details of it at the moment. I do know that military pattern jeeps are not manufactured in Canada. We are able to obtain the benefits of scale production by buying outside Canada.


Harold Edward Winch: Did I understand the minister to say that he had no knowledge of this order for 800 jeeps?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the President of the Treasury Board may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can we be assured that the government's legislation implementing the recommendation of the special joint committee on the public service of Canada for increases in the pensions of retired civil servants will be presented to the house before we break for a summer recess?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot give my hon. friend that assurance. We will do our best if progress on other matters in the house is sufficiently encouraging.


Michael Starr: Oh, come on.
June 2, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the government house leader whether matters concerning the program for this session should not be discussed by the house leaders rather than across the floor of the house, of which we have had an example today?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the exchange, but I have been in discussion with the house leader for the official opposition in respect of the business of the house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The exchange just took place between the member for Winnipeg North Centre and the Prime Minister. That hon. member, as my colleague from Winnipeg frequently does, asked whether something would be done before something else happened. Can we not have these discussions carried out by the house leaders through quiet diplomacy?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Yes, I am one of the house leaders. Yes, we have discussions amongst the house leaders as to the business of this house. But surely as a member of this house I have the right to ask for the introduction of legislation that has been promised time and time again.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I give a ten o'clock notice regarding my question with respect to retired civil servants.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for rising so often this morning. May I direct to the right hon. Prime Minister a question that is almost but not quite supplementary. It is a matter of major concern. I am speaking of persons like myself in the House of Commons whose homes and constituencies are some 3,000 miles away. I have been home for only one week since this parliament opened. Could we not get some kind of definite indication as to what is going to happen with regard to a summer recess? I am returning to my constituency on the 23rd in order to take part in centennial celebrations. Can we have some information-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the house leader to deal with that matter.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to have the opportunity to tell hon. members of the house what the prospects are for the summer adjournment. The legislative items have already been indicated, and they are not very many. In addition to these it will be necessary for us to take action following action in the Senate in respect of one item. That is the legislative program to be dealt with before the summer adjournment. It has already been outlined. There is no intention to add further items. We propose on Tuesday to hear a spokesman for each of the opposition parties on the budget. We will then move the adjournment of the budget debate and resume it in the fall.
With that in mind, the only matter remaining, as far as the government is concerned, to be dealt with before the summer adjournment is completion of the main estimates. We have sent the estimates of nine departments to standing committees for consideration. These departments will be considered there and it may not be necessary to consider them very extensively in committee of supply. There then remain the main estimates of departments not sent to committees to be completed and we will proceed immediately to a summer adjournment. In my view a realistic target could be the end of June, but that will depend upon hon. members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lee Grills (Hastings South):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. Can he explain to me why the Department of National Defence will spend up to $2,000 to move a retired serviceman to the west coast, yet there is not enough flexibility in the rules to allow servicemen to be moved a distance of about 12 miles at one quarter of the cost?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question cannot be asked at this time.


Lee Elgy Grills: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
June 2, 1967



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



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
1. Postal services including Canada's share of the upkeep of the international bureaux at Berne and Montevideo. $293,708,000.
The Chairman:: Order. House again in committee of supply, estimates of the department of the Postmaster General for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1968, vote No. 1. This vote will be found at page 380 of the blue book. The details thereof are listed on page 381.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: Mr. Chairman, before reporting on the situation in the Post Office Department, I should like to acquaint the house with my personal views and feelings about that department after a year and a half of a very close relationship.
Of course, we all deal constantly with the Post Office Department, because that government agency is, in a way, part of our daily life and succeeds in providing us with numerous services without ever betraying our secrets.
During my trips across Canada, I had the opportunity to meet postmen, mail clerks, rural postmasters, rural mail couriers and postal agents, all people whose devotion to duty ensures the proper operation of the Canadian postal service.
Need I say, Mr. Chairman, that these people are not simply a group of employees working for any business, they are the employees of the Canadian post office, that is to say the very people who give Canada the best mail service in the world and who show that they are determined not to let the Canadian postal service become involved in operating difficulties as experienced by other postal services.
Too often, when an organization does a job quietly and efficiently from year to year, those who benefit from this quiet efficiency come to look upon it as the most natural thing in the world. Who ever thinks of the complications of post office operations and of the vast planning job always necessary to maintain a good service in a rapidly developing country?
After a year and a half, I have come to know this lively department, of which I am proud to be a part. I am proud to present today for the third time, the estimates of the
Supply-Post Office
Post Office Department, the moneys we require for the operating costs of the department during 1967-68.
A glance at the figures for the fiscal year 1965-66 on which was based our last report will give everyone an idea of the wide operations of the Post Office Department and of the enlightened management which is needed, as shown by the report of expenditures and revenues.
About 4,600 million mail items are now handled every year. That comes to 240 items per year per man, woman and child in Canada. This figure can be considered as a rate of increase, since every time the population of Canada increases by one person, the post office must be ready to handle 240 items more a year.
Mail carriers, urban and rural, are now serving 4,100,000 business and private calls. The handing of mail and service to the public give occupation to 44,244 employees in 11,172 post offices. The revenues in cash amounted to $276 million, while the expenditures amounted to $279 million. One must take into account other revenue amounting to $9 million for postal services to other departments and parliament against expenditures set at $36.5 million for local services to the Post Office Department by the other federal agencies. If those estimates are added to the cash revenue and to the expenditures, the Post Office Department shows an operating deficit of $30.5 million, since the total revenue amounted to $285 million, whereas the expenditures totalled $315.1 million.
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)
The increased rates announced for some services, such as parcel post, third class mail, registered mail, special delivery and C.O.D. shipments, which will become effective on June 1 and October 1 of this year, will help to reduce the deficit of the Post Office Department, but the trend towards an increase in costs, for transportation as well as labour, might maintain expenditures at a higher level than the revenue. This fact becomes even more obvious when one realizes that transportation and labour account for approximately 89 per cent of the post office total expenditures.
However, one must not consider only the financial aspect of the operation of the Post Office Department. The Canadian post office is something more than a mere mail processing plant. It is not only a matter of receipts and expenditures. It also concerns the people.

June 2, 1967
Supply-Post Office
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.
If it had been otherwise, it would not have been necessary to create a royal commission on working conditions in the Post Office Department. The report of the royal commission, tabled on October 19, 1966, contained 282 recommendations dealing with a great number of subjects related to labour relations as a whole within the postal organization.
On behalf of the department, Mr. Chairman, I say that we heartily welcomed the report. All of us must congratulate the commissioner, Justice Andre Montpetit, and his advisers for their speed and perseverance during the inquiry and for the depth of perception evidenced in their study of the problems of the Post Office Department.
The report points out that the Canadian people are well served and that the credit goes to the department and its employees. It insists that none of the recommendations is intended to reduce the quality of the service given the public. It indicates, however, and very deary, the need for a certain number of radical reforms in working conditions and in employer-employee relations. Those reforms, as mentioned in the report, will result from the implementation of collective bargaining and from the grievance procedure provided by the legislation on collective bargaining.
All through the report, the need for systematic discussions between management and representatives of the employees is emphasized in order to discover problems of mutual interest, to explain to the employees the nature of any major change affecting their working conditions and to obtain their views with regard to any change before its implementation.
That is the spirit and the method which the Post Office Department has decided to use in order to implement the recommendations contained in the report and which are fully within its control.
A commission made up of department officers and representatives of the Postal Workers Union of Canada and the Mail Carriers Union of Canada holds regular meetings for a joint consideration of a selected number of recommendations. That commission operates in such a friendly atmosphere that the postal service and the news media receive joint statements as to progress made.
[Mr. Cote (Longueuil) .1

To date 57 recommendations have been adopted and another 67 are reaching the stage of agreement or at least acceptable understanding. Yet another 60 are receiving preliminary study. Along with this action a grievance procedure has been developed and issued for implementation. Labour-management committees will be established in all the staff post offices. Consultation with the unions as to the composition and terms of reference of these committees is now under way.
The Post Office Department has had under study the feasibility and economics of operating its own trucks in the larger Canadian cities for the delivery of parcel post, letter carrier bundles and special delivery, and for the clearance of street letter boxes. Last December a labour-management dispute between the Montreal contractor for the city services and his employees temporarily threatened the postal service in that city and elsewhere, as Montreal is a key point in the over-all Canadian mail system. This was a case of the Canada post office being a third party in an industrial dispute. The short work stoppage which resulted in curtailed mail service emphasized the need to accelerate the study of post office operated vehicles.
The department has owned and operated vehicles in the city of Windsor, Ontario, with a marked degree of success. Whether it is more economical to own and operate or lease and operate is the question to be decided. All calculations would indicate the latter to be the better arrangement. To prove this, areas in Montreal and Vancouver have been selected for pilot project study. Arrangements to lease vehicles have been made. They will go into operation July 1 in the area selected at both centres.
The dislocation this move will cause to employees of the contractors in Vancouver and Montreal has been taken into consideration. The employees of the contractors will have every right to apply for positions in the government operated service. As they are experienced in the duties to be performed, such as an intimate knowledge of the area to be served, the method of delivery and the mail pick-up system, they will naturally receive a high knowledge rating if and when they apply for employment with the Post Office Department.
If tests bear out the favourable forecast made for this type of operation, the Post Office Department will move forward to total operation of its transportation services in the larger centres where leased fleet operations
June 2, 1967

can be more efficient and economical than the old contractual arrangements.
Mr. Chairman, I trust my remarks will give the members some idea of the action behind the scenes that keeps the letter carrier on the street, that keeps the rural mail driver on the road, that keeps the postal clerk behind the wicket and that keeps each and every one of them at their appointed task of providing a top flight mail service to the people of Canada. It was interesting to listen to the C.B.C. radio program "Court of Opinions" at 8.30 p.m. May 26, when the panel discussed the question "Do we have a well operated postal service?" Probably the members will not believe it when I say this question was not planted, but I can say I was happy with the unanimous opinion of the panel, and I am sure the members will understand my elation, because the consensus was that Canada does indeed have a well operated postal service.
Mr. Chairman, having quoted that favourable opinion I will close my remarks and ask hon. members of the house to earnestly consider the amounts represented by the estimates which I consider are necessary to continue to provide our country with a well operated postal service.
[DOT] (12 noon)


Mr. McCutcheon:: Mr. Chairman, my first remarks must be to compliment and thank the minister for his statement. Many questions I had in mind were answered in the statement which has just been concluded.
If I might be permitted a personal reference to the gentleman who holds the distinguished portfolio of Postmaster General, I should like to say that in my opinion he has brought a very pleasant personality to the office, which has been reflected in a reasonable and courteous attitude toward the many requests made of him by members of this chamber. Personally I have had many dealings with the department through him, the last of which was no later than today. However, nothing has impressed me more than his personal attention to a matter dealing with obscene and hate literature passing through the mails which was recently brought to my attention. This information was relayed to the minister who immediately took action, and within hours the mailing privileges of this despicable organization were cancelled.
I compliment the minister on his attitude, and I wish him well. I would remind hon. members that he is the seventh postmaster general we have had since 1962. We seem to change postmaster generals as often as we 27053-69
Supply-Post Office
change the styles of ladies' hats. However, Mr. Chairman, if we have to put up with this government then our present Postmaster General will, I hope, continue in office, even though he has already lasted longer than the average over the last five years.
I should like to refer to the summation of the minister on May 19 last, which is to be found at page 5331 of Hansard. The Postmaster General said as follows:
When my colleague, the present Minister of Labour, was postmaster general, he supported the recommendation of the Glassco commission for the adoption by my department of a more suitable accounting system to identify all the accounts receivable by the department and all its financial charges, in order to get a clearer picture of the department's financial position.
I am positive, Mr. Chairman, that many members in this chamber are as confused as I am about our accounting procedures. I should like to refer for a moment to the abridged report of the public accounts of Canada for the fiscal year 1966. In the statement of expenditure and revenue the amount shown for the Post Office Department by way of expenditure is $240,206,458. The post office revenue is shown as $237,482,296, which gives a deficit of $2,724,162. Yet I am sure I heard the Postmaster General say this morning there was a deficit of $30.5 million.
I concur completely with his statement last year that we should have some simplified accounting procedure, but there is quite a difference in amount here. I presume there is a simple explanation for it, but frankly I am not an auditor. As I say, according to the abridged report of the public accounts a deficit of $2,700,000 is shown. In the estimates for 1966 we find that the cost of franked mail was $1,262,200. If that amount is by-passed, the Post Office Department had an actual deficit of $1,400,000.
In report No. 21 of the proceedings of the standing committee on public accounts for October 13, 1966 a statement appears which admittedly is based on 1965 figures, and I should like to put it on record:
The committee notes that whereas the Post Office Department's transactions recorded in the post office section of volume II of the public accounts for the year ended March 31, 1965 showed an excess of revenue over expenditure of $20,030,000, this financial result did not take into account other expenditures estimated at $35.8 million and other revenues estimated at $4.3 million. If this unrecorded expenditure and revenue had been taken into the accounts, the operating deficit of the Post Office Department for the year ended March 31, 1965 would have been $11.5 million instead of the excess of revenue over expenditure, or surplus, shown at $20,030,000 for the year.

June 2, 1967
Supply-Post Office
Now, Mr. Chairman, what gives here? There seems to me to be quite a difference between these figures and those in the abridged report. I hope there is a good explanation for this, and I expect the minister will answer this question when he replies.
If I may refer back to the committee report, the next paragraph reads as follows:
The committe also notes that if the loss incurred by the Post Office Department from second class mail had been recaptured, it would have more than covered this operating deficit of $11.5 million for the 1965 fiscal year. In 1956-57 postal revenues from second class mail were $6 million, with the Post Office Department estimating the cost of handling it at $24 million. Seven years later, or in 1963-64, these revenues had increased to slightly over $8 million while the cost of handling it was estimated by the Post Office Department to have exceeded $43 million, resulting in a loss of $35 million. The committee regretted that no figures were available on May 25, 1966 showing the size of losses incurred on second class mail in 1964-65 or in 1965-66.
The committee feels that there is something wrong when no action has been taken with respect to, and apparently very little consideration given to, its recommendation on this matter. The committee first drew the matter to the attention of the house in its third report 1958 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.
The next sentence, Mr. Chairman, is a gem:
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 circulating in rural areas.
My question to the minister at this juncture is an obvious one. What plans are afoot to correct this situation?
Last year the hon. member for York-Humber raised the question of the international postal agreement and compared second and third class mailings as between Canada and Denmark. I should like to inquire of the minister what is the relative volume of second and third class United States mail handled by our post office that brings in no revenue. In other words, can the minister give me the relative figures? How much second or third class Canadian mail goes to the United States and how much United States mail of that kind comes into Canada? What is our net loss in this transaction? It has been suggested in certain circles that our taxpayers are paying between $1.5 million to $2 million for deliveries, for example, of Time and Reader's Digest. I should like the minister to say

whether that is so. Is what I have said correct? If so, what is to be done?
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
I wish to mention something else now, the cost of franked mail in Canada. On page 381 of the blue book of estimates the estimated cost of franked mail for the current year is shown as $1,124,600. The amount shown for last year was $1,262,200. The cost this year has decreased by approximately $147,600. Perhaps the next question is unnecessary but I shall ask it none the less. Was the large) amount in the previous year occasioned by the bad advice the President of the Privy Council gave the Prime Minister about a date in November, 1965?


An hon. Member:: It could be.


Malcolm Wallace McCutcheon: If so, I think the Canadian public is entitled to know that besides the advertised costs they have also to foot the bill for some hidden expenses whenever there is an election. If this is the situation I think it is a dashed shame.
I note something else. In 1966 we paid $381,700 to cover exhibits, advertising, films, broadcasting and displays. What does that mean? What films, broadcasts or advertising does the department put out, other than "Mail early before Christmas"? I know of no other program. Surely we are not advertising that our stamps are better than Steinberg's pinky stamps or gold bond stamps?
It is a coincidence that we should be discussing the estimates of the Post Office Department today when yesterday the department put into effect an unprecedented 45 per cent increase in some postal rates. Where is this escalation in the cost of living to stop? I wish to give an example of the new rates for registered mail. Until yesterday you could register a letter with a value of up to $25 for 35 cents; today that same letter will cost 50 cents. That is an increase of 45 per cent. Yesterday you could register a letter with a value of up $50 for 45 cents; today that letter costs 50 cents to register. Yesterday a letter with a value of up to $75 cost 50 cents to register, and today it costs 75 cents to register. That is an increase of 50 per cent. This is an example of how ordinary people are being forced to pay for the loss leader part of the operation.
In fairness to the minister I must say that he is all heart when it comes to mailing postcards to foreign places. All postcards were charged at letter rates, but now you can
June 2, 1967



send a postcard to Japan, say, for 10 cents, or to any part of the world for that matter. The cost used to be 25 cents for that privilege. I submit that this sort of thing does not help Canadians very much, though I expect our tourists are happy at the reduced rates on postcards.
In conclusion, I hope the minister has some plan in mind to implement the all-embracing recommendation of the public accounts committee. May I repeat a sentence from that committee report to be found on page 1007 of the proceedings of Thursday, October 13, 1966:
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 circulating in rural areas.
If what is outlined there can be done, then I suggest that our present Postmaster General will go down in history as a world's champion.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to the Postmaster General for mentioning in his introductory remarks the new policy that his department is to follow on an experimental basis in two of the major cities of Canada. On July 1 the government is to take over from Pony Express Limited the bulk of the collection and delivery of mail, and the parcel post business. I have talked to the minister and corresponded with him about the situation in the city of Vancouver, and I wish to thank him for the expeditious way he has answered my letters and for his readiness to discuss the entire matter with me.
Though I do not object to the principles involved in the takeover I object strongly to how the takeover is to be conducted and how it will affect the employees concerned. I regret that I have to raise this matter on this first vote of the department to be considered. I cannot speak for Montreal, but I know that in my own city of Vancouver the collection and distribution of mail which the minister spoke of has been carried on by Pony Express Limited, that is by private agents. In talking and corresponding with me and in what he said today the minister made it clear that there are two major reasons for this change which is to be made on July 1.
One reason is understandable and stems from the recent experience in Montreal, 27053-691
Supply-Post Office
when the postal service of Canada was disrupted because of a strike against the company holding the postal contract. The strike directly affected the receipt and delivery of all mail in Montreal and the dispatch of letters and parcels throughout Canada and elsewhere. The minister also informed me that it is the conclusion of the department that economies could be effected were the Post Office Department to handle mail in my area. I will not challenge the contentious propositions of the minister as to why the change is to be made. I wish to speak, sir, on behalf of employees in the city of Vancouver, some of whom have occupied their positions for 25 years, and of their position when the government takes over from private enterprise.
[DOT] (12:20 p.ra.)
Surely those in Vancouver who have been doing this job for 25 years know the work. What consideration was given to these employees? It would seem to me that when the government takes over on July 1 the efficient thing to do would be to take on these employees who know the pick-ups and the deliveries. Is that how the government operates? No; they will not be taken into the civil service as employees of the Post Office Department. They are out unless they make application to the civil service commission. Advertisements have been placed in the papers inviting people to apply for employment as truck drivers, but there are only two kinds of driver; those who have been doing this job and know it, and those who have never worked in this kind of employment and do not know one thing about it.
Until ten days ago-and I thank the minister for his letters to me-only three of the Pony Express drivers in Vancouver had made application for these jobs. Why is this number so small in comparison with the number of men who are being displaced? It is because those who have worked for this company in Vancouver for as long as 25 years are being asked to apply for employment in the civil service at lower wages than they have been receiving. How can men who know the work, men with years of loyal service behind them, be asked to apply for positions in the civil service and work for the government for substantially lower wages?
There is another important point, I know, to be considered. If I understand the situation correctly the Public Service Employees Association-speaking from memory I believe there are around 20,000 in this group-want a

June 2, 1967
Supply-Post Office
national standard of wages. I agree in principle with those who wish to see a national standard of wages, but I do not believe that when the government takes over an operation from private enterprise the standard of living of the employees should suffer. In Vancouver the department is lowering the standard, lowering the wages; and I say as emphatically as I can that no government when it takes over an operation of this kind has the right to lower the standards of any worker in Canada or to worsen the working conditions of our people in Vancouver. If the union wants a national wage standard, fine; but let it not be achieved on the basis of lowering standards in the west so as to raise them in the east. Raise them in the east, but do not lower them in the west. Hold the west.
To me it is almost incomprehensible that any department of this government would wish to lower standards, yet the contract basis upon which the post office is working now is designed to raise them in the east while lowering them in the west. No wonder that until ten days ago only three of the truck drivers of the Pony Express company in Vancouver had made application to the civil service in connection with these jobs.
Am I not putting forward a reasonable case, Mr. Chairman? When a move is made from free enterprise to public operation let us not lower the standards of employees, even if ultimately a national wage standard is required in order to simplify the general bargaining picture. Do not reduce the wages and standards of the west. Hold them, if you have to, until the rest of Canada catches up. I think it is a nasty day in the history of Canada when the government, taking over from private enterprise, decides to reduce wages and worsen working conditions. Surely something else could be done.
I appreciate the government's point of view. I hope economies can be made by means of greater efficiency. But, I repeat, to me it seems despicable that a government should take over an operation without arranging that those who have given their loyalty to their previous employers, those who know the job, are not taken over automatically to continue the work which they and they only understand.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
I think it is a denial of so-called liberalism that with regard to standards you should, on a national basis, increase standards in some areas and decrease them in others. I believe the minister should hold to the standards
IMr. Winch.]
which are highest and bring the others up to that level. Heaven forbid that we should have a government policy to reduce standards, but that is what is being done in Vancouver, and that is what will happen after July 1. I hope there is still time between now and then to correct this policy which I think is absolutely immoral and, if I may say so, very unpolitical.


Mr. Madill:: Mr. Chairman, on entering the discussion of the estimates of the Post Office Department I wish to make a few brief and pertinent remarks. I had a survey made in my constituency of all mail courier contracts, and I wish to thank the Postmaster General and his staff for the courtesy they extended me and for the material with which they supplied me.
It is interesting but also disappointing to learn that for similar mileage there should be such a discrepancy in rates paid per contract. True, there are some different aspects which enter into the picture, such as the number of mail boxes on a route, but there are also other factors which must be considered, such as the terrain travelled by the couriers. For instance, carrying out a mail contract on a highway, county or improved road is certainly much easier in wintertime, because such roads are patrol plowed several times a day, than is the case with a contract covering back roads, which quite often are not plowed every day. Further, when the spring breakup comes many back roads are almost impassable, and sometimes a mail courier losses the muffler or oil pan off his car. This is an added expense to him because he must keep his car in safe condition at all times.
Today highways and new improved roads are built with a 7 degree to 9 degree incline and descent, but back roads are not constructed to that standard. They still have steep hills which are subject to washouts in the spring. This involves much braking going down hill and changing of gears going up hill, which cuts down the mileage per gallon which a courier gets with his car. In this connection I would point out that the spring of 1967, which has just ended, was one of the worst so far as roads were concerned.
The survey I spoke of is confidential, but I feel that the discrepancy in rates should be corrected. To give a few examples from the survey, one courier on a route covering 27.9 miles per day, six days a week, receives $2,768.62 per annum. Another on a route of 28.1 miles per day, six days a week, receives $1,985.91 per annum. This is a difference of
June 2, 1967

$782.71 per annum. The first contract of which I speak was renewed in 1965 and the second in 1966, and we all know that the price of gas, automobile insurance and car repairs, not to mention the cost of living, has been spiralling since 1965.
If we take the minimum wage scale of $1.25 per hour, using a 20 mile per day route and an average work day of three hours, this would work out at $3.75 per courier, plus $2 for gas at 10 cents per mile, making a total of $5.75 per day. In a normal year a mail courier would work at least 307 days, and this would give him a minimum contract pay of $1,765.25.
I give three examples from the survey. One route of 20 miles provides the courier with $1,380.10 per annum. A second route of 20.2 miles provides the courier with $1,326.26 per annum. A third of 20 miles provides $1,470,00, and a fourth route of 18.7 miles provides the courier with $2,100.00. There is quite a discrepancy there. I could make many more comparisons, but at this stage am content to recommend that a full review be made, with the hope that it will result in equalization of remuneration for equal work hours and miles driven.
I wish to commend the Postmaster General for putting identification on cars carrying rural mail. When I spoke on his estimates previously I made that recommendation. The minister sent me a note saying he thought it had merit. He has now implemented it, and I want to thank him for that. I would also like to commend the minister for introducing door to door mail delivery in the town of Orangeville. I requested such service as far back as 1963, and now four years later it has been provided.
I would like to make one suggestion to the minister respecting flexibility in interpretation of the act. According to the manual, people in small hamlets must live a certain distance from the post office before they can have their mail delivered to rural mail boxes. Quite often small hamlets are made up of retired elderly people. Because these hamlets do not have sidewalks their inhabitants must walk on the roads. Poor eyesight and bad hearing create hazards both for the pedestrians and for motor traffic, and I believe that in certain cases the minister and the department could consider having mail delivered to rural boxes even though those boxes are within the distance specified by the act.
Like my colleague from Lambton-Kent I would like to express thanks to the Postmaster General for the many courtesies he
Supply-Post Office
has extended to me and for his prompt attention to matters that I brought to his attention.


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, I have a few comments I would like to make with regard to rates on second class mail. I made them previously, but I am afraid the attention that was paid to them then presages the attention that will be paid to them now.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
I would draw the attention of the committee to the fact that I spoke last year before the public accounts committee of the House of Commons with regard to postage rates on second class mail. At the time I asked a number of questions, and I was advised by officials of the Post Office Department that I would receive the answers I requested. Since I am a patient man I am still patiently waiting for these details. I shall repeat the questions now in the hope that they will be answered before the public accounts committee meets again, because I intend to appear before that committee again if necessary.
One of the questions I raised before the public accounts committee with regard to postal rates had to do with the rate per pound being paid for air mail transmission. At page 385 of the blue book under vote No. 1 you will find the following: Mail service by railway, $14,660,000; mail service by ordinary land conveyance, including rural mail delivery, $41,938,000; mail service by air, $21,738,000 and mail service by water $2,705,000. This is for the year we are in. These are not inconsequential figures. There is no breakdown, however, given with regard to the rate for small service by air per pound.
I like the expression the Postmaster General used today. He said, and I agree with him, that the Post Office Department is giving top-flight service. It is giving top-flight service, true enough, particularly on first class mail moved by air. My question is this. I should like to know what rate the Post Office Department is paying air line carriers per pound for the mail which moves by air compared to the rate per pound for the mail moved by land, water conveyance, or otherwise.
My question before the public accounts committee was based on the fact that quite a few years ago I was advised by a very senior official of the Post Office Department in Canada, who was provoked about it, and I was provoked about it at the time and still am if it is still true, that when the Canadian government first began to move mail by air-the main carrier at that time was

June 2, 1967
Supply-Post Office
Trans-Canada Air Lines and before the members from the province of Quebec start to say that this is not its name I would say I am talking of 20 years ago-the president of Trans-Canada Air Lines, who was very jealous of his reputation as a businessman, stated that he was not going to see Trans-Canada Air Lines operated at a loss so long as he was president. Through negotiations with the Canadian government the president of Trans-Canada Air Lines secured payments for moving postal matter by air, which payments had no relation to the value of this service. As a result of receiving large payments from the Post Office Department for moving mail by air, Trans-Canada Air Lines had very fine financial statements.
Now, the volume of mail moved by air has greatly increased over what it had been in the past. I should like to know whether there is some rate per pound or per hundredweight which has been established on mail going by air, as compared to the mail which may move by land, water, or other means of conveyance in this country. Are we paying too much for the conveyance of mail by air compared to what it could be moved for by other means? This is a question which in any privately owned business would be watched day by day. At the end of the month there would be a separate notation made concerning what the carrying charges were per pound by air, what they were by rail and what they were per pound by water, so the mail could be moved by the most economical means consistent with good service.
Are we still paying the air lines the rate they demand for moving mail by air without any regard to what the rate is per pound for the business handled?
Members of the Liberal party are sometimes colloquially called the government, but the cabinet makes certain it is called the government and asks that a private member should support the cabinet when it makes what they call government policy. As members of the party we are not asked what the rates should be for special service. We are just asked to O.K. the particular item in the votes. Since this matter is not raised either in the party caucus or in the policy conventions of the party, I should like to ask why we convey all across Canada for nothing these publications which come in from all foreign countries. This question has been raised over the past 25 years with whatever government was in power. I will say one thing; every government was equal to the task of doing nothing during that time.

The hon. member for Lambton-Kent, speaking a little earlier in this discussion, referred to the fact that I raised this matter last year. I am referring to it again this year, and I expect I will refer to it as long as I am a member of this house, because the answer is always given that nothing can be done about it for five years until the next world postal congress meets, at which time the international postal rates are discussed.
The international rates are set for five years. There has been a meeting of this international postal congress since I came into the house five years ago this month and nothing has been done about it, although I personally raised the point in private conversation not with the present Postmaster General but with other postmasters general, and was assured that the matter would be taken up at the meeting which was to be held first in Rio de Janeiro and then, because of some trouble down there, was held in Vienna, Austria.
The international postal rates were not changed in the slightest. As the hon. member for Lambton-Kent correctly quoted me saying a year ago, we now move any Danish publication which might enter Canada at Montreal right clean through to Nanaimo or Victoria, British Columbia for exactly the same remuneration as the Danish post office moves a Canadian newspaper from Copenhagen to some outer island in Denmark, and that is exactly zero; because there is no division of the revenue received from publications by post offices in the originating country.
I have also raised the point-with regard to the tens of thousands of mail subscriptions to United States publications which cross the international border into this country every day. If you do not wish to accept tens of thousands every day, then average it on a day by day basis for the weekly publications, the monthly publications and the quarterly publications which come into this country by international mail service under the international agreement whereby Canadian publications are given the same rights in other countries that the Canadian post office gives to foreign publications in this land; but consider the distances which we move those publications and consider the disparity in circulation between United States publications selling in Canada and Canadian publications selling in the United States of America.
I have previously made the suggestion to wh ch I referred earlier in these remarks- and of course no action was taken-that on
June 2, 1967

certain days of the year the Post Office Department of Canada should hold up the second class mail originating outside the country in order to estimate the volume of second class mail coming into the country on which we receive no revenue. The suggestion that it be held up for one day so a check can be made to see how far the original subscriptions are moving and what is the weight of the mail, is based on the action of the Post Office Department over the past 20 years of holding up all parcel post mail for two days a year when they check to see what is the volume of parcel post mail crossing the border both ways and how far it is being transported. Then cheques are issued for the difference in weights and the difference in mileage by the country that is enjoying the advantage of parcel post mail under this international service.
Similar arrangements could be made in respect of second class mail. This would go a long way toward eliminating this deficit of $30 million which the Postmaster General has mentioned has accrued to the Canadian post office in the year ending March 31, 1967. Now we have a promised deficit for next year of $740 million. As a loyal Liberal I must state that I ran for parliament in 1962 because I did not like the deficits Mr. Fleming was piling up; but as a loyal Liberal I must say that Fleming evidently cannot do anything that we Liberals cannot do bigger.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
Next year we are going to give you a real ripper of a deficit of $740 million, and I wonder what the post office deficit will be as a contribution to that figure. I tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the taxpayers are becoming a little fed up with the way money is cast around in this country with apparently little regard for any means of either cutting down expenditures or bringing in revenue to offset the expenditures being made.
I do not think the $30 million deficit in the postal service is at all necessary. This is one department of the government where, if the cabinet would take firm action, the deficit could be eliminated and eliminated very quickly, even though they have this international agreement on which they always rely when you talk about international mail crossing the border.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Will you please tell us how the deficit could be removed?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I have mentioned the holding up of second class mail at the border and
Supply-Post Office
checking to see what weight is coming in and how far it is going, and then asking the originating country to pay a certain rate per pound for moving this international mail over great distances. I have another suggestion in respect of second class mail. I know of no reason this country should carry small weekly newspapers free of charge within a certain distance of the office of publication. Having been in printing or in the newspaper business all my life, I have never been able to comprehend why this is done unless it is as a favour to the local publisher so he will always speak well of the local member of parliament, realizing he is being given a subsidy which is of some value to him.
I know of weekly newspaper publishers who mail all their papers to their readers because it costs them nothing, although it does require a little effort on the part of the circulation department. On the other hand I know of other weekly newspaper publishers who, because of the time required to wrap the papers and address them to their subscribers, even though there is no postage involved, tell their subscribers to come down to the office and pick up the papers. In this way they do not go through the local post office.
Why should there be an exemption from postal rates whereby local weekly newspapers do not pay postage at all for delivery within a certain area of the office of publication? Such a privilege is not granted to businessmen in any other line of endeavour. If the man is a seed merchant in a town and receives an order to send certain seeds to a farmer some distance away from the town where the man has his seed shop, he has to pay postage. However, if that farmer wants to take the weekly newspaper the newspaper does not have to pay postage. Why is there this discrimination in favour of the weekly newspaper publisher as opposed to other classes of businessmen who have to pay postage in respect of the service rendered by the post office?
I do not think the imposition of a reasonable postage charge on weekly newspapers would cost the weekly publishers a great deal of money, because they would ask their subscribers in the small towns of publication to come to the office and pick up the paper each week. They would only have to mail papers to those subscribers on rural routes or those living some distance away who may have been sons or daughters of the community and still like to read the weekly paper. This would eliminate the practice on the part of weekly publishers which I believe is helping to create

June 2, 1967
Supply-Post Office
the deficit, and would do away with this largesse from the Canadian taxpayer. Please keep in mind that these publishers are not accepting largesse from the Canadian government but from the Canadian taxpayer, who has to foot the bill for this $30 million deficit in the Post Office Department for the year ending March 31, 1967.
There is another classification which I think should be changed by the government, and it could be done by setting another rate. Why should we give a special rate in respect of agricultural publications moving across the country? It is fine to say that agricultural publications are being read by the farmers and this helps the farmers increase productivity in Canada. The more the farmer learns from his weekly or monthly periodical the better off the country is, and it is argued that we should sustain weekly farm publications in order that knowledge and advice may be brought to the farmer in respect of his work.
Please bear in mind that farmers do not own these publications. The two largest farm publications in Canada today are owned by possibly the two wealthiest families in the country. I know of no reason for granting a special postage rate in respect of the Family Herald and Weekly Star out of Montreal, or the Free Press Prairie Farmer out of Winnipeg. One is owned by McConnell and the other is owned by Sifton. Heaven knows that the Canadian taxpayer should not be asked to subsidize families like those simply because they publish farm publications with circulations in rural communities. This is the type of subsidization which is not readily apparent to the Canadian taxpayer, but when he is hit with a $30 million deficit he would surely like to know how it came about. I believe the time has long since passed when the taxpayer should have been told exactly how these deficits accrue.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Do these publishers have political affiliations?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I understand from reading editorials in the Winnipeg Free Press regarding the armed forces unification bill that they were not too happy with the present government, but historically in the past they have had a connection with the Liberal party. I may say in answer to the member for Winnipeg South Centre that his question would have been more appropriate six months ago, before the time of the unification bill. I believe I understand the point he is endeavouring to make by his question.

In regard to the Montreal situation, I am sure it does not require a single member of parliament such as myself to provide the answer. It is self evident to every member of the house whether there are political affiliations involved there. I might point out that this largesse to the families owning these agricultural papers has always been continued no matter which party was in government, whether it was under R. B. Bennett, Mr. Diefenbaker, Mr. King, Mr. St. Laurent, or the present Prime Minister. Possibly political affiliations have had nothing to do with the situation, but this is a situation that should be corrected for the benefit of the Canadian taxpayer.
I should like to make another point in connection with rates of postage on second class mail, but it is now one o'clock and if it is agreeable to the committee I will call it one o'clock unless there is a desire that I should continue.


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, it is one o'clock.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. It being one o'clock, pursuant to standing order 6(3) this sitting is suspended until two thirty o'clock.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. House again in committee of supply, estimates of the department of the Postmaster General for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1968, vote No. 1.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, when the midday break came I stated that I wanted to make some comments with regard to the zone rate of postage on second and third class mail as another means of reducing last year's deficit of $30 million in the Post Office Department. The question of imposing in Canada a zone rate of postage on newspapers and magazines has been discussed times without number ever since the United States introduced a zone rate of postage more than 30 years ago.
The discussions I as a businessman have had with the Canadian government on numerous occasions as to why they did not have zone rate postage have always resulted in my being told in effect that the Canadian people would not like to see a zone rate of postage imposed because the subscription rates of national magazines would probably be raised to
June 2, 1967

meet the increased postage. I do not know what the difference is between paying a low subscription rate and then having to pay for a post office deficit, and paying a high rate for publications and not having a post office deficit. The zone rate of postage has been imposed in the United States for a long time and is a successful way of making the publishers pay a just and fair proportion of the cost of handling their publications in the mail.
The interesting thing about the zone rate of postage is that in the United States the rate does not vary on the editorial content. In this way there is no interference by the government, through the means of the post office, in the dissemination of editorial news or views to the nation. The rate goes up according to the zones through which the publication may travel and according to its advertising content. There is a low rate for the first or local zone and a higher rate for the second zone. If it moves through a third zone there is a higher rate and if it moves into a fourth zone there is again a higher rate, and so on.
It is interesting to remember that those great Canadian publications Time and Reader's Digest, which were given Canadian citizenship overnight although it takes a human being five years to obtain it, can be mailed in Montreal and travel the breadth of Canada from the west side of Vancouver Island to the east side of Newfoundland for the one rate of postage. They cost the taxpayers of Canada money every year because they do not pay their full mailing charges. Yet when these publications are mailed from the office of their publication in the United States they pay a zone rate of postage to move through the states.
Time and Reader's Digest are published simultaneously in a number of centres. This reduces the time consumed in transmission by mail in addition to reducing the cost of zone rate postage. When Time used to be published only in New York city and was mailed across the nation it travelled through a large number of zones. The same situation applied to Reader's Digest. Now that they are published simultaneously in a number of centres, their mailing may only take them through three zones. It is interesting to compare the situation that exists in Canada and the United States with regard to these publications. In the United States they have to pay a zone rate of postage according to the mileage travelled and the amount of advertising carried, whereas in Canada they go from the Atlantic to the Pacific with only one charge, no matter how many miles they travel.
Supply-Post Office
For the Canadian government to argue that they should not impose a zone rate of postage is ridiculous, because the Canadian government right now agrees with Canadian National Railways charging passenger fares according to the distance travelled. You cannot travel by railroad from Ottawa to Almonte for the same price as from Ottawa to Vancouver. But a publisher in Ottawa can mail his newspapers from Ottawa to Vancouver for the same price as from Ottawa to Almonte. On the railway you cannot send freight from Ottawa to Vancouver for the same rate as from Ottawa to Almonte. The freight rate is gauged according to the mileage travelled. You cannot send an express parcel from here to Carleton Place for the same rate as from here to Vancouver. You cannot send a telegram via Canadian National from here to Smiths Falls for the rate you would have to pay if you sent it to Vancouver. But if you are a magazine or newspaper publisher you can mail your publications for exactly the same rate no matter what the distance travelled. This is grossly unfair.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
In so far as Air Canada fares for passengers are concerned, they are set according to the mileage covered. The hon. member for Timmins pointed out the other day how much those rates jump when you even cover an extra 12 miles in a flight from Timmins to Ottawa. If the government is authorizing, through these government owned agencies such as Canadian National Railways and Air Canada, rates for passengers, freight and express according to the mileage traversed, then surely the government can authorize postage rates according to the mileage traversed. It is a basic fact of business that the farther anything is carried and the greater the weight, then the carrying charges are set accordingly.
The C.B.C. is another crown corporation. They are always emphasizing this fact. They are only asking for $143 million this year from the Canadian taxpayers, so if that does not make them a crown agency I do not know what does. However, you cannot advertise over a C.B.C. station in Ottawa and expect to reach listeners in Vancouver or Halifax, Nova Scotia for the one charge on the one radio station. On the other hand, if you advertise in an Ottawa newspaper, that newspaper can be sent to readers in Vancouver or Halifax. You can reach them through the newspaper and as a result of the payment of one postal carrying charge. If you wanted to reach people across the nation by radio you would have to buy time on a large number of radio stations and

June 2, 1967
Supply-Post Office
obtain a network service. The cost would go up according to the area you were covering with your radio message.
These are three government agencies which impose charges according to mileage involved. This is not the case with postal services. We do not have zone rates tor postage. I am convinced that the second class postage deficit could be eliminated in part by not allowing cheaper rates for newspapers having less than 10,000 circulation. Lord Thomson happens to own the Kamloops Sentinel in British Columbia, with a circulation of 8,510. He also owns the Kelowna Courier with a circulation of 6,505 and the Nanaimo Free Press with a circulation of 8,415. On all of these publications he pays 33J per cent less than other newspapers such as the Woodstock Sentinel and the Sudbury Star which he also owns.
The committee on public accounts, under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Wellington South, presented report No. 21 dated Thursday, October 13, 1966. This report contains some very interesting comments with regard to the deficit on second class mail. The hon. member for Lambton-Kent made reference to it this morning and quoted from committee reports pointing out that the loss incurred by the Post Office Department could be entirely eliminated if there were reasonable rates for second class mail. I should like to read a paragraph from report No. 21. The chairman of the public accounts committee is in the house at the moment. I am reading from page 1007 of the report of the public accounts committee:
The committee feels that there is something wrong when no action has been taken with respect to, and apparently very little consideration given to, its recommendation on this matter.
The reference is to second class postage rates.
The committee first drew the matter to the attention of the house in its third report 1958 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 circulating in rural areas.
This is the report of the public accounts committee. They point out that nobody pays any attention to their recommendations. Yet we have men standing up in this house extolling the great value of the committee system.

Well, I guess you can extol the great value of the system and pay no attention to the reports produced and see that they do not interfere with the operation of the government in any way. Here is the public accounts committee pointing out in black and white that nobody is paying any attention to them.


Harold Edward Winch: The report was passed unanimously, by the way.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I am glad to have that interjection indicating that the report was passed unanimously. I do not know whether the report will rate any higher with the cabinet than if it had been passed on division. However, I am glad to note that it was passed unanimously. I should like to see some action taken. All I am trying to do is to eliminate the second class postage deficit for the Post Office Department and thus reduce the national deficit of the government as a whole. We must remember that many mickles make a muckle. If we can eliminate the deficit of one department, perhaps we can eliminate the deficits of all and we will get a balanced budget.
I must say I do not care a great deal for the little tail on that paragraph in the report, "keeping in mind, however, the need of assistance to small independently owned newspapers circulating in rural areas''. There is another area of free postal service and it involves the little weeklies. The dailies of less than 10,000 circulation have a 33J per cent lower rate. As I have said, Lord Thomson owns the Kamloops Sentinel, the Kelowna Courier and the Nanaimo Free Press. Then there are the Prince George Citizen with a circulation of 10,435 and the Prince Rupert News with a circulation of 4,045. These two newspapers are owned by the same publisher. The Citizen has a higher rate of postage than the News. Does one newspaper publisher need to have support from the Canadian taxpayer because he prints the Prince Rupert News but no similar support when he prints the Prince George Citizen"!
If we skip across the country to Newfoundland we come up with the interesting fact that the St. John's Evening Telegram, with a circulation of 41,000, is owned by the Herder family which also owns the Corner Brook Western Star which has a circulation of 9,717. The taxpayer subsidizes the Western Star because its postage rate is one cent a pound, while for the St. John's Evening Telegram the postage rate is a cent and a half a pound. Does the owner of the St. John's
June 2, 1967

Evening Telegram and the Corner Brook Western Star need to be subsidized because one of his papers does not have a circulation of 10,000?
I have mentioned Lord Thomson more than once. The Southam chain is one of the great newspaper chains in Canada. They own the Medicine Hat News, which has a circulation of 7,452. This newspaper pays less postage per pound than the Calgary Herald which the Southams also own. In Saskatchewan there are four daily newspapers, two of which are owned by Thomson and two are owned by the Siftons. Outside of giving the Sifton interests assistance on agricultural newspapers which move more cheaply than do the Sifton dailies in Saskatchewan, we have the two Thomson newspapers, the Moose Jaw Times-Herald and the Prince Albert Herald, being subsidized through the Post Office Department, but there is no such subsidy for the Regina Leader Post or the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix. They are owned by the Siftons and have a circulation of more than 10,000.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, I must advise the hon. member for York-Humber that the time allotted to him has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the hon. member wish to continue?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I should like to make a summation.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee consent to the hon. member continuing his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I want to thank the committee for allowing me to continue. I should like to sum up what I have been saying before and after the mid-day break. I have been making suggestions to the Post Office Department but in no way am I criticizing the Postmaster General. The responsibility is that of the cabinet and the government, and I believe that action should have been taken long ago to eliminate the deficit on second class mail mentioned by the public accounts committee.
In order to save the time of the committee I should like to sum up by pointing out that I have been recommending for some years past that we should eliminate the losses incurred on second class mails coming into Canada across the international border from the originating country. I have explained that in detail in the past and I gave some details again 27053-70J
Supply-Post Office
this morning. While this may take time because of the fact that the World Postal Congress meets only once every five years, I would point out that Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, when prime minister of Canada, imposed a tax on United States publications because he was so incensed over the loss that was accruing to the Canadian government. When he was advised he could not do it because of an international agreement, Mr. St. Laurent told the United States he could not care less where an international agreement was unfair to Canada. I believe that these international agreements with the United States postal service could be negotiated separately instead of having to wait for five years.
To get down to the domestic or local scene, we could make some improvements right away in postal rates that would help to eliminate the $30 million deficit. The government could eliminate the free postal service for weekly newspapers in Canada. In "Canadian Advertising Rates and Data" you will find on page 74 a list of the weeklies owned by Lord Thomson of Fleet, who is being subsidized on his Canadian weekly newspapers while he publishes the London Sunday Times and the London Morning Times in London, England.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
I have suggested that we should raise the postage rate on agricultural publications to the same rate as that charged for the larger dailies. I have suggested a zone rate of postage for all magazines and newspapers so that they will pay according to the distance traversed. I have recommended that the favouritism shown to the small dailies should be eliminated. We should also eliminate the favouritism that is shown to some monthly publications compared with weekly publications, though I have not dealt with that matter today.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I should like to emphasize that I think the Canadian cabinet and the Canadian government should immediately eliminate the free service that is given the weekly press by the Post Office Department. It should raise the rates of postage on agricultural papers. It should impose a zone rate of postage on all publications and bring the small dailies up to the same rate as that charged on the larger ones. I do not like a $30 million deficit in the Post Office Department. I am not criticizing the Postmaster General, but I am certainly directing my remarks to the cabinet as a whole.

June 2, 1967
Supply-Post Office


Mr. Hales:: I have a few brief observations with regard to the Post Office Department, Mr. Chairman. First of all I should like to endorse the remarks of the previous speaker in connection with the concern felt about the drain on the profits of the Post Office Department. I may say I have always had a keen interest in the operations of this department, an interest which springs, I suppose, primarily from the fact that I had an uncle who was a postmaster in the city of Guelph.
I sincerely hope that the time is not far distant when this or some succeeding government will give consideration to putting the post office operations into the hands of a crown-owned corporation. I believe that the whole department needs revitalizing. We have been going along in the same old way and in the same old rut for so may years that it is time to revitalize the department and put it under the charge of a crowm corporation.
I think of the rural mail routes which were laid out in the horse and buggy days and are still in existence. Granted, they have been revised to a certain extent, but there are many things which can be done to introduce a much better perspective with regard to rural postal delivery than is the case today. I think also of certain rural post offices, small, untidy, disgraceful places in which to handle the Queen's mail. I am referring to post offices in the semi-staff classification, I think it is called, where the postmaster is responsible for the upkeep and is paid a salary that does not make it possible for him to keep his office the way it should be kept. There is much to be done in this regard. All the Postmaster General or any other member of the house has to do is to visit the post offices in his own riding to be amazed at the type of accommodation and facilities that exist. Changes are being made, but I believe they are being made too slowly.
I should have made my next point first because I am going to ask the Postmaster General to do me a favour, and after the remarks I have just made I should not expect too many favours. However, I am making these suggestions in a constructive, not in a critical way.
I should like to say something about the philatelic program which is always organized one year in advance. The division of the department that designs the stamps which are going to be offered for sale in the following year has charge of this program. I would ask the Postmaster General to be kind enough to look through the correspondence with his predecessor with respect to the issuance of a

stamp next year to commemorate that great doctor, soldier and poet, Colonel John McCrea, who wrote that famous poem, "In Flanders' Fields".
I understand that these stamps are issued on the fiftieth anniversary of the death of such people. Next year will be the fiftieth anniversary of the passing of this great Canadian whose poem has become immortal the world over and is particularly recognized as such on November 11. So I sincerely ask the Postmaster General to be kind enough to give this suggestion his very careful consideration, and I hope that a stamp of this nature will be forthcoming next year.
I also think it is time to take a second look at the savings bank operated by the department. I understand that of the 300,000 accounts in the post office savings bank, 200,000 are classified as dormant and unclaimed. Just imagine, Mr. Chairman, two thirds of these accounts are classified as dormant and unclaimed. The interest payable on these accounts is credited to the accounts each year; yet they lie dormant. I think consideration should be given to handling these accounts in much the same way as the banks handle unclaimed accounts. They write them off after ten years, I believe, and statements are issued and notices sent out accordingly. I think the department should give serious thought to that suggestion.
I also wonder how much post office savings accounts are being used, how useful they are, and whether the time has not come when we should consider discontinuing them altogether. The interest rate paid on deposits in these accounts is very small. The minister will correct me if I am wrong but I think it is 2 per cent. I know it is quite low. I did not have a chance to look up the rate, but I know it is not in keeping with prevailing rates. Therefore I hope some thought will be given to this suggestion.
Another problem I am continually running into, as I am sure other hon. members are, is the shortage of post office boxes. I am referring to the boxes one rents at post offices, each bearing its own number. Practically every post office has a waiting list for these boxes and no additional boxes have been provided. In some cases this might be physically impossible but I am wondering whether the situation can be improved.
After many years the post office tried to come up with the answer by renumbering the boxes, but there are cases where companies may have box number 100 for the simple reason that that number is on the box. No
June 2, 1967

mail is ever put into it; the mail goes into a bag behind the box. The box is never used but is retained by these companies just for the sake of the number on the box. I understand this has been corrected and I compliment the department on coming up with an answer to this long-standing problem.
I do not wish to take too much of the time of the committee. The question of second class mail has been dealt with. With regard to special delivery letters, I understand that the fee payable by the public for immediate delivery of such letters has been increased considerably recently. However, I am led to believe that the postmen are delivering these special delivery letters on their walks. If this is the case, I do not see anything special about such delivery, and I would say that in such cases the public is not receiving the service for which it is paying. I trust the Postmaster General will make some observations on this matter.
I appreciate the opportunity of having the chance to say a few words about the Post Office Department, and I am sorry to note that it has been losing money over the past few years. I realize that the costs of operation of the Post Office Department have gone up just as the costs of operation for everybody else have gone up, but any business organization must meet these rising costs. If the Post Office Department were operated as a crown corporation I think it would be operated more on business lines than is the case today.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I wish to intervene briefly in this debate to talk about rural post offices and some rural mail routes. I would ask the Postmaster General to consider seriously the setting up of rural mail routes in those areas where rural post offices have been closed. I have had the experience in my constituency of having not one but a whole group of rural post offices closed. In most instances the residents who live in the area are 40 to 50 miles from an operating post office, in other words, from a city post office where their mail has been sent since their local post offices were closed.
I am fully aware that rural post offices have been closed because the department was unable to obtain the services of persons qualified to act as postmasters. I am not being critical of the department for closing those post offices where it was impossible to find someone to do the work of carrying on a post office. Several years ago I was a postmaster
Supply-Post Office
and I know that there are many duties involved in the operation of a small country post office. The money that is paid to the postmaster is inadequate unless he has something else to which to turn his hand and can be almost part and parcel of some local business.
When the Post Office Department decides to close a number of rural post offices, could it not investigate ways and means of setting up a rural delivery service in the areas formerly served by the closed post offices? In one instance in my constituency this was done but the mail was not delivered to each individual farmer on the rural route. The farmers were grouped. This saved a great deal of mileage for delivery trucks and kept the cost of operating this rural mail delivery route substantially lower than it otherwise would have been. As a matter of fact I have no criticisms where my constituency is concerned. I commend the minister and his department for the response they have shown me when I have made representations to have alternate service provided for areas that had been served by post offices which were closed.
That is all I wish to say. I hope the minister and his officials will give serious consideration, either at the time or slightly before closing any rural post offices, to setting up some kind of alternate delivery service. I say that because, though in all instances where I drew this situation to the attention of the department I received a great deal of co-operation, the service was established only after several weeks or months had elapsed following the closing of the local rural post office. It seems to me that the public relations image of the Post Office Department would be substantially better if it would make the necessary investigations prior to the closing of any post office. Notice is always given some time before a post office is to be closed. It seems to me that after such notice has been given would be the most appropriate time for officials from the regional office to go into the affected area to investigate whether it is feasible to substitute a rural mail delivery service for the service that the rural post office has been giving up till then.
I also wish to endorse the remarks made by the hon. members for Wellington South and York-Humber respecting the deficit on second class mail and mail coming within lower classes. A number of years ago I was on the public accounts committee and the deficit was brought to the attention of the committee. A remedy was included in the committee's recommendations. I have not served on the

June 2. 1967
Supply-Post Office
committee for the last two years but I can say that that recommendation has been in every committee report published in the last six or seven years. While I do not wish to be quite as critical as the hon. member for York-Humber was, I share his sentiments. If a committee of this house repeatedly makes recommendations about the same matter that has been drawn to its attention, surely it is the responsibility and obligation of the government to respond to these recommendations and to make the necessary corrections.
I do not believe that there is any reason for second class mail to be a burden on the taxpayer. Senders of second class mail have no more right than anybody else to the continuation of a subsidy through rates which fall substantially below the cost of providing the service to handle second class mail. Inasmuch as on several occasions there has been unanimous agreement in a committee of this house with respect to this matter, it is time that the government and the Postmaster General brought in changes designed to correct the situation.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Chairman, since the committee started to talk about second class mail perhaps I could give clarification which might not be considered repetition of some arguments. I know very well, speaking of second class mail and the privileges that some newspapers and magazines enjoy under second class mail classifications, that the time for change is overdue. One hundred years ago when newspapers were the only means of communication it was important to establish second class mailing privileges to help these newspapers. Those conditions do not exist any more.
Before making changes we must know exactly how much every item of mail that is being delivered or put through the post office costs the department. We have made that study and we now know exactly how much everything that goes through the mails costs the department. As a result of that study we have started to draft a change in the legislation. Everybody knows that to bring about changes in second class mail rates the matter will have come before parliament. The subject must be legislated on because it comes under the Post Office Act. As the study has been finished, the recommendations of the department are being looked at by a cabinet committee. Final approval of the legislation will be given by the cabinet. I hope that by the fall we shall have passed that legislation.
Let me tell you though, Mr. Chairman, that it is not easy to go into figures and to be fair

to everybody. If there is a department that should be run without a deficit, neither making nor losing money on the revenues it collects it is the Post Office Department. I am sure everybody knows that this is my view. But there are many ways of looking at the matter.
It is perfectly true that we are handling more magazines coming from the United State than the United States is handling from Canada. We handle 77,700,000 pieces of mail coming from the United States into Canada at the international rates approved by the Universal Postal Commission. About 18,600,000 pieces go from Canada to the United States, so there is an imbalance of 59,100,000 pieces.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Alfred Dryden Hales: When were those international postal rates set and how often are they revised?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: They are revised every five years, I think. There was a postal executive convention in Berne last month at which our department proposed a review of these rates. But because our rates are a little lower than rates in the United States and because we have a better service, many magazines printed in the United States are brought into Canada by truck for mailing here. As a result we collect over $5 million in revenue a year. If we were to change our rate for delivering these magazines and increase the rate too significantly, these magazines would be mailed in the United States and we should get nothing out of it.
In drafting the legislation I have tried to envisage all the possibilities with which we could be faced. Hon. members know that I cannot talk now about the contents of that legislation, but I am pretty sure the bill will be before parliament by the fall.
This sums up what I have to say about second class mail. I make these comments because there is no use in everybody talking about this subject when we do not realize what the department is trying to do. I can tell hon. members that at the five-cent rate for letters we still make money. At four cents we still make some money, although we are on the verge of losing. At the second and third class rates we are losing about $30 million a year. When the legislation is brought forward the increase proposed may not look much. But we are trying to clean up the second class mail and remove from it all the magazines and newspapers which should not be going
June 2, 1967



second class. By doing so we shall be helping customers who should be helped.


Mr. Scott (Victoria (Oni.)):: Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of my remarks I should like to congratulate the minister on the general efficiency of his department in Ottawa and I note with pleasure that it does not exhibit the top-heaviness and redundancy which is so often a mark of federal departments.
I feel that in the rush of modern communications we all too easily forget the people employed in the rural post offices and delivery services of this country. There is much more to a postmaster's job than the salary he picks up at the end of the week. In fact, it may accurately be said that few public servants have more intimate contact with those they serve than the people who deliver the mail.
It has been most gratifying to me that the Post Office Department has seen fit to construct several new buildings, with associated facilities, in my area. These buildings were much needed and I think they are greatly appreciated by the people of my riding and by those whose task it is to work in the postal service.
Mindful as I am of the recent upgrading of mail services in Victoria-Haliburton, I cannot but comment upon the general state of rural delivery services and associated facilities across the country. While I am well aware that a great percentage of our people now live in cities I believe, and I think hon. members will agree with me, it is no less important to improve the features of rural mail service than it is those in urban areas. Therefore I respectfully suggest that in any planning undertaken by the department priority be given to these rural services. Only those of us who live in rural Canada really have any idea of the conditions under which our postmasters work, and even then we could not know as well as the postmasters themselves. In the rush of the modernization of services let us not forget that the most challenging opportunity for modernization exists in the rural areas. I am sure the Postmaster General is aware of these things and will take steps to remedy any problems which might exist in this area of his responsibilities.
In our centennial year I and many other Canadians have been impressed by the series of commemorative stamps issued by the Post Office Department to honour certain events. I believe that our postage stamps, designed as they are with artistry and imagination, help to give Canadians a genuine sense of achieve-
Supply-Post Office
ment in the many fields with which these stamps deal. I would not suggest for a moment that we should attempt to follow the lead of some countries and issue postage stamps just for the sake of extra revenue or postal notoriety. But I do think, as do many of my constituents and, I am sure, many Canadians, that we should widen, within reasonable limits, the issue of commemorative stamps as a useful record of Canadian accomplishments.
As an example I offer the great work being done by our service clubs right across this country. The Postmaster General, if my understanding is correct, has recently received a letter from the national president of the Association of Kinsmen's Clubs and I was recently privileged to ask a question in the house regarding the issuance of a stamp in honour of the fiftieth anniversary of that association. It seems to me that a commemorative stamp of this kind would increase our understanding and appreciation of groups similar to the Kinsmen, and I think such a stamp issue would in no way threaten to make commemorations of this sort too frequent.
I have used Kinsmen's clubs as an example because between now and 1970 there is ample time in which to consider this suggestion before the Kinsmen celebrate their fiftieth anniversary. However, I would not limit commemorative issues to the Kinsmen or other service clubs. I think there are other areas of life in Canada in which national organizations have made lasting contributions to our country and that these too might be considered. As I say, I do not believe we should put out too many special stamp issues but I do think we could increase our present output without impairing the image we wish to create.


Mr. Clermont:: Mr. Chairman, during consideration of the estimates of the Post Office Department, I would like to make a few comments on the postal service in Canada.
The hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hales) mentioned that it is time for the postal service to be operated by a crown corporation; I wonder if he means that such a service would be more profitable or would render greater services to the people.
I hear from time to time in this house criticisms directed against certain crown corporations, either on account of their services to the population or the estimates which this house is called upon to vote for them. I am pleased to support the Postmaster General

June 2, 1967
Supply-Post Office
(Mr. Cote) and mention-because I had some experience in that department-that Canada has one of the best postal services in the world and that it is well served by qualified public servants within the department.
Since there is always room for improvement in every large organization, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make two or three suggestions in that respect.
The first deals with rural mail delivery, which should be made every day, if possible. It will undoubtedly be said that, in some cases, this is very difficult, in view of the very high cost and the geographic difficulties but when, even today some post office patrons living within 50 or 60 miles from the capital of Canada get their mail only three or four times a week, I think there is room for improvement.
I know, Mr. Chairman, that according to postal regulations, there must be at least three patrons per mile before the rural mail service can be given every day, except Sunday. I think that this requirement should be changed in 1967 to accommodate the thousands of Canadians who get their mail only two or three times a week.
I would like to draw the attention of the minister to another aspect of mail delivery by letter carriers, that of daily service in cities.
To get mail delivery by letter carriers in cities, certain rules or criteria must be met, among others 2,000 points of calls. I am happy to commend the government for having changed that policy in 1965 because, before the fall of 1965, to be able to get delivery by letter carrier in cities, there had to be 2,500 points of call. Since November 1965, that rule is changed and any city having at least 2,000 points of call can now have this service. However, certain rules should, in my opinion, be changed so that other cities can take advantage of such a service and especially, the rule under which there must be an average distance of 40 yards between patrons. Because of the present trend in the construction of family dwellings, I think that rule should be changed.
Another suggestion I should like to make to the Postmaster General concerns the pay or pay revision for the rural mail carrier.
As things now stand under the Post Office Act, clause 33, paragraph 2 (c), sub-paragraph (i), the carrier must apply himself for revision after two years.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I know that in several cases, the carrier is reluctant to make an

application; he is even somewhat apprehensive. He wonders: If I make an application, will my contract be renewed? To my mind, he should not be apprehensive because when the request is made, I know from experience that his case is considered and if an increase is deserved, it is awarded.
Nevertheless, and due to the fact that the speech from the throne forecasts a revision of the Post Office Act during the present session, I wonder if it would not be possible, instead of leaving clause 33 as is and require the carrier to make an application, to proceed as in other areas of the administration and make this review automatically since I am sure that the Post Office Department and the government do not expect these contractors to operate an unprofitable service.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, I speak with a heavier sense of responsibility than usual, and indeed with some trepidation because according to one of the leading columnists in Canada I represent 1.05 per cent of the Conservative caucus. I endeavoured to tell my family at breakfast this morning that I thought I deserved a great deal more respect having had my status recognized, though not heaped upon me.
I join with those who have extended good wishes to the minister. My dealings with him have all been very pleasurable. My requests have been few and perhaps this is the reason. My more difficult problems arose with some of his predecessors, and in some cases I was not totally satisfied with the results. We in Prince Edward Island watched the diminution of the regional structure so far as the Atlantic district was concerned and the administrative apparatus located at Charlottetown. This we did not welcome. There were occasions when some local offices were closed with resultant discontent and disquiet among former patrons. Of course reorganization is necessary in these things and it is not easy to convince the patrons that reorganization is progress.
One of my greatest quarrels with the postal department concerned the rural couriers. I remember so well a man who, as a result of tender, had been awarded a contract in the princely sum of $1,000. But because the route was shortened, with some change of highways, his contract was reduced to $820. This man had faithfully served the patrons on his route for a quarter of a century, and it proved impossible to convince the then postmaster general that though it was lawful to
June 2, 1967

revoke the original contract it was not mandatory to do so.
There is great disparity concerning rural couriers and also a good deal of injustice. It is easy to say that this is because low tenders are submitted, but I believe there are certain conditions under which the government of Canada should not enter into a contract with anyone, no matter how willing, if the rate is too low. This is an injustice which the government should not perpetrate upon anyone.
I agree with the hon. gentleman who has just spoken that a better system could be devised for revising upward the amounts paid to rural couriers. I find that many couriers are not aware of the procedure which they must follow. As I understand the system, they can receive no increase within the first two years of their contract. They themselves must make application for an increase. There is some confusion among them about this, and if any of the intelligent people of Prince Edward Island are confused about it then I suggest there is some administrative flaw.
I second what the hon. member for Wellington South put forward in reference to some of the small post offices. Many of the people who man these little offices do so for very tiny sums of money. Because of the nature of their work these people are public servants who often go far beyond the call of duty. I am sure many of them are insufficiently paid.
My last two suggestions will not be helpful to the hon. member for York-Humber who wants to overcome the deficit in this department. However, I think he made an interesting and strong case, and I was quite impressed with what the chairman of the public accounts committee also observed. I have taken careful note of what the minister himself said by way of explanation.
We have many experts in this party and our chief spokesman on these estimates, the hon. member for Lampton-Kent, gave a most excellent dissertation. Others have spoken on details with which they are very familiar.
I have just one more subject with which to deal, and as a former philatelist it is one that is close to my heart. It is the question of stamp issues. The postage stamp is a tremendously interesting symbol. I often think that it symbolizes the ability of man, if he wants to, to internationalize his relations. We can buy a stamp in Ottawa, affix it to a letter addressed to somewhere in the southern tip of Africa, and before it gets there it may be handled by public servants of 50 different
Supply-Post Office
countries. I believe the universal postal system which has been in existence for many years demonstrates that the people and nations of the world, in specialized fields of endeavour, can make important, valuable and workable international arrangements. If only we could civilize ourselves sufficiently to make arrangements of this kind in the great cause of war, peace and decency of living, what a magnificent world we would be living in.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I agree with the hon. member for Victoria (Ont.), that we could be much more imaginative in respect of the issuance of commemorative stamps. I am quite frank in saying I was shocked that no stamp commemorating Sir John A. Macdonald was issued on the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of his birth a couple of years ago. Since that was not done, surely in the centennial year of our confederation some way could have been found to put the fathers of confederation before us on our stamps. I think we have been remiss for too long in honouring the great men who have helped make this country what it is. We should have the former prime ministers on our stamps much more frequently than we do now. In the United States the former presidents are constantly appearing on their stamps in different designs from time to time I believe it would be a progressive step if we were to do this in respect of our former prime ministers.
I believe that this year we have missed a good many opportunities. We have a centennial stamp. We have an attractive Expo stamp. The stamp commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of the franchise for women is a splendid thing. We have one commemorating such things as the fiftieth anniversary of the Canadian Press. This might be a good thing. The royal visit, of course, the pan-American games, and there are important things such as the centennial of Toronto as the capital of the province of Ontario. We have our five cent and three cent Christmas stamps. These are beautiful stamps and I think add a lot to the festive spirit. I hope we will continue to issue these. There are, however, many people besides the fathers of confederation and the former prime ministers. There are those great giants, people like Joseph Howe, for instance, men who have made a great contribution to society. These are men who, indeed, have been recognized internationally. My colleague has mentioned the late Colonel McCrea. There are many people such as these who are

June 2, 1967
Supply-Post Office
known in other parts of the world but who have not been honoured by a Canadian stamp.
The minister probably knows there is another stamp which I should like to see him issue-one commemorating Robert Burns. When I was in the Soviet union last fall with the whip of our party and the hon. member for Saint John-Aibert, and other members of the house I was given a very attractive souvenir. It was a Soviet union stamp honouring Robert Burns. It is the second one they have issued. Here in Canada no one need be told what the Scots have done for Canada or what Burns has done for mankind, but we have never yet honoured that great champion of human freedom. I hope the minister, recalling that his French ancestors and my Scottish ancestors used to join together not infrequently in actions against the English which were not altogether friendly, will adopt my suggestion that we join with the Soviet union and bring out a stamp for Robert Burns. I suggest this for January 25 next year.
There are no more details which I feel I need press on the committee considering the fact that I have always in my mind the idea that I want to spend July and August in the province of Prince Edward Island and not in the city of Ottawa. Therefore I will not be making long speeches.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I have the same wish as the hon. member for Queens. I am looking forward to spending July and August in my constituency where I am required. First of all, I must say how much I have appreciated the attention the minister has given to any matters I have referred to him and for his courtesy and willingness in having these matters thoroughly investigated. I have appreciated receiving his well-informed explanations in reply to the letters I have written to him. I must say that this is quite a contrast to the way in which my inquiries were handled by the very good postmaster general we had a few years ago. In that case every letter I received was marked "personal and confidential". I shall never forget having written to inquire what was the practice in respect of the raising of the national flag on our post offices and receiving a reply marked "personal and confidential". It was very difficult at times to know what one could do with those letters.
The present minister gives much longer explanations and very often provides a copy to be sent to the person who has made the

inquiry. This is appreciated very much indeed.
I have always been interested in the post office because I have known many interesting and unique postmasters. There was one in our district who used to lock up his post office at five o'clock in the afternoon and the person who picked up the mail came along about six or six-thirty. When he left the post office the postmaster hung the bags on the door, having said "Pick these up when you come along". If I remember correctly, the man who discovered this transgression of the postal regulations was the present deputy postmaster general. I am usually informed by the old-timers when important people come into the district. I was told that our deputy postmaster general had driven along the road and discovered these bags hanging on the post office door. This had been the habit for some 25 years. Nobody complained, because the people are so honest in the district I have the honour to represent.
I should also like to express my appreciation to the senior officials in Ottawa, the regional officials in British Columbia, the local postmasters and the employees in the department, who, on the whole, perform so excellently in providing the postal service we have today of which I think we should be proud. I have been in the United States and have made a few inquiries about rural mail deliveries, small post offices and things of that sort. When one considers the size of our country and the problems the department is confronted with, I think we should be proud of our postal service in this country. I have no hesitation in saying that.
When the minister replies to members I should like him to inform us what action has been taken to date to implement the recommendations contained in the 1966 report with regard to working conditions in the post offices.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: That was contained in my statement this morning.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am very sorry. I shall read
it as it appears in the record. As a matter of fact, I was called to the telephone and must have missed it at that time. I always have a good excuse, you see. I do hope, however, that the minister will make certain that all our postal employees, whether employed by the post office or by contractors, receive adequate remuneration for the services they are undertaking.
June 2. 1967

[DOT] (3:40 p.ra.)
I have knowledge of some of the smaller post offices in my constituency. I do think that consideration should be given to the work of many of these people in small post offices because they are very often required to be there 18 hours a day. If people drive 15 miles to get their mail and arrive at eleven o'clock in the evening their mail should be available to them. I am sure other members from small areas realize these circumstances, and I do hope these people receive adequate remuneration.
I have another suggestion to make-I am in a rather fertile mood this afternoon. I suggest that in the larger post offices where there are a number of employees the postmaster should do something more than is being done at the present time to inform the employees about administration policies and procedures. If this were done I think the grounds for grievances which in most part relate to misunderstanding would be removed. This suggestion has been made to me by employees of the post office. They have said to me they would not have done such and so, had they realized they were not required to do certain things. This policy of informing employees should be stressed in the larger post offices.
I am in support of what other members have said about the necessity of reviewing rural mail contracts to make sure these contractors are receiving adequate remuneration. I know of a situation at the present time where a man travels a 20 mile circuit on a rural mail route and he receives less than one of these boys who comes down from debates to pick up our notes. This man has to drive over rough mountain roads. I do not know whether others are receiving more for this work, but I think in many cases these people who have to perform a service require an adjustment in their remuneration. Contracts should be reviewed from time to time, particularly those in rural areas where circumstances exist which do not come to the attention of the senior officials. I refer to local conditions such as roads, weather and things of that sort, particularly during the winter months.
I have another suggestion, I am simply bursting with them, Mr. Chairman. Municipalities of any consequence at all should be informed of the department's policy regarding letter carrier service in relation to population, procedure and things of that sort. I have received letters from a number of
Supply-Post Office
municipalities asking whether they are entitled to letter carrier service. Municipalities approaching the population mark which entitles them to these services should be advised of the department's policies and procedures.
During the past year I have received requests for the building of a new post office at Montrose, which is a growing community on the outskirts of Trail. I wrote the minister and he said he would have the matter investigated. I believe this area has every right to hope and expect they will get a new post office.
In our district, as a result of Columbia river treaty projects, we have observed a great deal of relocation of roads, and many adjustments have to be made because certain communities have grown while the population of others has decreased. I appreciate the minister's replies to the several letters I have written him about the closing of certain post offices. It is my belief that when people understand the circumstances behind certain procedures they accept the situation in a much better mood.
I have also received complaints about the closing of post offices at Howser, Rosebery and other points. Further, I have received letters regarding the rearrangement of postal services in the Trail-Nelson area which resulted I think from a rearrangement of postal services in the whole of British Columbia. I have received a lot of correspondence in this regard and many people are quite concerned about these new arrangements. This is the sort of thing that could be overcome by consultation among the senior officials of the post office. These people are acquainted with the broader aspects of the service, rather than the minor local situations. I believe these people in the small municipalities, villages and districts should be informed about what the government proposes in respect of mail services.
Recently I received an unusual complaint regarding the rental of locked boxes in post offices. I brought this situation to the attention of the minister and he has sent me a complete reply. This is certainly something which should be gone into. This particular gentleman wrote me in part as follows:
I have an example here in Castlegar and I am sure I am not alone. It deals with a transient labourer employed with B.C. Hydro on our dam project that was here but a short time, rented a locked box, created a certain amount of debts around town and then one night disappeared.

June 2, 1967
Supply-Post Office
Of course, this was not a Kootenay man. The letter then continues:
It was six months before I could find out that he had left the country. The only reason I did find this out was because his post office box rent came due and my six months of invoicing his statements were returned to me.
I have received one or two other similar complaints. I know this presents a problem but with construction projects going on all over the country we are bound to have that small percentage of fraudulent individuals who exist in Canadian society, and who will take advantage of situations like this. I do not know what can be done to correct this situation but I have heard several businessmen make similar complaints regarding bills being sent to post office boxes and then being returned after six months when the box rent fell due. In the meantime the individual has gone to fresher fields. Something should be done to protect business interests.
My colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre suggests that this man may have gone to Kootenay East. Let me say that the residents of Kootenay East are equal to those of Kootenay West in this respect.
While I recognize the work being done by the Post Office Department at certain district fairs,-and I understand they have displays at some of these district fairs in British Columbia covering post office procedures, regulations and so on,-I believe a great deal of the misunderstanding which has resulted in complaints from staff and the public about which I have told the minister could be removed if the public relations of the department were improved. Let me hasten to add that I am not suggesting the post office does not have good public relations at this time, for a federal department dealing with people who are a long way from the source of power resting with the minister, but I do believe that when the general policy in a district is to be changed, if the people are given the reason for the changes a great deal of misunderstanding would be avoided. I have made similar suggestions about other departments because I am a firm believer in anticipating the administration of any program. If some of the senior officials at times took the opportunity of addressing chambers of commerce or farmers organizations about administration policy,
I am sure these people would appreciate it and give their full co-operation. In this way I suggest many misunderstandings would be removed.

[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Let me say in conclusion that I still continue to receive complaints, from people who are interested in collecting stamps as a hobby, about the design and colour of some Canadian stamps. I might add that I have received other letters from people who are very pleased with some issues that have been produced by the Post Office Department for centennial year. This is partly caused by these people receiving stamps from other countries. For instance, if someone sends you a stamp from Indonesia, it is very attractive compared with some of the stamps we issue in Canada. Therefore one can well understand these people asking: Why cannot we do this in Canada? I suggest that this matter should receive further consideration. When the minister speaks later I should like him to tell the house what companies undertake this work for the post office at the present time, and who the persons are that advise the minister with respect to the design and printing of stamps that are issued.
I conclude my very brief remarks, Mr. Chairman, by once again saying that I have thoroughly enjoyed my association with the minister and shall continue to enjoy it with him and his officials. I wish the minister good luck in all he undertakes in the administration of his department.


Mr. Keays:: Mr. Chairman, it is not very often that we hear the gracious expressions which are being extended to the minister and his staff in the consideration by the committee of the estimates of the Post Office Department. I hope that the centennial spirit is beginning to reign in this house and across the country, and I trust it will continue until our consideration of the estimates is concluded because, as the last speaker said, all members are required in their ridings to participate in centennial celebrations.
The main reason for my speaking on these estimates is to renew a plea which I put forward when the estimates of the department were last before the committee. I should like to know whether there is any real coordination, co-operation or dialogue among the various departments of government, and in this case between the Department of Transport and the Department of the Postmaster General.
When I last spoke on these estimates I said I thought it was superfluous and wasteful to duplicate a mail service across certain parts of the country. I am still of that opinion. I
June 2, 1967

would like to know from the minister whether he has investigated the matter I raised at that time, in order to assure himself that there has been no waste of money in this connection. We hear many complaints from across the country in this regard and I think it is high time we cut out some of these useless expenditures, bearing in mind that it is the Canadian public who always pays the bill. In this case, Mr. Chairman, I refer to the mail service extending from what the minister today termed the key point of mail distribution in Canada, namely Montreal, to points east in the province of Quebec. I admit that up to June 1 of this year it may not have been possible for only the C.N.R. to handle mail adequately on long distance routes.
I hope that the contract which has now been given for mail distribution by trucks or tractor trailers will not be of long duration. I say this because until I am proven wrong I shall believe that we have duplicated the service or have in fact taken revenue from Canadian National Railways; and every member of this house knows that each year that railway is faced with a huge deficit and would welcome any kind of income. Rather than giving this service to the C.N.R., we have taken it from them and it is to be provided by tractor trailers or trucks. I should like this matter to be investigated further in order to determine whether the C.N.R. could not provide as adequate a service as that contemplated by the minister under the new program.
I wish, however, at this time to express to the minister my thanks for keeping me abreast of all the changes contemplated, and which have come into being in the region to which I refer. However, I still believe we should further investigate the latest move contemplated by the minister's department.
Only a week or so ago the minister informed me that the mail service in my region would be improved by roughly three hours. If I have properly investigated this new service, I cannot understand how we are going to benefit in any way whatsoever from the service the minister mentioned. He has said there will be a tractor trailer service from Montreal to Levis and from Levis to Campbellton, by rail. There may be a new service being undertaken by the C.N.R. in moving mail by railiner. However, Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether the contemplated service will be adequate. The tractor trailer would have to leave Montreal by
Supply-Post Office
11:30 a.m. or 12 noon in order to arrive at Levis and leave by 1530.
The time required to travel from Levis to Campbellton is not as stated by the minister. I believe the new schedule of the C.N.R. tells us that the service will arrive at Campbellton at roughly 2345. Admittedly, this service will bring mail into the furthest points of the peninsula at approximately 9 p.m. the following day. However, we must bear in mind that most of the mail is deposited in the mail boxes of Montreal after 11 a.m. and most of the newspapers are afternoon or evening editions. Under the program envisaged by the minister we will miss the most essential part of the day and will receive our mail one day later than we have been receiving it. I do not think this was intended by the minister or his department and I would like some explanation about it. I would like to be satisfied that the service contemplated by the minister will be better than that we have been receiving up to now.
I come back to my remarks about our taking revenue away from the C.N.R.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I may be allowed to give an explanation at this point.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)

The better part of the mail is sorted out during the night in a post office. The mail is most voluminous around five o'clock in the afternoon when offices close and secretaries mail their correspondence at the end of their day's work.
So, the better part of the mail is picked up in the evening and sorted out during the night. From the post office, the mail is transferred to a truck in the morning. Otherwise, if it is held up until 8:30 p.m. as used to be done, there is some delay. It now leaves at 11:30 a.m., that is the mail which otherwise would leave some time in the evening is loaded on the truck in the morning.


James Russell Keays: May I give an example? Mail that is dropped on Wednesday night in Montreal, is sorted out during the evening and leaves Montreal on Thursday morning, around 11:30 a.m., and reaches Gaspd on Friday morning at nine o'clock.
I believe that, by so doing, more time elapses between mailing time and delivery. It seems that, in the past, mail that was dropped at 3:30 or 4 p.m., left on the Ocean Limited around 8:30 p.m.-I am speaking of a few

June 2, 1967
Supply-Post Office
years ago-and the following evening we got it at Gaspe. It might have been 10 or 11 p.m., but at least we had our mail.
This way, I feel delivery is held up longer. At any rate, I urge the minister to look into the matter more closely to see if the service might not be improved, or left as it is. I feel it certainly should be improved.

The other subject to which I wish to refer, Mr. Chairman, is commemorative stamps. This subject has been raised by the hon. member for Queens, and I know his power of persuasion will convince the minister. Even if it is now a little late, there is still time to consider the issuing of commemorative stamps for Sir John A. Macdonald and the fathers of confederation.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, in this debate on the estimates of the Post Office Department, I should like to speak in communion with this great concert of goodwill that we have noticed from the start of the debate and make my remarks very short and as agreeable to the minister as I can.
Nevertheless, I will take the liberty of digressing very shortly to congratulate him for winning his election in the Hull riding. I may do this for he and I are residents of the Hull riding.
But, that is not the essential point of my remarks. I do not even want to criticize so as not to depart from that concert of praise directed to him since the beginning. There are things that were discussed, such as the ability of the Post Office Department to meet expenses or the advisability perhaps of turning it over to a crown corporation.
I admit, Mr. Chairman, that I lack the knowledge that would allow me to voice valid opinions in this field, and I leave it to the minister, his consultants and his colleagues, to decide in these matters.
Perhaps I should make a remark concerning a situation which has been bothering me for years. It seems to me that the system requiring the Post Office Department to let out contracts to the lowest bidder is not desirable in many cases, especially when it is obvious, from the experience and the opinion of people in the know, that the price quoted by the lowest bidder is obviously below cost price, that he cannot possibly make it, and in such circumstances a citizen and also the department are liable to get into trouble.
[Mr. Keays.l
I just mention it, because I know that the minister is better informed than myself on that. It might be possible to find a middle term providing certain criteria, certain schedules, under which a contract would not be given out, so that the department would not be subject to difficulties and individuals having no experience, to ruin for the rest of their life in some cases.
Mr. Chairman, during the debate certain remarks made by the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) on the value of postage stamps from the standpoint of culture as well as information on what is going on in the world impressed me and reminded me of something on which I would like to speak briefly to the house. That will not be news for the minister, because he is already aware of that-he was visited what I will talk about -but I wish to refresh his memory and tell all my colleagues about it.
There is, in Trois-Rivieres, something called the philatelic galleries. That might not seem much at first sight, but I think it is a unique organization not only in this country but possibly in the world.
A citizen of Trois-Rivieres, a stamp collector has been trying for fifteen years, I think, to reconstitute summarily, briefly, if you wish, the main periods in the history of the countries of the world, using stamps which he frames-in a very artistic manner, with explanations, doing the lettering and the framing himself-and everything has a very professional look.
It is a set-up on which he has been working for 10 to 15 years, I think. His name is James Levesque, and in case the minister is interested, he is a former Liberal organizer if that can add to his merit. Mr. Levesque, in all this time has spent all he could afford from his small personal income to finance this type of gallery and has also spent thousands of hours to achieve this. Once again, I feel it is unique in the world and well worth a visit by anyone interested in stamps.
I said the minister was aware of it because he has had the opportunity of visiting it recently. I should like to remind him that it might be proper for the government to consider this seriously, particularly in view of the act that the man who has built these stamp galleries has often said that he wants to give them-freely, if I understand his intentions correctly-either to his city or to his country. Possibly, these philatelic treasures could be brought to Ottawa and set up in appropriate quarters; thus, the government
June 2, 1967



would enable this stamp collector to work under better conditions or even let him benefit from philatelic treasures which must have been lying in the files of the Post Office Department for a number of years, and which are not available to the public who would visit them.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I would also ask the minister to make every possible effort to settle a particular point on this matter. I am sure it would not require considerable effort since he is so highly considered by every member as I have noted this afternoon and I am sure there is no less goodwill toward him within the cabinet.
The minister must have noted that in these philatelic galleries, there were autographs, letters sent by several chiefs of state to Mr. James Levesque-there are also various national flags sent by various countries but, unfortunately, the Canadian flag is not among them. I must say too, that there is a letter from the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and his picture. But there is no Canadian flag and there is no recognition by the leader of the Canadian government.
In my opinion, it would be a handsome gesture on the part of the minister to obtain from the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) a letter underlining the merit of that display-unique in the world-accompanied by a beautiful Canadian flag which would set off the humble premises housing those philatelic galleries.
I must insist on the most essential point, in my opinion, and suggest that the minister entrust one of his officials with the care of looking without delay into the possibility of acquiring those philatelic galleries, transferring them to Ottawa and perhaps offering their originator to pursue his work here with improved facilities, in short, of displaying in larger premises the masterpieces he has already created, so that the many tourists from all over the world interested in philately may come to Ottawa to admire them.
I would have hoped to submit that request to the municipal authorities of Trois-Rivieres, but unfortunately they probably could not afford to provide suitable premises and the means to develop those philatelic galleries as they deserve. It is such a large scale project that I feel it belongs to the national capital and, in particular, to the Post Office Department to assume that responsibility, because those galleries would attract tourists from all over the world. One of the reasons
Supply-Post Office
which prompt me to insist that the minister act without delay, is that, as the minister found out by himself, those galleries are now housed in premises that are not fire-proof.
It would be most unfortunate if a fire were to destroy the result of fifteen or twenty years' work which includes some irreplaceable works of art. Even if nothing more could be done until now, for all this has been done through the good will of the founder of the philatelic galleries, I know I need not insist any longer in order to convince the minister of the urgent need for more concrete measures so as to ensure the preservation of these things for the benefit of all Canadians and of the stamp collectors from all over the world who will come to Canada to see something different.


Mr. Howe (Wellington-Huron):: Mr. Chairman, I along with the others who have spoken, welcome the opportunity to say a few words on the estimates of the Postmaster General. Some of us have been here long enough to remember the days when a postmaster general came into the house with his estimates showing a surplus from the operations of his department. I agree with the remarks of the hon. member for Wellington South about the importance of re-establishing this department as a businesslike proposition.
In these days of automation and changes in technology, any operation that is unprofitable in the field of private enterprise is eliminated unless it is necessary to the carrying out of the entire operations of that concern. Therefore I feel that this practice should be followed in the Post Office Department.
I am sure we all welcome the announcement the postmaster made this afternoon about legislation that is ready to be brought in some time in the fall to alleviate this situation. I can tell him that the praise he has received today will be as nothing to that he will receive if, in a year or two, he can turn this deficit of $30 million into a surplus. If he does that he will be given the credit of being one of the greatest postmasters general this country has ever had.
When discussing estimates it is hard not to be repetitive, but the second item I want to discuss also concerns rural mail carriers. I sometimes think that the legislation which deals with this aspect of the operations of the post office is somewhat similar to the legislation the minister is proposing to change-it is in the horse and buggy era. This legislation

June 2, 1967
Supply-Post Office
was brought in at a time when so many of the carriers were people who operated farms, when the extra horse required did not take too much feed and the upkeep of the buggy was not too great. These farmers got into the habit of tendering for mail contracts at such a low figure that they were entirely unprofitable.
We who drive automobiles today are told many times by the insurance companies that under normal circumstances we cannot operate an automobile for less than ten cents a mile. We who live in rural areas know that in many cases rural mail carriers do not operate their vehicles under normal circumstances, but under rather difficult circumstances. These people are to be commended for the service they have provided through the years, and I feel that at the present time their pay is quite inadequate for the type of service they provide.
Granted, Mr. Chairman, theirs is not a full time job. But if a workman is worthy of his hire, he is worthy of being paid commensurately with people doing other jobs of a similar nature, such as driving trucks for private companies which have to make a profit. There may be only a few dollars involved here, but their hourly wage cannot be compared with the hourly wage they would make working in a private enterprise operation or in a factory.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I sincerely hope that before too long the legislation governing rural mail carriers will be revised so that the operations of these people will be looked after in a realistic way. These people must maintain a good vehicle, that starts every morning of every day. As I said before, Mr. Chairman, they do have to operate under very difficult circumstances.
I should like to say here that I appreciate the co-operation I have received from the transportation section of the Post Office Department, which has always been of the best. Whenever I have asked for a reassessment of mail routes in a particular area and have brought the matter before them, they have co-operated immediately and in most cases provided assistance to the particular mail carrier concerned, so as to bring him up to the level of those in his own area. I sincerely hope that the Postmaster General will consider all representations made here on behalf of the rural mail carriers and revise this legislation, so that it can be brought up to date and in keeping with the times.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make some brief remarks which follow up

what was said earlier this afternoon by the hon. member for Wellington South and the hon. member for Medicine Hat. I could not help being interested in what was said by the hon. member for Wellington South, who said that the reason for his interest in the Department of the Postmaster General was that his uncle held a position with the post office, I think as a rural postmaster, for a number of years.
In that respect my interest in this department is similar to that of the hon. member for Wellington South. My grandfather was postmaster in a rural post office for a period of 42 years, and I recall the conditions that existed in those days. I recall with amusement that in the early years of this century, whenever there was a change in government there was a change in postmasters in most of the rural areas. In any event, in 1941 at the age of 90, I believe, he terminated his work with the post office, and to his dying day he thought this was because the preceding year for the first time in half a century he had voted other than Liberal. Actually I think it was due to his own misconception of the situation; he was one of those who always felt that he was never too old to carry on.
I had wanted to make some extended remarks in reference to second class mail, but then I heard the Postmaster General rise in his place and reply to the repesentations made by the hon. member for York-Humber. However, there are two remaining points I should like to put to the Postmaster General, and perhaps he will be able to make some response to them later this afternoon.
The first point has to do with the policy of the department with respect to rural route delivery service. One's first impression is that because of changing methods and modes of transportation and the improved grid of roads throughout rural Canada, there is less need than hitherto for rural route mail delivery. I am not sure that this is a correct inference to draw from the changing scene, Mr. Chairman. I believe the Post Office Department is continuing to extend the number of rural route systems throughout the country. Certainly in my area of Manitoba post offices show no reluctance to extend rural route service to areas where the people ask for it, and where the requirements are met. In this regard I would ask the minister what the policy of the department is. Is it one of positive encouragement for the extension of rural service, or is the response one that could be characterized as slight or moderate to any request for rural route service? Or is it one of
June 2, 1967

complete neutrality? It would be useful to know. I see no good reason for keeping this policy, if there is one, from us.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
The other point has to do with the matter of third class mail, with the householder distribution type of service. I know that in larger towns where there is a professional full time postal service this class of mail, the third class, householder distribution type, is handled properly. I do not think anyone from urban centres is complaining about the service. In rural areas, however, in areas where post offices are situated in villages and hamlets or where there is a small post office at a rural intersection, there is the tendency too often for the local postmaster to treat this mail ever so casually. Perhaps one can hardly blame him for his attitude. Such a postmaster makes no effort to distribute the third class mail in such a way that every subscriber in the area receives a copy of it. The pamphlets or whatever they are, are stacked on the counter and the idea is: Help yourself. These post offices are in small shops usually.
I know that third class mail sometimes is described as junk mail, and perhaps a growing number of people are becoming annoyed because of the frequency with which they are bombarded by it. However, the distributors of it pay rates for its distribution, and they have a right to expect that their mail will be properly distributed through our postal service.
I do not know whether the minister has received a great or significant number of complaints, but what has been happening has been brought to my attention and I have personally witnessed what I just spoke about. On more than one occasion. I have seen pamphlets stacked on counters. Now that the minister has been made aware of this matter perhaps he could arrange for the circulation of a memorandum of instruction to postmasters in such rural post offices where this practice tends to be fairly common.
Perhaps to make postmasters in these kinds of rural post offices more aware of their responsibilities with respect to third class mail, it will be necessary to increase the annual stipend they receive for their duties as postmasters. It is my impression that the adjustments in payments to rural postmasters have been small. Many of them feel that the money they receive for their work hardly compensates them for the effort of doing the work, and that it is hardly worth their while to perform it.
Supply-Post Office
I realize that in the running of this department the minister has myriads of problems to deal with, most of them being more of an administrative than of a policy nature and that the two matters which I have put to him may not amount to much. They may be relatively unimportant. Nevertheless they are long standing problems and I should like to know if the minister has any comment to make on them?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, it is rather unusual for me to discuss the estimates of the Postmaster General because there have always been competent people on this side of the house who have made an intensive study of the Post Office Department. Generally I have left it to them to carry on the discussion.
I am rising today briefly to say that after listening to all the complimentary remarks that were made to the Postmaster General this morning and this afternoon I warn him not to be carried away by the compliments and not to take advantage of the House of Commons just because a few here have praised his work. Perhaps his work should be praised; I do not know. I have not looked into it closely enough. Yet one year ago we went after this same minister for the attempts which were made mysteriously within his department to remove the word "Royal" from "Royal Mail" and for the attempts to shift the coat of arms from the mail trucks.
So, with that word of caution I wish to say this to the Postmaster General: Having heard today about how well he has treated various members in the House of Commons and because I have never had to put any problems before him I shall now transmit to him a letter which has to do with a postman who is in my area and who transmitted it to me. I shall hand it to the minister without going into detail. I will not take up the time of the committee. We shall see what happens. We shall see whether all these complimentary remarks that I have heard really apply to the Postmaster General.


Mr. Laiulippe:: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to say a few words and, at the same time, to thank the minister like others speakers have done and to express our appreciation for the wonderful job he does.
Frankly, I think that the hon. minister is sincere and that he does his work well because, in my riding, I have not received any complaints and people seem satisfied with the

June 2, 1967
Supply-Post Office
.mail service in the rural ridings. In my riding, we do not even have small carriers.
I should like to take this opportunity to ask the hon. minister whether it would be possible for the town of Megantic, where I live, to have the mail delivered by carrier. Last year, I asked him for mailmen and even the public organizations of that municipality have expressed the desire to have that service. In fact, I have forwarded to the minister the request which was sent to me in that respect. But since mail boxes were missing on a few doors, the minister has not allowed us yet to have mail carrier service.
I should like to ask the minister not to be too inflexible about regulations. I know that there are regulations but I think that the few mail boxes missing on doors should be overlooked and that service should be granted.
In the municipality where I live, there is a railway, and the main street is used as the switching yard. Trains are always blocking the street. And when businessmen send somebody to get the mail by car, the messenger has to wait half an hour before he is able to reach the post office and another half hour when he comes back.
A lot of time is lost in this way and the taxpayers of the municipality where I live must pay additional taxes. But if the mail were distributed by postmen, it would be of great help to our people and the minister would be even more popular.
Now, as for public buildings erected in designated areas in the last few years, the Post Office Department, in co-operation with the Department of Public Works, put up several small buildings serving parishes.
I thank the minister. This is very much appreciated in parishes where the Post Office Department and the Department of Public Works put up those small buildings.
The first thing this proves is that the federal government does exist. Several municipalities, in the past, had no post office. Now, this also proves that, without a post office, there is almost nothing, it is like a desert. With a small federal post office built in the parish, the situation is considerably improved. Therefore, this is greatly appreciated by the inhabitants.
However, I believe these offices are built only in designated areas. Only one-fourth of my riding is a designated area. The inhabitants of the parishes in my riding which are outside this designated area would also like to have a post office built by the federal government. Therefore, I would ask the minister and

his colleague, the Minister of Public Works, to reconsider this matter of designated areas.
The rural ridings are all poor, and their parishes are far from wealthy. To tell the truth, there is almost no difference between a designated and a non-designated area.
Post offices should be built as much as possible in every parish, in accordance with the amounts allotted by the government for that purpose.
Now, since post offices are quite appreciated and people would like to have them, I think that the Postmaster General should bring pressure to bear on the Department of Finance and the Department of Public Works for the construction of a greater number of post offices in rural parishes.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Now, as for public services given out by tenders, I believe that the rural services and delivery of mail are not quite as appreciable and not very trustworthy.
I agree with the member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) on this matter, for I know that many citizens have submitted tenders which were much too low and who lost money because as soon as they get the job, they apply for wage increases, more services or increases in the mail distribution.
Therefore, I think that there is an injustice here, that something is wrong, for among those who tender, some do not figure out things properly, or are unable to submit good tenders; therefore, their service is inadequate, it is not so good, since they lose money.
Whenever you have to face a complaint, wherever something goes wrong in the operation, you find that people are not satisfied with their salary, because some people have submitted tenders that were too low to give the service. Then, they neglect the service somewhat and disregard the mail delivery schedules; they deliver the mail whenever it suits them.
I think that the minister should take that into consideration and set the price for mail service in rural ridings. I think that the villages should have postal service; it would somewhat become the rule in the whole province and everywhere in Canada.
Everyone should be paid the same price if there is a set price and the citizens would therefore be able to earn a livelihood honourably or at least they would not have to work for nothing.
Many citizens are losing money, delivering mail in rural parishes. Therefore, the system
June 2. 1967

has to be improved even if things run smoothly in the post offices.
I think that reforms must certainly be brought about with regard to the awarding of contracts for rural mail service.
As far as stamps are concerned, we are satisfied. Personally, I am satisfied with their variety because every time there is a new issue of stamps, I find them more and more attractive. Therefore, there is not much to say on that score.
The only thing I should say, for instance, is that the Post Office Department is doing a good job. The Postmaster General prints his stamps and he does so in sufficient number for the mail service. As long as there are letters to be mailed, there will be stamps to put on them so that those letters may be sent from one place to another, from one ocean to another.
The stamp system is one of the best we ever had. But what I should like to say and compare with the stamp system is the dollar system which the Minister of Finance and Receiver General (Mr. Sharp) should pattern on the stamp system.
Since we are able to make our own stamps and distribute them without some people taking them over and lending them with interest to exploit others, I think that the dollars of the Dominion should be printed by the Bank of Canada or by the Dominion just like stamps.
Although the Post Office Department, through the pictures on those postage stamps, does its work so well that there is nothing to complain about, I feel that the Department of Finance through the Minister of Finance should print the dollar bills needed in Canada to move products from one person to another and thus render a great service, instead of applying restrictions only. Therefore, when those stamps or slips of paper are needed to move those goods, one would not have to kneel before the financiers who have taken over to such an extent that people are practically unable to breathe.
Therefore, with regard to postage stamps, I think that everything is going very well and we have only congratulations for the minister about that.
Now, there would be many things to say about the Post Office Department and other departments. But I think it is quite well organized as far as salaries are concerned and I would even say in all respects. The minister does his work extremely well.
Supply-Post Office
During the postal strike in Montreal last fall, for instance, he managed very well; he mastered the situation in a short time.
The minister has certainly great capacities and we must once again appreciate his services, and especially the manner in which he organized the employees on the matter of salaries.
There are still many things to do so far as salaries are concerned, as employees ask for more and more all the time, because the cost of living is rising continually. But I know that the minister will prove equal to the task in that connection. If there are postal employees who are not well enough paid, he should see to it that justice is done.
But when the employees are sufficiently paid, we must after all agree there is a limit to everything and there is a rule to everything. So the minister is still there to see that justice is done and that the employees are paid sufficiently everywhere. But he should also see to it that there is no abuse. In the area of wages as in others, in short, among those who work in the Post Office Department or in other departments, there are always people who want more and it is up to the minister to know what to do about it. Up to now, we cannot blame him.
Those, Mr. Chairman were the few remarks I wanted to make.
[English'i


Mr. Canielon:: I have only a few remarks to make. However, I think that before I begin them I should associate myself with what the hon. member for Lambton-Kent had to say about the minister today. His comments were appropriate and highly deserved.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
About a week ago I asked the minister a question concerning library book postal rates. He replied that he had received the petition to which I referred, but since then I have received no indication of his attitude toward these rates. In my area, and in much of Saskatchewan, great efforts have been made during the last few years to organize what are known as regional libraries, with central depots about 150 miles from the rim of each district. This means books have to be transported that far. It is not likely they would be sent by post, but in the outlying areas there are subdivisions which also require delivery of library books.
Since attempts are being made to improve the education of our citizens it would be most

June 2, 1967
Supply-Post Office
unfair and unwise to put any handicap in the way of those attempts. To raise the library book postal rate in effect would do that. Although we all want to see second class mail in particular bear its full cost, this is one area in which relief would be in the national interest. I hope the minister will consider the matter.
I also think the increase in the cost of registration of mail is rather excessive. I suppose cost studies have been made and that the minister feels the costs warrant the increase. If this is true then I have no objection, but I would like to know that such studies have been made.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, like most hon. members who have spoken today, including in particular my hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre, I should like to commend the Postmaster General-


Gordon Minto Churchill: I did not commend him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, in your heart you did. I should like to commend the Postmaster General on the quiet efficiency with which he presides over this important department. I wish him well, and I trust he will continue to exercise that quiet efficiency during the interesting days ahead when collective bargaining comes into play. This is going to be an important era in the public service of Canada, and I am sure we all realize that the postal department is one where this desirable method of arranging for conditions of work and wages will be put to the test. I am sure the minister is as anxious as I am to see it work, and I wish him well, as he presides over this department at this important time. I should also like to say that as a member from the city of Winnipeg I appreciate the courteous service and attention that is given by the postmaster of that city and his employees to those of us who have occasion to send a considerable volume of mail into our constituencies.
If I might be pardoned one other preliminary word, I have noticed with interest that a good many members have associated themselves with the Post Office Department in various ways. The Postmaster General has an interesting connection of his own. My claim to fame in this connection is that my grandmother was postmistress for many years at an important point in Shelburne county, Nova Scotia, and for many years after her death the post office there continued to be known as Knowles' post office. Unfortunately the previous government found out about it, and during that regime Knowles' post office was discontinued, I do not quite know why. But

perhaps something might now be done about it.
However, Mr. Chairman, I rose because of just one issue which I would like to bring to the attention of the minister. I did so by letter and he answered me very courteously, but I still feel the issue should be looked into. I speak on behalf of quite a number of casual employees who get a good deal of work in the Winnipeg post office, and appreciate it. However, they find that despite the fact that they have worked as casuals for many years they never accumulate enough continuous employment to merit their being granted holiday pay. I wrote the minister about this, indicating that I was aware of the regulations. He appreciated that fact but reminded me of them, and said the difficulty is that if people do not get 30 days work on a continuous basis they cannot qualify for the percentage that is allowed under regulations for holiday pay.
The people affected find it a strange coincidence that the amount of work which necessitates their beings called in can be very heavy, but all of a sudden just at the point when they might have enough days to qualify for holiday pay they are laid off and taken back again later. They never get this holiday pay which is provided under regulations affecting government employees, on a basis similar to that provided to those who are under federal labour jurisdiction by virtue of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code.
I would ask that this matter be examined again. I realize the regulations in this respect are not regulations of the Post Office Department. They are regulations that apply to government employees generally. Maybe the minister could do something about these regulations, but at least I think he should make sure that the suspicions of the people affected are not valid. The suspicions could be removed if on occasion these people with many years of casual service could qualify for holiday pay and I urge the minister to see that this is done.


Mr. Enns:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Queens voiced valid concern over the lack of provision for a commemoration stamp in memory of our first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald. I myself expressed this concern in questions during the first session of this parliament, and on this occasion I want to support the hon. member and deplore this lack.
I have a question relating to special delivery to rural post offices. It seems to me there
June 2, 1967

is no point in mailing a special delivery letter to very small rural post offices because they do not have any special facilities to deliver them. Mail at these points is picked up only once or twice a week, and if a special delivery letter happens to arrive after a person has picked up his mail, how is he to be made aware of the fact? I believe some compensation ought to be given to the local postmaster for delivering such a letter, or for informing the recipient by telephone of its presence. In many small rural communities although phones may be only a few miles apart calls between them are long distance calls. Is there any compensation paid to local postmasters for delivery of special delivery letters?


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring three short specific points to the minister's attention in the hope that they will receive serious consideration. One deals with the town of Ridgetown, Ontario, and the post office facilities in it. A new post office building has been postponed for a long time, and for many reasons. I would request that the minister lend his weight to seeing that the new building is constructed at an early date. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, it was so bad that complaints came in about the despicable state of repair of the building, which formerly had been used as a municipal building, fire hall, and post office. The fact is that complaints did come to the government department, together with a request that the broken windows be repaired, that the lawns be mown and that the facilities be taken care of because the property was such an eyesore.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
The second matter has to do with the hardships suffered by those in small local post offices. I do not feel that in this regard there should be such strict adherence to the regulations as there has been. I am not one who believes that regulations should be circumvented in any way, but certainly the requirement which requires people to return to their post offices for one hour on Saturday afternoon works a hardship on the people who run these post offices in some of the local areas. Normally they would be free at noon on Saturday and would have the afternoon off. Under the proposed regulations, in order to fit in with the labour standards, they are required to return to open the post office for one hour only.
On the same day they may have been forced to close the post office at eleven o'clock and could not issue mail during the lunch hour. I believe that in circumstances such as
Supply-Post Office
this strict adherence to the regulations should not circumvent good sense in this regard. I have no quarrel at all with the people in the local administration because they have done everything they could. They too however are bound by the regulations. I am wondering therefore whether in situations such as this the minister could make some provision so that the whole pattern of a community is not interrupted, so that the people who pick up their kiddies from school could, as they have done through the years, pick up their mail at the same time during the lunch hour, and so that when the women are shopping they could pick up their mail on their way home at noon. In this way the whole routine of the community would not be upset due to the 40 hour week.
There is one other matter with which I should like to deal. This also has to do with strict adherence to the regulations. Surely when one lives within 50 feet or 100 yards of the area where the rural district stops and the urban district begins there must be a way to circumvent the regulations so that a person who is aged or incapacitated is not inconvenienced or subjected to dire hardship. Due to the fact that some people live just beyond the pale they are put to the inconvenience of having to resort to the goodness of their neighbours in having their mail looked after. I am sure the minister and those in the department will take care of these things. I am sure also that these regulations were never intended to work a hardship on the people concerned, but rather were intended as guide lines to help provide an efficient service. I would really hope that the minister would give consideration to the problems I have outlined.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Chairman, I know the members of the house are very anxious to get these estimates through before five o'clock. I should like to make a few comments on the general points which were brought up during this discussion, First, I should like to thank all hon. members who took part in this debate for the constructive way they have presented their criticisms and for the comments they made in respect of myself personally. I appreciate this and I shall take the advice of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, that I do not permit myself to be carried away by these comments.
As most hon. members are aware, on the one hand I was asked to try to balance the budget and get rid of the deficit, and on the other hand I received criticism in respect of

June 2, 1967
Supply-Post Office
the recent increased costs. If I increased only the third class services, this was because I could do it on my own without asking for the approval of parliament. So far as the second class services are concerned, I intend in the fall to ask for authority in this regard from parliament.
With regard to c.o.d.'s, special deliveries, library books, and so on, we know exactly how much these services cost. Even if there is a slight increase in some instances and a considerable increase in others, we are still losing money on these items we are delivering.
Much has been said about the rural routes. This is a situation which I intend to change as a result of the amendments to the Post Office Act which I plan to bring in during the fall. There will be some changes. Let us say that perhaps these rural couriers for many years have been the worst political victims in this department. It was, though perhaps not a rule, at least a well established practice that if one of these contracts had ended, the government which was in power would ask the member of parliament for that constituency or the defeated candidate whether in his opinion the contract should be renewed -because the Postmaster General has the right to renew these contracts-or whether tenders should be asked on it.
I stopped this practice, Mr. Chairman, because I believe this is something which has been very bad for the poor rural couriers, who are endeavouring to make a living. I do not believe it should always be necessary for them to retender every four years, because in order to be reasonably sure they would obtain the contract they sometimes would tender at an amount lower than that which they had been receiving under the previous contract. This would mean that they would have to wait two more years in order to have it readjusted. I believe if the regional manager finds that a rural courier is doing a good job, that rural courier should have his contract renewed automatically.
Readjustments are being made every second year. One exception, however, is that in respect of the last increases which were given we added an amount for the contribution to the Canada Pension Plan, and another amount in lieu of the holidays, which cannot be given.
So far as stamps are concerned, although we have had many criticisms of our stamps, people who know about philately say that our stamps are of very good quality. I was asked

exactly what the procedure is in this regard. We decide how many stamps should be issued in a year and what things should be commemorated. We ask some well known artist to design stamps for us. Sometimes we receive ten, 12 or 15 different drawings. It is up to the Postmaster General to decide which of these should be accepted. I must say that on some occasions when there are seven, eight or ten different designs I do not have too much choice. It becomes a matter of choosing the one which is not the worst. This makes it more difficult. If we were to form a committee to select the stamps, I believe this would be merely an effort to place the responsibility on someone else when, I believe, the Postmaster General should accept that responsibility.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The opening remarks in respect of this discussion were made by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent. He seemed to be very confused concerning the manner in which the estimates are prepared. I must say that the post office is one of seven or eight departments which have developed a system of program budgeting as recommended by the Glassco Commission. One thing still not shown in the estimates is the amount the department has to pay the Department of Public Works for buildings. This will be shown, and I am sorry the report of the Postmaster General was not printed by the Queen's Printer in time for distribution before consideration of my estimates. I understand they will be completed in a few days.
In the past I have followed the practice of answering by letter hon. members' questions raised during the consideration of my estimates, and I intend to do the same thing this time.
Perhaps I could cover one other point raised by the hon. member for Wellington South concerning the proposal to make this department a crown corporation. A study is presently being carried out to determine whether this would be a good idea for Canada and for the employees. I know that in other countries where postal services are performed by a crown corporation they do not have services as good as ours. I also know in other countries which have not changed to a crown corporation their service is much worse than ours. We must determine by study whether this would improve the service in Canada, and if those studies indicate that there would be an improvement I will be the first one to*
June 2, 1967



press the government for the establishment of a crown corporation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Such a move would reduce the size of the cabinet.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: That might be true, but perhaps we would then be looking for a president for the crown corporation. Maybe you would be interested.
I do not believe there is much point in commenting on this suggestion without having all the figures and facts resulting from the study. My deputy minister was in London in May to meet his counterpart there to find out how the crown corporation is operating, and this is part of the study which is taking place.
One or two questions were raised by the hon. member for York-Humber regarding the rates and costs of our air service through Air Canada. At one time the rate was as high as $9.25 per ton mile. We are now paying 52.1 cents per ton mile.
Mr. Chairman, may I continue?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't ask; just carry on.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the minister wish to continue for a few minutes after five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Let us not see the clock.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee agree to allow the minister to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Just for five minutes.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: The hon. member for Lambton-Kent asked about publicity by the use of film, and said that he had not seen any as yet. We are using clips on television at Christmas time urging people to mail early. We also have a centennial film to be used as a publicity vehicle to show the history and growth of the Canadian post office in conjunction with the history and growth of Canada.
The hon. member for Vancouver East made quite a plea in respect of the Pony Express employees in Vancouver. It is not easy for a government which decides, for good reasons, to take over a certain service; but I think a government department should be allowed to do so when it is felt advantageous to the department. There is a problem in relation to the employees who worked for this contractor, but the contractor was not sure of having the contract permanently. I believe that we should ask for tenders every four years, so
Supply-Post Office
that these contracts are made subject to tender.
Perhaps I should say that in big cities we cannot always call for tenders because there is no one else but the present contractor who has the number of trucks and employees necessary to operate this type of service. In some of these cities the contracts have been renewed as a result of not calling for tenders for 12 to 15 years. I do not think this is the good or the right way to run a business. We should make it possible to have competition in this area of the postal service.
Having regard to the Pony Express service, we received 291 applications from people other than the employees of the Pony Express for the jobs available, and they were agreeable to accepting the rate which everyone else doing this work in the Post Office Department is receiving. Incidentally this rate was agreed to by the postal unions. Of the 291 applications, there were 11 from post office employees, four of which qualified. We received three applications from employees of the Pony Express. One was qualified; one did not pass the driver's test and one was not suitable for the job. We are trying our best to help these people, but we still have problems because many of them cannot qualify under the regulations of the Post Office Department. We hope that as a result of the experience we are gaining our transportation services will prove satisfactory.
The hon. member for Springfield raised a question about rates of pay for postmasters in rural areas throughout the country. Let me say that this year the increases granted varied between 7 per cent and 29 per cent and they were interim increases. As a result these postmasters received the biggest increase they have ever had. We are also using these increased figures in a general reclassification of postmasters and assistants in order to create a better balance in respect of the pay they receive in relation to the work they are performing.
The hon. member also referred to third class mail lying on counters. I will look into this situation, but I must say this is the first time I have heard about it.
Mr. Chairman, I think that covers about everything, although perhaps I should say something about the problems raised by the hon. member for Gaspe. I think we have made great improvement in postal services in that area over the past few years. People are beginning to realize that we are giving much better service. At a later time I will provide

June 2, 1967
Canada Elections Act
that hon. members with the explanations for which he has asked.
I shall also look into problems relating to casual employees. We have had some difficulty in this regard throughout the country, but we are faced with certain difficulties because of the regulations of the Public Service Act, and we have to be guided by this act.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)

The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) spoke to me of the philatelic gallery which is there and which I had the pleasure to visit. I can say that Mr. Levesque who built and owns this gallery has done extraordinary work to try to retrace the history throughout the eras and we are most interested in getting, in the department, a kind of curator who could organize a philatelic gallery so that people who come to visit the capital could see the riches we now have in the department. The department owns an extraordinary number of stamps which are not exhibited, but held in files and it would be most interesting for the Canadian people to have the opportunity of seeing these items.

That is about all I have to say, Mr. Chairman. As I said before, any answers that I could not give today will be given by me in the next few weeks.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: This completes the estimates of the Department of the Postmaster General.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister has shown some of the others how to do it.


Reynold Rapp: He deserves it. He does not challenge anything, but just answers the questions he is asked.
Resolution adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The house will now proceed to the consideration of private members business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills and private bills.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-3, to amend the Canada Elections Act (publication of straw poll results).
tMr. Cdte (Longueuil).]
He said: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of different types of public bills on the order paper and I think this one fits into a very broad category in which there should be discussion by all persons concerned, rather than a member trying to express an independent point of view, as happens with respect to many of the bills dealt with in this hour. The purpose of this bill is not to eliminate the taking of public opinion polls. I think the opinion polls that have been taken have had a fairly uncanny accuracy. It is surprising when one looks back at the results projected in elections, in particular, and sees the accuracy these polls have displayed. I think this raises a doubt, however, as to whether this particular tool should be allowed to be used during an election.
It is interesting to note that in conducting a straw poll or an opinion poll you are taking the opinion of a very small section of the population. If it is done scientifically and covers a broad spectrum of public opinion, though the number may be very small the result will probably produce the fairly accurate opinion of those asked the specific question. This of course raises, in a political sense, a great deal of difficulty. It was interesting to watch last year the manipulations that took place in political parties in the province of Ontario. My political party has been no less involved than others in the taking of polls for the assessment of public opinion in respect of its philosophy. It was interesting last year to read that the Liberals in conducting their opinion poll found the Conservatives to be in a very low position in the eyes of those polled. They found they were not too well off and surprisingly agreed that the New Democrats in Ontario had made very large gains. The Conservatives took a poll which showed they were not quite so badly off, and they also indicated that the N.D.P. had made very sizeable gains.
I have the opportunity of sitting on the executive of the Ontario section of my party, and sat in on a number of discussions where the enthusiasm which you might expect for these polls was totally absent. In fact a great deal of controversy was raised about what the results of these polls really meant, so much so that the executive finally decided to take an opinion poll of their own. They were going to do it very honestly. There was a difference of opinion in how we should word the question contained in the poll in order to achieve a result that we thought would be accurate. We did not want to achieve the result we would like to see, but one which was accurate. There
June 2, 1967

was considerable difficulty in a number of people deciding what question should be asked in order to obtain an accurate sampling of the electorate, rather than asking the kind of question that would get a huge majority of "yesses" in answering the question asked.
I think anyone who has been concerned with the taking of opinion polls will agree that they are only of value if the person asking the question has no interest in the result of the poll, other than in a scientific sense. The question has to be asked in such a way that it is not a leading question, such as: Have you quit beating your wife yet? It does not really make much difference whether the answer to that question is yes or no; the opinion poll indicates that you had been beating her in the past. This is a very easy type of question to set up. It seems to me that if you conduct an opinion poll during an election, you might as well not have the election. Certainly all the dictatorships and all the countries in which they have state newspapers conduct opinion polls wherein the question is oriented so that it will receive the required answer. This does not establish an opinion of the electorate; it is asking for the opinion of the electorate but deciding what the answer shall be.
If you check history you will see this is partly the reason why the national socialist or nazi party of Germany was able to win an overwhelming vote in 1936 or 1937. The question that is asked elicits only one answer, and anybody who is willing to cast a ballot provides that answer.
I believe that elections are an important and integral part of our democratic process. This is not to say that politicians and political parties have not a major role to play because I believe they do. I believe that election issues should be decided by a thinking, informed electorate on the facts which are provided. It seems to me that the electorate should have as much information provided as is possible, that political propaganda or even the popularity of an individual should play an important role. The news media should provide information on both the pro's and con's of all problems or issues. All the information possible should be provided to the electorate so they can make a decision.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Now, each of the political parties should have, and usually does have, the right to put forward its views in clear, informative way so 27053-71
Canada Elections Act
that the electorate is really an informed electorate and will make a decision in the national interest. It seems that if an opinion poll is conducted during an election campaign and the results are printed, there is a tendency for the public to be influenced by those results. There are of course many people who will say they want to be on the winning side. If there are many who take this attitude, then they are not going to make an intelligent decision.
I believe that opinion polls should be conducted. The only thing this amendment attempts to do is to prohibit the publication of the results of an opinion poll between the time an election is called and the time the election is held. The results can be made known of course afterwards, when they would not influence the election results.
Some members will say this is a restriction on the right of agencies to conduct opinion polls. However, this step has been taken in British Columbia. I have not been able to ascertain whether British Columbia experienced some unfortunate incident which caused the passage of legislation of this type. However, it has not been possible, under penalty of law, to conduct an opinion poll in British Columbia and publish the result during an election.
I believe there is some merit in the restriction I suggest. I believe it will become more and more important as political parties gain some equality in ability to get their message across to the people. As I say, changes may take place where political parties will be allowed a certain amount of money per voter to get their message across to the electorate.
I think most people will agree that political parties should be able to provide information about their platform and their record, and they should have an obligation to make the electorate understand the issues of the day and their role in these issues. This would enable the electorate to make a decision. I feel therefore if we are looking at amendments to the election act, that the publication of the results of opinion polls should be prohibited at certain times. The history of opinion polls in Canada has been unlike that of the United States. Our opinion polls have been fairly accurate in their forecasts. Sometimes you wonder whether the accuracy stems from the publication of these polls or whether this is an indication of the influence they have upon people.
I think everyone will agree that unless the questioner is totally unbiased or the question is asked in a way to elicit information, it

June 2, 1967
Canada Elections Act
would be very difficult indeed to make accurate forcasts on the basis of the poll being conducted. For this reason, I believe the question merits some study by a committee.
This matter should not be considered in a political way, but as to whether or not this prohibition will result in a more informed electorate, and electorate that is better able to make its own judgment. This may strengthen the role of democracy. I suggest that those who believe it will do so should support this bill, whereas those who believe these polls are a tool of politics should oppose the bill.
As I have said, I believe that each political party in Ontario has gone into this field. Evidently there is not going to be an election in Ontario this spring and that may be partly because of the publication of these opinion polls. This may have had some influence on the deicison not to hold an election, and that may be good or bad. I think it is unfair that the results of any poll should be published a few days before an election, if it has any influence on the electorate. I think most of us agree the attitude is wrong, but some person will say: I have to be on the winning side, and this looks like the winning side.
I say this, Mr. Speaker, knowing full well that from time to time the winning side may change. When I first thought of this idea, I probably thought of it because we may have been on the wrong side. Time may have changed that situation and opinion polls, properly conducted may be advantageous to us. However, I feel they should not be looked at in a narrow way if we are changing the elections act. We should make changes in a manner which will give us the best possible elections act, so as to develop an informed electorate and so that national interests can be served.


Mr. Jean-Eudes Dube (Resiigouche-Madaevaska):: polls to evaluate their personal popularity.
The polls have grown so technical, so perfected, so accurate, that they enable the candidates to adjust their image, their aim to the wishes of their electors.
Even some very flexible American candidates can suddenly become more conservative or liberal or socialist according to the findings, the tastes of their electors, as revealed by those polls which have become very accurate.
It seems that the president of the United States is somewhat allergic to polls and his blood pressure goes up or down according to his popularity ratings.
There is no doubt that his policy, and probably several of his daily decisions are at least in part affected to some extent by those political polls.
Even the way the Viet Nam war is carried out cannot escape completely that natural reaction. In exaggerating a little, one might conclude that the fate of humanity can be decided on the results of a Gallup or a Lou Harris poll.
Here, in Canada, as the race for the leadership of a party, that is the leadership of the Conservative party, is gathering impetus, if ever it does, public opinion polls will enlighten us a little on the subject.
And I hope that these polls on the popularity of each candidate will bring to light the degree of popularity or lack of it of the respective candidates.
I think that the publication of such results, such soundings concerning the respective popularity of the candidates, would have a beneficial effect on the delegates to this convention and in fact on all Canadians who really want to understand the situation.
Actually, Mr. Speaker, public opinion is playing an increasingly important role in our society. I believe that a profound knowledge of the opinion of those who are governed can help those who govern.
In this respect, perhaps I may be allowed to quote a passage from this little book entitled "L'opinion publique", written by Alfred Sauvy and published by the French university press.
I quote from page 122:
The governed must express themselves-
It is necessary that the opinion of the public be known, that is the opinion of the whole body of the governed. The public authorities have not received from the electorate sufficient indications
27053-71 i
Canada Elections Act
on which to base their decisions on the issues coming up. No doubt, they lack a peremptory mandate, no doubt it could also be said that they must vote according to their conscience, taking into account a state of mind of those who have appointed them.
In no country, however, do the governed give up all participation between elections.
If a government and a parliament were to act in ignorance of the views of the governed, they would risk doing things which would not be approved and passing legislation or decrees that could not be enforced. Implementation requires a minimum of consent by the governed.
This is particularly true of internal policy. Foreign policy does not require as much checking with public opinion (and often goes without) as long as no contribution (tax, military, etc.) and too noticeable risks are involved.
Nevertheless, again in this area, the value of knowing the opinion of the governed is well understood.
Obviously, science as regards public opinion polls and technology is far from having achieved perfection and opinion polls err from time to time. It is nevertheless a science in process of development, but which would not achieve full growth should the state take upon itself to restrict it. Now I believe the bill introduced today, bill No C-3, is indeed a restriction of some kind in the final analysis.
At the time of the last general election in 1965, the Gallup poll had predicted a margin of 15 per cent in favour of the government's candidates, in favour of the Liberal party. As a matter of fact that margin, as we know, was reduced to 7 per cent over the Conservative party on election night. Peter Regenstreiff, of happy or unhappy memory, was another one, as we can remember, who was very much on the wrong track.
Needless to say that the newspapers in favour of the opposition parties made ample protests at the time. Allow me to quote, in this connection, a few excerpts from an editorial of the Fredericton Daily Gleaner, dated November 13, 1965. The article is under the heading: "Confusing the Electorate".

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I wish to quote the first two paragraphs of this editorial, which appeared in the Fredericton Daily Gleaner issue of Saturday, November 13, 1965:
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
We publish on another page today the Gallup poll's explanation of its failure to rightly assess the results of the federal election. It is, in our opinion, a most unsatisfactory explanation.

June 2, 19S7
Canada Elections Act
Amazingly, the Gallup poll praises its own "accuracy" and claims that its figures were reasonable and within a "normal sampling error of 4 per cent."
A little farther down the article continues:
We believe that the Gallup poll should apologize publicly for confusing the electorate in this way.

Besides, the Daily Gleaner, which is a Conservative newspaper, I would say ultra conservative and even hostile to modern methods and changes, even the Daily Gleaner does not suggest that the taking of opinion polls be prohibited. I now quote the last paragraph of that report entitled "Confusing the Electorate".

British Columbia's Attorney-General Robert Bonner says that political polls cast an unnatural light on electioneering and should be scrapped. We do not agree with him because we believe that freedom of expression demands that there shall be no barriers placed upon public opinion



Therefore, if the publication of Gallup type opinion polls taken to sound out the electorate was prohibited during political campaigns, as proposed in Bill No. C-3, the public would automatically be deprived of very valuable sources of information, even though they are not completely accurate yet, and even though that science requires more research. And, should the bill in question be passed, those sources of information, those opinion polls would still be available to the rich, the powerful, the potentates who would have the necessary funds for their own unpublished private polls.
I find it bit strange for a supporter of the socialist philosophy to advocate, in this house, a limitation of information media, a limitation in favour of the privileged classes, to the detriment of the worker and the man on the street who could not afford those polls which would still be avilable to those who are in a better financial position.
Mr. Speaker, I should also like to refer, in this connection, to a few paragraphs taken from an article published in the Ottawa Citizen on April 25, 1966 under the heading:

"Britons consider ban on election pollsters". I shall quote from that part of the article headed "Proof needed":
But since opinion polling is such a strong force, there would be dangers in allowing a government to prohibit it without considerable evidence that it is a serious evil, The Times adds.
An alternative would be to ban betting but The Times concludes that even this would not be
IMr. Dube.]
easy since betting undoubtedly would continue underground.
The pulse takers, who have turned opinion polls into big business, are watching the debate with some apprehension. Henry Durant, director of the British Gallup poll, suggests that without opinion polls, democracy would be operating in the dark.
"Can any argument be brought against polls which cannot also be brought against newspapers, radio and television?" he asks. "Is it better to have polls driven underground, undertaken by the rich for their private benefit rather than to have them made and published in the open?"

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to echo the remarks of a journalist, an economist from London, as reported in the article already mentioned in the Ottawa Citizen.

I am quoting again from the article in the Ottawa Citizen of Monday, April 25, 1966:
To settle the whole argument, a member of The Economist magazine staff suggests with tongue in cheek; "Surely now is the time to conduct an opinion poll on the effect of opinion polls on voting behavior."


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I find myself in opposition to this measure. I think it is a potential curtailment of freedom of expression and it is certainly a curtailment of freedom of research. Many who are interested in public opinion sampling and in the taking of polls are not politicians. The behavioural scientists, sociologists, or political scientists are more than ever before engaged in this activity.
If this measure ever became part of the Canada Elections Act it would be a great denial, I think, to students in these fields. I quite agree that it is important to improve and make more scientific the conduct of public opinion polling. Hon. members are becoming amateur public opinion pollsters through the use of questionnaires. I find the amendment extremely restrictive. It would forbid the individual even by word of mouth to pass on information of certain kinds. For instance, you could not have information about what the taxi drivers are saying. Some persons go to meetings and ask: "What about the taxi drivers? What are they saying?" The answer is, "Oh, they are for" so and so. Such persons would even be prohibited from asking those questions and reporting the answers by this extremely restrictive act.
I am appalled by the suggestion that public opinion polls are fine until the election campaign starts. You have public opinion polls all the way through, and perhaps they indicate that a certain party has the allegiance of 65
June 2, 1967

per cent of the electorate. Then the election conies along; the people now know who the candidates are and what their views are. They know what the question is that they have to vote on. To say: "You cannot take polls, now that an election is on and publish the results" would mean that lingering through the election campaign would be the memory of a poll which was manifestly out of date, which was taken before the platforms were announced or before the issues were joined. In other words the only poll would be one that had been taken before the actual and real question could possibly have been posed to the electorate. This, I think, is the most regrettable part of this measure.
I presume the hon. member feels that the release of information taken from polls constitutes an improper influence on the voter. I am not so worried about that aspect, and I belong to the party that has been more often badly served than any other by public opinion polls of this country. In my opinion the release of results taken from the public opinion poll is only one factor which might influence the electorate, and during election campaigns many devices are designed to that end.
You have public meetings; you go in and say "Everybody is for me," and you hope that every newspaper will write, "The hall was packed." You even pay for an advertisement in the paper which says: The swing is to Joe, or to Bill, the people's candidate. In this way you are seeking to influence public opinion. If we are to forbid the professors of sociology from conducting polls, what about editorialists who in their editorials say: I think that such and such party will sweep the country? What about the pundits, the columnists, of which Charles Lynch is an example? Every time I read Charles Lynch saying that somebody will be defeated I mark that person down as somebody to be elected. In an election I should miss Charles Lynch. By reading him I know to whom to send my congratulatory letters in advance.
I am not worried about the spectre that the hon. member raises. It seems to me that by passing such legislation we should reveal a lack of faith in the rational processes of the people we represent. I think we can trust the people. They are not, surely, primarily motivated by the hope that they are to be on the winning side. If that were the case, some of us would never have gotten here, because there are many people in this chamber who were not billed as winners, and many times had elections followed public opinion polls
Canada Elections Act
there would have been an altogether different result. I think of 1957 as a prime example of this.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I am not impressed by British Columbia being cited as an example of a province where polls are banned. I see no real evidence that the political judgment of people in British Columbia is so much superior to that of Nova Scotia where we do have public opinion polls, and also I think extremely good judgment is known on "the day." I am always fearful of any legislation which seeks to protect the people against themselves. Let us have all the data which is available. Let us have the pollsters. If the average citizen knows that the Liberal party or the Conservative party has published a poll it would occur to him, I have no doubt, that there might be a certain element of bias attached to it.
The public knows that while polls are often right, they are frequently wrong, and I doubt that many people, when the crunch is on and they move into the silence of the poll booth, say to themselves: The public opinion polls tell us that so and so will win, and we want to make sure we prove the public opinion pollsters to be right. I believe they have more than that on their minds.
Let us trust the people. Give them the data. Let them put it through the mill of their own thinking, and I believe they will come up with a solution which is satisfactory to them and which is the result of free, democratic choice.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew North):: support the sentiments of the last speaker in opposing this legislation which would prohibit the use of public polls after the issue of a writ of election. I do so because I do not think the bill is very complimentary to the electorate.
Today we have an electorate composed of people who are quite capable of making up their own minds. I do not think they will be bullied into voting one way or another just because newspapers publish public opinion polls.
What if we were to pass this legislation? Suppose we did make it illegal to use public opinion polls in the course of an election. What is there to prevent the United States television stations and radio stations across the border broadcasting all the public opinion polls taken in Canada, or even conducting such polls themselves and transmitting the

June 2, 1967
Canada Elections Act
results as news to Canadians across the border?
We are told, after all, that 80 per cent of the Canadian population lives in a zone 100 miles north of the United States border. For this reason alone I would say it was nonsense for this house to be considering such a bill as is now before us, taking account of the news media which are now available. Even if we were to pass this bill it would not be effective; the news media would not be stymied.
I should like to cite the example of Mr. Regenstrief's prediction of the Social Credit upsurge in northern Quebec and other areas of Quebec in 1962. He was quite accurate in his prediction. But he did not create this movement. The ideas were there to begin with; he simply identified them. This I believe is what public opinion polls try to do.
We are told they have such a law as this in British Columbia. But what evidence is there to show it has been a good thing?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It has kept the Grits out of office.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Look what they have got, though.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: British Columbia does not have a Hansard either.
Is that a good thing? We have a more educated electorate today and, as I say, people will not be bullied into voting one way or another just because something appears in a newspaper.
I remember that in my own campaign in 1965 a person came from the headquarters of the opposition and stated, on the basis of a survey, that his party was well out in the lead in my riding. I believe this man's name was Goodman. Mr. Goodman was a little out on
that occasion. It just goes to prove that regardless of how often these statistics are published, people make up their own minds, basically, in accordance with their personal judgments. I do not think the publication of an opinion poll has any more influence on the public than many biased articles which appear in newspapers from time to time. I believe Canadians read their newspapers with a grain of salt, and that they make up their minds only after reading several newspapers or after listening to commentaries by various people. On this basis they decide what is closest to the truth.
In conclusion, let me say this. There is one thing of which every politician must be well aware. It is that we are all here with the consent of the public back home, and there are always people across Canada who can take our places. If anything were to happen to us today, the world would go on just the same. The electors would still carry on and make up their minds on the basis of what they think best for our country.
If I had time I would bring up the topic of the 1948 election in the United States. However, I see I do not have time in which to do so. I wish only to say I am quite satisfied to leave the fate of these polls to the good judgment of the Canadian people. I do not think we need attempt to stymie the news media in any way, because the good judgment of the electorate will make up the difference.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following item was passed in Committee of Supply this day: ]

[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 5, 1967