1968-10-08

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Ian Wahn (St. Paul's) presented the first report of the standing committee on external affairs and national defence, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
[Editor's note: For report referred to above see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council) presented the second report of the special committee appointed to prepare and report lists of members to compose the standing committees of the house, as follows:
AGRICULTURE Messrs:
Lessard (Lac Saint-Jean) Lind Major McKinley
Moore (Wetaskiwin)
Muir (Lisgar)
Peters Pringle
Smith (Saint-Jean) Southam
Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay)
Thomson (Battleford-Kindersley)
Whicher Yanakis
Lefebvre
Barrett
Beer
Borrie
Cote (Richelieu)
Cyr
Danforth
Douglas
Foster
Gauthier
Horner
Howard (Okanagan Boundary)
Gleave
Korchinski
Lambert (Bellechasse) La Salle

[Stage Direction]
Anderson
de Bane
Dinsdale
Durante
Fairweather
Gervais
Guilbault
Hymmen
La Salle
Matte
Messrs:
Mongrain
McCleave
McGrath
Osier
Rose
Schreyer
Schumacher
Stewart (Cochrane)
Stafford
Stanbury
FINANCE, TRADE	AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS Messrs:
Blair	Gillespie
Breau	Gray
Burton	Hales
Clermont	Harkness
Comtois	Lambert (Edmonton
Danson	West)
de Bane	Latulippe
Downey	Roberts
Emard	Saltsman
Flemming Gauthier	Trudel
FISHERIES AND FORESTRY Messrs:	
Blouin	Howard (Skeena)
Breau	Lundrigan
Comeau	Mather
Crouse	McQuaid
Crossman	Moores (Bonavista-
Cyr	Trinity-Concep tion)
Dionne	Noble
Durante	Smith (Northumberland-
Goode	Miramichi)
Hogarth	Smith (Saint-Jean)
Honey	Whelan
HEALTH AND WELFARE AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS Messrs:	
Forget	McBride
Fortin	Monteith
Foster	Osier
Gendron	Ritchie
Godin	Robinson
Guilbault	Rochon
Howe	Roy (Timmins)
Isabelle	Rynard
Knowles (Winnipeg	Thomas (Maisonneuve)
North Centre) Maclnnis (Mrs.)	Yewchuk
(V ancou ver-Kingsway)	
INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN	
DEVELOPMENT Messrs:	
Badanai	McKinley
Buchanan	Nielsen
Cullen	O'Connell
Dinsdale	Orlikow
Guay (Levis)	Simpson
Howard (Skeena)	Smerchanski
Kaplan	Southam
Laprise	St. Pierre
Leblanc (Laurier)	Watson
Marchand (Kamloops- Yewchuk Cariboo)	
[Stage Direction]
October 8, 1968
NATIONAL	Standing Committees RESOURCES AND PUBLIC WORKS
Aiken	Messrs: Hopkins
Beaudoin	Laflamme
Chappell	Langlois
Code	Moores (Bonavista-
Comeau	Trinity-Conception)
Danson	Orange
Deakon	Ricard
Gilbert	Serre
Grills	Smerchanski
Harding	Sulatycky
Harries JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS	
Messrs:
Brewin	MacGuigan
Brown	Marceau
Blair	McCleave
Cantin	McQuaid
Chappell	Ouellet
Gervais	Rondeau
Gibson	Schumacher
Gilbert	Tolmie
Hogarth	Valade
MacEwan	Woolliams
LABOUR, MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION Messrs:	
Alexander	Loiselle
Broadbent	MacEwan
Caccia	McNulty
Deachman	Muir (Lisgar)
Dumont	Murphy
Duquet	Otto
Knowles	Paproski
(Norfolk-Haldimand) Reid	
Knowles (Winnipeg	Thompson (Red Deer)
North Centre)	Turner
Lachance	Whiting
REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT Messrs:	
Broadbent	Lundrigan
Brown	MacDonald (Egmont)
Comtois	Mazankowski
Corbin	McGrath
Gauthier	Morison
Guay (Levis)	Nystrom
Korchinski	Rock
Leblanc (Laurier)	Roy (Laval)
LeBlanc (Rimouski)	Stewart (Marquette)
Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean)	Whiting
TRANSPORT	AND COMMUNICATIONS Messrs:
Blouin	Lessard (Lasalle)
Caccia	Mahoney
Carter	Nesbitt
Coates	Noel
Corbin	Nowlan
Douglas	Pringle
Godin	Schreyer
Horner	Serre
Jerome	Skoberg
Laflamme	Thomas (Moncton)

VETERANS AFFAIRS Messrs:	
Bigg	McIntosh
Boulanger	Mongrain
Emard	Peters
Guay (St. Boniface)	Rochon
Hopkins	Roy (Timmins)
Knowles (Norfolk-	Saltsman
Haldimand)	Stafford
Latulippe	Thomas (Moncton)
Legault	Turner (London East)
MacRae Marshall	Whicher
MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES Messrs:	
Alkenbrack	Paproski
Ethier	Peddle
Francis	Penner
Gundlock	Perrault
Laniel	Prud'homme
LeBlanc (Rimouski)	Robinson
Marchand (Kamloops	- Rodrigue
Cariboo)	Stewart (Marquette)
Mather	Thomson (Battleford-
McCutcheon	Kindersley)
Noel	Weatherhead
MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS AND	
STANDING ORDERS Messrs:	
Benjamin	Goode
Cadleu (Meadow Lake) Gundlock	
Caccia	Mahoney
Duquet	Otto
Forget	Rondeau
Givens	Scott
PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS Messrs:	
Aiken	Mazankowski
Benjamin	Peddle
Cafik	Portelance
Downey	Prud'homme
Fortin	Richard
Jerome	Ritchie
Howard (Skeena)	Ryan
Kaplan	Sullivan
MacGuigan	Trudel
Marceau	Valade
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS Messrs:	
Allmand	Howard (Okanagan
Bigg	Boundary)
Burton	Lefebvre
Cafik	Noble
Cobbe	Nowlan
Crouse	Rock
Cullen	Rodrigue
Ethier	Rondeau
Flemming	Thomas (Maisonneuve)
Hales	Winch Yanakis
October 8. 1968

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Barrett
Benjamin
Cadieu (Meadow Lake)
Cobbe
Corbin
Dumont
Durante
Forget
Forrestall
Hopkins
Howard (Okanagan Boundary)
MacRae
Marshall
McBride
McCutcheon
Moore (Wetaskiwin)
Muir (Lisgar)
Noel
Penner
Rodrigue
Skoberg
Stewart (Cochrane) Trudel
Beaudoin
Caccia
Cafik
Dumont
Fairweather
Forest
Givens
Gleave
Harding
Lambert (Edmonton West)
LIBRARY Messrs:
Legault
MacGuigan
Macquarrie
Mongrain
Nowlan
Prud'homme
Reid
Ritchie
Scott
Serre
St. Pierre
Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) moved: that the report be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-115 intituled "An act to amend the Canada Corporations Act (Not agent for Her Majesty)".
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I wonder whether the Prime Minister has had an opportunity to conduct the necessary consultations and can now say whether the proposed meeting of the continuing committee of the Prime Minister and the provincial premiers on the constitution will be held before Christmas as planned.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I wrote to all the premiers of the provinces a few days ago, following my earlier letter of two weeks ago, suggesting that the general assessment of the situation at that time was that most provinces might be agreeable to a date early in December, around December 8 or 9 if my memory is correct. However, I did indicate in these letters that I had written a different kind of letter to the premier of Quebec and the premier of Alberta, in view of the recent situation which has developed in those countries-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Woolliams:: He has been talking to the hon. member for Calgary South.


Mr. Trudeau:: For some of you country boys I think this would be welcome.


Mr. Horner:: Check Hansard on that one.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not correct Hansard the same as those hon. members.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether the Prime Minister is now addressing the chair.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker-indicating that in view of the particular situation in those two provinces we might give leeway to the two premiers in suggesting an alternative date, but that it was still our hope to have the meeting on the dates suggested in December. We are awaiting replies, Mr. Speaker.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I want to address a question to the Minister without Portfolio who acts in the place of the Minister of Transport, who has responsibility for housing and according to the schedule is supposed to be here today.
I should like to ask the Acting Minister of Transport whether he can assure the house that the $170 million the Minister of Transport announced would be made available to private developers and builders for building family units will not in any way reduce the amount of money to be made available this year for public housing.
October 8, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. James Richardson (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to look into that question and report to the hon. member.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I address a supplementary question to the Prime Minister, who I understand is responsible as to which ministers should or should not be here. May I ask him whether he and his government can assure the house and the country that the $170 million now being made available for private building purposes does not in any way reduce the amount of money that is also available for public housing, as originally intended.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, what is the objection to having the Acting Minister of Transport answer this question when he has the information?


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: He
has not got the information.


David Lewis: Nor has the Prime Minister. I am asking the Prime Minister whether he and the government can give us this assurance, and as Prime Minister of this country he ought to be in a position to do so.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the hon. member is more interested in having information than in scoring debating points, then surely he should have no objection to being given the correct information within 24 hours.


David Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not care whether it is the Prime Minister or anyone else.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Lewis: He has no right to impute motives to any member of this house, and I resent his suggestion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I say I am entirely in order in asking the Prime Minister for the assurance that this amount will not be reduced.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is quite right. It is a basic rule of debate that no hon. member may impute motives.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the right honourable Prime Minister.

When does he intend to introduce his just society policy to replace the winter works policy, in view of the fact that municipalities are now in a very difficult situation?
Can the house expect an early statement from the right hon. Prime Minister in this connection?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, the policy in this regard was launched before cancelling the winter works program; this the member should know.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order.
We are precisely asking the Prime Minister to inform the house about the work done so far by the government, because the Canadian people are not aware of it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, when I
announced the end of winter works, I explained that they had been replaced by programs entailing much higher and much more useful expenditures as far as the economic expansion of the country is concerned.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS REQUEST FOR REPORT RESPECTING CONSIDERATION OF SHARED PROGRAMS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the Prime Minister indicated that the government was endeavouring to hold meetings of federal and provincial ministers of finance or treasury officials with a view to discussing open ended joint programs. Will the Prime Minister kindly clarify the situation that has developed? Will those meetings he referred to be part of the general dominion-provincial meetings with regard to dominion-provincial financial arrangements, or will they be separate meetings?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: They would be part of the meetings of the ministers of finance of the federal government and the provinces. There may also have to be separate meetings of health and welfare ministers.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In those supplementary meetings will medicare and its position in the open ended programs listed by the government be part of the discussion?
October 8, 1968


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We have indicated, Mr. Speaker, that the provinces are free to put any item they wish on the agenda. If they want to put medicare on, that would certainly be acceptable.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Can the Postmaster General report to this house how the discussions with the circulation managers of daily newspapers are proceeding? I ask this question in view of the minister's announcement in this house last week end that discussions would be taking place in this regard early this week, with a view to altering the announced Saturday cutoff in mail delivery.


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, since yesterday morning field directors and officers of the post office have been fanning out across the country to discuss with publishers and circulation managers of newspapers the problems occasioned by the ending of postal deliveries on Saturday. I may say that the reaction has been extremely warm.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eric William Kierans: The editors and circulation managers of newspapers have appreciated the delicatesse of the officers of the department as well as their anxiety to find ways of easing whatever problems may arise. We are pursuing this program, and when the reports come in from the field I anticipate holding a general meeting with the senior executives of the association itself.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the minister has indicated that he is seeking reports on the matter, is he prepared to accept reports from hon. members of this house on behalf of their constituents? I have several hundred right now on my desk.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: I have a question related to the answer given yesterday by the Minister of Forestry
Inquiries of the Ministry and Rural Development to the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond. In the absence of the minister concerned I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister and ask him whether negotiations will take place between Devco and the unions concerned before any early retirement program, as recommended in the Donald report, is implemented.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: The Minister of Forestry and Rural Development under whose jurisdiction this comes will be here tomorrow for the question period.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for Winnipeg South, in connection with the task force on Air Canada. Could he advise the house how that task force is proceeding and whether any evidence has been placed before him or those associated with him, or whether representations have been made, that Air Canada should merge with Canadian Pacific Airlines, a suggestion which received support from the hon. gentleman in June?


James Armstrong Richardson: I have been asked by the Prime Minister and by the Minister of Transport to look into the future planning of Air Canada. One of many alternatives which exist is a possible merger, but no active consideration is being given at the present time to a merger of Air Canada and Canadian Pacific.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the minister for that answer, and would ask him whether his views have changed since June when he said Air Canada and Canadian Pacific should join together and the stock be made available for private purchase.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I thought the minister was about to answer the question addressed to him by my right hon. friend. Has the minister been able as yet to recommend to his colleagues the name of a new president for Air Canada?


James Armstrong Richardson: I think I should say first of all that the board of directors of Air Canada and the government are well pleased with the interim management which is being given to Air Canada by the acting president. I should

October 8, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry say further that the board of directors are considering changes in the management structure of the company and that these changes are being discussed with the government.


John George Diefenbaker: I am sure the hon. gentleman intended to answer my question but did not get the opportunity. I would not wish to deny him-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It might be helpful if I suggested that the question was not entirely in order. The right hon. gentleman is asking whether the minister has changed his views. That in itself, I suggest, is not a proper question.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is it a fact that the government is reconsidering the announced reorganization of the Indian affairs branch and, if so, would the right hon. gentleman say whether an announcement is imminent?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, we announced last week that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development would be reorganized in order to serve the Indians of Canada better and we do not intend to change our policy.
tEnglish]


Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Can he say whether he has yet received a report prepared by ARDA in regard to poverty in Indian areas in Canada?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have no report from ARDA on my desk at the present time.


Robert Simpson: Then would the minister consider conferring with his colleague, the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development, who has told us that he is in possession of this report, and thereby do away with the confusion that exists in the ministry?


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister 
whether the table of organization as now determined by the department is ready to be made available to members of parliament?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I signed a letter addressed to all members of parliament and all Indian chiefs, setting out the detailed reorganization. No doubt members and other persons concerned will receive it this week.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
When he met the Indian chiefs yesterday, was he acting as minister or as Indian chief?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I met them in both capacities, Mr. Speaker, and I was given a warm reception.



MARIJUANA-REQUEST FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF RESEARCH COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the galloping increase in the use of marijuana and the increasing number of young people tragically being paraded daily before the courts, and the extreme urgency of dealing properly with these cases, will the minister consider setting up an immediate research committee to look into this problem, or will he make a statement to the house?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to consider that suggestion by the hon. member. However, I would advise him that there are people within the department who are now forming a secretariat and looking into the matter fully.


David Orlikow: As a
supplementary question, would the minister tell the house whether his experts in this field are discussing the problem with the appropriate officials in the Department of Justice, who seem to feel we need more and stiffer jail sentences?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, without agreeing with the conclusion of the hon. member I would state that officials in my department are discussing the matter with officials in the Department of Justice.
October 8, 1968



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Is the minister giving any thought to amending the regulation concerning the lobster trap limitation in view of the fact that the lobster season is to open soon and in view of the controversy arising from this regulation.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, the regulations which have been in effect for some time will be continued, but we are giving some thought to their amendment in the longer term.


Louis-Roland Comeau: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, is the minister giving any thought to amending the regulation concerning the granting of licences to new fishermen?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think my previous answer also applies in this case.



FARM MACHINERY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Rod Thomson (Balileford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture or his parliamentary secretary. In view of the reported delay in the finalization of the Barber commission report on the price of farm machinery, is the government contemplating any interim action to stop the rise in the cost of farm machinery?


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Ministers of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, may I take that question as notice?



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the other day the Minister of Transport said he would be looking into the report on the possibility of the extension of the shipping season at Churchill, may I ask the Acting Minister of Transport whether that report will be made public.
Inquiries of the Ministry


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, there has been continuous examination of the extension of the Churchill shipping season, and there have been investigations, particularly into new ice breaking techniques which would enable the port seasons to be extended.


Stanley James Korchinski: Will these reports be made public or will they be secret documents for the department's own use?


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport, and in view of the fact that we were unable to obtain a reply from the acting minister, will the right hon. Prime Minister undertake to consult with someone in the department to determine whether there is a report on a possible extension of the Churchill shipping season, and whether this report will be made public?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Surely the acting minister attempted to reply earlier, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: He attempted; that's right.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We all make attempts. You sometimes attempt to ask questions.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would not rise at this time except for the fact that the Prime Minister made a point of this matter. Let me say that the Minister without Portfolio did not answer the question that was asked. He may have answered another question but I suggest that ministers may refuse to answer questions if that is their wish, and that is their prerogative, but should not purport to answer questions that have not been asked.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I understood the question that was directed to me was whether the report in respect of Churchill would be made public. I have not had an opportunity to see this report and until I have had a chance to read it I would reserve judgment. I do not believe there will be any reason that it should not be made public.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Judd Buchanan (London Wesi):: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of

October 8, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry National Health and Welfare. Since the parents of only a few of the thalidomide children born in Canada have launched actions or secured settlements from the manufacturer of the drug-the principle used in the settlements being that of providing "a living wage for the rest of the children's lives"-would the minister undertake to draw this fact to the attention of all the parents of thalidomide children in Canada, so they can take whatever steps are necessary to secure their children's rights?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I assume the hon. member is making a representation to the minister, which I presume has been noted.



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-lings):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister told the house when answering a question put to him on September 19, nearly three weeks ago, that this appointment would be made shortly, and in view of the great deal of work that still has to be done by the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism, is the Prime Minister now ready to make an appointment in place of the late Mr. Laurendeau?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to give this answer to the hon. member. I was not sure whether I should announce it in the way of an answer to his question or perhaps by way of a press release. I am glad the question has come at this time. Mr. Jean-Louis Gagnon, who was a commissioner, has been asked to take on the duties of co-chairman with Mr. Dunton, and we have asked Professor Andre Raynauld of the University of Montreal to take on the duties of Mr. Jean-Louis Gagnon.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Prime Minister inform the house whether it is the intention of the bilingualism and biculturalism commission to continue its work according to the original terms of reference, or will its work be terminated in the not too distant future?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is continuing its work under the original terms of reference. It does have to come back to the government at set dates, I believe, in connection with its project. Every time the commission comes to us with a request for a delay we have to decide whether we shall agree to a further extension of time. We have indicated, however, that we would like to see the work terminated as soon as possible.



REPORTED INVESTIGATION OF SALES ABOVE QUOTAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. However, in his absence because of the urgency of this matter I would like to direct my question to the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt. Has the minister received a number of reports from Alberta and other western provinces of farmers who have allegedly sold grain over their quota? If so, can he say whether such cases are being investigated by the R.C.M.P. and whether it is the intention of the government to prosecute, in view of the increasingly desperate situation of the farmers in these areas?


Hon. Otio E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Has the minister issued a directive within the last ten days declining to accept for registration pension plans primarily designed for the benefit of shareholders and their families?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that this question might be placed on the order paper or, if the hon. member so wishes, discussed at the time of adjournment.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Forestry
October 8, 1968

and Rural Development, but in his absence perhaps the Prime Minister could inform the house and western Canada whether the administration of P.F.R.A. comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development, or is the government dropping this whole project?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, as acting minister I propose to take notice of this question and bring it to the minister's attention for reply tomorrow.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Despite the fact that the rules do not so provide, what we are seeing now is a sly and surreptitious method to compel members to give notice when they do not have to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



HIGHWAY SAFETY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport, who is supposed to be here today and is not, may I direct a question to the acting minister, who is supposed to be here and is. In view of the estimate by the Canada Safety Council that between 65 and 75 people will die in highway accidents over the coming week end, can the minister say whether the government will be bringing in legislation at this session of parliament regarding automobile and tire safety?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I naturally share the hon. member's concern about the number of highway accidents. I would like to assure him that the Department of Transport is taking some action in this matter. At the present time we are holding a competition to fill the position of director of the auto safety office. This will be a section of the Department of Transport, which was established by this house in the last session. As soon as this appointment has been made, which should be within at least the next two months, the traffic safety office will be in operation.


Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Acting Minister of Transport if he can say whether the government is keeping under continuing review the allegations that
Inquiries of the Ministry the auto industry is charging for its safety devices a price out of proportion with the cost of the added safety features on cars.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, all matters pertaining to safety will be under review.



EXTERNAL AID


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Prime Minister. First of all, is it a fact that our humanitarian efforts to assist the people of Nigeria and Biafra are frustrated by the technicality of not wanting to interfere in the internal affairs of another nation? Second, if this is true, would the government consider leasing aircraft to the International Red Cross for a nominal sum, in order to provide transportation facilities to deliver desperately needed food to the people of Nigeria and Biafra?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is, of course, a very important matter and I hesitate to intervene, but certainly the question is not asked in the proper form, particularly the first part of the hon. member's question.



HOCKEY-STATEMENT ON PROPOSED TASK FORCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to answer a question posed yesterday by the right hon. member for Prince Albert, concerning whether a task force had been set up to look into the question of the control exerted by professional hockey over the lives of young Canadians. I would advise the right hon. gentleman that a task force was set up on August 2 last composed of Dr. Harold Rea as chairman, Dr. Paul DesRuisseaux and Nancy Greene. It was to go into the definition of amateur and professional sport and particularly the effect of professional sport on amateur sport. It will most emphatically be going into this whole question of the control and effect of professional hockey on the lives of young Canadians, to which the right hon. gentleman referred.
October 8, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, in connection with this task force. I ask the minister whether evidence is being taken regarding certain contracts that are entered intoi with youth in our country binding them far and beyond anything that is within the legal definition of responsibility. Aso, is the task force charged with making recommendations to prevent the National Hockey League operating in that connection and doing things which have all the appearances of being a monopoly without control?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the very reasons that the task force was set up in the first place. It is expected to report at the beginning of the year.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy Royal: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What is the government doing with the last report it got on this very subject, which was tabled in January of 1967?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, that report, as I understand it, was from the fitness and amateur sport council and there were differences of opinion with respect to the conclusions reached in the report.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorklon-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether he can assure the house and the country that the results of tests in chemical warfare at Suffield, Alberta- Operation Vacuum-are not intended for use in the war in Viet Nam.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should think that question might be placed on the order paper.


Mr. Walter Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the government aware of any plan on the part of the United States government to phase out their base in Argentia, Newfoundland?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question should be placed on the order paper.



EXPO '67 SUGGESTED REDUCTION IN MONTREAL SHARE OF DEFICIT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (Sainie-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who is responsible for Expo; however, in his absence, I shall put the question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Could he tell the house whether he has received representations or suggestions from the authorities of the city of Montreal urging the reduction of the amount owed by the city of Montreal with regard to the Expo '67 deficit?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, the minister concerned will be here tomorrow, and I am sure he will answer the question if he can.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, does the right hon. Prime Minister intend to agree to such a reduction if the city of Montreal asks for it?


Mr. Speaker:: The supplementary question is hypothetical.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question which I am sure the Prime Minister can answer. In view of the recommendations contained in the third and fifth annual reviews of the Economic Council of Canada calling for the establishment of a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on economic affairs and the establishment of an independent economic research unit, will the Prime Minister indicate what action the government proposes to take on these recommendations?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Would the hon. gentleman repeat the last part of the question?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Will the Prime Minister indicate what action if any the government intends to take in respect of these recommendations?
October 8, 1968


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am told, Mr. Speaker, that already there is a standing committee of the House of Commons on economic affairs.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should not like to suggest that the recommendations have not been thoroughly considered, but they were that a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be established, and that an independent economic research institution should be formed.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Leader of the Opposition should not have been so sure that I would be able to answer this question. I will have to consider it and provide an answer at some other time.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether it is government policy to permit Greeks who claim to be political refugees to stay in Canada, or are they to be deported if they enter Canada illegally?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question as asked is not acceptable.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, this question is of some urgency. Even though perhaps I phrased it badly, in view of other leniencies I have witnessed I think I should obtain an answer. These Greeks are being deported and they claim they are being sent back to their deaths in their homeland. I should like to know whether this country is offering political refuge to Greeks who enter here illegally and claim they are political refugees.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to whom this question might be addressed will be here tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Bell:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the Minister of Transport is going to be here tomorrow, a day when all the ministers are supposed to be present.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry UNITED NATIONS



INSTRUCTIONS TO CANADIAN DELEGATION RESPECTING CZECHOSLOVAKIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a very easy question for the Prime Minister which I know he will be able to answer. Has the Canadian delegation to the United Nations been instructed by the government to join France and the United States in calling for the withdrawal of Russian troops from Czechoslovakia?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: I do not know, Mr. Speaker.


George Harris Hees: Or is the government hesitating in this regard because it is waiting for the countries surrounding Russia to make the first move?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Many members are seeking to ask questions and there are only a few minutes left. I suggest that the questions and the supplementary questions should be limited.



ARTS. LETTERS AND SCIENCES REQUEST FOR GRANT BY FOLK ARTS COUNCIL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, on September 27 I directed a question to the President of the Treasury Board. Has he had an opportunity to discuss the subject matter of the question directed to him? This had to do with a revision or perhaps a review of the decision that was made in terms of supporting a request of the Canadian Folk Arts Council for a grant.


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: The answer to that question is yes, Mr. Speaker.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I believe I asked two questions, Mr. Speaker, and I should like to know which question the minister has answered.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The answer to the first question is yes, Mr. Speaker, and the answer to the second question is no.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Fisheries

October 8, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry indicate to the house and the country whether the government is contemplating deficiency payments on salt cod? If so, can we expect an announcement soon?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, we are currently making payments in respect of the salt cod carryover from 1967. Payments in respect of the 1968 catch are under consideration.



POLLUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I believe my question should be directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or his parliamentary secretary. Can the minister give any indication to the house if and when he plans to implement a Canada Water Act in view of the fact that control of water pollution was referred to in the throne speech, and is of urgent importance to British Columbia and other areas across Canada?


Mr. R. J. Orange (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: In the absence of the minister, who will be here later this week, Mr. Speaker, I shall take the question as notice.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if at the same time the minister could also report any progress in the setting of Canadian standards of water pollution to include biological, chemical and physical aspects of the question.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: I would be happy to bring this to the attention of the minister also.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: My question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is it a fact, as alleged in the brief presented to the royal commission on the status of women, that the Department of National Health and Welfare has refused a request to analyse in its laboratories various abortion pills feared dangerous?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked by the hon. member is not in order since he is asking the minister to confirm or deny an allegation. Perhaps the question might be placed on the order paper in another form.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition asked yesterday whether we would table the report of the observer mission in Nigeria so it might be made available to all hon. members. This report was not made to the Canadian government, but it has been made available to the government and also to members of the standing committee which began meetings this morning. With the permission of the house I will table this report. Actually there are two documents, the report of the observer mission and a covering note outlining the composition and terms of reference of this observer team.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the Prime Minister leave to table the document to which he has just referred?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the right hon. Prime Minister whether he had received a cable from the head of state of Biafra sent to the Secretary General of the United Nations and to heads of member states of the United Nations regarding allegations of acts of genocide. The right hon. gentleman undertook in reply to ascertain whether the cable had reached his office, and promised to inform the house today concerning any action he is contemplating in this regard.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Apparently a communication addressed to me by Colonel Ojukwu was received at our permanent mission in New York by registered air mail. The communication called upon us, as the hon. member indicated, to take action to prevent acts of genocide allegedly being perpetrated by the government of Nigeria. There has been no reply to this communication as yet, but this is part of our over-all policy of trying to avoid intervention in the political side of this conflict while trying to help as much as we can in the humanitarian side.
October 8, 1968


David Lewis: I have a supplementary question. Can the Prime Minister inform the house whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs has had any more success in his quest for support to bring the matter before the United Nations? He may not have any report as yet, but I wonder whether he could inform us.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have no report as yet on the success of this mission but I do have a report, which I have just received, on the success of the minister in negotiating with the Nigerian commissioner for external affairs, who is in New York, on whether they would object to the International Red Cross using Canadian aircraft which we put at their disposal. These aircraft would be used to bring supplies to all parts of Nigeria and not only those parts under the control of the Nigerian government.
The answer was favourable. In this answer Dr. Arikpo, the Nigerian commissioner for foreign affairs, now says the federal government of Nigeria would have no objection to the Red Cross using a Canadian aircraft and crew in its relief operations anywhere in Nigeria, including flights into the area under rebel control, under the existing arrangements and understanding between the federal government of Nigeria and the International Red Cross.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order relating to the program of business for today. In view of the fact that we have all been invited to a very important event at six o'clock, namely the hanging of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker)_


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -I
wonder if it might be the wish of the house that we suspend private members' hour for this day.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of the standing orders the private members' hour would be suspended in any case in view of the fact that we are calling today the resolution preceding the Post Office Act amendments.
29180-59J
Business of the House


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to today's business. In view of the urgent need for the farm improvement loans legislation and the co-operation which this side of the house is prepared to extend to the government, I wonder if the house leader would not rather continue with this legislation today, particularly since we have moved to the committee stage and it is quite possible that the legislation could be passed today. This legislation is urgently needed in all parts of Canada, and most particularly in western Canada.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in an attempt to make orderly arrangements for the business of the house we agreed last Thursday to deal today with the Post Office Act resolution. It seems to me that if we are going to deal with the business of the house in an orderly fashion we should proceed as arranged. If a spirit of co-operation exists now I am sure it will also exist tomorrow. I shall count on the support of the hon. member for Crowfoot on this particular bill.



MESSAGE TO THE SENATE

Donald Stovel Macdonald: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this house will unite with them in the formation of joint committees of both houses on the subjects of the printing of parliament, the direction of the library of parliament, and that the members appointed on each of these committees to act on behalf of this house are those listed in the second report of the special committee which has been submitted today.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Eric William Kierans: that the house go into committee to cons.der the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Post Office Act to abolish the local delivery rate on letters for delivery within the postal area in which they are posted and to increase by one cent the postage rates for letters posted in Canada for delivery anywhere in Canada; to provide an amended rate structure for newspapers and periodicals; to provide for certain changes in connection with the administration of the Act, more especially in relation to tenders and contracts; and to provide for the discontinuance of interest payments on deposits in the post office savings bank after December 31st. 1969, and foi

October 8, 1968
Post Office Act
the crediting after that date to the Receiver General of small deposits in the post office savings bank and unclaimed for thirty years.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Faulkner in the chair.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Chairman, it has been said many times that Canada has one of the finest postal systems in the world. Nothing in my brief experience as Postmaster General would lead me to any different opinion, and my first obligation and indeed privilege is to pay tribute to the more than 48,000 men and women who operate the system and provide the people of Canada with a postal service through more than 10,500 postal installations from coast to coast. Their efforts are certainly worthy of the thanks of every Canadian.
Such a tribute to our post office employees, however, would be meaningless if it were not accompanied by a resolve to improve their working conditions, enhance employee job satisfaction and open up opportunities for advancement, self-improvement and fuller personal development. These are the elements that an employee looks for in a just society and by which he will judge that society.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
The Post Office Department has accomplished a great deal in this area, credit for which must go to my immediate predecessor, the hon. member for Longueuil. Most of the 48,000 public servants in the Post Office Department are now covered by collective bargaining. Greater security of employment increases confidence, invites participation and inspires loyalty and pride. Agreements recently concluded with the union will provide better working conditions of employment for the operating staff, approximately 28,000 employees. Contrary to the impression of some who were inconvenienced by the long postal strike, it is true to say, and I am glad to confirm, that the leaders of the postal union demonstrated during this period their sense of responsibility and respect for the law. That law in a just society must always give to all groups the power to fight for and to defend their rights. A just society, Mr. Chairman, depends on a thriving economy, for only an efficient, expanding economy can afford the costs of rectifying injustices, improving distributions of wealth and incomes and hope to reduce the burden of poverty.
The institutions of such an economy and such a society must be efficient and thriving.

The post office is such an institution. Our function is communication, the transmission at low cost of items of business and personal information from one place to another. In this function we complement, we duplicate, but to an increasing extent are being superseded by other systems of communication, telephone, teletype machines, telegraph, television, radio and the cloud that appears no bigger than a hand, satellites.
Nearly all of the important innovations in communications are taking place outside the post office and indeed outside the existing governmental structure. What effect, for example, will such developments as television-telephones, telephones linked to computers for information retrival or even the payment of household bills, newspaper delivery direct to homes via television or teletype, what effect will these technical possibilities and soon to be economically feasible changes have on the traditional function of the post office, the transmission of information? These developments are taking place outside the post office and outside of the government; rather, I should say they were taking place outside of the post office and outside of the government. For now we are to have a department of communications of which the post office will be an integral part. The post office will have, therefore, at its disposal in the future the best scientists in the research branch of the department of communications to enable it to meet the challenge of change. This has already been agreed upon by the officers of the post office and officers-designate of the new department.
The creation of the new department is clear evidence of the government's belief that for a just society we must have not only a thriving economy but modern institutions, institutions aware of today's realities and alive to tomorrow's possibilities. Clearly, the post office was viewed by the Prime Minister, when he proposed this reorganization, as a problem of function, of communications in a rapidly changing industry, not as the perennial problem of an institution in political, financial or administrative difficulties.
It is a new view, a new idea that must be accepted by all of us. The difficulty will lie, I suspect, not so much in accepting these new ideas, if I may paraphrase Lord Keynes, but in escaping from the old ones. The Post Office Department is faced with a great many problems. One of the most serious is the mounting cost of its own operations departmental forecasts indicate that on the basis of present fees and postage rates the post office accounts
October 8, 1968

will show a deficit of $99.5 million in the current fiscal year. At the same time there is a pressing need to improve services, to modernize and extend the facilities and improve working conditions, all of which will require increased expenditures.
It is evident, therefore, that action must be taken to restore a reasonable cost-revenue relationship, and to provide the funds necessary to ensure that our traditional standard of service will be maintained. Hon. members of the committee are aware that I have already taken action to adjust the rates charged for those classes of mail which, under the Post Office Act, the Postmaster General may regulate. It is expected that these rates will result in revenues equal to the costs of handling the classes of mail concerned.
Some studies have begun, and others are pending, which will search out ways and means of reducing costs, improving administration and productivity, and of achieving the most effective staff relations. Broadly speaking, these actions comprise what the Postmaster General can do on his own authority. As examples I may cite the closing of the postal savings bank, the move to a five day week, and the decision to make those who use our money order system pay the reasonable costs of operating that system. Many other changes leading to greater efficiency are also being considered. The public, Mr. Chairman, will not forgive us if we seek to balance our budget solely by rate increases. Our responsibility is to examine all procedures, all traditional methods, to gauge their worthiness and present efficacy. Cutting out the fat, the outmoded, is painful but it is also necessary.
This brings me to the bill to be considered by this house. Its major items have to do with adjustments to the rates fixed by statute with respect to letters, newspapers and periodicals, that is, first and second class mail. The present rates for local and out of town letters took effect on April 1, 1954. In the 14 years since that date, costs of all kinds have increased sharply, including the cost of operating the postal service. Our cost analyses show that the cost of handling letter mail now exceeds the revenue derived from it. Moreover, it has been found that the cost of handling letters for local delivery, commonly known as drop letters, has increased at an accelerated rate, so that the average cost of handling a letter mailed for delivery in the same locality is not noticeably less than that of a letter delivered through a post office other than the one at which it was mailed. We are no longer justified, therefore, in
Post Office Act
maintaining a lower rate of postage for local letters. Canada is virtually the only postal administration in the world providing unlimited local delivery of letters at a lower rate of postage, and it is clear that we cannot continue to do so in the light of mounting postal deficits.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
The proposed rates applicable to letters mailed in Canada for delivery anywhere in Canada are six cents for the first ounce or fraction and four cents for each additional ounce or fraction. I might add that we have in mind in connection with these increases a quid pro quo whereby all letter mail posted in Canada for delivery in Canada will be carried by air where this will expedite delivery. The committee is aware that Canada pioneered this "all-up" service for letters up to one ounce in weight in 1948, an innovation by the Liberal government of the time. The removal of the present weight limit of eight ounces, which was established in 1954, will no doubt be welcomed by the business world.
The proposed changes respecting newspapers and periodicals are intended to accomplish two main objectives: first, to take a long step toward assuring that this class of mail pays its fair share of the operation by substantially increasing the rates of postage applicable to it; second, to amend and clarify the terms and conditions under which the statutory second class rates apply. These changes will provide a substantial amount of additional revenue and a more logical basis for determining entitlement to second class privileges.
The remaining changes in the Post Office Act are intended to clarify the authority and responsibility of the Postmaster General with respect to some aspects of departmental administration, and to facilitate the adjustment of transportation arrangements so that we can keep up with changing conditions.
In addition, two amendments are sought in connection with the winding up of the Post Office Savings Bank. As the committee is aware from the announcement recently made, the government has decided to discontinue this service because of the steady decline in the number of depositors, the amounts deposited and the total balance on deposit. It has been evident for some time that there is little need and almost no demand for this facility. It is no part of a just society to pay 1\ per cent interest to depositors when they can more than double their income by investing in Canada savings bonds.

October 8, 1968
Post Office Act
I believe it is unnecessary for me to say more by way of introduction. I would, however, assure the committee that I will do my utmost to answer fully and frankly the questions of the opposition during the clause by clause consideration of the bill. The department is quite prepared to lay before this house the most detailed information on its operations, with the hope of receiving the constructive criticisms and suggestions of all members interested in a postal service that will provide a standard of excellence that will be the pride of all Canadians.
This is the challenge before this committee, Mr. Chairman. I would remind hon. members that no substantial legislation has been passed affecting first class rates since 1954. No substantial legislation has been passed affecting second class rates since 1951. The question before us is: Are we to bring the post office into the modern era as a living, changing force, or are we to turn back the clock to 1951 and 1954 and condemn the department to exist in the strait-jacket of outmoded rates, regulations and procedures? That is the choice before us.
Under our parliamentary system, the government proposes but this house disposes. I would not have it otherwise. With every confidence in the wisdom and judgment of all members of the house, I move the adoption of this resolution.


Mr. Macquarrie:: Mr. Chairman, I must begin by extending my congratulations to the minister on his appointment. I also wish to congratulate him for translating his great ability and immense energy to the national arena of governmental operations. I have been here for only 11 years but he is the eighth Postmaster General that I have seen sitting in that place. I am not going to suggest what happened to most of the others, whether they were promoted, demoted-


An hon. Member:: Or outmoded.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Yes, as someone suggests, or outmoded. I congratulate him too on being the minister designate of a new, interesting, romantic department, that of the department of communications. He could go down in history as the man who brought us into the space age up in the stratosphere and slowed the movement of mail down on the ground. This may be an interesting achievement.
I took note of what the minister said about the leaders of the postal unions and I will not take issue with him on that. I will say,
[Mr. Kierans.l
however, that the government's handling of the recent postal strike was deplorable and incompetent beyond belief. A French philosopher once said that to govern is to foresee. It would appear that in reference to the postal strike everybody in the country saw it coming except the government, which when it was far too late for possible acceptance proposed a settlement at the last minute.
The minister has had wide latitude in this debate, and this is the general pattern. I should like to say that it would be impossible for us to discuss the projected or requested increase in rates, if I may use more precise phraseology, without referring to the already announced impending diminution in service. As he says, the house does dispose and he does propose. I for one, Mr. Chairman, am not disposed to congratulate the minister of communications on his suggestion that we are going to reduce this service to the public. I hope that I will not, in his fine phrases in the final paragraph of his dissertation, be accused of doing such dreadful things as turning back the clock, putting people in strait-jackets and turning the horse and cart around the wrong way. The minister painted at that point a terrible picture of potential opposition.
This department is tremendously important and is one of the oldest and most vital public service institutions. I suppose that the post office has more meaning to the average Canadian and to more Canadians than any other department of government and probably any other institution of government. As the Glassco commission pointed out, since confederation the post office has seen little change in its function, and a very simple function it is-the handling of the country's mail.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I jotted down some words from the minister's statement. He used these words: "transmission at low cost of items of communication from one place to another". That was the minister's particular phraseology. The Canada Year Book describes it this way:
-the basic tasks of the Canadian postal service are to receive, convey and deliver postal matter with speed and security.
I emphasize the word "speed", to which I shall return later.
I am not one who has only uncomplimentary remarks for the Canadian post office. There have been improvements and developments of which I am very proud. We are all
October 8, 1968

pleased with the new developments in automated equipment. In some fields the Canadian post office has pioneered. Our all-up service, introduced some years ago, put the department in the forefront of postal departments. There are many reasons for pride in our post office, although there are many reasons for concern.
I should think that a thoroughgoing study might now be in order. It should be a study that is not geared to some particular conclusion. It should not be a study of whether a crown corporation is a good idea. It should not be geared to the working conditions of certain types of employees. It should not be geared just to the question of balance of revenue and expenditure. I say that a thoroughgoing, exhaustive study of this important public service would be in order.
Perhaps some of the drastic changes which the minister has decided upon should not have been decided on until after the study. Changes might reasonably have followed rather than preceded any such study. I would not suggest that the minister is the type of person whose motto is, "Don't confuse me with facts, I want to make a decision." All the same I am convinced that we have not yet had a thoroughgoing study of the Canadian postal service.
Is the financial situation so drastic that it requires the serious increases envisaged in this resolution? That is the important case to be made out and I am convinced that the case has not been strongly made. I think the minister's statement was most inadequate.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Hear, hear. I agree.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: There are many explanations which should have been but were not given.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: There were no explanations.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I wish to quote some words from the minister's 1968 report. I am not the financial genius he is, but these words appear in the report:
A quick review of past reports would seem to indicate the financial position of the Canada Post Office has gone from one of modest surpluses to one of large deficits. This is not so. The accounting procedures from 1963-64 take into consideration sizeable costs previously assumed by other government departments on behalf of the Canada Post Office. Such costs cover accommodation, charges for accounting and cheque issuing services, employer contributions to the superannuation fund, the Canada Pension Plan, the surgical-medical insurance plan, and workmen's compensation. From 1963-64, the Canada Post Office has also taken credit
Post Office Act
tor the services provided to other government departments; these services do not compensate for the costs assumed from the other departments. The recording of these figures by the Canada Post Office gives an accurate picture of the financial situation as it is today, but renders it difficult to make a fair comparison with the years prior to 1963-64 when all costs and revenues were not considered and most surpluses were recorded.
I suggest that the minister read that report and that he say to himself: I am not sure as to the financial position of the Canadian post office; we must have further elucidation of this situation before we impose these new cost increases on the public. He ought to ask himself, is the Post Office Department being improperly charged for deficits which ought to be more widely and broadly assumed? What aspects of postal operations are the serious offenders in regard to going into the red, and which are in the black? Are the proper groups of patrons being assessed their due proportion of responsibility for uneconomic functions of the Post Office Department? I suggest that these are questions which must be answered. Whether the post office record is as red as it is sometimes dyed, or precisely where the uneconomic operations are, is but one line of inquiry.
There is something even more important than that that we ought to consider. I think we must look at the basic assumption, which has recently received prominence, that this department must pay its way, that the post office must keep in the black, that it must soak its patrons enough to avoid any charge on the general revenues of the country. To exalt such an idea into a principle of government or administration, is in my view a preposterous and unfair assumption. Why should the post office, among all departments, pay its way? Is there some unwritten law, some lofty principle, which says that the users of the mails must balance the post office budget but that the users of the airways, the sea lanes or the rail lines need not do so? Can we in conscience and equity say to the post office: Pay your way, hike all your rates, and then say to the C.B.C.: Come to us if you need a few more millions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Should freight and passengers be carried on a subsidized service and parcel post not be given any assistance? Does this sound reasonable? Is this fair treatment of the Canadian public? Naturally we all want government departments to balance their budgets. I hope that by saying this I do not sound old-fashioned or unjazzy. It is a

October 8, 1968
Post Office Act
consummation devoutedly to be wished. But since it has not been attained, by what right do we pick on that long established public service, the Canada Post Office. Why impose upon post office patrons a reduction in service? The closing of post offices for a second day out of seven cannot but curtail services, slow the passage of mail and generally reduce the usefulness of the Post Office Department to the people of this country, to the people who own it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I say to the minister, the matter is not nearly as simple as he made it appear when he spoke about 80 per cent of business being done on five days of the week. I say that this change will impose a serious problem on many established businesses at the very same time that the increased rate will present those businesses with other difficult problems. The public, the business community, the patrons of the post office, in that way are getting a double whammy.
The minister has made no case for Saturday closing. His brief explanation of a few weeks ago was as inadequate as it was unwelcome. I have read many reports of experts who have examined one phase or another of our postal operation, reports of experts such as those with the Glassco commission, but I have yet to read any report which recommended as a solution to any problem the closing of post offices on Saturday. Indeed, a study of commercial operations in this country will indicate that Saturday is one of the busiest days of the week. There has been a change in recent years in the week end business pattern. I can envisage a situation where one could walk down Sparks Street mall on a Saturday and find all business establishments open except the post office.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
This is not to say I am suggesting that all postal workers should remain, or become, six-day workers any more than employees of chain grocery stores are today. I condemn in the strongest terms this arbitrary diminution of service to the public. I do not think you enhance or advance the just society by saying: You will get mail on just five days a week.
There are many Canadians who derive no great satisfaction from the institutions of government. There are many Canadians in humble circumstances who receive from their government very little which means more to them than the rapid and efficient delivery of

mail whether it be in connection with business, whether it be in the nature of communications from their loved ones, or what have you. In our mobile society the curtailment of rapid communication by letter is something I find hard to accept. I find it even harder to accept the suggestion that in some way we advance the just society by so doing.
I was impressed the other day by an indication of lack of careful thought which has gone into this proposal. In answer to a question a brittle reply was given that the rural carriers would, of course, have their returns diminished to five-sixths of what they were. Mathematically, this sounds good. But what in the name of goodness will happen to the men whose already far too small earnings will be so diminished? Will they find an alternative job to make up for the decline in their incomes, and will they find one just for the now free Saturday? To make this kind of brittle, callous calculation indicates there is probably a good deal less compassion in the just society than we had hoped for.
I say: Let the mail go through. If a case can be made for increased charges there is no one so unreasonable as to suggest they must be opposed. But we are now faced with a situation in which the service will be diminished and the cost increased. Surely the post office is not in so bad a situation that both these things must be visited upon the people. I suggest to the minister that he take a little more care and go into this question a little more thoroughly, that the public be told more about what is to be done to their ancient institution, the post office. I should like the house and the committee to be told a little more about these things.
In my opinion-and my hon. friend from Oxford demonstrated today that it is his view also-this is a most unpopular move. In my opinion the people of Canada do not want their postal service curtailed as the minister has suggested. Canadians are concerned and many more are uncertain. Therefore I would strongly suggest that this proposed measure be referred to a committee of the house, either a standing or special committee, where witnesses may be heard, where people in the newspaper field can put forward their case plainly instead of expressing their heat to departmental field officers, where spokesmen for other businesses which are geared to the mail system as it now exists may explain their attitude, where the whole matter may be discussed and fully considered and where many of the matters not discussed by the minister today may be carefully canvassed.
October 8, 1968



This is a serious step, Mr. Chairman. It is one which involves the diminution of service, one which should not be made lightly after a casual announcement by a minister, however able he may be. I should like to hear from representatives of the church press who have written to us outlining their special problems. I should like to be given more information on the publications issue which was referred to by the O'Leary commission and, in my opinion, never adequately dealt with. I should like to hear of any difficulties likely to be encountered in connection with the transmitting of bills of lading in relation to freight shipments. In short, there are many ramifications to this proposal. Severe disruptions may occur and there are a multitude of questions to be asked, all requiring explanations.
I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was correct the other day when he said the Post Office Act should be amended so that parliament would have more control over postal rates than it has at present. We are not afraid of change, but the kind of change which reduces the usefulness of a great service to the public and places the public at a disadvantage is not the kind of change we welcome.
We are not averse to modernization. We want the post office workers to enjoy the best possible conditions. We want the mail to go through more swiftly, not more slowly. If the minister can tell me that the mail will go faster by languishing for a couple of days during the week I am open to conviction but he will have to be far more eloquent than he was today. I think this is a subject which requires further ventilation, In my view the minister will be making a great mistake if he rushes through with this legislation, and we who are responsible to the people, the patrons of the post office, would be remiss in our duty if we did not call upon the hon. gentleman to explain further and justify these proposals. An avenue for useful service in this regard would be to arrange for a committee to receive this bill at the proper stage and go through it carefully, because there is a great deal at stake in the operation of the post office, an agency which provides a most intimate and valuable service to the Canadian public.


Mr. Malher:: Mr. Chairman, both as a member of the New Democratic party which holds that public enterprise can be just as efficient as private enterprise, if not more so, in a number of areas, and also as a former employee of the postal service, I derive some 29180-60
Post Office Act
satisfaction from taking part in the discussion this afternoon.
I wish to say at once that I agree with the Postmaster General in one respect at least. I have in mind his statement that the Canadian postal service is one of the best, if not the best, in the world. I would only qualify this by saying "it was" rather than "it is". I am not so sure it will continue to be the best under the proposals the hon. gentleman is putting forward. At the present time, however, as has been the case for many years, the postal service of Canada is an extremely good one. For example, it is something to consider that every 12 months it handles and distributes some five billion pieces of mail, the vast bulk of which is delivered within 24 hours without error.
Before going on to consider some of the details of the legislation, may I compliment the officers and employees of the postal service of Canada who in my opinion were for many years downgraded, overworked and underpaid and who now, through collective bargaining, are making worth-while gains in wages and conditions.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
In the last parliament the proposal of the then postmaster general to increase the ordinary letter rate for locally mailed and delivered letters from four to five cents and the rate for onward or air mail letters from five to six cents was defeated. As a matter of fact the government was defeated on that issue but it did not take the defeat as one that required its resignation. In fact, it has not taken that defeat as a reason to give up its general plan to boost the mail rate for the ordinary letter writer.
What has happened is that the government is not only planning to increase the postal rate for the ordinary letter writer, that is, the first class mail consumer, but it is also asking that consumer to accept less service and pay more for it. We are being asked to condone a hike from four cents to six cents for locally mailed letters, from five cents to six cents for onward delivery letters, and to accept a reduction in delivery service from six to five days a week. No comparable country in the world has that kind of substandard delivery, dropping down to five days a week, and there is no reason why Canadians should be asked to live with it. In our party we are not going to consent to that plan.
The mail service of Canada is like the health, education or broadcasting services. It

October 8, 1968
Post Office Act
is an essential public service organized by the public for the public's use. As far as it may be feasible we believe that the system should pay its way, and I point out that this has been done for many years by first class mail and the people who use it, the ordinary letter writers. Where it has not been paying its own way has been in regard to second class mail, that type of mail published to make a profit and including periodicals and general printed matter. This class has piled up millions of dollars of deficits over many years, for which the users of the ordinary first class mail, along with the taxpayers in general, have paid.
The public accounts committee of this house only last year presented a report which contained the following unanimous recommendation:
The committee first drew the matter (that is, of the second class mail) deficits to the attention of the house in 1958, ten years ago, and, while minor changes have been made the annual loss has continued to increase and the committee is of the opinion that sufficient consideration has not been given to the solution of this problem. It considers it essential that the Post Office Department of parliament find ways and means immediately of covering the loss of the second class mail... without this being done at the expense of other classes of mail.
Similar recommendations have been made by other committees during the last seven, eight or nine years, and I make a similar recommendation today.
Why should the first class mail users, the ordinary letter writing consumers of Canada, pay for profit-orientated mail which does not pay for itself? Why should they be asked now to shoulder an increase from four cents to six cents for local mail and from five cents to six cents for air mail, when the main reason is a delivery deficit which stems from carrying freeloading mail, and when there is an imbalance to Canada's detriment in the carriage of foreign mail in Canada against the amount of Canadian mail carried, say, in the United States?
It is said that the bulk of the first class ordinary mail-I have heard one estimate put it at about 80 per cent-is really just business mail, bills from hydro commissions, telephone companies, department stores, oil corporations and the like. If this is so and if the cost of sending out their bills is going to be increased by 50 per cent as now proposed, which by my figuring would be in the order of $14 million a year, does anybody think that these business concerns are going to absorb that multimillion dollar cost? Certainly the

consumer would not think so. His experience has been that any time an increase in a tax or other cost is imposed upon business that increase is passed on to him.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, did the hon. member say that the drop letter rate was going to cost about $17 million?


Barry Mather: I said that by my figuring the net increase would be about $14 million.


Eric William Kierans: Eight and a half million dollars.


Barry Mather: dollars, is caused by our reciprocal agreements with other countries, notably the United States? What is the cost of handling bulk mail, such as money, comparing the post office rate with that of private security services? By how much do the taxpayers or the ordinary first class mail users subsidize the special delivery service, which under the minister's proposals I believe will be stepped up since regular delivery is to be reduced from six days to five days a week? Why is there a different rate for second class mail between the Americas, and between Canada and Great Britain? I believe that to send a paper from Canada to Britain the cost is double what it is to send a paper from 'Canada to the United States. I would like to get the actual figures on this. What percentage of second class mail delivered in Canada originates from American publications or from wholly owned American subsidiaries in Canada? Finally, what was the value of printed matter imported into Canada in the last ten years and carried by our post office without remuneration under the terms of the universal post office convention?
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I summarize the position of my party with regard to these proposals. First, we say, let the first class mail alone. Second, we also propose that the deficit, which all along has been caused by subsidizing private business mailings, should be eliminated. Third, we ask that the government renegotiate the international treaty which has involved us in losses and bring about parity with the United States postal service in order that our consumers will not be subsidizing non-Canadian competitors. Fourth, we want an examination-it might be through a committee, a commission, or a special inquiry within the post office itself-of the various subsidies and charges borne by the postal service in order to bring out the facts and provide a clear picture showing who pays for what. Fifth, we would like a study to be made in depth of the reported advantages of turning the post office into a public corporation such as Air Canada, a crown company operated quite separately from itinerant postmasters general.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Finally, Mr. Chairman, we in this party would also like to see a further advance in the modernization to which the Postmaster General has alluded and which has already taken place to some degree in the postal service. We should like the procedures and techniques of the postal service brought in line 29180-60 i
Post Office Act
with the era of technological production and distribution in which we are living. Some people say that the post office at this time faces a situation similar to that which the telephone companies faced a few years ago before they made their operations as automatic as possible.
Before resuming my seat, let me say that we in this party aim to do what we can to bring about in this department the best service to the most people in the shortest possible time. It is not in line with this philosophy that we should support the proposed increase in the first class mail rate or a diminution of the service to the users of first class mail.


Mr. Cyr:: Mr. Chairman, a year ago the present Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cote) who was then Postmaster General, introduced in this house a resolution which is very much like that introduced today by the present Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans).
I followed the debate on that resolution from the galleries, and I am very happy today to be able to support this resolution and to make a few constructive comments to the hon. Postmaster General with a view to improving mail service, particularly in areas far removed from the large urban centres.
When I worked in the office of the Postmaster General, I realized that the Canadian postal service is a very extensive operation. I met in this department employees who were always ready and willing to serve their country and to co-operate with the minister and senior officials.
As in any well-organized undertaking, the heads of this department are thoroughly informed about the operating costs and they are trying to hold the balance even between postal revenues and working expenses.
That is why on September 28, 1967, the hon. minister introduced in this house a bill designed to bring in annual revenues of more than $40 million. It is that same resolution that the opposition thought fit to turn down on November 28, 1967, thereby contributing to the increase of the deficit of the fiscal year ending on March 31, 1968.
For long years the department managed to balance its postal revenue and operating costs. The Canadian population was not increasing very rapidly. The volume of mail remained constant. Transportation and labour costs did not vary much. Because of these factors, it was possible to ensure well-balanced postal operations.

October 8. 1968
Post Office Act
Consequently, the last increase in postal rates-as pointed out by the hon. minister a while ago-goes back 14 years, to the time when the department provided, at no increase in costs, air transport within Canada for letters weighing less than eight ounces.
But things have changed since. Today, changes occur more rapidly than ever.
According to the last figures of the department, postal revenue amounted to $337 million compared to expenditures of $404,300,000 for operating costs. This means, as indicated in the report, a deficit of $67,200,000, which the parliament will have to make good.
Canadian postal expenses will not go down. As I said, times have changed.
Each time the Canadian population increases by one, the Post Office Department must handle 240 more pieces of mail per year.
Mr. Chairman, at the present time the mail volume, still according to the report of the department, amounts to almost 5 billion pieces. And, according to the statistics, the Canadian mail volume increases by 5 per cent every year. This means that in 14 years from now, the mail volume handled by the Post Office Department will be twice what it now is; and that 10 billion pieces will be handled annually. One may rightly say that the figure is impressive.
In his resolution, the minister proposes to increase from 50 to 60 the rate on first class letters. Let us not forget, in this regard, that the 5 cents rate has applied for over 14 years. Yet, the cost of transport and other costs have increased since.
Now, if we expect Canadian posts to pay their own way, mail rates must be increased.
Some 15 years ago, Canadians could get a cup of coffee for 5 cents, a bottle of Coke for 5 cents, a cigar for 5 cents. Today, these items have doubled in price, while we still pay in 1968, 5 cents to mail a letter out of town and 4 cents for local delivery.
The former Postmaster general who is now Minister of National Revenue, has carefully studied postal problems. During his term of office, more efficient methods of dealing with the mail have been adopted. I should like, Mr. Chairman, to mention some methods of delivering the mail that have been put into practice in a pilot area, the Gaspe peninsula.
The peninsula was a testing ground for a new method, which has since been extended to the whole of Canada: rural routes have been spread out from large centres.
TMr. Cyr.]
Several small revenue post offices have been closed down; thus better service was extended to users directly to their home, thanks to the setting up of rural routes.
According to the Canada Post Office's last annual report, 221 post offices were closed down between March 31, 1967 and March 31, 1968. Out of those 221 post offices, 63 were in the Gaspe and Bonaventure counties and 17 others will close down in a few months. This will bring the number to 80, and they are exclusively in the two constituencies I just mentioned. People who were using those post offices are getting their mail through rural routes' service.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, rural routes' service is much better than the letter carrier service in large cities. People using it can buy stamps from the rural letter carrier. The latter looks after registration of letters, parcel insurance, sale of money orders and collection of C.O.D. amounts. He is a sort of travelling post office with a fixed time-table, while the city letter carrier only delivers mail. The payment of contractors who deliver the mails on rural routes has been discussed for several years, and by your leave, Mr. Chairman, I will come back to that later on.
Another change made in the delivery service by the department, from 1966 to 1967, has been the establishment of serving centres designed to expedite transportation of mail on short distances and make it more efficient. These centres are located in well-defined geographical areas and the mail is quickly dispatched to these offices during the quiet hours of the night to be delivered afterwards by suboffices to neighbouring communities. In that way, and particularly in the Gaspe peninsula, the mail from Montreal and Quebec city is received several hours earlier than under the old transportation system. In many cases, the service enjoyed by expanding localities was poor because they were at the end of the railway line or the highway service. All that is changed now. It began in the pilot area of the Gaspe peninsula under the tenure of the 46th Postmaster General, the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Cote). Eighty of those centres are now operating, according to the annual report of the Post Office Department, and the creation of 120 other serving centres throughout the country is under study.
The merger of the small revenue post offices, the creation of new rural routes and serving centres are new services available to the Canadian people.
October 8, 1968

Mr. Chairman, the increases provided in the resolution now under consideration are not designed exclusively to pay for the new salaries of the post office employees. I gave other reasons why the 6c. rate now proposed by the minister is a bargain for the whole of Canada.
Canadians are willing to pay one cent more in postage for their letters because, in the last few years, the Post Office Department has been giving a much better service.
I would not like to see for any reason whatsoever the quality of the service go down after the passing of the bill which will be introduced in the house. It is necessary to establish the right balance between the revenue and the expenditures of the Post Office Department, but it must be remembered that the department must contribute to the progress of Canada and to the daily life of the people. It has discharged that obligation successfully until now and I am sure that Canadians from coast to coast are grateful to the postal employees. I wish to add in passing that Canada can be really proud of its postal service and, as stated by the minister earlier, it is the best in the world.
Mr. Chairman, while keeping to the resolution under consideration, I wish to refer to the report of the royal commission on working conditions in the Post Office Department.
At the time the late Rene Tremblay was holding the office of Postmaster General, there was a lot of unrest in the department. The employees were most anxious to have their own union and they asked urgently for the creation of a collective bargaining system. They were unhappy also about the method used to establish their pay level and job classification.
In July and August 1965 a strike was called in the main post offices in Canada. This was the first work stoppage by postal workers in forty years. While the strike was going on; Hon. Rene Tremblay was endeavouring behind the scenes to find some way of settling the differences between the demands of the employees and the offers of the government. The name of the former member for Matane, however, was never particularly mentioned in press releases and reports.
The Postmaster General wanted to get to the bottom of things. It is during his discussions with the leaders of the postal workers' unions that he agreed to establish a commission of inquiry on working conditions in the Post Office Department.
Post Office Act
Mr. Tremblay did not merely make that promise to the employees. He also convinced his colleagues in the cabinet concerning the need to establish such a commission as reported in order in council P.C. 1965-1590 which reads as follows:
The Committee of the Privy Council, on the recommendation of the Postmaster General, advise that Mr. Justice Andre Montpetit, Montreal, Quebec, be appointed a Commissioner-
Justice Montpetit presided during a 12 month period an investigation among the employees throughout Canada on their complaints about working conditions. When the report was tabled, it dealt with a great number of complaints stated under the form of a summary including 282 recommendations made by the commission.
Mr. Chairman, I must today, on this first opportunity which is given to me to speak in this house since the death of hon. Rene Tremblay, pay a tribute to this minister who left a most useful working paper for future Postmasters General and the authorities of the department.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Alexandre Cyr: Referring to the report of the royal commission, I shall mention particularly recommendation No. 58 which reads as follows:
That the responsible authorities conduct a thorough study of the consequences of the adoption of a policy aimed at curtailing postal service on week-ends.
Moreover, under recommendation No. 59, paragraph (c) we read:
That this study include amongst other things:
-the possibility of suspending postal operations between the midnight shift on Friday and the evening shift on Sunday at those locations where this is practical, i.e., where no serious delay in mail delivery would occur;
And under paragraph (d) we read:
The possibility in those offices where it would not be practical to curtail Saturday delivery and wicket service, of employing a minimum staff for the sale of money orders, etc., sorting, preparation and delivery of only first class mail matter along with C.O.D.'s and registered mail and the dispatching of mail of these classes.
Mr. Chairman, the resolution now before us purports to gather revenues to balance the budget of the department. As I said at the beginning, it is our duty, here in this house, to balance the budget of the Post Office Department. As I said right at the beginning, we have obligations towards Canada and its population, because the postal service belongs to the daily life of Canadians.

October 8, 1968
Post Office Act
On September 27, 1968 the Postmaster General declared, as reported in Hansard, page 496, that as from February 1, 1969, he intends to close the post offices on Saturdays. I quote:
It is, therefore, intended to close the post offices on Saturdays. Deliveries of mail will not be made on Saturdays. This will include letter carrier service, parcel post and rural route deliveries.
Mr. Chairman, I object to the closing of certain post offices in the morning on Saturdays as well as to stopping, on Saturdays, mail deliveries on rural routes.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the Post Office Department undertook in 1967 a program of amalgamation of all revenue post offices and establishment of rural routes for the delivery of mail to those who were no longer served by their post offices. The Postmaster General at that time told these people that the rural routes would provide them with better service. The program was very well received and the people served by the rural routes are very satisfied with the present service. Newspapers printed in Montreal or Quebec on Friday were distributed in Gaspe on Saturday afternoon or evening and, in some places, on Sunday morning. Thanks to the new delievery service established in 1967 and the distribution centres, the Friday editions of Montreal and Quebec newspapers reach the post offices in the ridings of Gaspe and Bonaventure during the night from Friday to Saturday, and they are delivered to the post offices and on the rural routes on Saturday morning. The people of Gaspe peninsula I represent are ready to accept a one cent increase on the postage rate of letters, as it is justified by the new postal services which have been placed at their disposal for more than one year.
According to the statement made on September 27 in the house by the minister to the effect that he was thinking of closing post offices on Saturdays, the people of Gaspe peninsula will receive their Friday papers on Monday only.
Mr. Chairman, this decision does not concern only the region of Gaspe but all the regions which are far from the large centres. Post office users in big cities like Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, Quebec, Halifax, Vancouver, Winnipeg and others, can do without the post office service on Saturdays since the newspapers are printed in those cities and their citizens can buy them at any stand or have them delivered at home by newsboys.
[Mr. Cyr.l
Mr. Chairman, if the delivery of the mail is stopped on Saturdays, rural regions will regress by 50 years. The resolution is proposing measures affecting mail delivery and rate structure as applied to newspapers and periodicals. If we are to increase the statutory rate on Canadian newspapers-daily papers that is-I suggest to the hon. minister that the increase be sufficient to make sure that Canadians who now get their paper by mail on Saturdays will still get it.
As I said at the outset of my remarks, the Post Office Department has the responsibility to contribute to Canada's development and to the well-being of its people generally. I suggest it is not by discontinuing delivery of mail on Saturdays in rural areas that we shall reach that objective. The department is saving money by consolidating small postal substations and is still carrying on that program. It would be ill-timed to deprive the patrons of rural post offices, of their Saturday mail.
In his statement of September 27, the minister said: It is, therefore, intended to close the post offices on Saturdays." I take for granted that the decision is not final, since he used the word "intended".
Mr. Chairman, it would be proper more than ever to meditate on the Latin proverb taken from the book of the great Augustus, Festina lente-Make haste slowly.
The resolution now before us reads in part as follows:
-to provide for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act, more especially in relation to tenders and contracts-
The payment of services given by rural contractors has always been particularly emphasized in this house.
The basic rate is fixed according to norms taking into account the distance travelled, the number of boxes on the route and the number of calls. There are also other important factors which will have to be considered when the department will be preparing the estimates for highway services and rural routes, such as the topography of the area, the weather conditions and the state of roads.
For instance, in winter, transportation of mails is much easier on provincial highways, where snow-ploughs pass several times a day, than on secondary roads maintained by municipalities. I want to point out that, in the spring, when the thaw is setting in, it is almost impossible to drive on many secondary roads. It is also in winter and in spring that the contractor's vehicle is most liable to be damaged.
October 8. 1968

I would suggest to the Postmaster General the establishment of a committee made up of officials of his department and independent appraisers who, at different periods during the year, would accompany the contractor to perform the field work. Such a committee would then realize that a highway service and a rural mail delivery in the Gaspe peninsula or in northern New Brunswick are entirely different from those in the Niagara Falls or Vancouver areas.
Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) has just recently established a committee travelling throughout Canada, in order to learn about housing conditions.
The Postmaster General could do likewise to determine regional standards which would direct the officials of his departments to assess the highway and rural route services.
Mr. Chairman, before closing my remarks, I am asking the House to pass the resolution under consideration. Since the Postmaster General is very understanding and anxious to co-operate with the members who are much closer to the people, I know that he intends to reconsider the removal of newspapers delivery on Saturdays, as reported in Hansard, on page 735. Even this afternoon, he mentioned he was considering the problem. Therefore, I am asking him to inform us specifically on his intentions before closing the debate.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Chairman, 1 am glad to see the Postmaster General, the designated minister of communications, has returned to his seat because for a while it seemed that the only minister in the house piloting this piece of legislation was the Minister of Fisheries. I did not think this was necessarily a coincidence.


Eric William Kierans: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I did not miss a word of what was said.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I never assumed that the Postmaster General missed a word, but the fact is that the only minister present in the house for a short while was the Minister of Fisheries, which I thought was perhaps most appropriate. In view of the bland and general way in which the Postmaster General presented his explanation of the terms of the resolution today, Canadians across the country may think that more than what the Postmaster General said is involved here and that this thing is a little fishy. Thus the post was most aptly filled by the Minister of Fisheries in the absence of the Postmaster General.
Post Office Act
Following this opening salvo I would like to echo many of the thoughts which the hon. member for Hillsborough expressed to the minister in his remarks on the resolution before us. In this era of the great society and in extending some Irish charity from this side of the house to the minister who is supposed to have some strain of Irish in him, I wish to follow the hon. member for Hillsborough in extending congratulations to the minister on his appointment and on his presence in the house. However, I must say I found that the longer the minister spoke in his introductory remarks the more difficult it became for me to be compassionate, as one is supposed to be in this type of society, for my compassion, in opposition to Parkinson's law, diminished the longer the minister spoke as he tried to sugarcoat his way with bland generalities. In bringing to the attention of the house the exotic world of communication satellites, he tried to divert our attention from some very real flaws in the resolution.
My only conclusion, after listening to the minister and trying hard to be charitable, is that the just society, which many people tried to define during the election campaign, is simply a slogan. Therefore I feel I am being charitable in the circumstances in view of this bill in saying that the just society is one in which you pay more and get less. Certainly that is just what is proposed in this bill.
In trying to resolve the problem of how much compassion I should show in extending my congratulations to the minister and having listened to him offer a bouquet to the employees of his department, I wondered at the minister's words in speaking of the turmoil of the strike last summer when he said that the strikers, in his own words, "respected the law and demonstrated their respect for the law". There was no real doubt in the minds of Canadians about whether or not the employees of the post office demonstrated their respect for the law. There is not much doubt either on the part of the public in general that it is the government which must discharge its responsibility to govern this country. I am not going to get off the track, but it was interesting to see the minister put up this straw man and then digress by talking about satellites, telephones, electronic highways and the like.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
In listening to the minister's discussion of the strike I began to wonder whether or not the proposals in this resolution and the pending bill do emanate from the strike in the

October 8. 1968
Post Office Act
sense that the government, because of the summer doldrums, was perhaps surprised that the public did not react more violently during the early days when postal service was cut off. I do not know what was contained in the interoffice memos of the Post Office Department. Certainly there was a period of ten days or perhaps even two weeks when the public did not seem to be organized in the sense that there was much vocal criticism of the lack of postal service. I wonder in my own mind whether perhaps the postal strike of last summer has not been one of the catalysts that produced this resolution and the bill to follow, since the minister seems prepared to go far beyond what his predecessor was prepared to do just last winter.
I suggest that if this is the type of reasoning that has prompted consideration of this resolution and the progressive press announcements that have been made in an attempt to precondition Canadians to these drastic changes, then the minister is going to find out that the postal service is still very important to Canadians. While we may talk about expanding telecommunications and satellites, the postal service is the glue which holds our national fabric together. I submit that these quick suggestions for such drastic changes touch the raw nerve of most Canadians. Certainly there is no question about the need for some change in rates. However, when we see rate increases on the one hand with a reduction of service on the other, then we get some understanding of the type of renovation and reform this Postmaster General would like to bring to the post office.
It would have been rather amusing, if it were not so serious, to hear the minister suggest in a glib way that we have to buy this package holus-bolus, that if we do not do so we are neanderthal; we are against progress and against change. The minister mentioned there had been no change in the rates since 1954. Some members of the press have said that now we have a majority government, that government can move boldly to make the drastic changes necessary. It is a fact that since 1954 there have been majority governments. The fact that some governments moved carefully and cautiously, long before the just society was conceived, illustrates the perplexity and complexity of some of the issues raised in this resolution.
It is a little disappointing to me that this minister, who I think has some good ideas for reform in theory, should try to glibly give us the sugar pill. I certainly hope that when we are discussing the bill the minister will tell us
[Mr. Nowlan.l
what he proposes to do because there are fundamental implications here that go far beyond the post office itself. It is an unfortunate fact which Canadians seem to have accepted, but since 1935 the Liberal party has been in power for 27 of those 33 years. If things were so drastic and horrible, it is rather surprising to me that this party which formed the government for the majority of the time since 1935 did not move with a little more dispatch, a little more imagination and innovation, to correct some of the wrongs about which the Postmaster General told us. They certainly have had a chance to innovate and to suggest changes. I think it is a little too easy to suggest, after constructive criticism from outside the house, that we are all against change.
So far as rates and service are concerned, the hon. member for Hillsborough asked many legitimate questions. I want to concentrate a little on the rates and some of the implications contained in these rate changes. Before doing that I should like to digress for a moment and congratulate the minister sincerely on the letter that we received today, giving his second and sober thoughts concerning the rural mail contract dilemma. The letter dated October 7, which I presume was directed to all members of parliament, indicated that the rural mail contracts will be considered and assessed on a just basis. In effect, these contractors will be paid for some of the equipment they did not use. This certainly is a constructive attitude on the part of the minister and goes much further than his statement on October 1 when he said that he had sober thoughts and second thoughts but the second thoughts were the same as the first. Now, his sober thoughts and second thoughts recognize the legitimate case of the rural mail contractors in Canada. I did want to congratulate the minister upon that, without any backhanded compliment being intended.
The other change upon which I hope the minister will report when we are considering the new bill is the recommendations of the Glassco commission for improving the postal service. How many of these recommendations have been implemented since 1962 to update the postal service? If some of them have not been implemented, perhaps the minister could give the reasons why certain recommendations in this very constructive report have not been followed.
With these two digressions on the rural mail contractors and this question of change,
October 8. 1968

which is not a pill we can accept on this side of the house, I should like to comment on part of the minister's remarks. He mentioned that one of the reasons for the rate change was to ensure that newspapers and periodicals bore their fair share of the cost. I believe the hon. member for Surrey asked about international agreements, and certainly the one with the United States. I wonder how the minister reconciles these suggested changes to increase rates with the Canadian users of second and third class mail? There is a case for rate change, but how can he reconcile the statement he made that newspapers and periodicals shall bear their fair share of the cost when he knows, and I know, that the problem in connection with the newspaper and periodical business is the great influx of printed matter from the United States. This printed material contributes no revenue to our coffers because, under the international agreement, it comes into Canada basically on a postage free basis.
I believe that the suggestion that the increase in second and third class postal rates is going to solve the problems of the post office detracts from the real problem, the influx of printed material from the United States which, as a result of the international agreement, is carried by our post office on an almost postage free basis. The fact that we are now going to increase second and third class mail rates on this side of the border cannot help but aggravate the extremely involved law of copyright in connection with printing and publishing inasmuch as United States printing and publishing firms now have such a tremendous advantage over Canadian printing and publishing firms because of the vast numbers of such firms in the United States.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
As I understand the minister's remarks, by increasing the second and third class rates we will not only have a natural imbalance as a result of the volume of printed and published matter but there will be even more incentive to printing and publishing companies in the United States to send their material to Canada, thus making Canadian printing and publishing that much less competitive. This second and third class mail is dropped into United States post office boxes at United States rates; it crosses the border into Canada and in effect is carried postage free under the international agreement. I think the question asked by the hon. member for Surrey is most relevant in trying to shed some light on the
Post Office Act
problem of second and third class mail without everybody being whipped up into an emotional state about how the poor postman in Canada is carrying a lot of mail too cheaply at subsidized rates. That is why I subscribe wholeheartedly to the remarks made by the hon. member for Hillsborough. I think that once we get through the resolution stage this matter should be referred to a committee, where those directly and indirectly involved could present briefs and make submissions. This would not only help educate hon. members but also inform the public about the far-reaching implications of these proposed changes.
Another point about Canadian and United States publishing and printing is that publications of this sort are assessed for federal sales tax of 12 per cent or for provincial sales tax of 5 to 8 per cent. The minister talks of the post office paying its own way and I am wondering whether that factor has been considered. Publications of other media such as radio and television pay no such sales tax.
Another very large employer and earner of dollars for this country is the paper industry. Since the wage increases were awarded last august, out of the blue has come the press statement of the minister that these rate, increases, which range between 66 and 100 per cent, will come into effect. This statement was made without any real consultation with the industry or opportunity given to the industry to submit briefs dealing with possible discrimination against the publishing industry as a result of these rate charges that the television and radio media do not pay.
As we already know, Mr. Chairman, the C.B.C. is heavily subsidized by tax dollars. In view of the fact that there is this discrimination to which I referred and that these increases range from 66 to 100 per cent, which amounts in total to an increase of from 17 to 20 per cent depending upon province, the plea of the minister to make the post office operation a pay as you go proposition would seem to fall on deaf ears unless some explanation is given of why the publishing and printing industry has been, under the proposals of the minister, singled out to pay its own way.


Eric William Kierans: Could I ask the hon. member a question?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Yes.


Eric William Kierans: Can he guess or estimate exactly what percentage of our cost we recover on second class mail?

October 8, 1968
Post Office Act


David Orlikow: Why should he do that?


Eric William Kierans: Because the hon. member has been making charges. Our actual subsidy on second class mail at the moment amounts to 78 per cent of the cost. We recover 22 per cent. So that even with a 100 per cent increase of recovery this would still mean payment of a subsidy amounting to 56 per cent.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I thank the minister for asking me a rhetorical question which he answered, and I am glad that he did because he had the information at his fingertips. This illustrates to me the necessity for this matter to go to a committee, not the committee of the whole but a committee which could hear the many briefs of interested parties, where firms could make submissions, where the experts could be cross-examined and the facts ascertained.
Regardless of the recovery on second class mail, we still have third class mail. Then, as I say, there is still that question which to me was glibly glossed over, namely, that the competitive communications media of television and radio pay no sales tax. Perhaps the minister has some facts and figures as to exactly how much is involved in regard to these publications that do not pay sales tax.


Mr. Perrault:: The government would not have any figures of that kind.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour will have his chance to take the floor. This is not the house of another province and he has to govern himself by the rules of this house. It may be difficult for him but he will have to restrain himself.
As I say, some of these communications publications pay no sales tax and do not pay the higher rates. The transmission facilities of the C.B.C. radio and television services are publicly owned; yet they are still subsidized by the government.
In these areas alone, there are legitimate questions that I think the minister has to answer before this matter can proceed much further. For example, there is the question of the five day delivery week. The hon. member for Hillsborough and others will be striking out more forcefully on this subject and also on the question of rural mail contracts and deliveries. If the minister progresses as fast with the development of communication satellites as he is progressing with these drastic changes that he wants to make, then

we may be faced with the ludicrous situation of some satellite going to the moon and back before some of the people in rural areas of this country read about it. That is what will happen unless something is quickly done about the newspaper situation.
The question of a five day week is not simply a matter of giving our postal workers a two day week end, because they have it now. I think that the public is being a little misguided if it thinks that this legislation breaks new ground by giving our postal workers a five day week.


The Chairman:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Continue.


James Hugh Faulkner: Does the committee give the hon. member leave to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I thank hon. members for their indulgence. There is another way in which the rural mail contractor can be affected. Perhaps the minister is aware of it so I will not belabour it; other hon. members may raise it.
We must also consider when talking of a five day week how businesses in our cities will be affected. The minister has stated that the mails will still move. If a letter is dropped into a post box in Vancouver on Friday night, will it still arrive in Toronto on Monday morning? There may be an easy answer to that.
Another problem that might not be so easy to answer concerns freight forwarders. These freight forwarders do business by bills of lading which they have to pick up at their customer's box before they can process the freight. This, Mr. Chairman, together with the five day week and the delivery in Toronto on Monday of a letter posted in Vancouver on Friday, are matters of legitimate concern not only to those in our cities but also to those in rural areas where mail is carried on Saturdays.
I am not going to say anything further because I know that other hon. members have a lot more to say about these drastic changes in what, to me, is a most vital service that affects more Canadians than any other.
October 8, 1968

[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Mr. Otto:: I will not be too long, Mr. Chairman. In this instance I support the minister. Sometimes, I confess, it takes me longer to support a minister than to oppose him.
To come to the point, it seems that hon. members opposite are discussing the liquidation of our postal service. From what I understand of this resolution it does not mean the end of our postal service. The resolution seeks to increase postage rates by one cent in some instances and by as much as six cents in others. In short, the resolution seeks to readjust postage rates. Actually, it is a resolution to introduce a bill which will make the post office more efficient and a better, not a poorer, service.
Hon. members of the N.D.P. and the Conservative party have referred to the post office as a great public service. No one argues that the post office is not still a great public service. The question is under our present priorities is it a public service that requires subsidizing? If so, by how much?


David Orlikow: Subsidizing by whom?


Steven Otto: How much should the subsidy be?


David Orlikow: And by whom should it be paid?


Mr.   Olio@: I want the hon. member for Winnipeg North to remember that when the post office became a public service just before the turn of the century, about 1889 or 1890, the postal authorities of Canada charged two cents to deliver a letter at a time when the total income for all Canada was only $892 million. Wages then were $1.50 per week and it cost two cents to have a letter delivered in Canada. There was no method of communication other than the post. There were no telephones. You sent a letter or you did not communicate. There was urgency, therefore, to introduce a public service dealing with postage.
In 1931, when Canadian per capita income was $348, the postal delivery rate went up to three cents. Per capita income in this country is now $2,400. If we applied a proportionate postage rate to our mail delivery it should cost 18 cents to have a letter delivered.


An hon. Member:: It should be three cents.


Steven Otto: When one remembers that
Canadians spend $413 million a year on long distance telephone calls, or an average of $80
Post Office Act
per family, no one will argue that six cents is too much to pay to have a piece of first class mail delivered. How many letters will Canadians send per week? If every family sends one letter a week, the increased cost to that family will be under 60 cents a year. In any event, each family does not send one letter a week. I say that when you consider that the average family spend $80 per year on long distance telephone calls it is nonsense to argue that this increase in first class mail rates is crucial for Canadians or that the country will go bankrupt. All this argument about the one cent increase is absolute nonsense. Considering what our people spend on long distance telephone calls every year and considering that our income per capita is much higher now than it was before, should first class mail be subsidized at all? I do not think so. I think it should pay its own way.


David Orlikow: It does.


An hon. Member:: Business will suffer.


Steven Otto: I hear comments that business will suffer. I expect that this rate will mean an additional expense of about $1 per week per business. Since the cost of typing a letter is $2.70, spending an extra two cents to mail the letter will not break any business establishment. Business will be more efficiently served than in the past. In any event, business does not ask to be subsidized.


David Orlikow: No, it passes its costs on to the consumer.


Steven Otto: Of course. And who do you think is going to pay the $100 million deficit which amounts to about $5 per person? Does the hon. member think Canadians would rather pay $5 per capita or see postage rates on first class mail increased by one or two cents?
The latter part of the resolution, as I read it, deals with what some term direct mail. Direct mail entails an absolute waste of time and money. Of course, direct mailers will complain bitterly; their expenses will go up. You must remember, and it has been proven many times, that only about 7 to 9 per cent of direct mail is ever looked at. At most, direct mail is 9 per cent efficient and those who engage in direct mail advertising know that 90 per cent of their effort is wasted. Most of the matter they mail winds up in the waste paper basket. So long as we subsidize that inefficient 90 per cent the money the direct mailers spend will not be turned to more productive channels of advertising and promotion. I have absolutely no sympathy for the

October 8, 1968
Post Office Act
concept of direct mailing. There are many superior ways to get one's message across. If the postage rates are kept at their present levels it will pay those engaged in direct mailing to see 90 per cent of their matter thrown away and 10 per cent only put to effective use.
I want to say a few words about periodicals, Mr. Chairman. There has been a sort of sanctimonious attitude toward periodicals as if magazines, periodicals and newspapers of all kinds have a vested right to be in our lives.


David Orlikow: Especially Time and Reader's Digest.


Steven Otto: I have seen worse magazines.


David Orlikow: I don't know where.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Where have you been?


Steven Otto: I hold no brief for Time or Life magazine. I think no periodical has the vested right to be delivered at rates which amount to subsidies. There are some areas of endeavour, in the artistic or literary fields, which the government might wish to promote. No one says that the government will cut out all subsidization. We are saying that the matter will be reviewed and adjusted. We want no one to say, "I have special privileges that someone else has not," or "someone has special privileges that I have not". That is the basis of this resolution. The resolution seeks to clarify and regulate so that all periodicals will be treated equally.


David Orlikow: Where does it say that?


Mr.   Olio@: That is the entire purport of the resolution.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr.   Olio@: The minister made that plain in several public statements. He did not say he would cut out all subsidies. He said that periodicals will be treated equally, as will be second class mail of all kinds.
I now wish to say a few words about the question of Saturday closing which was raised by hon. gentlemen opposite. I do not think the minister says that there will never be any kind of postal service on Saturday. He said the matter is to be studied. At the moment it looks as if Saturday deliveries will be discontinued. The minister recognizes that business patterns have changed and that for some people who work all week Saturday may be the

only day on which they can make use of mail service. No doubt the department will evolve methods of serving members of the working public who must have recourse to mail service on Saturday, and I am quite sure that the minister is open on that subject. No one has said that mail service of every kind is to be discontinued on Saturdays.
The minister deserves kudos for announcing that a research group has been set up to determine whether the Post Office Department can be turned into a crown corporation. It would be a wonderful idea if it could be turned into a crown corporation. I think the department deserves the status of such a corporation, especially if it is to increase its efficiency. Personally, I see no reason for all the hue and cry we hear about the disappearance of the post office. The Post Office Department will be a better and more efficient department if it operates as a crown corporation, and I support the minister wholeheartedly on this aspect.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, first of all I should like, as other members have done, to congratulate the minister on his new position in his new field of activity, the federal government. He certainly comes here well recommended. We sincerely wish him success and hope he will be able to apply his many abilities to the demands of his new position.
Before I go further with my remarks, there are one or two things I think should be clarified. The previous speaker clearly implied that the minister had not said there would be no letter carrier or other delivery of mail on Saturdays and that the department was just considering the matter. I have in front of me Hansard containing the following statement on page 496. Nothing is said here about studying the question. The paragraph reads:
It is therefore intended to close the post offices on Saturdays. Deliveries of mail will not be made on Saturdays. This will include letter carrier service, parcel post and rural route deliveries.
I quote this in order that there may be no misunderstanding. Unless the minister has changed his mind since then and imparted new information to the hon. member who has just spoken, there can be no equivocation about what the minister said. If during the course of the discussion of this resolution the hon. gentleman wishes to clarify the matter I am sure we would all be pleased to hear him do so.
October 8, 1968

It seems to me, in view of a number of things which have taken place and which have been brought up in this chamber, that the minister's great energy and enthusiasm for the work he has undertaken have led to his being a little too hasty in this case. Since the proposed changes are not to come into effect, I understand, until February 1 of next year there would certainly be no harm in responding to the representations made in this house and elsewhere that this question be referred to a special committee, perhaps with a proviso that the committee report back within a certain time limit so that its deliberations will not take too long.
As my hon. friend from Hillsborough has indicated, there are a number of aspects which require study. For instance, there is the question of the cost of the junk mail we all receive. The position of the weekly newspapers must be considered. How will bills of lading be affected? A great many people who stand to be seriously affected by these proposed changes should have a chance to make representations before a committee. The setting up of a special committee in this regard would be most appropriate. It would not delay the minister's proposed legislative changes and it might be most helpful.
Unlike a good many other ministers both present and past, the Postmaster General shows a certain flexibility of mind and reasonableness which are highly commendable. I would refer to the representations which were made to him by members on both sides of the house with respect to the position of rural mail contractors during the recent postal strike. I understand it was originally decided not to pay these people despite the fact that they had contracts with the government. After representations had been made the minister announced to us that the contracts would be honoured after all, minus sums in respect of costs for gasoline and the like which were not incurred.
I think this was an excellent decision on the part of the minister and he should be commended for listening to the representations made to him by hon. members. It is no disgrace to change one's mind. Some people who have been here over the years seem to believe they are the fount of all knowledge and that no one else can have any knowledge about anything. When asked to change positions they have taken they dig in their heels, lay their ears back and stubbornly refuse. It is refreshing to see a minister who does not do this.
Post Office Act
It is my understanding that the principle has been followed by all governments in recent years that Canadian citizens should not be penalized because of geography or their location, and I am sure the minister would agree that this is a proper course to take. This applies to all necessary services, and surely communication services are included. There are forms of communication which presently enjoy heavy subsidies, as my hon. friend from Hillsborough indicated. I refer to the C.B.C. and the C.N.R., to mention only two. People who live in the far north receive news and information by radio and telegram via the C.B.C. This certainly costs plenty, but nobody objects to it. I believe that those who try to open up our north country are entitled to these special services even if they do cost extra money. There are precedents. The railway which opened up this vast country was never intended to pay its own way. The same applies to the Post Office Department.
I realize that most members on the government side come from the big cities. There are a few who do not but the majority come from the big cities and are not familiar with the difficulties with which residents of rural areas have to contend. Consider deliveries of newspapers, for example. People living in rural areas of southwestern Ontario, a heavily populated part of the country, as well as those living in southern Quebec or the lower mainland of British Columbia, I presume, receive their daily papers not from paper boys but by rural mail. I know that in my own area the London Free Press makes in the neighbourhood of 20,000 deliveries a day by rural mail.
It is true that in modern days radio and television constitute a greatly improved method of communication but it is a fact that a great many people still like to read the newspapers despite their many faults. Most of us read the newspapers and enjoy them. Most major dailies put out a special edition on Saturdays containing all sorts of additional matter-coloured pictures, comics, "goodies", as one of my hon. friends puts it. There are even some informative things in the coloured pictures. Most people, including farmers, appreciate this.
Perhaps I should bring it to the attention of members of the government that farm people work seven days a week. But they do have a little more time to themselves on Sundays,

October 8, 1968
Post Office Act
possibly because of their religious background. I know this is an old-fashioned concept to some, but in some places in the country areas Sunday is still observed as a day of rest.
As I say, people like to read their papers on Sunday and the papers would not be of much use if deliveries were not made until Monday or Tuesday. No doubt there are some who would be inconvenienced by the lack of letter carrier delivery in urban areas on a Saturday, but I have received nothing like as many complaints from urban areas as I have received from residents in rural areas. The minister might be able to justify to some extend discontinuance of mail delivery in urban areas but I certainly think he should carefully reconsider his intention to discontinue letter carrier service on Saturdays in the rural areas.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Discontinuance of Saturday service will have another effect. If the minister's proposal is put into effect without change on February 1, then because of his power to vary the contracts with rural mail contractors these people will have their remuneration cut proportionately. As someone pointed out earlier, this is not very just in the new just society, because these people get little enough as it is and, if I may use the expression, Mr. Chairman, damn little in proportion to others. Most of them cannot "moonlight", to use popular parlance, and cannot get other forms of income. It is not an easy matter to find Saturday jobs.
If the minister has to save money I suggest he save it on the letter carrying service in the urban areas. I and other members who represent both kinds of areas have not had as many complaints from urban as from rural areas, particularly in respect of the newspaper situation, and I hope the minister will reconsider this aspect of his proposal.
To sum up, Mr. Chairman, I hope the minister will prevail upon his cabinet colleagues to set up a special committee of the house to report by a certain date, a committee that will look into a number of questions and complaints that have been raised. I cannot help but think that in his enthusiasm to do a really good job the minister has not received all the information he should have with respect to the proposed changes. The people of Canada and the minister could derive real benefit from further information,

and I hope he will give careful consideration to this suggestion.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I waited with a great deal of interest for what was really the first speech of the Postmaster General in this chamber. Before he came to this house he had a reputation as a great progressive, a great radical. It may have been heresy and untrue but in fact I even read references to him as a socialist. But as I listened to his speech it seemed to me that it could very well have been made by his colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, who on occasion has been called many things but never a radical, never a progressive and, God forbid, never a socialist.
Somewhere in the place where they make cabinets, Mr. Chairman, there must be a sausage machine. You take prospective cabinet ministers, radicals like the Postmaster General, reactionaries like the President of the Treasury Board, put them in the machine, grind away, and what comes out is some good gray, bureaucratic conservative who makes the kind of speech that the Postmaster General made.
The Postmaster General tells us that at present rates the post office is going to have a deficit of $99J million and that the post office must pay its own way. My colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, has asked a very simple and obvious question. Where is it written that the Post Office or any other department of government must pay its own way? Does the Department of National Health and Welfare pay its own way? Does the Department of-


An hon. Member:: Defence?


David Orlikow: Defence is in a class by itself and I will leave it to the experts. Does the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce pay its own way, except in the sense that we hope it increases the efficiency of Canadian businesses and industries so that they can produce and so on? Which departments of government pay their own way? Does the National Research Council pay its own way? Can any minister demonstrate in dollars and cents that the National Research Council pays its own way? Of course not, Mr. Chairman. Governments and parliaments in past years have decided that the people of Canada are entitled to certain services, and one of the basic rights of the people of Canada is the right to send and receive mail.
October 8, 1968

I wonder whether the hon. member tor York East, who spoke a few minutes ago, will go back to his constituency and tell the many old age pensioners there that the increase in the first class mail rate is justified, old age pensioners who live on the miserable pensions which we give them in this country, who depend so much in their way of life on the letters they get from their children and other relatives and friends. Will he tell them that this increase of almost 50 per cent is justified?
Aside from the question of the principle that the Post Office Department must pay its own way, which in my opinion is completely unjustified, there is a simple question that we have a right to ask. If there is a deficit and if the deficit must be met where was it incurred and are the increases proposed going to come from those sources which produced the deficit?
The minister has been very explicit. He is going to increase the rate for first class mail to six cents. He is going to cut deliveries from six days to five days a week. He is going to close the postal savings banks. He is going to increase the charges for sending postal money orders. He is going to increase the charges for sending local mail.
I would like the minister or anybody in his department to show any member of parliament or any member of the public that it costs as much to mail a letter in Ottawa to be delivered in Ottawa as it costs to mail a letter in Ottawa for delivery in Vancouver or Winnipeg. To say that it does is simply to show how ridiculous this kind of proposal is. It simply is not and cannot be true.
The minister has been very explicit about the kind of increases we are going to get for first class mail, although to my knowledge every study which has been made has indicated pretty clearly that first class mail comes fairly close to paying its own way if it does not in fact do so. Yet that is where the increases are coming, and that is where the minister is so careful to point out exactly what the increases will be.
The hon. member for Surrey has pointed out that those increases where they apply to business mail involving bills, charge accounts and the host of ordinary transactions in which we all get involved will not be paid for by the businesses which mail the bills but will be passed on in increased costs to the consumer. Every one of us who drives a car and uses the credit cards supplied to us so quickly, easily and gracefully by Imperial
Post Office Act
Oil, B.A., Shell and all the other companies, knows very well that the increase in the cost of sending a monthly statement to us will be picked up quickly by those companies through an increase in the cost of gasoline. The same goes for Eaton's and Simpson's, or anybody else with whom you are unfortunate enough to have to do business. So, we are going to have to pay for that increase in mail rates which the Postmaster General, that great progressive, is inflicting on the people of Canada-


Eric William Kierans: If I could make a remark-


David Orlikow: I will always be glad to hear you.


Eric William Kierans: The hon. member has twitted me for being called at one time a socialist and perhaps now, horror of horrors, a conservative. I find it strange to listen to the hon. member for Winnipeg North, having listened to the hon. member for Surrey plead the cause of business in this chamber.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I am at a loss for words-


Eric William Kierans: Are you a socialist?
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, if I am at a
loss for words momentarily it is for the simple reason that obviously the Postmaster General has not been listening. I have just finished saying that those increases which the ordinary citizen is asked to pay will be paid by him when the cost of the goods which he buys is increased by the amount of the postal increase.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Chairman, if I could intervene in order to give the hon. member for Winnipeg North time to collect his thoughts, I would like to suggest that what is true about the increase in the first class rate is the simple fact that 80 per cent of this increase will be borne by the business community. What is suggested by the hon. member, and completely unproven, is that the business community will in fact pass it on to the consumers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Where has the minister been?


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I do not have a Parliamentary Guide here, but I understand that the Postmaster General at one point in his varied career was a professor in business administration, I believe, at McGill. I think

October 8. 1968
Post Office Act
he ought to go back and take a course. He and I know that none of the companies which will pay the increased cost of sending out their bills will themselves absorb that cost. He and I know-and it will be demonstrated very quickly-that they will pass that cost on to the consumer.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Chairman-


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I do not mind the Postmaster General interrupting as long as the Chair keeps a record and does not take his time off mine.


Eric William Kierans: All I want to say, as a former professor of economics, is that the hon. member still-


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. Under our standing orders the minister does not have the right to intervene even for the alleged reason of allowing the hon. member for Winnipeg North to collect his thoughts. If the minister wants to make a statement he can do so with the leave of the house. He can also ask a question. If the minister wants to ask a question, perhaps he should put his question directly.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I have the feeling that the more the minister speaks, the more he is digging his grave, so I have no objection to his speaking. The minister's statement was very specific and in very concrete terms-about the exact changes which he proposes in respect of first class mail which I say has on the whole been carrying its own cost. But the minister has not given us the full details of all the changes he proposes.
What the minister has not done-and I say he has no right to ask the members of this committee to vote for this resolution until he does it-is to tell us in the same kind of detail the increases which he proposes for other types of mail. For the hon. member for Annapolis Valley it was rather like pulling teeth to get the minister to tell us what is intended with respect to second and third class mail. I think I have written this down correctly, that at the present time second and third class mail is being subsidized to the extent of 78 per cent.
If the minister knows that and can tell us that he is increasing first class mail rates to six cents per letter, he can also tell us what he proposes to do about second and third class mail, because these have been the freeloaders. The just society, obviously, to the minister and to the Prime Minister means

that those who have shall get more and those who have not shall pay more. What has the minister to say about second and third class mail? What about the garbage that comes into every mail box in this country every day? What about the throwaways, the catalogues, and all the material of this type which is unwanted and unasked for?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question?


David Orlikow: Certainly.


Eric William Kierans: Does the hon. member realize that we have already raised the rates on third class mail by between 66 per cent and 80 per cent? Does he also realize that a discussion on third class mail does not come under the terms of the resolution?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I suggest to
the minister that if he wants the members of the committee to vote intelligently on this resolution he should be just as specific with regard to the rate increases he proposes for second and third class mail as he was regarding those proposed for first class mail. What does 66 per cent mean? What was it before? How much was it losing before and how much will it pay in the future?
I can get an annual subscription to the Winnipeg newpapers-and I am sure this is true of members from Regina, Calgary or Vancouver-and the newspapers will be delivered in Ottawa at the same price as they are delivered to me in Winnipeg. How much does the Post Office Department charge the daily newspapers to deliver newspapers from the city in which they are printed to the city in which they are delivered? How much does it cost us to carry those newspapers? How much do we get back? The minister has not told us these things. I think he can, and I hope he will before we finish this debate.
How much does it cost to take Eaton's catalogue from the point where it is printed, either Toronto or Winnipeg, and have it delivered to virtually every home in Canada? Does it pay for itself or do we lose money on this operation? I have never asked that these catalogues be delivered to my home but they are. As I say, the minister should tell us whether we are losing money in this respect. Almost every day I get circulars from the Book of the Month Club, Encyclopedia Bri-tannica or 100 other organizations. I have never asked for them but I get them. How
October 8, 1968

Post Office Act
much does it cost to deliver these? Are we getting back the cost of carrying them or subsidizing it? These are the kinds of things the minister ought to be telling this house. He has been singularly quiet on these matters up to now.
I suggest to the minister that if he has no new figures he should look at the report of the royal commission on publications. I realize that it may be verboten by this government because that royal commission was appointed by a former government. However, the royal commission published some very interesting statistics. I refer the minister to page 87 of the report, where they point out that periodicals do not carry the full cost of delivery. They point out that the loss to the Canadian Post Office on publishers' second class mail has been steadily increasing. In 1948 the loss to the post office was about $7.5 million; in 1960 it was almost $23 million. How much was it in 1967? Are the increases which the minister says he is imposing going to mean that there will be no loss to the postal department?
The royal commission on publications referred to the value to the country of small publications such as those put out by universities like McGill, Dalhousie and Toronto. I do not mind subsidizing these. I do not even mind subsidizing church publications, but I resent having the taxpayers of Canada subsidize publications such as Reader's Digest and Time magazine. I think they are very well able to pay for themselves. Before I would even think of voting for this resolution I want the minister to tell us whether in fact we are going to wipe out subsidies for this kind of magazine.
Perhaps we should be subsidizing the delivery through the mails of daily and weekly newspapers because they are a very important source of information to the people of this country. If the government intends to do that as a matter of public policy, surely the minister should say so and tell us that the cost of a deliberate decision to subsidize the delivery of daily and weekly newspapers, which are important to the people of Canada, will amount to so many millions. That is the kind of information the minister ought to give. It is because the minister has been so remiss in giving us these elemental and essential bits of information that, if we are to vote in a responsible way. we must vote against the resolution.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Before sitting down I should like to take this opportunity, since the minister discussed the Post Office Department, of saying a few words about the postal strike and what I consider to be the absolutely inexcusable and indefensible manner in which the government acted. I am not sure that this minister had very much to do with handling the strike. In 1966 there was a work stoppage by postal workers. As a means of getting the postal workers back to work the government appointed Mr. Justice Montpetit to look into the working conditions which may have led to the work stoppage.
Mr. Justice Montpetit made a very lengthy report. If there has ever been a more damaging report regarding the operations of government I do not know of it. Mr. Justice Montpetit made a series of recommendations and suggested that the Post Office Department should be reorganized in order that the working conditions for post office workers could be similar to those of private industry. We had another strike which lasted for several weeks because those recommendations were not implemented. The truth of this can be seen from the fact that to settle that strike it was necessary to appoint Mr. Justice Montpetit to examine the situation and find out what recommendations had not been implemented.
I cannot understand how any government could wait until the eve of a strike before saying to a group of workers that the amount they had asked for was too high and unreasonable. The government should have immediately said that the cost of living had increased by a certain percentage since the last settlement and it was prepared to use that percentage as the basis of an increase in wages. The government did not do this but waited until it was virtually impossible to prevent the strike. It seems to me that a government which refers so frequently to a just society should look at its own operations and implement a just society for its own employees before calling upon the people of Canada to do so.
tTranslation]


Mr. Godin:: Mr. Chairman, like the previous speakers, allow me to congratulate the new Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans), because I feel that among the ministers he has the most desirable post, since he is supported in his work by honest and efficient employees. Indeed, according to the reports of our friends who travelled throughout the world or soldiers on leave who tell us about the problems which they must face when dealing with

October 8, 1968
Post Office Act
the mail, we come to the conclusion that our service is not only excellent but also fast when one considers that there is a 24-hour service between Vancouver and Quebec and a 12-hour service between Ottawa and Quebec.
The part of the resolution which I prefer is the following and I quote:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Post Office Act to abolish the local delivery rate on letters for delivery within the postal area in which they are posted-
This disposition leaves something to be desired. However, further on, we read:
-to provide for certain changes in connection with the administration of the Act, more especially in relation to tenders and contracts;

Mr. Chairman, it is very interesting to see that the hon. minister intends to tackle the problem of contracts because the method used until now was really outmoded as it dated back to the time when the mail was delivered by horse or ox-drawn carriage. I could give you a number of examples of this.
I have seen the list of contractors who deliver mail in my area. It is really disappointing to see the discrepancies which exist between contracts when the distances to cover are the same and an equivalent number of people are involved. I am convinced that of all the employees of the department, the people hired under contract are those who get the lowest salaries.
At this stage, Mr. Chairman, may I be allowed to read some extracts from a letter I received from the Postmaster General on October 7, 1968. I quote:
-we recognize that a large number of contractors have taken steps to be available at all times in order to resume work as soon as the strike is over. For that reason, we are ready to pay them a certain remuneration, without prejudice, in accordance with the following provisions.
1. To the contractors who provide the rural mail delivery and other minor services, who do the work tnemselves and are paid on an annual basis, we propose to pay the ordinary remuneration for the whole period while the service was interrupted, less the normal operating costs which were not incurred during the period while the work was not performed.
[Englishl


James Hugh Faulkner: It being six o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment today are as follows: The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Schreyer), Agriculture-biological effects on chickens of microwave tower radiation; the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Sko-berg), Corporations and Labour Unions 
Returns Act,-alleged delay in submission of returns by corporations; the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), Fisheries-establishment by Russia of rights off Pacific coast.
It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Roland Godin: Mr. Chairman, when the house rose, I was commenting a letter addressed to me by the Postmaster General on October 7.
This letter informs us of the minister's intention to reduce the wages due to contractors who were the victims of the postal strike last summer, such reduction being proportionate to the expenses incurred to do their work in normal times.
I wish to take advantage of this resolution to ask the minister to reconsider his decision and to pay all those contractors at the normal rate, as though there had been no strike.
In my opinion, a study to establish the exact margin between wages and expenses would cost more than the total payment of regular salaries due to these people.
Mr. Chairman, I started my remarks with congratulations for the honourable minister. Allow me here to show him my sympathy because, after all, having been in the minister's seat for barely two months, he is already forced to extend a begging hand.
We very well realize that he is facing increased operating costs. He is at the head of a Department with employees scattered in all parts of Canada. His employees must pay their taxes as "all workers do. All sorts of taxes have been added to the costs of the various services which the department must use.
The minister must cope with pay increases claimed by his staff who these past years have had to wrestle with increases in federal, provincial, municipal and school taxes. All increases in taxes, both direct and indirect, have pushed upwards the costs of the services required for the good operation of that department.
Of course, the operator of a fleet of trucks for instance, will have to consider the higher operating costs of his vehicles because of direct or indirect taxes. The costs of materials
October 8, 1968



needed to build new post offices have necessarily increased, on account of the new 12 per cent tax on building materials.
To summarize, Mr. Chairman, the minister is up against the system he set up himself in co-operation with his colleagues. He is up against higher trucking, railroad and air freight rates.
The minister must face up to the high cost of labour. He has to cope with the high rents for buildings not owned by his department.
The minister is also at grips with the rise in construction costs and the department lets contracts to other departments for the construction of the buildings it requires.
There is no other solution. The rates have to be increased for all postal deliveries across the country. To justify his action, the minister tell us that the rates in force at present were set in 1954.
Mr. Chairman, if such arguments were valid or justifiable, I think that family allowances would be increased since the rates now in force were established in 1944.
The second argument that the minister has advanced in his statement is to the effect that he wants to consider the classical methods in order to achieve a better service.
Mr. Chairman, has the minister begun his study of the matter? In the affirmative, with the 40-hour week that already exists for a number of postal employees, can the minister tell us if he intends to lay off all the people who are now working on a casual basis, in order to replace those who would have leisure time due to the 40-hour week.
This is a secret for nobody, because under the postal service in operation on Saturday, some employees had a holiday on Monday, some others on Tuesday and still others on Wednesday. At any rate, these holidays will automatically disappear and, I ask again my question: Will the casual employees have to leave their job or is it intended to assign them to other duties in order to really improve the service?
Can the hon. minister tell us by whom he intends to be assisted in his consideration and if the examiners have not yet been appointed, would he permit me to suggest that he should ask for the services of our postmasters, because, unfortunately up to now, these civil servants have not been called upon. However, these postmasters are serious, honest and conscientious people with a background of 10, 15 and sometimes 20 years of experience.
Post Office Act
The ministers are sometimes shuffled around. Members can be defeated, but postmasters remain with all their knowledge and they only request the privilege of co-operating with the department.
Mr. Chairman, I am convinced that if the minister calls in this group of workers experienced in post office matters, the review of the old methods will not last long, since these civil servants will quickly point out the deficiencies which the honourable minister intends to remedy, in the best interest of the users of the Canadian post office.


Robert Jardine McCleave: First, Mr. Chairman, this resolution gives me an opportunity to say a few kind words to the minister, who is a newcomer to the House of Commons. I congratulate him upon surviving the political olympiad which occurred in Ottawa earlier this year, and also congratulate the hon. gentleman upon the fact that the Prime Minister chose to establish communications with him.
It would also seem that the minister deals with the excommunicated, because one of the purposes of the proposed legislation is to do what the former member for York-Humber had advocated on occasion in the House of Commons. So that yesterday's heresies sometimes have a habit of turning up as today's Liberal doctrine.
In his remarks the minister made many references to the just society. I suppose this shows that the Prime Minister was communicating with him; and if we are to accept the minister's statement, the just society and the Post Office will march hand in hand.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I appreciate the applause because I think the outstanding feature of the just society is that it is so inflationary that even an astronomic telescope had to be scrapped because it could not keep track of the inflation. The Pest Office Department had been one of the last refuges of the nickel, but now even that refuge is gone with first class mail to go up to six cents. Indeed the minister is fully in tune with the just society, as we know it to exist in Canada today. I thought that as a new minister he might have reversed the trend that has been going on for some time in the House of Commons with regard to the resolution stage. As I understand the resolution stage, it affords the ministry an opportunity to present to the House of Commons the dollars and cents that

October 8, 1968
Post Office Act
will be involved in a particular piece of legislation so that the house can determine whether to accept or reject what is proposed. The resolution is to acquaint the house, and therefore, the taxpayers, with the amount of money involved in legislation that is proposed. But as other speakers have pointed out, we have not had a real indication from the minister, at least in his brief presentation, as to the exact picture of the costs.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
It must be said in fairness to the minister that when in the debate he attempted to ask questions of other members or make interjections, some of this information came out. But I think it would have been more useful if he had given us this information in his opening remarks. Perhaps before the resolution stage of the debate ends, he will do so.
Mr. Chairman, by way of aside I would say that if we are to deal with the reform of our procedures and do not go back to the original purpose of the resolution stage, this is one of those things that could be scrapped quite easily without any loss to ourselves.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Jardine McCleave: If we do revert to the better practice of ancient times, then the resolution stage might yet achieve a purpose. Serious questions were asked by the hon. member for Hillsborough, the hon. member for Oxford, the hon. member for Annapolis Valley and members of other opposition parties. I think the suggestion of the hon. member for Hillsborough, backed up by others, for a committee study was a pretty good one. We had in this house yesterday an instance of the hearts of all parliamentarians being touched by tragic events in another part of the world, and we are very quick to establish a committee to look into possible ways of assisting people suffering starvation.
I think everybody in the house agrees that if any department deeply touches the lives of Canadians, it is the Post Office Department. Perhaps nothing has hurt Canadians more than the announcements made over a period of time, culminating in this measure to change the postal habits of Canadians. I think it annoys them. I do not think they will buy the argument of the hon. member for York East, who asked, what is a penny increase or what is a two cents increase? For some people a penny or two pennies means a great deal indeed. When I heard this argument I thought the same argument would probably

be used by some kindly but misguided executioner operating the medieval rack, in the middle ages to the effect that another little twist or turn would not really hurt at all. Probably this increase will not hurt most Canadians. But I know that during the postal strike, when people had to have an ear to bend to express their views about how much the postal service meant to them, I could tell how much the postal service means to very poor people who count on letters perhaps to a greater extent than any of us in this chamber.
The same argument could be raised with regard to making it more difficult for people to write letters by increasing the rate either one or two cents, namely that it takes something out of their lives. To many people letters are of extraordinary importance. I think we have had from the new minister commendable zeal and energy, but I think this has also been accompanied by an indecent haste to get the affairs of the Post Office in what he imagines to be order. To the minister I think this means balancing the budget. To those on this side it means paying more money for less service. To people all across Canada it means much less by way of service, particularly the week end service.
I support the suggestion of the hon. member for Hillsborough that a committee study this measure. I make the point that we sadly lack details in this regard. Certainly we have not had sufficient information at the resolution stage to justify the resolution that we are now considering. We should be able to ask questions of officials. If we can put our best collective experience and ideas together and suggest methods of relieving starvation in another part of the world, surely there must be a similar pool of ideas which could suggest how the Post Office could overcome some of its problems.
I think these problems are best summed up in the Canadian Post Office Annual Report for 1967. I quote from page 9 of that report as follows:
Increases in revenues brought about through efficiencies, rate adjustments and larger volumes were offset constantly by the cost of increased services, additional personnel, rising labour costs and higher transportation charges.
It seems to me that in all the specific areas mentioned, enterprising M.P.s on the house committee could dig in and come up with ideas for our postal service. They could find out the specifics, the a's, b's and c's of each factor I have mentioned. I hope the Postmaster General will be able to answer the questions raised and tell us in the committee what
October 8, 1968

is the long range projection for these measures.
We are asked to raise the postal rates one or two cents for first class mail, so we get into a six cent category for all mail. Does this stabilize the situation? Does this measure, with the others, overcome the problem the Postmaster General is trying to overcome, or in one year or two years is it projected that costs may go up and new measures will become necessary? I would like to have heard from the hon. gentleman, and hope that at some stage of the debate he will take us into his confidence as to long range planning, what these rates are intended to do now and what they will do in the future.
One of the proposals that I believe is being advanced by the hon. gentleman-if I did not hear him correctly, I hope he will set me right-deals with the newspapers of this country. I have particular reference to the smaller weeklies. Some of these newspapers have in the past enjoyed free mailing privileges: In an editorial in the Canadian Weekly Publisher of July, 1967, it was stated:
Thus we generously estimate (the exact figures have been supplied to the postal authorities by the CWNA Postal Committee) that the Post Office Department handles, free of cost, at the most, some 500,000 copies a week.
During the publishing year, with most newspapers closing one week for a plant holiday, this number amounts to 25,500,000 copies. At the usual mailing rate-three cents for the first two ounces- the annual lost revenue to the Post Office Department is $765,000 at most.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
The $765,000 is a far cry from the gap of some $97 million that the minister is attempting to close through this legislation. When this measure comes in I hope some consideration will be given to the problems faced by the weekly newspaper publishers. Let me quote again from this editorial, Mr. Chairman:
-a small community newspaper is no moneymaker to many a publisher. This service to the public is, if the publisher is fortunate, made possible by the job shop and stationery store run in conjunction with the newspaper.
The publisher keeps putting out his newspaper also because it is the only means that provides a voice to the grass roots community and lends it some identity.
Quite often the small newspaper is the only voice through which the government by publicity releases or advertisements can reach the isolated or furthest corners of this country. Thus the newspapers not only provide service to their readers but help the government to communicate with its citizens.
Post Office Act
I fully endorse these remarks Mr. Chairman. This matter of giving identity to small communities is important. It is my hope that nothing the minister does or that we here will be asked to do in respect of post office legislation will put any of these small but important areas of Canadian journalistic concern in jeopardy.
If the government wants to generate more revenue let me suggest one quick and handy way: Perhaps he should call on his friend Mayor Jean Drapeau of Montreal. However, I am not suggesting the minister should invite him here to set up some supercolossal lottery which will bail the post office out of this present sea of red ink.
Some residents of Ottawa have drawn my attention to the fact that the envelope which comes to their doors with an invitation to pay voluntary taxes to Montreal-a neat way to describe a lottery-come with the notation "Pull out for postal inspection" or "Tirez pour inspection postale". The glue on the envelope is such that, with heat and the normal jostling of the mail, the envelope seals itself. Thus the envelopes have arrived at the doors without a notation as to their source, because Mr. Drapeau does not put names or addresses on these, which have probably left Montreal as second or third class mail. They arrive in the post boxes of this nation as first class mail because of this self-sealing process. Let me suggest to the Postmaster General that he invite Mayor Drapeau to make a more sizeable contribution to the postal coffers of Canada in respect of these requests.
I have made a few points, and perhaps I will make more during the other stages of this legislation. Let me repeat that I endorse what I regard as the very reasonable request of the hon. member for Hillsborough, that at a very early stage we should follow the successful formula of referring this matter to a committee of the house so that interested individuals would have an opportunity to discuss with the minister and his officials what is surely the most basic service to the Canadian people. I do not think anyone would object to a time limit of a couple of weeks. This is one of the most important services that Canadian people have, because this service affects the lives of all of us.


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Chairman, I think most members of the house have listened with interest to the line of argument advanced by the opposition during the course of considering this resolution. Despite the agitated eloquence and the tortuous line of opposition

October 8. 1968
Post Office Act
reasoning, it is obvious that we have in this resolution a measure which is not only desirable but necessary. It is necessary in the interests of the Canadian taxpayer. It is necessary, and opposition members know it. Indeed, I say this in part because of past pronouncements opposition members have made about the need to improve postal efficiency.
We have been treated today to a labyrinth of illogic.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Raymond J. Perrault: What is the proposal?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Raymond J. Perrault: What is the proposal?


An hon. Member:: We now hear from the oratorical genius.


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Chairman, I suppose we must listen to all this chatter.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Raymond J. Perrault: Apparently the opposition slogan is "Don't confuse us with the facts, our minds are made up".
The proposal is to bring to the postal service of this country a degree of equity and economy which has been needed for years, and that it is time to put postal operations in Canada on a sound, efficient and businesslike basis. The proposal is the product of a belief which I submit should go beyond party demarcation lines. For once all should agree to endeavour to promote efficiency in a government operation which will produce benefits for all taxpayers. This instead of pursuing nit-picking arguments which, at times, I believe are not held sincerely by some of the members.


An hon. Member:: How about the C.B.C.?


Raymond J. Perrault: Huge deficits in the postal operation are intolerable and injurious to the economy, and all of us know it. Yet, the intent of the opposition here today seems to be to oppose this resolution and therefore to frustrate any change.


An hon. Member:: You don't know that.


Raymond J. Perrault: On September 29, 1967 the Conservative member for Lambton-Kent said in this house as recorded at page 288 of Hansard:
The citizens of this country are being called upon, in effect, to subsidize the second class mail

operations of the Post Office. How much more of this inflated cost of doing business, this inflated cost of living, can the Canadian public accept and still survive.
That is the position the Conservative party stated in this house one year ago.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Raymond J. Perrault: No.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I should like to ask the hon. member a question.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order, please.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Would the hon. member for Bumaby-Seymour permit a question? Is he afraid?


Albert Béchard: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Albert Béchard: I must remind the hon. member that the hon. member for Bur-naby-Seymour has the floor.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Is he afraid of the question?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Albert Béchard: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


Raymond J. Perrault: We heard the tragic appeal of the Conservative party last year: "How much longer, oh how much longer this inflated cost of doing business can the Canadian public accept and still survive?" How many spoke in terms of the "poor Canadian taxpayer"?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Sit down.


Albert Béchard: Order, please.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Albert Béchard: Order, please.
Would the hon. member resume his seat. It is a rule of the committee of the house that no member has the right to interrupt another member during his speech.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
October 8, 1968


Albert Béchard: No hon. member has the right to interrupt another hon. member unless the hon. member who has the floor gives permission to the one who interrupted him to ask a question. To the present instance the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour did not give such permission.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Albert Béchard: Order, please. The hon. member for Annapolis Valley on a point of order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: It was farthest from my mind to interrupt the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour. All I asked the hon. member was-


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman-


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The parliamentary secretary comes from a constituency which grows tomatoes, but he happens to be concerned with fish. All I want, Mr. Chairman, is to ask the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour if he would permit a question.


Albert Béchard: That is not a point of order.


Eugene Whelan: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. MacEwan:: The parliamentary secretary is interrupting again.


Eugene Whelan: A question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. I would like to inform the house that this member comes from an area which also has the largest fresh-water fish processing plant in the world.


Albert Béchard: This is not a question of privilege, and I would ask for the co-operation of the committee at this time.


Raymond J. Perrault: If the hon. member for
Annapolis Valley would send me a letter, I will deal with his problem.


Howard Russell MacEwan: This is the would-be prime minister of British Columbia.


Raymond J. Perrault: Some members of the opposition should learn to squirm sitting down.
Mr. Chairman, I am suggesting to the house that we have listened to invalid political arguments advanced by the opposition this afternoon. Why was it valid for the Conservative party in 1967 to advance the view that the Canadian public must have reforms in second class postage rates, when in 1968 the action
Post Office Act
contemplated by the minister which would give effect to these appeals is being opposed by the official opposition?


Mr. Monieith:: That is wrong.


Raymond J. Perrault: Look at the record. How else can you interpret the quality of the opposition arguments? This is what the hon. member said, last year. He said Canadians are being forced time and time again to dig deeper and deeper into their pockets, and he suggested that the people "cannot take any more weeks like the past one". There is an opportunity tonight for the opposition to achieve the reforms they advocated last year by supporting the measure before the house.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Give us a little service.


Raymond J. Perrault: -to implement the kind of reforms they were demanding in the house just a few months ago. We are told also by certain opposition spokesmen that the measure will "hurt the little people".


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Raymond J. Perrault: I hear the words "hear, hear". It is almost as though the members of the opposition are attempting to suggest that a deficit approaching $100 million is somehow highly beneficial to the little people.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: What about the C.B.C.?


Raymond J. Perrault: Inflation and unmanageable deficits are far more injurious to the "little people" of Canada than reforms which would make people who use postal services pay for them. The post office is a service industry. It is not in the category of the Department of National Health and Welfare; it is not in the area of regional development; it is not to be equated with the medical care program. It is a service industry and it is one of the most efficient postal services in the world. The government is simply suggesting it is time to put it on a pay for service basis.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
htr. Perrault: We are told in the argument advanced by the opposition that this measure will hurt business. I will not repeat the arguments in reply which have been advanced here. I too, am the recipient of the so-called junk mail, and I think it is time that junk mail paid its way.


James Aloysius McGrath: The hon. member deserves it.

October 8, 1968
Post Office Act


Raymond J. Perrault: Among other goals, the government is attempting here to advance measures which will fight the fires of inflation. The same hon. members who are so eloquent in defence of deficits in the Post Office are the ones who next Monday morning will be telling the house and the press that it is intolerable that any budget deficit exists. They are the ones who will make these kinds of charges. They will tell their constituents.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The truth is that they have a deficit.


Raymond J. Perrault: They will say, "Is it not tragic that we have this large budget deficit?" Yet, when they are called upon to vote for a measure which will help fight inflation and reduce the deficit, they will not support it.


Howard Russell MacEwan: The hon. member says this measure will fight inflation? What nonsense.


Raymond J. Perrault: All of us should support endeavours to make the user pay fairly for his postal service. This is one way we can really help the little people.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Turn over the page.


Raymond J. Perrault: It has been suggested by some hon. members that there are certain inefficiencies in the postal service. Yet the Glassco commission was highly complimentary about the Canadian postal service. A review of the Post Office Department services by the Glassco commission produced a tribute to the work of the department, as recorded at page 309 of volume 3 of the Glassco report, where it states:
The Post Office Department has attained a commendable degree of efficiency.
Yet the argument is advanced that "inefficiencies" should be rooted out and that a reorganization should take place before any rate reforms are attempted. It would have been easier for the new Postmaster General and for this government to maintain the status quo, to defend the archaic rate structure and to refuse to act in an area where action has long been required. But I am sure I speak for the majority in this house when I say that the minister is to be commended for acting decisively to make one of the world's greatest postal systems even more efficient.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Pay more, get less.


Raymond J. Perrault: A courageous endeavour is being made here to establish sound economic

principles with respect to a vital national service. This is not an issue in which politics should be played.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Why is the hon. member playing them?


Raymond J. Perrault: One of our fathers of confederation, a member of the Conservative party, said the following:
However much the Canadian taxpayer may favour a policy of strict economy in the abstract, he likes nothing so little as its application.
And here we have a perfect example. We have had the abstract argument advanced by the official opposition that economies must be made.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman; it is a well established rule of this house that when a member quotes something he has to give the source of the quotation. Now, there are many fathers of confederation and many fathers of Conservatism, past and present. I should like to know who the hon. member for Bumaby-Seymour has for an author.


Raymond J. Perrault: If the hon. member would like me to oblige, the quotation is from Volume II, page 141 of the "Memoirs of Macdonald (1894)".


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, that is the old master.


Raymond J. Perrault: I should like to conclude by summarizing my argument. First of all, the Post Office Department is not like the Department of National Health and Welfare; it is not like the government's area development program; it is not in the category of national medical care. It is a service for which people expect to pay. People who receive good postal service expect to pay for good service.
When second class mail is subsidized to the extent of 78 per cent by the taxpayers of this country and the people of Canada recover only 22 per cent-and many of these people are the "little people" for whom members are concerned-when the Post Office has a deficit approaching $100 million, when reforms must be initiated in first and second class rates to pave the way for needed changes in third class mail rates, then I say the evidence is overwhelming for the need for reform in this area. We have to bring postal rates and service into the twentieth century. If the opposition members want to serve the Canadian
October 8, 1968

people this evening, they are going to support this resolution.


Philip Bernard Rynard: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the Postmaster General on his appointment. After congratulating him, I should like to remind him that he is sitting in the seat that has a very high mortality rate. It carries a death rate of one per year over the last eight years. I do not know if he is fully aware of the great risk he is taking, particularly when he introduces this particular bill. I was very interested in listening to the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour. I was unable to decide whether he was preaching for a call or wanted to convince himself of the correctness of the attitude he was taking.
I should like also to congratulate the minister upon taking another look at the plight of the rural mail carrier. He seems to have listened not only to the members of the opposition but to members on his own side and looked at the unfairness of the decision he originally took. I want to congratulate him because I think a man is bigger when he can take a look at some of these things and then decide what is fair and right. I believe the minister has gone quite far in correcting the situation, but he still has not allowed these rural mail carriers full compensation. Their gas and oil and a few other things may be deducted. I hope he does not put these deductions on a mileage basis and charge the rural mail contractors seven cents a mile for the miles they did not travel.
I have a great deal of respect for people who work inside and outside of post offices. They have a rigid system to which to adhere, and some of them are even spied upon as they work. Those who work outside have to face elements of weather and risk, the cold and the wet, as well as the rush and hurry of people who overload them at certain periods of the year. Having said this, I must say I do not believe there was any necessity for a strike in July. I feel that this parliament must accept some of the responsibility for the str.ke. Over the years since 1956 the reforms needed in the Post Office Department were pointed out over and over again. In other words, Mr. Chairman, the postal employees were forced into a position of having to strike. This government, and to some extent previous governments, must accept the blame for this situation.
I do not believe it is proper to give employees in an essential service such as the postal service the right to strike. I believe the very nature of their service denies the 29180-61
Post Office Act
right to strike. My reason for saying this is best explained by an incident that took place in the city of New York when I was visiting there this summer. A medical doctor, a surgeon, happened to tell me that since we had a postal strike in Canada, that he had sent a pathological report to a patient of his in the city of Montreal, but the report had been turned back at the border because there was no mail delivery. This was a critical case, and I suppose the same thing could happen all along the border from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Cancer cells had been picked up in the specimen they had examined from this patient, so it was very important that the patient receive the report. We thought about what to do, and I said, "Why don't you send him a telegram and ask him to call you?" This is what the doctor did, because these reports are confidential. I am mentioning this case because there were many other such cases perhaps in which reports were not received until the strike was over. This is not a laughing matter, and could be a matter of life and death.
The strike also affected pensioners and those on welfare. These people run close to the line and when they do not receive their cheque hardship is often caused and suffered. Then, too, we must consider the loss of business and the lost orders. There were millions of dollars lost during this strike. Therefore I say that the responsibility for the strike rests squarely on the shoulders of the Postmaster General and the government. He cannot get out of it. If these employees had been treated fairly and honestly, I do not believe there would have been any strike. I think it is up to us, up to parliament, to make sure that these employees receive a fair, honest deal so that there is no reason for a strike. Surely, in this day and age there are ways for employees and employers to get together with a neutral arbitrator to come to a just decision. As a matter of fact, I would blame the government for this strike because they did not correct the faults that were pointed out in the past.
The minister referred to rising costs as a reason for increasing postage rates. I want to ask him if the efficiency of his Post Office, with all the computers and technological advances we have today, should not have been able to keep up with these rising costs? This is no excuse whatever. If business firms operating across Canada do not keep up with rising costs, then they are out of business. No one knows that better than the Postmaster

October 8, 1968
Post Office Act
General because he is a graduate in economics. The minister said that 80 per cent of the postal business is done during five days of the week. If the service is reduced, it will mean that one in five will be hurt, and this is a fairly large segment of our community. One result will be that mail that goes out on Friday will not be delivered until the following Monday, especially in rural areas.
Now, we propose to go backwards in this Post Office Department. We propose to put up costs by $8.5 million in increased postage alone, first class. I think the Postmaster General and also the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour realize quite well that by increasing costs, about which we have been preaching in parliament both before and since the hon. member came here, you cause inflation. The Postmaster General is adding to this inflation. He argues where in the world will we get the money to pay for this hundred million deficit if we do not increase charges to individuals or firms using the postal facilities? Mr. Chairman, this is inflationary.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
The cost of money orders has also increased. Apparently they are not competitive any more it is easier and cheaper to write a cheque. It looks as though the Post Office is not efficient enough to make them pay. The Postmaster General is a brilliant man in the field of economics, and I am wondering why he has to take this step backward instead of trying to make this department efficient enough to overcome the problem.
I have been receiving some mail that objects to this step that he is taking, Mr. Chairman. I have also read a lot of press articles that criticize it. The Postmaster General admitted today that he either had a hot press or a cool press, depending on what he read. I should like to read an article that I received in the mail yesterday headed: "More 'Go!', Less 'No', is what Post Office needs". The article goes on:
The announcement by Postmaster General Klerans of the cutting off of any Saturday mail services, effective February 1, is merely the latest in a series of retrogressive measures by which the Post Office has steadily diminished the standard of its services.
I am sure that the Postmaster General knows much better than I do that years ago penny postage was inaugurated. Before that time sending a letter cost $1 more or less. Generally the person who received it paid the dollar. The sender did not. Poverty in those

days dictated that if a letter was in a certain handwriting you did not pay the dollar, but returned it to the Post Office. It then went back to the dead letter office and finally I suppose, to the sender. That was some way to run the Post Office. Then the penny postage was tried and the Postmaster General knows what happened. Mail increased tremendously, until today the British post office system is one of the finest in the world and, as the Postmaster General knows, is paying its way.
This article to which I refer, Mr. Chairman, is interesting because it goes on to say:
In no other field have Canadians experienced so drastic a reduction in service, accompanied by so marked an increase in cost;-
The Postmaster General has not been here too long, but he is making his mark. But what a mark!
-in no other field do Canadians pay so much more for so much less.
It is typical of the defeatist approach of Canada's post office authorities that they should approach this latest problem of financing from the negative side. Faced with any policy decision, Canada's postal chiefs invariably resolve them by simply eliminating or reducing services, instead of improving and modernizing them and developing new sources of revenue. The result has been to give Canadians, in this age of expansion and acceleration, a standard of mail service that is slower, less frequent and less convenient than that enjoyed by previous generations in what we regard as a more leisurely age.
As a recent round-the-world survey showed, people in rural England enjoy a better standard of service than the best that can be found in supposedly sophisticated Toronto, while residents in many of the world's capitals enjoy a range and speed and frequency of mail service beyond a Canadian's wildest dreams.
The difference in approach of Canada's Post Office and that of more advanced countries can be seen in the advertisements in British newspapers. The British post office buys ads to encourage the British public to make better use of mail facilities, stressing the cheapness of such service and the speed and convenience of the medium, increasing revenue by increasing volume.
How are the government going to do this in view of the present path that they are following?
By contrast Canada's Post Office buys ads only to warn Canadians of reductions in service, to sector them about deadlines (No Christmas mail will be delivered if posted after such-and-such a date!) or to warn about some new category of mail which will not be accepted. For all of this, Canadians pay an exorbitant rate which has increased in proportion as the standard of service has declined. Presumably, such a policy can only reflect an official post office view that the ideal aimed at is one of no mail at all, at enormous public expense.
It is time that all this was changed. It is time that the Post Office was brought into the 20th century.
October 8. 1968

That is what I had hoped this new Postmaster General would do.
It is time that new procedures were introduced, utilizing new computer-era technology, to both reduce costs and speed up service. It is time the Post Office campaigned aggressively for new standards of revenue, new standards of service. The only way this can be achieved is to introduce, from the world of business, a whole new administrative executive-[DOT]
We have introduced a man of business, and I am hoping that he will see the light.
-to replace the men who presently head our post office system. Only by removing these fuddie-duddies, with their archaic, pigeon-hole concepts and negative outlook, can our postal services be streamlined to a standard worthy of this great and growing country.
I am sure that the Postmaster General would like to see some more of these editorials because they are very interesting.
In concluding, Mr. Chairman, may I say that cutting off the rural mail carriers' Saturday deliveries increases the cost of doing business, and rightly this must be considered. A rural mail carrier is all set to go, but is now going to be deprived of one day of service. He requires a motor vehicle and needs to keep it operative for six days a week, but now he will only use it on five days.
The Postmaster General referred to the possibility of amalgamating rural routes. I do not know which routes the minister was thinking of, but some that I am familiar with have as many as 300 to 400 patrons. Two such routes would mean delivering at the rate of 60 to 80 patrons an hour for a 10 hour day. I am not saying that this is the general rule, but some routes do have that number of customers, particularly tourist areas in the summer. If the Postmaster General is unaware of this I would be only too pleased to furnish him with the information.
Let us suppose that some routes are amalgamated and service is cut down. Mail will go out from ten to twelve o'clock in the morning and will be sorted by twelve o'clock. By the time the carrier gets around his route he will be ready for his bedtime meal, Mr. Chairman. If the Post Office is unable by new methods of procedure to keep costs down, then I think we will have to take another look at this sacred cow. We give $150 million to the C.B.C. without quibble. We also give money to transport and other departments. We pump millions of dollars into them.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
The Postmaster General is trying to balance his accounts before he has had a chance 29180-611
Post Office Act
to look into the problems of the department. I would expect a man of his brilliance and background to introduce new methods of cutting costs. After all, Mr. Chairman, our old age pensioners cannot afford colour television or the luxury of flying, but they do like to write letters to friends. Not long ago I saw four old people in a home who had been writing letters for two hours or more. One of their joys was to send mail out to their friends and hear from them.
I am sure the minister has not studied this problem enough, or with sufficient care. I hope that after the resolution stage the minister will look at the matter with great care and apply the solutions to it that he should be capable of formulating.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I join with other hon. members who have taken part in this debate in welcoming the Postmaster General to this house. He may think we have strange ways of expressing the warmth of our welcome; really, we are trying to make him an instant member of the club, by opposing his first measure.


An hon. Member:: He will get used to it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As
the minister knows, I have already indicated that we feel he is giving us a rather large package, some elements of which we are allowed to vote on but some elements of which we are not. In our view the package adds up to increased charges and decreased service, and therefore we do not like it and, as it stands now, we intend to vote against it.
I believe there is merit in the suggestion made by the hon. member for Hillsborough that this matter be referred to a standing committee of the house. If there are sound social and economic arguments in favour of this measure, which I doubt, I think it might be a good idea t o give officials who can expound these arguments a chance to do so before the members of a standing committee. I am convinced that if the minister were to indicate that this would be done, debate on second reading would be quite short. We would not want to spin out that debate if we had the opportunity of having this matter considered in a standing committee of this house.
The arguments for the changes the Postmaster General is proposing-changes on the one hand involving increased charges and, on the other hand, involving decreased service- are based on two companion cliches. We have

October 8, 1968
Post Office Act
heard both of them several times tonight. The first is that the post office service must be put on a pay its own way basis. The second is that there is a $100 million deficit which must be taken care of and, of course, the only way to take care of it is by increasing the charges for postal services.
May I take a moment on the first of these two companion cliches, even though colleagues who have preceded me have touched on it, as still others no doubt will. Despite what the hon. member for Bumaby-Seymour suggested a while ago, the post office service is not unlike other services provided by government. Many services provided by government at all levels do not, in themselves, pay their own way. That is, they do not directly gather in revenue equal to their cost. But the services are good for the community as a whole, good for society, good for the country, and therefore, in the long run, they are profitable to us even though in the actual bookkeeping they seem to run at a loss.
So far as government is concerned education does not pay its own way; indeed, it is all pay and no income. But surely, education pays tremendously in the life of the country. National defence does not pay its own way, but it is there if we need it. So one could go on talking of many services. I suggest if one tries to imagine a country without a postal service, without communications, he would realize how impoverished our life would then be. In other words, the value of having a postal service is immeasurably greater than the disadvantage from any deficit that may result from the rate structures we have at the present. I think, therefore, that the Postmaster General should not expect us to swallow his legislation just because he and some of his supporters keep talking about the necessity of the postal service to pay its own way.
The second of the two companion cliches was expounded very loudly a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour. He said, "There it is; we have a $100 million deficit. It must be recouped. What other way is there to do that except by raising the postage rates?" He chided the opposition for opposing this way of recouping losses, as though we liked the deficit or wanted the country to go into the red.
There are many other areas of government service where there is a deficit and where revenue has to be raised. But because those other areas are service areas we recognize that there is a case for collecting the deficit not just from the direct users of the service
[Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) .1
but from the taxpayers as a whole. I have searched my memory to recall what the Postmaster General said about the Carter report. It seems to me that at some point along the way he expressed interest in it and said it was a useful document. In any event, I commend it to him in support of the proposition that there are services that are best paid for, not by direct charges to the specific users of those services, but by a levy imposed according to ability to pay because of the benefit that everyone obtains from that service as a whole.
The Postmaster General and others said that some of us on this side of the house were defending business because we did not want business to pay more for its first class mail. I submit we are not defending business at all. If there is a $100 million deficit, we want that made good through steeper taxation by implementing the Carter report. We think that this is a fairer way to take care of this deficit than by exacting a charge of 1 or 2 cents extra on every first class letter that is written by everybody in this country, be that person a businessman, housewife, old age pensioner, or what have you. This is just plain, ordinary regressive taxation.
I suggest, therefore, after all the vaudeville we heard and watched half an hour ago is over, the plain fact of the matter is that the arguments for the Post Office paying its way and for meeting this deficit by charging an extra one or two cents on first class postage fall to the ground. But I accept the proposition of the hon. member for Hillsborough that this matter be referred to the standing committee so that it can be studied and, so to speak, got at a little more rationally than has been the case today in this committee of the whole.
I wish to raise three more points on which I shall not take undue time. First, we think it is unnecessary and unfair to raise the first class postage rate to six cents. We think this is a hardship-not on business people; many of them can well afford it-it is a hardship or will be a hardship on many people, even though the number of letters they may write in a month or year may be few.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
We also think it is inconsistent for the government to talk about putting the service on a pay-its-own-way basis and then to say that a letter which goes across the street or a letter which goes into a rural post office and is shifted to a box only a few feet away, should pay the same rate as a letter sent from Vancouver to St. Johns. If the principle is argued
October 8, 1968

at one point, why is it dropped at another? We think the whole concept of the six cent rate, and the concept of all first class mail paying the same rate, are false, and therefore we shall vote against this resolution.
There is another area in which we suspect we are being sold a bill of goods. I have in mind the fact that the minister has not yet given us precise details as to what will happen to the rates for second and third class mail. We have made the point many times that in our view the so-called junk mail should pay its way. We think the big newspapers, the catalogues from the department stores and so on should pay their way. The minister should not be asking writers of first class letters to pay more so as to make up for deficits brought about by the carriage of these other classes of mail at a loss.
At the same time we think there is an essential unfairness about the attitude taken by the minister inasmuch as he makes no distinction among the various categories of second and third class mail. Consideration should be given, for example, to the position of charitable organizations, groups such as the War Amputees Society, which has no doubt written to other hon. members as it has to me, and similar organizations which send out mail at less than the first class rate. In my opinion it is unfair that they should be grouped with those who send out newspapers, catalogues and junk mail.
There are organizations of various kinds which do have special claims. I think the same might be said about Christmas cards. After all, the sending of Christmas cards is a tradition in our society, and the inclusion of Christmas cards among some of the other categories which are to be charged higher rates represents a failure to distinguish among the various classes of mail.
As the Post Office Act is drawn up, we have an opportunity to vote only on the proposals which affect the first class rate; we do not have the opportunity to vote on the other rates which are covered in the general provisions of the act. The minister told us the other day when he made one of his announcements that he intended to make these declarations from time to time, so that when we got to the legislation we would have the complete picture before us. Yet today, when one of my colleagues was speaking, the hon. gentleman suggested he was talking about matters not relevant to the resolution. This demonstrates that there are some provisions,
Post Office Act
some rates, over which he has complete control. He can laugh at us here in the House of Commons. There are only two or three things for which he has to come to parliament to get approval-the first class rate, for instance. This is a strong argument in favour of the proposal made by the hon. member for Hillsborough that the whole measure might well go before a standing committee for thorough examination, with the officials of the department present to answer questions and to let us know the theory which forms bases for these decisions.
I wish to comment also on the proposal to reduce the postal service to five days a week. The hon. member for York East tried to suggest that this was only for a trial period, and that if it did not work the six day service could be restored. Well, we have heard that before. The Postmaster General did not say that. He knows that if the Saturday service is dropped it will probably be gone for a long time if not for good. We recognize the desire for a five day week, as far as the employees are concerned. Post Office employees generally do work a five day week, and the hope is that some day they will work a four day week or, if that is not possible, a seven or eight month year. These are the kinds of changes we stand for and the kinds of changes which will come.
I submit, however, that there are many inconveniences which will arise from the fact that letters posted on Friday will not reach their destination until Monday. I would remind the Postmaster General of the several occasions each year on which there is a holiday on the Monday. This will mean that letters posted on Thursday night or Friday will not arrive until Tuesday. We are asking for a lot of trouble by imposing this proposed five day week service.
Here is another example of something which I think is wrong in the Post Office Act. The minister has to come before parliament to get the first class rate increased by 50 per cent in the case of local delivery, or by 25 per cent in the case of out-of-town deliveries. But he does not need to come to us in connection with this even more drastic proposal to reduce delivery service to five days a week. He may be glad of that, in view of the trouble he is having in getting this postage rate increased through parliament. But surely, as the democrat I assume he is, he must find it strange to be in a position where all he has to do about the five day week is to announce it.

October 8. 1968
Post Office Act
Parliament can complain through the spokesmen of the opposition parties, but he is sitting there as boss and can put it into effect. Surely he does not agree with this practice.
I might also point out that the dropping of the delivery service on Saturday will place many people in the position of having to pay extra in order to get important communications through. The minister has told us that a special delivery service will be available on Saturdays and Sundays. Is it not likely that many people will need to have recourse to this more expensive way of having communications delivered? All in all we consider that this reduction of service to a five day basis is a retrograde step and that the minister should not proceed in it.
As I say, I have not tried to join in the show we witnessed a while ago. I think this is a very serious matter. As we see the whole package, it is one of increased charges and reduced services. We do not like that package and we have no option but to vote against the parts of it which are before us, in protest against the whole proposition. I hope the minister will indicate his willingness to accept the suggestion that after second reading, if it cannot be done earlier, the bill be sent to a committee so that it may be fully studied. Meantime, we shall vote against this regressive resolution.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Mr. Matte:: Mr. Chairman, I do not agree, of course, that it is advisable to increase postal rates, as proposed now by the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans). It should be considered that this service is one of the most popular in the country now, in the sense that all the people have at least the possibility to use it, at a price which is really reasonable.
Taking into account the policy of the government which, in the last few weeks, has tended to cut down, to impose restrictions here and there, it might have been expected that following the reduction in some services, the Post Office Department would even have offered all the people of the country a rate reduction instead of an increase of one cent. But it seems that the government does not intend to do that.
It might be necessary to find another solution besides increasing that rate and I think that it might be in order to look for the real reasons for the department's deficit. It might be explained by the fact that the costs of various other departments are borne by the
[Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) .1
Post Office Department, as mentioned in that department's annual report for 1968. Would it not be in order to make a more detailed study to find out whether expenditures were excessive, whether there is an anomaly, in short whether the Post Office Department is not used as a milch-cow by other departments because, according to the volume of mail, the number of businesses and homes served and the possibilities of the post office, it seems to me that this deficit is hard to understand. I even feel that it would be one of the rare services which could show some profit.
We are not paying for poor management or, I should say, we are not asking the citizens of the country to pay for poor management. Instead we should find out exactly why there is a deficit. It seems to me that the explanations given in the annual report are not clear enough. We should be told how much is spent for premises, accounting services, issuance of cheques, employer's contributions to the pension fund and the Canada pension plan. It seems to me that we should be told exactly how all that money has been absorbed by the Post Office Department and why, in fact we have a deficit. I say that, Mr. Chairman, because, from the start, we were told that is the explanation for the deficit, since for some years now, the department was rather in a surplus position.
Therefore, we should preserve the quite popular aspect of the Post Office Department, namely that every citizen should have the opportunity to use the postal service at minimum costs. If we establish a precedent through a continuous increase in the cost of this service, it will end up unfortunately like many others as an expensive service. While every citizen now has the opportunity to use a rather low-cost service it seems that it is a bad time, in a period of restraint as we witness now, to increase this rate.
I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the minister will reconsider this matter and that, in due time, he will be in a position to give up that increase.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, I will be brief because I think there is not much to add to what has already been said, except perhaps sum up the matter.
I have had the opportunity to follow the debates of the house for some years, but it does not happen every day that we see so many inconsistencies in discussing a problem.
Here is the whole matter in a nutshell. We have a postal service the operation of which shows a deficit, and we have to decide who is
Ociober 8, 1968



going to make good the deficit. We must decide whether it will be the general public, through increased taxes, or the patrons. On that matter, I heard all sorts of remarks. I even heard the member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard), who is usually responsible, say that some persons who would like to write to cousins or nephews were abstaining from doing so because it would cost a little more every week. Is it possible to suppose that these people will spend 50 cents more if they write one letter a week, for instance. There are not many families doing that.
I heard earlier the member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) say that this is a people's service of which our people should not be deprived. It is obvious that it is popular, Mr. Chairman. If the government could give everything free of charge, it would gladly do so, but there is a principle to maintain: Someone must make good deficits. We get nothing for nothing in this world. Who is going to pay? Will it be the public at large, people who do not write letters, or those who send mail described earlier as dead-letter mail, which nobody wants, or the patrons of this service?
It seems to me that the answer is simple. Those who make use of a service must pay for it.
Someone tried to make a comparison between the C.B.C. and the Canadian National. The comparison does not stand. If the government wanted the C.B.C. to be a business concern, it would be a paying proposition, but for the government, the C.B.C. is something else. This service cannot be appraised in terms of the revenues which it can yield. Then, the C.B.C. would welcome any publicity like certain other television stations. In the case of transportation services, the same applies. They were established at a time where it was impossible to make ends meet under the circumstances. Canada was being developed, and by opening means of communication, the government was doing its duty. It is not at all the same problem. The postal service should pay its own way; we have incurred a deficit of several million dollars and we must admire the courage of the minister who has just stated: Those are the facts, those are the figures. There is no quibbling here. The deficit amounts to some million dollars. Someone must pay. Who will it be? Will the people pay through increased taxes? There, I see the opposition objecting. Will the users alone pay the costs? If taxes are increased, the opposition which is already blaming the government for having spent
Post Office Act
$400 million beyond estimates will be heard. In fact I see, it immediately pointing a finger at the government and saying: Increasing taxes is outrageous.
Mr. Chairman, let us be logical, let us be reasonable, let us be real businessmen, let us be realistic, let us be logical. If it costs so much, we shall obviously have to pay so much; someone must foot the bill. If we increase taxes, who is going to foot the bill? The poor, on whom we are showering our pity. Mr. Chairman, my impression is that without realizing it-but perhaps we even realize it

we are politicking so much that we are falling a prey to demagogy. To me, it is clear that two and two make four. It has been suggested that the matter should be referred to a committee. This reminds me of a certain maxim I am sure my English-speaking friends understand even better than I do: Too many cooks spoil the broth. The more there are people to settle a problem, the less things work out.
Let us then allow the minister to assume his responsibilities and if, one, two or three years, from now he is found to have been wrong, the voters will always have the privilege of asking him or the government to give an account of themselves. However, for the time being, they are trying to gain time by using incredible arguments.
I heard earlier one of my hon. friends on the other side of the house criticize Mayor Drapeau for having set up his lottery and taken advantage of a certain latitude granted under the Post Office Act. On the contrary, we should congratulate Mayor Drapeau for having shown such initiative, and I think that everybody-setting aside partisan feelings- would wish to have a mayor as dynamic and intelligent as Mayor Drapeau of Montreal, when it comes to municipal problems.
Mr. Chairman, I think-and I repeat once more-that the users should pay for the cost of postal services. I know that none of us like to pay, whether we can afford it or not. In fact, we do not like to pay our taxes, we do not like to pay our rent, we do not like to pay our bills at the end of the month. It hurts of course, but somebody has to pay. Would not the rational way of paying the bill be to divide it between those who use the postoffice services? It seems so obvious to me that I am surprised we had to speak for such a long time to settle the matter.
The hon. minister said: We will have to try

note he did not say it was definite-to apply restrictions on the postal service.

October 8. 1968
Post Office Act
We should wait, in all objectivity, to have proof that those restrictions are truly prejudicial to the users. It struck me how the minister stated the case, because he left us an open door when he said: It is an experiment, the matter will remain open. He did not use those terms, perhaps but that is what I understood. It will remain open and if it is proven that this is truly prejudicial to the community, we are ready to accept suggestions and reconsider our decisions. He has already done so in the field of the highway service.
Mr. Chairman, what is the meaning of that? I feel that we are still resorting to demagogy and moreover an easy demagogy. It is always easy to take the floor and say that the people are oppressed and that they have to pay beyond their means, when we all know that we are going through a difficult financial period. That does not apply only in Canada. It is an international concern. It is easy to take advantage of that situation and say that the government is unfair, that it oppresses and persecutes the poor people. Imagine: It is asking one cent more per letter, when the average Canadian does not mail a letter a week. What will that cost in a year?
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Advertising agencies, business concerns, make use of the postal service, and they are in business. They can pay for the services which brings them profits; it is not up to those who write only five, ten or at the most 50 letters a year, to pay for the others.
Mr. Chairman, to my mind the situation is so clear that we should not complicate matters with partisan or demagogic considerations. To sum up the situation, postal services cost so much they must pay their own way. The same can probably not be said about all federal government services, true enough. But, with regard to postal services, it is so true that it should be profitable, that I am of those who agree that it should be entrusted to private enterprise which would then have to take the necessary means to make ends meet. I am not saying that the solution is ideal at the present time, but I feel that, in due course, there may be good reason to study that suggestion.
And so, not only should the Postmaster General not be blamed for this bill, but we should, on the contrary, underline the courage he has proved; for, in politics, it is never profitable, at least it does not seem to be, to tell the electors: You have to pay more for the services you are provided with.

However, Mr. Chairman, I think that today the Canadian citizen is rather well informed. He is not undully impressed with demagogic considerations which used to influence him in the past. He has a craving for truth, he wants to be sure that two and two make four, he wants to know whether he is told stories or the truth even if the truth is hard to take.
I think that the Postmaster General has shown courage in introducing this legislation and other related measures which, in the long run, will prove this very simple fact, namely that someone has to pay for everything our citizens receive. Who is going to pay for it? There is no magic in our world and it seems to me that the simplest way to put it is to say that the patrons will pay for it. For this reason I unreservedly support this bill and I think that all fair-minded members should support it too.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Mr. Chairman, it has
been said that this institution, the House of Commons, is a full length mirror that unerringly reflects our capacities, mediocrities, motives, maturity and magnanimity. I thought while listening to the minister introducing this resolution to amend the Post Office Act that this saying certainly holds true and can be applied to the minister in this case and to much of the legislation in general with which we have dealt in the house.
The hon. member who has just resumed his seat, the one time independent, and now the Liberal member for Trois-Rivieres, said during the course of his remarks that too many cooks spoil the broth. This and the two preceding governments are a good example of this proverb. We have reached the stage where the deficit and inefficiency within the Post Office Department is so great-I am just taking one department as an example-that the saying has come true, and that too many cooks have spoiled the broth. I do not know how many postmasters general we have had during the past six years.


An hon. Member:: Seven.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: But too many cooks have spoiled the postal broth.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege, because my honourable friend ascribed to me certain statements that I did not make.
October 8, 1968

He takes a quotation and serves it up according to his whims. To my mind, he has no right to say that when I mentioned the proverb: Too many cooks spoil the broth, I was alluding to the fact that there have been so many Postmasters General in recent years, that this explains why things are in such a bad shape. My honourable friend is drawing a conclusion which is neither reasonable nor honest, and I should like to call him to order.
Even if my honourable friends resent my setting the record straight-

I will say it in English so I will be better understood. My hon. friend is trying to give a meaning to my remarks that I did not intend.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Do you object to my speaking in English? It is not as perfect English as your perfect French, but I have to say something.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Chairman, I am sure you will agree that the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres has made my point for me. I started to talk about the resolution. This resolution including the newly proposed five day week, thus reducing the postal service available to the people of Canada and at the same time increasing the cost to the people, reflects a lack of capacity of the Trudeau government. It reflects their mediocrity; it shows their immaturity and lack of stature in their efforts to serve the Canadian people.
The Canadian people expected something far more efficient and dynamic than the measures we are getting. I can do no better, in order to make several other points-and I am sure other hon. members will agree with those points-than quote from the Sault Star. I do not often quote from the Sault Star, although the Sault familiar to me is a "suburb" of the place in which I was born, namely Plummer township, Rydal Bank, Algoma district, Ontario.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
The Sault Daily Star of Thursday, October 8 states this under the heading "Post office service must improve":
The national Post Office has been the centre of unfavourable attention from Canadians in recent months. Whether or not this situation continues remains to be seen. Certainly, there are avenues open for the Post Office to redeem itself. That is 29180-62
Post Office Act
if it has the foresight and initiative to explore these avenues.
The events of recent months which brought the Post Office into disfavour started with the postal workers' strike. This strike lasted for three weeks through July and August and depressed and irritated a public deprived of an essential service.
With the settlement of the strike came the news there would be a hike in postal rates to offset the post office deficit and pay for the postal workers' wage increases. The word was that the postage rate for all first class mail-local and out of town-would be six cents.
Let me remind the minister that this represents an increase of 20 per cent in that service which adds to the cost of living in this country. Let me quote further from this newspaper:
Then, the other day Postmaster General Eric Kierans announced that starting Feb. 1, 1969 there would be no postal deliveries on Saturday and post offices will be closed on that day. This action said the Postmaster General was necessitated to cut down office costs.
Let me intervene briefly at this point to ask in what way this will cut down office costs? Thousands of people who work in the postal department will receive the same take-home pay after February 1, 1969. I am sure no one in this house wants to lower this take home pay, but I submit that administrative costs will remain about the same. This article goes on to say:
All of this has done nothing to win friends and supporters of the Post Office among the Canadian public.
The article also states:
However, while there may be justification for these moves by the Post Office the public has justification too in expecting that accompanying these unpopular measures there will be a diligent and conscientious effort by the Postmaster General's department to streamline the present Post Office operation.
I will not read the entire article, but it goes on to state:
If there are going to be fewer deliveries and higher postal rates the public has the right to expect there will be increased efficiency in the postal delivery system as a compensatory measure.
The last paragraph states:
If the Canadian public is going to have to pay more for its post office services, and if it is going to have curtailed services then the public should expect and should demand, that the service which is provided be made far better than the service it presently enjoys.
I disagree with that last word "enjoys" in the article, to the effect that the Canadian public presently enjoys the service it gets. Surely we do not enjoy much of the service we now have. I receive complaints regarding

October 8, 1968
Post Office Act
the slowness of some forms of mail delivery, and particularly that service from Toronto and Montreal to Napanee. This is particularly so in respect of parcel post. It is used extensively by professional people such as doctors and dentists, as well as the hospitals. These people are still complaining about the slowness of the delivery of mail. As for the recent strike, any government which would allow a strike to continue at such a tremendous cost to the Canadian people, and then reduces mail service to a five day week does not have any knowledge of the needs of the Canadian people and apparently has no desire to improve this service.
I have before me a letter written by the Postmaster General. I am sure hon. members were pleased to receive this in explanation and in answer to those protests made by many of us on behalf of rural mail contractors. There are two explanations contained in this letter dated October, 1968. The first is:
To rural route contractors and those performing other small service contracts, doing the work themselves, and paid on the basis of an annual rate, we propose making the regular payment for the period which the service was interrupted, less the normal operating expenses which were not incurred while the service was not performed.
The second explanation refers to larger contracts and it says in part:
In these cases we propose to pay the contractor his direct out of pocket expenses where the contract is on a per annum basis.
All our rural mail contracts are on a per annum basis. The full cost of payments to all these contractors has been previously budgeted for and the government's attempt to save a little money at the expense of these rural mail contractors seems to be pretty small, in light of the strike which was partly the fault of the government, because of its apathy. I am not placing all the blame on the government but surely this strike resulted partly from the lack of government action.
In my riding we must deal with rural and urban problems. We have no door to door mail delivery. I say to the Minister: Let us forget about this retrograde step to a five day week. I say on behalf of the farmers in the constituency of Frontenac-Lennox and Addington, they must get daily delivery. It is one hundred years since confederation. This is 1968, not 1868. If ever we needed a daily delivery we need it now.
What about the farmers who depend on rural route deliveries for their various agriculture returns and cheques, and their daily newspapers. Many of them depend on [Mr. Alkenbrack.l
this service for these things. We do not have any house to house deliveries in my riding, but I have heard many protests from those who do in the neighbouring cities of Kingston and Belleville. I have heard the people say there that they used to get mail delivery twice a day, but that they are now getting it only once a day. They have stated that after the Trudeau government gets through with them they will only receive mail five days a week.
What about the differences in the services offered by various types of post offices? There will be no equity of service under the minister's new measure. In my riding for example I should like to compare the proposed services to be provided by the Napanee town post office and the service to be provided to the hamlet of Lavant.
The Napanee post office is owned and operated by the federal government, but under the minister's new measures no one will be able to obtain service there on a Saturday. We will not be able to buy a money order, obtain information or pick up a general delivery letter. The wickets will be closed. I hope the local people will be able to walk into the post offices and unlock their own boxes in order to get their mail. I hope the minister is not going to lock the entrance doors of the local post offices. Of course, since he is discontinuing the services of the post office savings banks, people who come to certain centres on Saturday will not be able to use them, either. This does not apply to the settled portions of Canada. I know that probably no one in my town uses post office savings methods any more, but there are people in remote areas of Canada who use the post office savings facilities, and the abolition of these services will be a hardship to them.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
Let us get back to the other type of post offices. I wish to refer to the post office in Lavant. It is in a general store. The local residents who come into Lavant to do their shopping on Saturday will also ask for their mail and the storekeeper will certainly give it to them, as he should and can. I ask the minister, is this the just society? There will be no service in Napanee on Saturday, but plenty of service in Lavant. The latter is as it should be. I say again, this is 1968, not 1868.
At the same time as the minister is abolishing the daily mail service, I have just received a request which came in this week from the reeve and council of the townships
October 8. 1968

of Barrie and Miller, in the country of Fron-tenac, that rural route No. 2 to Cloyne, for example, which is now a route with a three day a week frequency be increased to a daily mail service. I told reeve Tom Neale that I would bring this matter up in the house. This is an important rural route serving many tourists in the summer and the settlers, lumbermen and tourist lodges in the winter. It should have a daily mail service the year round. If the minister put into effect his five day week program, the best we can get for these people will of course be the five day delivery. I ask for his assistance in this matter, and I am sure that it will be forthcoming. We can improve the service there, although if this measure goes through, we will not get daily service.
There is another matter against which I want to protest. It concerns the treatment of the rural mail contractors. They should be given every cent coming to them under their contracts and should not be docked at all for anything resulting from the late lamented postal strike. In the review of their contracts, as mentioned in the resolution, the existing tenders and contracts should run as they are for the remainder of the lives of these contracts. Any changes made will only cost the government more money, and moreover the government has no business interfering with contracts made in good faith and signed with reliable people. The point I wish to make is that even if these contracts are renegotiated for a five day week, in view of the rapid escalation of other costs similar bids will be made for five days a week as those made formerly for six days a week. At the present time I believe these contracts run for four years, and if those made four years ago had to be renegotiated the average bidder would ask for more money.
Much has been said in the house since the debate began regarding ways of saving money in the Post Office Department. I am sure the minister will try to do that. I do not blame him for his efforts along these lines and I want to compliment him in that regard. Our criticism must be constructive. There is much good in trying to find ways of saving money in that department. Let us hear more about this from the minister and from all sides of the house.
With regard to the effect of this legislation on local businessmen, may I point out that many businessmen pick up their mail on Saturday and examine it during the remainder of the week end. They do not necessarily
Post Office Act
look at the mail on Saturday because they are too busy on that day, especially those who are in the retail business. For that reason the post office should be open six days a week, as are those businesses.
Much has been heard here about the cost of second class mail. Of course costs are involved in handling and sorting second class mail. However most of it is no use anyway; it is more or less a public nuisance. Then, I am sure the newspaper publishers face the future knowing that it will cost them more to have their newspapers delivered. I believe that now they are sent free within a 40 mile radius. I am told that this does not apply to the dailies, or to any publication delivered house to house. Outside the 40 mile radius payment for newspapers is made according to weight. I was in contact with two editors of weeklies in my riding, and they told me this afternoon that the newspapers expect to pay more but also expect value for their money.
The matter of junk mail has been raised several times from all corners of the house. I believe we should reduce a lot of this superfluous junk mail. We get too much of it right here, as members of the house. I am not referring to legitimate mail which is sent to us by our constituents.


Albert Béchard: Order, please. It being ten o'clock, it is my duty to interrupt proceedings and forthwith put the question on the resolution now before the committee. Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Albert Béchard: All those in favour please rise.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
Motion agreed to: Yeas, 79; nays, 48.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Kierans thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-116, to amend the Post Office Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Mcllraiih:: I wonder if it would be agreeable if I were to announce the business the government proposes to submit to the house for its consideration tomorrow? We propose to call item No. 11 on today's order paper, third reading of Bill No. C-109, an act respecting the construction of a railway line in the province of Alberta; then, item No. 5,
968	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion house in committee of the whole on Bill No. C-lll, an act to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act; then, item No. 6 on today's order paper, second reading of Bill No. C-110, an act to amend the Farm Credit Act; then, item No. 8 on today's order paper, second reading of Bill No. C-113, an act to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, the other day when I brought a question before this house concerning the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act, it was suggested that I put the question on the order paper, and for this reason I am suggesting the subject be considered tonight. This act was passed in 1982 after a considerable amount of debate. Upon reviewing Hansard, I find a considerable amount of debate again took place on this subject in 1965 when amendments to the act were introduced. My reason for bringing this question before the house is that it is my opinion there is absolutely no use in this house passing legislation if there is no enforcement of that legislation. I suggest that unless there is a good reason for the lack of enforcement of the provisions of any act, then those provisions should be enforced.
The purpose of this act was to have corporations and unions file annual returns. The other day I requested a report under the provisions of this act in so far as corporations and unions were concerned, and I was told that
-the preparation of the data for the corporation report has been delayed but improvements are being made and it is our objective to be more timely in the near future.
The only return that I received from the corporation was for 1963, while I received a return from the unions for every year including 1966.
I should like to ask the minister responsible for answering this question this evening for an explanation of why the returns from the corporations are not available. Unless there is an adequate reason for the lack of such
[Mr. Mcllraith.j
DEBATES	October 8. 1968
returns in 1963. I should like to know whether the corporations are liable for the penalty outlined in section 6 of the act. If they are not liable, why not?
If the returns outlined in the report are not liable for return by the corporations, I should like to know whether there is any reason for the unions to file a return, as such, each year. If they do not file a return, are they responsible under section 6 of the act?
I noticed in Hansard that in September 1964 the then member for Port Arthur said it was obvious that the government was not enthusiastic about the bill as a whole, and that he assumed the legislation was going to waste away. I only ask that if it is the intention of the government to let this legislation waste away, then why do they not tell us, instead of leaving the act unfulfilled?
I would ask the minister to answer this question at this time, Mr. Speaker, because I believe it is of the utmost importance, particularly for myself, to know whether or not the act means what it says, and should be enforced in its entirety.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad indeed to rise to answer the question of the hon. member for Moose Jaw. Let me say at the outset that it is certainly not the intention of this government to let this legislation waste away. If there has been-as there has-some difficulty in the beginnings in carrying out the spirit of the legislation in full, it is partly due to the fact that the broadest interpretation possible has been put upon it.
I should like to say to the hon. member that the returns have in fact been made on time, but that the difficulty has been in compiling, investigating and reporting upon the data concerned. The differentiation between union and corporation reports is due to the difficulty of dealing with two groups of reports. There are in fact 175 unions which are required to report under the terms of the act, whereas there are 40,000 corporations.
In addition, part of the investigation into corporation returns is in its nature difficult. As I have said, at the moment the corporations are not in default in filing returns and the 1967 returns are on hand. To show the difficulty involved, however, of these 25,000 returns have been fully processed and, I may say, are available for inspection, as are the previous returns, in the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, which is the proper place at this stage. Some 12,000 further returns are in process of examination
October 8, 1968

and tabulation, and several thousand others are being investigated from the point of view of whether a proper return has been made.
The hon. member may understand that there is some difficulty about the existence or non-existence of corporations, which on the books could apparently be making a return. One of the difficulties involved is that of determining the ultimate ownership of the shares of a corporation. At the moment, Mr. Speaker, some 15,000 corporation returns are being investigated from this point of view. There is also the difficulty not only of pursuing the ownership of the shares and, in some cases, finding it in the hands of the corporation, but of pursuing the ownership of the said shares through the ownership of the corporation.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
So, this has been a long process. I am happy to say that the dominion statistician who is responsible in this regard is taking active measures to improve reporting procedures and bring them up to date. The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) and other hon. members will be pleased to know that the report for the 1964 corporate returns is now in the printing stage. The report for 1965 should be available about the end of the year and it is hoped that the 1966 report will be available in the spring.