1968-10-21

Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the Speaker's gallery of the very distinguished Speaker of the Indian lower house, the L6k Sabha, Dr. the Hon. N. Sanjiva Reddy. Mr. Speaker Reddy is on his first official visit to Canada and is accompanied by the eminent secretary general of the Lok Sabha, Mr. S. L. Shakdher. Hon. members will be pleased to know that Mr. Speaker Reddy will be with us as our guest until his departure on Friday morning for the commonwealth parliamentary conference in the West Indies. In the intervening period I hope that as many hon. members as possible will be able to meet our guests. I might draw to the attention of all hon. members the fact that a reception has been arranged for this purpose tonight at 6 p.m. in the railway committee room.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that all hon. members would want me to say on their behalf that we are indeed deeply honoured by this visit from such a distinguished parliamentarian from our great commonwealth partner in India, a country that shares with us all our traditions of parliamentary democracy.



PRECIOUS METALS


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce) moved: the first reading of Bill No. S-4 (from the Senate), respecting the marking of articles containing precious metals.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CUSTOMS ACT


Donald Stovel Macdonald: the first reading
of Bill No. S-10 (from the Senate), to amend the Customs Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. McGrath: How many employees are required by Canadian National Railways to provide rail passenger service in Newfoundland?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: In the year 1967, 136 employees were required during the summer and 81 during the winter.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURES, NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Marshall: 1.	What is the total anticipated expenditure for 1968 and 1969 under Regional Development Programs in the Province of Newfoundland?
2.	What is the amount scheduled to be expended under these programs in Western Newfoundland?
3.	What is the amount earmarked for short-term projects in the Province of Newfoundland and how much is earmarked for long-term projects?
4.	What are the short-term projects to be started for the fiscal year 1968 and 1969 in Western Newfoundland, Area One and the amounts to be expended on each?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: 1. 1968-69, $12,304,280; 1969-70, $7,565,000.
2.	1968-69, $644,515; 1969-70, $608,000.
3.	Short term $19,869,280. There are no long term projects.
4.	Provision of water systems for fish plants: 1968-69, at Isle aux Morts, $132,000; at St. Anthony, $280,000. 1969-70, atEnglee, $122,000.

October 21, 1968
Questions


EXPO '67-JAPANESE RADIO STATION
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Was a request submitted by Japanese sources to set up an amateur radio station at Expo?
2.	Was the request refused and, if so, for what reason?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition reports that: 1. Informal verbal requests were received from Japan and other countries to set up amateur radio stations at Expo.
2.	The exhibition corporation did not encourage these requests because: (a) it was felt that if amateur stations were set up by one or two nations, there would be many other similar requests and (b) this would result in a proliferation of unsightly aerials. The Japanese representatives recognized the good sense of these arguments and, therefore, did not make a formal request.


STRIKES IN CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Forlin: 1.	During the last five years, what strikes occurred in Proprietary Crown Corporations?
2.	How many days did each strike last and how many employees were affected by each strike?
3.	In the case of each such strike, did the government or a Minister of the Crown intervene directly or indirectly to hasten the settlement of the strike and, if so, what was the nature of such intervention?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Minister of Transport as follows: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. One.
2.	Seven days; 65,000 employees.
3.	Yes; act of parliament.
The Management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. One strike, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.
2.	14 days. 9,400.
3.	No.
The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority advises as follows: 1. One strike from June 21st to July 14th, 1968, inclusive.
2.	The strike lasted 24 days and affected 1,308 employees.
3.	No.


BILINGUAL POLICY, NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
Mr. Coates: 1.	Was M. Arnott appointed Assistant Director of Information for the National Capital Commission; does this position require that M. Arnott be bilingual and does he meet this requirement?
2.	Is it government policy to have Ottawa become a truly bilingual National Capital?
3.	How many employees are there in the National Capital Commission's information section, what are the names of each of these individuals in this section; what is the salary of each and the duties of each?
4.	What is the total cost for services of the information section of the National Capital Commission for each of the years from 1958 to the present?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: 1. Yes; (a) no; (b)
no.
2.	Yes.
3.	It has not been customary to require crown corporations to disclose detailed information related to their internal management and administration. However, the National Capital Commission's information and historical division has a staff of four information officers, an archivist and seven support staff with 1968-1969 salaries totalling $85,000. The Incumbents and their duties: Mr. J.-Maurice Landry, Director, public relations; Mr. Morrison Arnott, Chief, information services; Mr. John Tidman, Information officer; Miss Laurette Arvisais, Information officer; Mr. W. A. Macintosh, Archivist; Mr. R. Emerson, Clerk; Mrs. C. Warren, Secretary to the director; Mrs. D. Parisien, Steno-typist; Mrs. L. Dompierre, Steno-typist; Mrs. D. Curtis, Clerk; Mrs. L. Bender, Clerk; Mr. G. Brisson, Clerk.
4.	The information and historical budget
for each year since 1958-1959:	1958-59,
$36,000;	1959-60,	$37,000;	1960-61,	$64,000;1961-62,	$75,000;	1962-63,	$79,000;	1963-64,$70,000;	1964-65,	$98,000;	1965-66,	$137,000;1966-67,	$147,000;	1967-68,	$194,000.


FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION, COLD STORAGE PLANT, ST. BRUNO, QUE.
Mr. Gauthier: Did the federal government participate financially in the construction of the cold storage plant in St-Bruno, County of Lac St-Jean, and if so, how much was contributed?


Yves Forest: I am
informed by the Department of Forestry and Rural Development as follows: Yes. $446,809 to date.
October 21, 1968


WORKS UNDER SECTION 92, B.N.A. ACT
Mr. Fortin: What works have been declared to be to the general advantage of Canada in the sense of the B.N.A. Act (section 92) since 1867?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: No list of such works has been maintained.


ASSISTANCE IN COMBATING DUTCH ELM DISEASE
Mr. Alkenbrack: Since the government has cancelled any further federal assistance in Winter Works programs, what will the government do to assist the municipalities in their very expensive fight in combating Dutch Elm Disease, which is taking a terrible toll in the White and Grey Elm species in Central Canada?


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, the programs undertaken by the federal government on the Dutch elm disease are carried out by the forestry branch of the Department of Fisheries and comprise surveys to detect the presence and spread of the disease, research and factors influencing susceptibility of elm trees to the causal fungus and on methods of control, and technical advisory services to municipalities on the application of control methods. The forestry branch also provides diagnostic services to municipalities and individuals to assist in the identification of trees that are affected by the disease and that should be removed promptly to limit the spread. These extensive technical and consultative services will be continued.


POST OFFICE CONSTRUCTION, ST. VALLIER, QUE.
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	Does the government intend to build a post office in St. Vallier (Bellechasse constituency)?
2.	If so, (a) what is the estimated cost of construction (b) has the Department of Public Works called tenders or will it do so shortly (c) if authorized, when will construction start?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Yes.
2.	(a) It is not customary to give the estimated cost before tenders are called, (b) Tenders will be called this fall, (c) If valid tenders are received, construction should start early in the new year.
Questions


FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOTBINIERE CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Fortin: How many federal civil servants were employed in the federal constituency of Lotbiniere in 196263-64-65-66-67-68?


Yves Forest: It is impossible to compile the data sought in this question because the duties of public employees are not assigned on the basis of electoral constituencies.


CANADIAN DEFENCE INSTALLATIONS
Mr. Peddle: 1.	How many Canadian defence installations are there in Canada and where are they located?
2.	How many military personnel are in each and, how many civilian?


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1 and 2. It
is not departmental policy to make public lists of all defence establishments in Canada giving precise locations. However, the following is a list of major bases and stations, showing the number of military and civilian
personnel attached to	each as	of June 30,
1968.		
Bases and Stations	Military Personnel	Civilian Personnel
Newfoundland		
CFS St. John's	195	33CFS Gander	170	92CFS Goose Bay	59	10Prince Edward Island	CFB Summerside	1353	321Nova Scotia	CFB Cornwallis	611	347CFB Greenwood	1911	381CFB Halifax	4360	5006CFB Shearwater	2196	425CFS Barrington	131	64CFS Sydney	146	92CFS Mill Cove	47	9CFS Shelburne	163	_Ships Afloat East	4216	-New Brunswick	CFB Chatham	1275	389CFB Gagetown	4497	719CFB Moncton	178	416CFS Coverdale	135	3
October 21, 1968
Questions
	Military	Civilian
Bases and Stations	Personnel	Personnel
Quebec		
CFB Bagotville	1126	231CFB Montreal	1537	2819CFB St. Hubert	1689	402CFB St. Jean	972	681CFB Valcartier	3019	814CFS Val d'Or	326	100CFS La Macaza	255	82CFS Chibougamau	135	74CFS Senneterre	177	80CFS Mont Apica	183	71CFS Moisie	162	83CFS Lac St. Denis	133	76Ontario	CFB Borden	3958	1596CFB Clinton	978	272CFB Kingston	3078	1313CFB London	1440	1020CFB North Bay	1299	398CFB Petawawa	2975	716CFB Rockcliffe	6033	5266CFB Toronto	1831	1392CFB Trenton	3232	809CFB Uplands	1793	267CFS Moosonee	129	73CFS Foymount	152	84CFS Falconbridge	134	75CFS Ramore	128	68CFS Lowther	135	62CFS Armstrong	144	55CFS Sioux Lookout	127	52CFS Gloucester	248	26CFS Leitrim	129	108CFS Cobourg	38	375CFS Carp	48	15Manitoba	CFB Gimli	870	218CFB Portage la Prairie 724	204CFB Rivers	753	221CFB Shilo	908	460CFB Winnipeg	3143	836CFS Gypsumville	155	76CFS Flin Flon	42	1CFS Beausejour	118	56Saskatchewan	CFB Moose Jaw	1205	357CFS Dana	161	64CFS Yorkton	143	73CFS Alsask	145	66Alberta	CFB Calgary	2409	724CFB Cold Lake	1841	321CFB Edmonton	2036	826CFB Penhold	333	208CFS Beaverlodge	127	52Military	CivilianBases and Stations	Personnel	PersonnelBritish Columbia	CFB Chilliwack	1563	800CFB Comox	1564	250CFB Esquimalt	3023	2895CFS Holberg	204	69CFS Baldy Hughes	140	64CFS Kamloops	143	65CFS Ladner	121	51CFS Masset	39	5CFS Aldergrove	76	17Ships Afloat West	1693	-Northwest Territories	CFS Inuvik	167	5CFS Alert	98	-


AIR POLLUTION FROM AIRCRAFT ENGINES
Mr. Gillespie: 1.	How is the degree of air pollution from aircraft engine exhausts determined and what measurements are made?
2.	What is considered a dangerous level of concentration?
3.	Have measurements been taken at Malton International Airport and. if so, what are they?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Air contaminant
emissions from aircraft engines are similar to those from other combustion sources, especially motor vehicles. The degree of air pollution is, therefore, measured with the same kind of instrumentation as is used in the general assessment of community air pollution problems. The important constituents of aircraft engine exhausts are particulates, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, hydrocarbons, and aldehydes.
2.	Exposure of persons working near aircraft engine exhausts is limited by tolerance to concentrations of either carbon monoxide or nitrogen dioxide. Concentrations of 50 parts per million carbon monoxide and 5 parts nitrogen dioxide are not considered injurious to health in continuous exposure at work for an eight hour day, five days a week.
3.	No air pollution measurements have been made at Malton airport by air pollution officers of the occupational health division, Department of National Health and Welfare, or the Ontario air pollution control service.
October 21, 1968


POST OFFICE CONSTRUCTION, ST. ODILON, QUE.
Mr. Rodrigue: 1.	Does the government intend to build a post office at St. Odilon, constituency of Beauce?
2.	If so (a) what is the estimated cost of the work (b) has the Department of Public Works called tenders or will it do so in the near future (c) when will the work start, if applicable?


Arthur Laing: 1. Yes.
2.	(a) It is not customary to give the estimated cost before tenders are called, (b) Tenders will be called this fall, (c) If valid tenders are received, construction should start early in the new year.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE STATISTICS, LOTBINIERE CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Fortin: 1.	How many Unemployment Insurance Commission offices are there in the federal constituency of Lotbiniere?
2.	How many claims for unemployment insurance benefits were filed at each of these offices, by year, since January 1, 1965, by persons residing in the federal constituency of Lotbiniere?
3.	What were the number of claims accepted in each of these offices, by year, since 1965?
4.	How many persons residing in the federal constituency of Lotbiniere registered for employment, each year, since 1965?
5.	How many of the registered persons received employment, each year, since 1965?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the Department of Manpower and Immigration as follows: 1. There are no offices of the Unemployment Insurance Commission located in the federal constituency of Lotbiniere.
2.	The information is not available. There was an office of the commission located at Victoriaville in the federal constituency of Lotbiniere until 18 September, 1967. The territory served by the Victoriaville office included most of Arthabaska county and part of Nicolet, Wolfe and Megantic counties and no records were maintained as to the number of claims tiled at the Victoriaville office from residents of the Lotbiniere county.
3.	The total number of claims filed at the Victoriaville office and for which the contribution requirements were met were: 4,374 in 1965; 4,120 in 1966 and 1,485 in 1967 (until 18 September, 1967).
Questions
4.	and 5. This information is not available because statistics on registrations for employment and placements are compiled for Canada manpower centre areas, not for electoral districts.
Figures on new registrations and on placements made are available for the three Canada manpower centres of Levis, Trois-Rivieres and Victoriaville which include, within their areas, the electoral district of Lotbiniere. The population of the electoral district of Lotbiniere is approximately twenty per cent of the total population of the three Canada manpower centre areas, based on 1966 census figures.
New registrations	for employment were: Trois- Victoria-		
Levis	Rivieres	ville1965	5,606	6,863	3,5611966	6,935	7,455	3,7851967	5,438	8,671	4,797To Aug. 31 1968	4,194	5,307	2,485Placements in	employment were: Trois- Victoria-	Levis	Rivieres	ville1965	5,061	5,819	2,8451966	3,910	4,847	2,4961967	2,921	3,120	1,971To Aug. 31 1968	2,397	1,483	1,071It is important to	note	that these	data are
not comparable in meaning over the period as the manpower services being provided changed considerably. Emphasis shifted from the operation of a simple placement service to the provision of a range of manpower services which include referral to training courses (these totalled 4,986 for the three Canada manpower centre areas, from January 1, 1967 to September 30, 1968), manpower mobility grants, more extensive labour market and job vacancy information, and fuller employment counselling.


BORDEN-CAPE TORMENTINE FERRY SERVICE
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	When is it expected that the SS Prince Edward Island will be withdrawn from the Borden-Cape Tormentine ferry service?
2.	What use will be made of this ship thereafter?
3. When will the ferry John Hamilton Gray come into regular service on the run?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1 and 2. The SS Prince Edward Island will be withdrawn

October 21, 1968
Questions
from service upon the commencement of regular service by the MV John Hamilton Gray. Subsequently, because of its age and the substantial expenditure that would be required to continue operating the vessel, the P.E.I. will be retired from the service. No decision has as yet been made as to its eventual disposition.
3.	Current expectations are about mid-October, 1968.


SECURITY FILES ON FRANCOIS DORLOT
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Was information in connection with Frangois Dorlot contained in Immigration, Security and R.C.M.P. files made available to any persons outside of the aforementioned Departments, including members of the Press, Radio and T.V. media?
2.	If so, by whom, and was this done with the knowledge and/or approval of the Departmental Minister concerned?
3.	Do the Security or R.C.M.P. files show that Mr. Dorlot is or was a member of the Mouvement Souverainete-Assoeiation?


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: 1 and 3. It is not in the public interest to discuss or to disclose the contents of R.C.M.P. files or files of other departments containing security information. No information, therefore, can be given as to whether or not the name of Mr. Francois Dorlot is contained in them. However, while no inference is to be drawn as to whether or not such files do contain information pertaining to Frangois Dorlot, assurance can be given that, so far as can be determined, no persons connected with immigration, security or R.C.M.P. have given any information concerning him to the press, radio or T.V. media.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


CANADIAN COMMUNICATION SATELLITE
Mr. Schreyer: 1.	Has the Government of Canada made the necessary arrangements to secure the required frequencies and orbital positions for a Canadian domestic communication satellite?
2.	If not, what is the nature of the difficulty?
3.	Has the Government of Canada established the necessary criteria under which a domestic satellite communication system can be established and made operational?
4.	If so, what are these criteria (other than engineering and technical)?
5.	What form of ownership will the domestic satellite communication corporation have?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Posimaster General):: In so far as telecommunications is concerned,

1.	Preliminary action has been taken but further steps will be necessary. These further steps will be carried out in accordance with ITU agreements when the technical characteristics of our satellites are more fully determined as a result of the planning process now in progress in my Department and in Canadian industry. The use by Canada of radio frequencies on a domestic communication satellite requires co-ordination with other countries and eventual formal clearance through the International Telecommunications Union.
2.	Answered in 1 above.
3.	and 4. Yes. These are described in the white paper on "A Domestic Satellite Communication System for Canada" published by the Minister of Industry, on March 28, 1968.
5.	The form of ownership will be prescribed in the legislation expected to be introduced during the current session relating to the proposed corporation.


BLANKET SALES BY CROWN ASSETS
Mr. Marshall: When the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation sold blankets to Fortier and Associated Services Limited of Edmonton for $8,250 and to Hercules Sales Limited of Toronto for $5,113 (a) what was the number of blankets involved in each sale
(b)	what was the sale price per blanket in each transaction (c) what was the original cost of the blankets to the Canadian Government and, (d) why was it found necessary to dispose of them?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Departments of Defence Production and National Defence as follows: (a) No. of blankets sold to Fortier and Associated Services Limited, Edmonton, 5,000; No. of blankets sold to Hercules Sales Limited, Toronto, 2,734; (b) Sale price per blanket sold to Fortier and Associated Services Limited, Edmonton, $1.65; Sale price per blanket sold to Hercules Sales Limited, Toronto, $1.87;
(c)	$6.00 each; (d) The blankets were procured prior to 1949 and continuous usage had resulted in shrinkage rendering them unfit for further use.


U.S. HARMON AIR FORCE BASE, NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Marshall: 1.	When the United States Government deactivated Harmon Air Force Base in the Province of Newfoundland (a) to whom did ownership and control of the installation revert (b) did the United States retain any rights or interest in the property (c) did ownership of buildings,
October 21, 1968

machinery and other facilities on the base remain with the United States or was it transferred elsewhere?
2.	If ownership and control of the base was given back to Canada, did the federal government subsequently transfer it to the Government of Newfoundland and, if so (a) did the transfer include such physical properties as buildings, etc (b) did the federal government make any proviso as to what use the property and facilities should be put to by the provincial government (c) did the federal government pay a lump sum or agree to make regular payments to meet part or all of the costs of maintenance of the former air base?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: 1. (a) The crown. The legal technicalities of the provincial or federal reversionary interests in lands occupied by the U.S. forces under the leased bases agreement of 1941 has never been resolved, (b) No. (c) The ownership of buildings and appurtenant base machinery related to power, heating and water systems were abandoned by the U.S. as required by the terms of the leased bases agreement of 1941. Ownership of operational and other movable equipment remained vested in the U.S. However, a sizeable catalogue of maintenance equipment and housekeeping supplies were declared surplus by the U.S. and were purchased by the province of Newfoundland.
2. Ownership and control of the base was not given back to Canada. However, on 7 June 1966, an order in council transferred to the government of Newfoundland such interest as the government of Canada may have had in the Harmon base property; (a) Yes, to the extent of federal interest; (b) No; (c) No.


BEDSTEAD SALES BY CROWN ASSETS
Mr. Marshall: When the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation sold bedsteads to H. Rosenthal Company of St. Paul, Minnesota, U.S.A., for $18,260 and to the Army & Navy Department Store Limited of Vancouver for $6,478 and to H. Rosenthal Company of St. Paul, Minnesota, U.S.A., for $10,200 (a) what was the sale price per bedstead in each instance (b) what was the original cost of the bedsteads to the Canadian Government, and (c) why was it found necessary to dispose of them?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Departments of Defence Production and National Defence as follows:
Questions
(a)	Sale price to H. Rosenthal Company of St. Paul, Minnesota, $4.00 per unit; Sale price to Army & Navy Department Store Limited, Vancouver, $8.37 per unit; Sale price to H. Rosenthal Company of St. Paul, Minnesota, $3.40 per unit; (b) The original cost of the components of the bedsteads which were purchased prior to 1949 was (a) spring $3.75 each; (b) end piece $2.49 each for a total cost of $12.48 per double tiered bedstead, (c) As these double tiered bedsteads could not be assembled as single beds, and as single beds only are now in use in National Defence, they were declared surplus to requirements.


MATTRESS COVER SALES BY CROWN ASSETS
Mr. Marshall: When the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation sold mattress covers to Oscar's Surplus Jobbers Limited of Toronto for $8,396 and to Kiffe Sales Company of New York, U.S.A., for $8,140	(a)
what was the selling price per cover in each case
(b)	what was the original cost of the mattress covers to the Canadian Government, and (c) why was it found necessary to dispose of them?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Departments of Defence Production and National Defence as follows: (a) Sale price to Oscar's Surplus Jobbers Limited, Toronto $.28i per unit, sale price to Kiffe Sales Company, New York, U.S.A., $.31 per unit, (b) These mattress covers were purchased prior to 1949 at a cost varying from $1.86 to $2.70 each, (c) All stocks in excess of ten years' usage were declared surplus to requirements.


SOURCE OF PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS
Mr. Gauthier: 1.	What is the percentage of pharmaceutical products now manufactured in Canada?
2.	From what countries and in what proportions does Canada import such products?


John Carr Munro: 1.	Under the Food and Drugs Act, a drug manufacturer is defined as an individual or company who sells a pharmaceutical product under his name or the name of a company. Using this definition, approximately 88 per cent of the drugs sold under the Food and Drugs Act and approximately 95 per cent of the drugs sold under the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act, are manufactured in Canada. It should be pointed out that many of these pharmaceutical products are manufactured from imported bulk chemicals or

October 21, 1968
Questions
are imported in final dosage form and packaged in Canada.
2. (a) Imported Drugs sold under the Food and Drugs Act based on Drug Notification Forms:
Country	Number of Products
United States	2,215
France	238
England	146
West Germany	83
Switzerland	46
Denmark	8
Austria	7
Holland	4
Hong Kong	4
Ireland	4
Italy	1
Finland	1
Scotland	1
Sweden	1
Japan	1
South Africa	1
Total 2,761
(b) Imported Drugs sold under the Proprietary and Patent Medicine Act based on Registrations:
Number
of
Country	Products
United States	44
West Germany	38
England	23
Switzerland	5
Czechoslovakia	4
France	3
Austria	3
Italy	1
Australia	1
Morocco	1
Hong Kong	1
number of Canadian Forces personnel serving in various countries was as follows:
Australia	5
Belgium	143
Bermuda	94
Britain	167
Canada	85,888
Cyprus	888
Czechoslovakia	3
France	11
Germany	11,199
Ghana	19
Holland	132
India	3
India/Pakistan	17
Israel	2
Italy	2
Japan	2
Korea	2
Laos	10
Malaysia	1
Norway	2
Pakistan	2
Palestine	20
Poland	3
Singapore	1
Sweden	3
Tanzania	87
Turkey	2
United Arab Republic	2
USA	673
USSR	6
Vietnam	24
Yugoslavia	3
3.	The total operating and maintenance costs for these forces in the fiscal years 19651966 were $1,148,153,124; 1966-1967, $1,180,774,503; and 1967-1968 $1,226,460,000 (Est.).


MANPOWER MOVEMENT TO AND FROM ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Mr. Coates: Total 124


CANADIAN MILITARY FORCES OVERSEAS
[Stage Direction]
1. How many individuals in the four Atlantic Provinces have received assistance from the Department of Manpower and Immigration to secure employment outside the four Atlantic Provinces since that Department was established?
Mr. Gauthier: 1.	In what countries does Canada maintain military forces?
2.	What is the number of Canadian servicemen in each of these countries?
3.	What was the total cost of such operations during the years 1965, 1966 and 1967?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1 and 2. As of 1 August, 1968, the
2.	How many individuals in the Provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec, have received assistance from the Department of Manpower and Immigration to secure employment in the Atlantic Provinces since that Department was established?
3.	What has been the total amount of financial assistance provided to individuals who have left the four Atlantic Provinces for employment in other parts of Canada?
4.	How many families in the four Atlantic Provinces have received assistance to move to other

October 21, 1968

parts of Canada from the Department of Manpower and Immigration since its establishment and what is the total amount of this assistance to date?


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. From its establishment on 1 October 1966 the Department of Manpower and Immigration, under the manpower mobility program, has assisted 1,271 individuals to secure employment outside the four Atlantic provinces.
2.	From 1 October 1966 the Department of Manpower and Immigration, under the manpower mobility program, has assisted three individuals in British Columbia, 36 in Ontario and 71 in Quebec to secure employment in the Atlantic provinces. No individuals in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba were assisted under the program to move to the Atlantic provinces.
3.	The total amount authorized under the manpower mobility program for the purpose of assisting workers who have left the Atlantic provinces was $934,531.
4.	From its establishment on 1 October 1966 the Department of Manpower and Immigration has assisted 742 families in the Atlantic provinces to move to other parts of Canada. A total of $847,536 was authorized for this purpose.


LICENSED GRAIN SELLERS
Mr. Downey: What are the names of the companies licensed to sell grain internationally?
Questions
Company Limited; Parrish & Heimbecker Limited; K. A. Powell Canada (1966) Limited; Range Grain Company Limited; Ranks Hovis McDougall (Canada) Limited; James Richardson & Sons, Limited; Robin Hood Flour Mills Limited; Saskatchewan Wheat Pool; Saurel Grain Company Limited; Scottish Co-Operative Wholesale Society, Limited; Smith, Vincent & Company Limited.
Western Agents: Agro Company of Canada Limited; Bunge Corporation Limited; Cargill Grain Company, Limited; Cargill Manitoba Company, Limited; Continental Grain Company (Canada) Limited; Co-Operative Wholesale Society Limited; East Asiatic Company (Canada) Limited; Federal Grain Limited; Louis Dreyfus Corporation; Louis Dreyfus Canada Limited; McCabe Grain Company Limited; Northern Sales (1963) Limited; Pacific Elevators Limited; Pacific Grain Corporation Limited; Powell-Lester Grain & Shipping Limited; Ranks Hovis McDougall (Canada) Limited; Jas. Richardson & Sons, Limited; Saskatchewan Wheat Pool.


ASSISTANCE TO FRESHWATER FISHERMEN IN PRAIRIE REGION
Mr. Schreyer: 1.	Has the Fishing Vessel Assistance Program and the Fishermen's Indemnity Plan been extended to include the inland freshwater fishing industry of the prairie region and, if so, how much has been expended under each of these programs?
2.	Does the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act apply to the inland freshwater fishing industry of the prairie region and, if so, what is the amount of loans guaranteed by the Government of Canada in each of the past five years?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No specific licence is required to sell Canadian grain internationally. The Canadian wheat board has however authorized a number of firms to act as their accredited export agents. The following firms are accredited export agents of the board. Eastern Agents: Agro Company of Canada Limited; Anglo Canadian Grain Company Limited; Bunge Corporation Limited; Cargill Grain Company Limited; Cargill Manitoba Company, Limited; Continental Grain Company (Canada) Limited; Federal Grain Limited; Grain Growers Export Company Limited, The; Louis Dreyfus Corporation; Louis Dreyfus Canada Limited; Maple Leaf Mills Limited (Maple Leaf Milling Division); Maple Leaf Mills Limited (Toronto Elevator Division); Mardorf Peach & Company (Canada) Limited; McCabe Grain Company Limited; Norris Grain Company Limited; Northern Sales (1963) Limited; Ogilvie Flour Mills


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Departments of Fisheries and Finance as follows: 1. No.
2. Fishermen of the inland freshwater fishing industry of the prairie region are eligible to apply for loans under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. The following table shows the total loans made under the program and those made to fishermen in the prairie provinces.
Fiscal Year
1967/68
1966/67
1965/66
1964/65
1963/64
Value of
Total value	loans made
of loans	in prairie
made	provinces
(in thousands of dollars, rounded to nearest $100) 1,300	2.5
1,400	8.4
1,100	4.0
500	7.5
400	Nil

October 21, 1968
Questions


IMPROVEMENT IN POSTAL SERVICE, PARRSBORO, N.S.
Mr. Coates: What does the federal government intend to do to provide improved postal facilities for the patrons at Parrsboro, Nova Scotia?


Arthur Laing: Construction of a new post office building has been rescheduled for 1970-71.


SADDLE LAKE INDIAN RESERVE, ALBERTA
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	How much money was spent in improving physical conditions on the Saddle Lake Indian Reserve at St. Paul, Alberta during the period April 1, 1966 to March 31, 1967, and April 1, 1967 to March 31, 1968?
2.	How much money was spent on health services during the periods April 1, 1966 to March 31, 1967 and April 1, 1967 to March 31, 1968 and how much was spent on (a) housing (b) water supply
(c)	roads, during the same periods?
3. How many children from the Reserve are now attending high school, and how many attended in 1966 and 1967?
4. How many children from the Reserve are presently attending technical school or university, and for the same periods of time as above?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Departments of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and National Health and Welfare as follows: 1. April 1, 1966-March 31, 1967, $190,549; April 1, 1967 -March 31, 1968, $108,971.
2. For the Saddle Lake Indian reserve at St. Paul, Alberta, health services costs for the fiscal years 1966-67 and 1967-68 were as follows:	April 1,	1966-March 31,	1967,
$271,400. April 1,	1967-March 31, 1968,

1966-67	1967-68
(a)	Housing	$22,600	$62,020(b)	Water	Supply $27,841	$27,567(c)	Roads

In addition to the above, $140,108 was spent for electrification on the Saddle Lake reserve during the fiscal year 1966-67 and $14,000 was spent during 1967-68 for the same purpose.
3.	As of October 1, 1968, 103 students from the Saddle Lake reserve were attending high school. Sixty-six were attending during the academic year September 1, 1966 to June 30, 1967, and 66 attended during the academic year September 1, 1967 to June 30, 1968.

4.	As of October 1, 1968, 15 students from the Saddle Lake reserve are enrolled in postschool programs which include technical schools and universities. Nine were attending during the academic year September 1, 1966 to June 30, 1967, and 32 were attending during the academic year September 1, 1967 to June 30, 1968.


QUALIFICATIONS OF NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION CHAIRMAN
Mr. Thompson (Red Deer): What are the qualifications of the Chairman of the National Capital Commission, which resulted in his appointment?


James Edgar Walker: The qualifications of the chairman of the National Capital Commission which were taken into account by the government prior to his appointment and which the government considers as being a proper and desirable blend of work with the commission and a wideranging background of experience in legal, accounting and executive activities are as follows: Acting chairman of the National Capital Commission from September 1, 1967 to January 5, 1968; Vice-chairman from February 16, 1967 until October 1967; Member, National Capital Commission on April 29, 1966; Member National Capital Commission land advisory committee from February 1965 to April 1966; Ottawa branch manager and assistant general manager of Guaranty Trust Company of Canada from 1963 to 1966, with general supervision over the financial operations which included mortgage and real estate matters. Toronto General Trusts Corporation from 1940 to 1959; Toronto General Trusts Corporation from 1941 to 1951, comptroller and executive administrator for the corporation; 1952-1959, Ottawa branch manager responsible for financial matters including real estate and mortgage departments; Graduate of Queen's University in commerce in 1930; A Fellow of the Ontario Institute of Chartered Accountants; A member of the Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts; A member of the Law Society of Upper Canada; Resident of the national capital region.


PETITION RESPECTING FLOAT PLANE BASE, ST. ANDREWS, MAN.
Mr. Schreyer: 1.	Has the Minister of Transport received a petition signed by residents of the St. Andrews and St. Clements municipalities complaining of the procedure by which permission was granted to
October 21, 1968

allow the establishment of a float plane base on the Red River at St. Andrews, Manitoba?
2.	If so, how many signatures are there in support of this petition?
3.	When and where was the petition received by the Department of Transport or the Minister?
4.	What decision, if any, has been reached relative to this petition?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1.	Yes. "Petition of property owners of land affected by operations of air base Northland Airlines Limited in the rural municipality of St. Andrews."
2.	265.
3.	The petition was received by the Minister of Transport on June 10, 1968.
4.	Northland Airlines applied to the Department of Transport for a licence to operate a water airport on lot 34 River road, St. Andrews, Manitoba. A letter was received by the department's Winnipeg regional office from the metropolitan corporation of greater Winnipeg which stated that they had no objection to the establishment of a water airport on lot 34 River road.
In general, when licensing an airport, the Department of Transport finds it satisfactory to deal only with the responsible governing body which, it is assumed, speaks for all the local residents. If the governing body has no objection and the applicant has met all the Department's other requirements, as was the case with Northland Airlines, an airport licence is issued.


&quot;HABITAT '67&quot;
Mr. Mclnlosh: 1.	What was the cost of constructing "Habitat *67" for the 1967 World's Fair in Montreal?
2.	When was "Habitat '67" turned back to the federal government by the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World's Fair?
3.	How many units are now available for occupancy?
4.	How many units are rented to tenants as of October 1, 1968 (a) furnished (b) unfurnished?
5.	What rental fees are currently being charged for accommodation in "Habitat '67"?
6.	What has been the cost to the federal government since taking over control of "Habitat '67" for (a) heat, light and water services (b) renovation and repairs (c) completion of unfinished units
(d)	furnishing and decorating units of all types
(e)	advertising in connection with soliciting occupants (f) snow removal and maintenance of grounds (g) window cleaning (h) limousine service for tenants (i) protective service (j) managerial and other administrative services?
7.	What is the estimated annual surplus or deficit on the operation of "Habitat '67" this year?
Questions
8.	Is there any expectation that operation of "Habitat '67" will eventually recover the capital cost of construction, improvement and maintenance?
9.	Has consideration been given to turning over "Habitat '67" to the City of Montreal for use as a low-rent housing project?
10.	Has consideration been given to demolition of "Habitat '67"?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1.	$22,569,350.
2.	January 1, 1968.
3.	115.
4.	(a) 2; (b) 35.
5.	1-bedroom, $190; 2-bedroom, range, $275-$310; 3-bedroom, range, $380-$420; 4-bedroom, range, $395-$460; Penthouse, $600.
6.	(a) $28,265;	(b) $85,712;	(c) nil; (d)
$24,123; (e) $17,468.88; (f) $21,040; (g) nil; (h) $10,100; (i) $54,382; (j) $34,200.
7.	$442,088 deficit.
8.	No.
9.	No.
10.	No.


FREQUENCY OF RURAL MAIL DELIVERIES
Mr. McCleave: 1.	How many box holders on rural routes in Canada now receive mail deliveries less than five days a week?
2.	How many of such now receive such deliveries on Saturday?


Eric William Kierans: 1. 36,240.
2. Information not available, however, service to these people would not be reduced in the event of a change to a five day per week mail delivery as schedules would be changed to provide same frequency on alternate days.


NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION SECRETARY
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Who is the Secretary of the National Capital Commission?
2.	What is his salary?
3.	What are his qualifications?
4.	What position did he hold before achieving his present position?
5.	How was he appointed to the Commission?


Jean Marchand: 1. A. E. Morin.
2. It has not been customary to require crown corporations to disclose detailed information related to their internal management and administration.

October 21, 1968
Questions
3.	University graduate, bilingual, with administrative and journalistic background.
4.	Acting director, information services, Department of Public Works.
5.	Selection board of National Capital Commission management committee.


FAMILY AND YOUTH ALLOWANCES PAYMENTS
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Of the total of $612,865,000 payable in family and youth allowances, as shown in the revised estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1969, what portion will be paid to (a) Quebec (b) Ontario (c) Atlantic Provinces (d) Manitoba (e) Saskatchewan (f) Alberta and (g) British Columbia?
2.	What is the estimate for these payments for the fiscal year 1969-1970?


John Carr Munro: 1. (a) Quebec, $164,326,000; (b) Ontario, $214,753,000; (c) Atlantic Provinces, $67,907,000; (d) Manitoba, $28,968,000;	(e) Saskatchewan, $30,391,000;	(f)*
Alberta, $49,066,000; (g) British Columbia, $57,454,000.
* The amount for Alberta includes the estimates for the Yukon and Northwest Territories.
2. No estimate for the fiscal year 1969-70 is available at the present time.


REPAIRS TO H.M.C.S. &quot;SASKATCHEWAN&quot;
Mr. Anderson: 1.	Have repairs to HMCS Saskatchewan, damaged when run onto a rock in Active Pass on September 8, 1968, been completed?
2.	If so, what was the cost of these repairs?
3.	If not, what is the estimated cost of repairs?


David Walter Groos: 1. No.
2 and 3. Emergency repairs were carried out in H.M.C. Dockyard Esquimalt at a cost of $13,545. Further repairs will be made in 1969, at an estimated cost of $75,000.


RECALLS OF DEFECTIVE MOTOR VEHICLES
Mr. Mather: Is the automobile industry required to report "call backs" of defective vehicles to the government and, if so, what departments are advised and what use is made of the information?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, but the manufacturers have been voluntarily reporting on their call back campaigns.

This matter is now under discussion with the industry to develop a permanent procedure for submitting their reports.


COMPLETION OF POST OFFICE, PORT-AUX-CHOIX, NFLD.
Mr. Marshall: What steps are being taken to complete the Post Office at Port-Aux-Choix in Newfoundland now that the contractors have defaulted through bankruptcy?


Mr. Paul Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, tenders for the completion of the work were called and a contract has now been awarded.


REMOVAL OF HARBOUR WRECKS, SYDNEY, N.S.
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 382.-Mr. Muir (Cape Breion-
The Sydneys):
1.	Did the Department of Transport, in 1965, contemplate the removal of wrecks in Sydney Harbour and, if so (a) how many were included in the project (b) were tenders called for their removal and what was the departmental estimate of cost for the job (c) how many bids were received and what was the amount in each case?
2.	If tenders were called and bids received, what is the reason for not proceeding with the work?
3.	Were alternate plans considered as, for instance, the removal only of those appearing above low water mark?
4.	Did the Department regard the removal of these wrecks strictly on the ground that they might constitute a hazard to navigation or was the problem considered in the light of unsightliness and general harbour improvement?
5.	Did the Department at anytime in recent years consider removal of the remains of old wharfs and other waterfront debris?
Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1. Yes. (a) 14; (b) Yes, $30,000; (c) Four, $94,500; $177,000; $210,930; $234,000.
2.	The lowest bid was more than three times the estimate and was considered excessive for the work to be performed.
3.	No.
4.	The removal of these wrecks was regarded strictly on the ground that they might constitute a hazard to navigation.
5.	No.


HARBOUR WRECK REMOVAL, SYDNEY, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys): 1. Did the Department of National Defence authorize the removal of defence structures at
October 21, 1968

Petrie Point by the Royal Canadian Engineers as a "training exercise"?
2.	Was consideration and approval given by the Department within the past year to instituting a similar "training exercise" for the Royal Canadian Navy using R.C.N. underwater personnel to remove wrecks in Sydney Harbour and, if not, for what reasons?
3.	On what basis did the Department decide (a) that the Petrie Point demolition project was a "suitable" training exercise (b) that the Sydney Harbour job was an "unsuitable" one?
4.	Did the Department view the Sydney Harbour project as one where all wrecks and obstructions above and below water mark, would be demolished or did it envisage only removal of those wrecks appearing above water at low tide?
5.	In estimating the cost of the proposed Sydney Harbour job, was consideration given to the fact that expenses connected with the operation of an R.C.N. underwater team would have to be met in large part wherever they were carrying on routine training and operations, whether it be at Sydney Harbour, Halifax or elsewhere?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes; however, it was not approved as it was understood that private diving companies had tendered bids and it was felt that the Canadian armed forces should not enter into a project which might conflict with local commercial interests. In addition, it was not considered that any valuable or progressive training could be derived from this work.
3.	(a) Of several defence structures at Petrie Point only a three storey concrete tower was selected for demolition. This provided an opportunity at a minimal cost for military engineers to practice a demolition technique that would not otherwise have been possible, (b) The evaluation of the project was based on a survey carried out by divers of the maritime command. The hulks were too rotten and dilapidated for reflotation techniques and very little explosive demolition work would be involved.
4.	Both were considered.
5.	Yes.


TRAINING IN UNDERWATER DEMOLITION
Mr. Muir (Cape Breion-The: Sydneys):
1.	Where do Royal Canadian Navy personnel receive training in underwater demolition and what is the average cost in round figures of training a single R.C.N. diver in such work?
2.	Does this training consist of theoretical problems or does it include actual demolition of wrecks and do R.C.N. divers receive continuing training in underwater demolition in Canadian harbours and coastal waters or do they receive "refresher" courses?
29180-101}
Questions
3.	How often in the past ten years have R.C.N. divers been used to demolish wrecks in Canadian waters and at what locations?
4.	Does the Department consider it necessary to restrict R.C.N. underwater personnel to the Halifax area to effectively meet emergency requirements rather than employ them on routine tasks along the Eastern seaboard?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. Halifax, Nova Scotia, approximately $600.00.
2.	The training involved prepares the diver to carry out the following tasks: (a) sandbar removal and channel widening; (b) demolishing concrete, brick, masonary and wooden structures; (c) ice removal; (d) rock blasting; (e) remove propellors; (f) cut wood, metal or other materials explosively; (g) excavate explosively; and consists of both theoretical and practical problems but does not include the demolition of wrecks by explosives. The diver's continuing training requirement is met through an annual operational commitment with the Department of Transport, DEW line replenishment program.
3.	Twice, in 1959, the approaches to Halifax harbour and in 1965, Trois-Rivieres harbour. Both incidents were to remove navigational hazards.
4.	Yes, this permits the maritime commander to effect more economical control in meeting operational and emergency requirements. Within the operational diving unit there is a mobile element which is available to meet emergency demands along the eastern seaboard and elsewhere.


JURISDICTION OVER WRECK REMOVAL, SYDNEY HARBOUR
Mr. Muir (Cape Brelon-The: Sydneys):
Did the Department of Justice receive a request from the Cape Breton Regional Planning Commission for an opinion as to the jurisdiction in which removal of wrecks in Sydney Harbour might fall as between governments and/or departments of government and, if so, has this opinion been rendered and what were its terms?


John Napier Turner: No.


SALARY INCREASES FOR SEMI-STAFF POSTAL EMPLOYEES
Mr. Peddle: Has the government given consideration to salary increases for postal employees in "semi-staff offices"

October 21, 1968
Questions
in view of recent increases granted to employees in "staff offices" and, if so, when will such increase become effective?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Postal employees in semi staff offices are in the revenue postal operations group in the operational category. The Canadian Postmasters Association was certified by the public service staff relations board on April 18, 1968, as the bargaining agent for the employees in this group. Negotiations with the C.P.A. commenced on May 29, 1968. Agreement was reached on all matters, including pay, on October 17, 1968. Increases will be made effective retroactive to October 1, 1966.


STUDENT LOAN PLAN
Mr. Harding: For each fiscal year since the inception of the Student Loan Plan (a) how many students from each province received loans (b) what was the total amount for each province (c) how many applicants were refused loans (d) what was the actual cost to the federal government?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Note: Data in (a) and (b) below is given for the loan year which extends from July 1st to June 30th. Data in (d) below is for fiscal year.
(a)	Number of students assisted, by province.
Province	1964/65	Loan 1965/66	Year 1966/67	1967/68B.C.	4,675	7,924	9,854	11,434Alta.	4,519	6,801	8,064	10,504Sask.	2,992	5,167	5,965	7,377Man.	2,272	3,601	4,070	4,604Ont.	21,920	21,831	24,628	42,185N.B.	2,027	3,206	3,720	5,524N.S.	2,513	4,022	4,654	5,963P.E.I.	437	1,160	838	935Nfld.	737	1,472	1,414	1,819Yukon	12	23	22	15N.W.T.	9	10	14	11TOTAL	42,113	55,217	63,243	90,371Total amount for	each province.	Province	1964/65 $	Loan 1965/66 $	Year 1966/67 $	1967/68 $B.C.	3,110,751	5,043,511	6,738,350	8,037,053Alta.	2,102,819	3,305,251	4,533,434	6,423,725Sask.	1,888,445	3,317,604	4,543,085	5,980,941Man.	1,383,495	2,311,905	2,886,745	3,244,990Ont.	14,372,527	15,232,943	14,526,587	22,855,434N.B.	1,356,088	2,404,741	3,041,465	4,219,445N.S.	1,766,873	2,953,605	3,335,942	4,404,309P.E.I.	289,904	455,910	634,385	724,290Nfld.	459,652	899,231	867,658	1,143,565Yukon	8,600	19,119	20,156	12,850N.W.T.	9,000	7,115	11,136	6,808TOTAL	26,748,154	35,950,935	41,138,943	57,053,410

October 21, 1968

(c)	How many applicants were refused.
Under this program, the provincial authorities process applications and determine which shall be awarded loans. The federal government has no statistical information in this area.
(d)	Payments made by federal government under the Canada Student Loans Act.
Fiscal Year	Amount
	$
1964/65	153,235
1965/66	1,650,895
1966/67	2,929,971
1967/68	5,806,243


FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, RICHMOND CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Beaudoin: How many federal civil servants, by department or agency, were employed in the constituency of Richmond in each of the years from 1962 to 1967 inclusive and how many are working there in 1968?


Yves Forest: It is impossible to compile the data sought in this question because the duties of public employees are not assigned on the basis of electoral constituencies.


FEDERAL EXPENDITURES, RICHMOND CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	What has the federal government spent in the constituency of Richmond for each fiscal year from 1962 to 1968 inclusive, and what is the estimated amount for the current fiscal year?
2.	For each of these fiscal years, in what fields were such funds spent, and what are the estimates, by field, for the current fiscal year?


Yves Forest: It is impossible to provide a general statement of expenditures by the government of Canada in entities such as constituencies and municipalities. The budgetary estimates are not prepared in relation to such entities; nor are expenditures recorded in this way. It would be possible to give information concerning expenditures when a definite work, program, or beneficiary is mentioned in the question. In some cases, of course, these concern a particular constituency or a particular municipality.
Questions


ARDA ASSISTANCE, RICHMOND CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	How many companies will receive government help under ARDA in the federal constituency of Richmond?
2.	What companies?
3.	What amount will be provided for each of them?


Russell Clayton Honey: None.


POPULATION STATISTICS, RICHMOND CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	According to the last census, how many persons are there in the constituency of Richmond?
2.	How many live in rural areas, and how many in urban areas?
3.	How many are less than twenty-one years of age and how many are twenty-one or over?
4.	Does the Dominion Bureau of Statistics foresee major changes in the number of people living in urban areas or rural areas and, if so, what will be the trend?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports that: According to the 1966 Census of Canada, there were 64,150 persons living in the riding of Richmond. Of this total 33,206 were living in rural areas and 30,944 in urban areas, based on rural-urban census definitions. By age of distribution, 33,211 were under 21 years of age, and 30,939 were 21 years or over.
While precise data on which to base projections as to future rural-urban ratios are not available, possibly the trend between 1961 and 1966 provides an indication of prospects in the immediate future if the same trend continues. The total population of the riding declined by 2,800 in the 1961-66 period
urban dropped by 600 and rural by 2,200. Rural comprised 53% of the total population in 1961 and 52% in 1966.


LEGAL OPINION ON MONTREAL TAX CONTRIBUTIONS
Mr. Valade: During the period April 4, 1967 to July 4, 1968, did Mayor Jean Drapeau request an opinion on the legality of the "Voluntary Contribution to Montreal taxes" from the Minister of Justice or the Department of Justice and, if so, what was the substance of this opinion and when was it given?


John Napier Turner: No.

October 21, 1968
Questions


ARDA RESEARCH PROJECT 10031, B.C.
Mr. Harding: 1.	When was the A.R.D.A. (Research) Project No. 10031, Shuswap River-Okanagan Lake Water Supply, carried out and who made the required surveys?
2.	What was the total cost of the project, was this a shared-cost programme and, if so, on what basis was the total cost shared?
3.	Has a proposal been made by the federal government to the Province of British Columbia that a joint pilot project and study be undertaken based on Project No. 10031 and, if so (a) has the British Columbia government agreed to the proposal (b) what will be the cost (c) when will it commence?


Russell Clayton Honey: 1. The project was approved in January 1965, and the final claim submitted in April 1967. The study was carried
out by the water resources division, department of lands, forests and water resources of British Columbia who may have engaged outside agencies.
2.	The total cost was $38,298, shared equally between Canada and British Columbia.
3.	Rural development branch has made no proposal to British Columbia on a joint pilot project and study based on project No. 10031.


ACTING MINISTERS
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg Norih Centre): With respect to each department of the federal government, who is the acting Minister?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Following is a list of departments showing the minister, acting minister and second acting minister in each case:
Department
Agriculture Consumer and Corporate Affairs Defence Production Energy, Mines and Resources External Affairs Finance Fisheries
Forestry and Rural Development Indian Affairs and Northern Development Industry Justice and
Attorney General Labour
Manpower and Immigration National Defence National Health and Welfare National Revenue Postmaster General Privy Council Public Works Secretary of State Solicitor General Trade & Commerce Transport Treasury Board Veterans Affairs
Minister Mr. Olson
Mr. Basford Mr. Jamieson
Mr. Greene Mr. Sharp Mr. Benson Mr. Davis
Mr. Marchand
Mr. Chretien Mr. Pepin
Mr. Turner Mr. Mackasey
Mr. MacEachen Mr. Cadieux
Mr. Munro Mr. Cote Mr. Kierans Mr. Macdonald Mr. Laing Mr. Pelletier Mr. Mcllraith Mr. Pepin Mr. Hellyer Mr. Drury Mr. Dube
Acting Minister Mr. Greene
Mr. Mcllraith Mr. Olson
Mr. Pepin Mr. Martin Mr. Sharp Mr. Dube
Mr. Munro
Mr. Andras Mr. Lang
Mr. Mcllraith Mr. MacEachen
Mr. Marchand Mr. Hellyer
Mr. Martin Mr. Kierans Mr. Pelletier Mr. MacEachen Mr. Cote Mr. Marchand Mr. Turner Mr. Lang Mr. Richardson Mr. Kierans Mr. Andras
2nd Acting Minister
Mr. Laing
Mr. Jamieson Mr. Cote
Mr. Laing Mr. Drury Mr. Chretien Mr. Cote
Mr. Mackasey
Mr. Davis Mr. Drury
Mr. Macdonald Mr. Basford
Mr. Mackasey Mr. Drury
Mr. Pelletier Mr. Chretien Mr. Jamieson Mr. Olson Mr. Dube Mr. Munro Mr. Lang Mr. Drury Mr. Turner Mr. Laing Mr. Basford

October 21, 1968


EXTERNAL AID
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon, Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition): I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he would explain to the house why the Hercules planes do not appear to be actually engaged in flying food and medical supplies into Nigeria. According to the reports we were led to believe the government of Nigeria had, in fact, no objection and had approved of food and medical supplies being flown to Biafra.
Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the International Red Cross has not been able to obtain the necessary clearance from all the governments involved. We have expressed our concern to the International Red Cross in the strongest possible terms. Our planes are there; they are available, and we want them to fly supplies. We feel that the Red Cross are doing the best they can to obtain the necessary clearance.


Mr. Stanfield:: May I ask a supplementary question. Is the government of Canada making any representations directly to the government of Nigeria in this regard?


Mr. Trudeau:: The Leader of the Opposition will remember that the arrangement was that we would supply our aircraft to the Red Cross, and the Red Cross undertook to obtain the necessary clearances. The personnel are there. There are advance crews which have done as much advance work as they can, but they are now waiting for clearance. There are important matters involved other than merely clearing with the Nigerian authorities. Overflight and landing permission has to be obtained from the Biafran authorities and also from the new state of Equatorial Guinea. These are the things which are bogging down the Red Cross.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: May I follow up these questions, Mr. Speaker, by asking the right hon. gentleman whether, in view of the hold-up at Lagos and other places, the government would not consider making the Hercules available to the church organizations at Sao Tome, from which planes have been flying into Biafra quite regularly.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We can, of course, always consider this. However, I do not think it is the time now to believe that the Red Cross
Inquiries of the Ministry will fail in its attempt to achieve these clearances. We have to select a channel and assume that it will succeed. We cannot tell the Red Cross we are going to supply them with planes and then tell them we are going to take them back and supply the planes to some other body. If the Red Cross are working for clearances for our planes we have to assume they are doing the best they can.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Has the Prime Minister any reason for confidence that the Red Cross will succeed without the assistance of governments, such as the government of Canada, in bringing pressure upon the authorities in Nigeria to make the necessary arrangements?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Of course we do not have any assurance of that, Mr. Speaker, but our whole position all along on this, which I still believe is the right one, is that since Nigeria is a friendly country we do not want to take initiatives of our own in this area. I think everyone agreed-this was the kind of pressure brought to bear by the opposition and by various sections of the informed public-that we should put planes at the disposition of the Red Cross authorities, and this we have done after receiving certain assurances from the government at Lagos. Now, Mr. Speaker, we can only be optimistic that the Red Cross will succeed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, arising out of the answer of the Prime Minister and the telegram that was sent to U Thant by the head of the World Council of Churches in respect to their relief program for Biafra, which suggested that only a cease fire could now prevent acute mass starvation.
Would the Prime Minister not reconsider the position taken by his government and directly bring pressure to bear on Great Britain and other countries to stop shipping arms into Nigeria? Would he also not reconsider his position and take action to bring the matter before the United Nations with a view to preventing this mass starvation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, not only are we prepared to reconsider our position but we do reconsider it every day, and we keep coming to the conclusion that our position is the only realistic one.
I would ask the members of the house, and the members of the Canadian public to reflect on our position here. After all, very often the same people who blame us now blame the United States for involving itself in a civil
October 21, 1988

Inquiries of the Ministry war in Viet Nam and helping one side, when a few years ago the United States thought it would only send a few observers there. I do not think hon. members would want this country to become involved in the same kind of civil war and face the same kind of conflict.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Prime Minister suggesting that it involves participation in the war for the government of Canada to bring this matter before the United Nations, or to bring pressure upon Great Britain and other countries to cease shipping arms into Nigeria?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting that. The Leader of the Opposition's question was a broader one, and was asking us to reconsider our whole policy. Our whole policy is based on this presumption, that civil wars have happened before, and that when other foreign countries intervene in civil wars to seek a solution in their own way they generally find they are drawn into the civil war in a way they do not desire.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, there is no more reason to think Canada has any justification for telling the Nigerian government how to settle its civil war than the United States might have for telling some other government how to settle theirs. I am sure the house knows the logic behind some of the positions that have been taken by, among others, distinguished members of the New Democratic party, which now seem to lead them to think that we should be shipping arms to Biafra. This is the kind of logic, Mr. Speaker, that you get into when you try to settle other people's internal affairs.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
According to news reports which he must have heard as we did, airplanes carrying food supplies to Biafra also had thousands of beer bottles on board. Is the Prime Minister in a position to tell us whether this beer is intended for the Biafrans, the Red Cross representatives, or simply for the Canadian staff which is taking it to Biafra?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have discussed this matter with the Minister of National Defence and as he is more qualified than I am in to deal with this kind of problem, I yield him the floor.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I hope everyone is not being too unfair towards the personnel of the Canadian air force.
One of the three planes which is now in Recife carried 400 half cases of beer, that is, 3,600 bottles, to the 71 members of the personnel which is to operate out of Santa Isabella, where there is no drinking water. That, Mr. Speaker, comes to an average of two bottles of beer per man per month, not counting week-ends.
It has also been said in some circles, Mr. Speaker

I insist on this because it should be corrected and I heard it myself on television-that we were guilty of criminal negligence by transporting beer instead of food. I must point out that we have never asked that Canadian planes carry food from Canada into Biafra, but merely that they be ready to carry relief supplies for the victims of disaster from Fernando Po or inside Nigeria itself. I think it is very important, at this time, not to be unfair towards the personnel which is now over there.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I put my question in the form of an appeal to the Prime Minister in connection with the shipment of food and medicines to the tens of thousands who stand in imminent danger of an early death. Since the government either by intention or through inertia will not act to bring this matter before the United Nations, will the Prime Minister set aside a day-say the day after tomorrow *-and have a resolution brought before this house so the Canadian people can express to the government and to the world the need for action? Set aside these legal technicalities and niceties which can only result, if they are followed, in the extermination of a people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: However great its
humanitarian objectives may be, is there not a desire on the part of the government to do something? This house will give you the power to act. Will you place the matter before us?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the question phrased by way of an appeal by the right hon. gentleman really is an indication that opposition members on his side of the house do not know how to solve this problem.


John George Diefenbaker: Give us a chance.
October 21, 1968


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: A few days ago they asked this house to set up a parliamentary committee to look into all aspects of this situation. The parliamentary committee is meeting. It has heard all kinds of arguments from all sides. I do not think there is any reason to suppose that we should go beyond or beside what the parliamentary committee is doing, before hearing its report. I think it is a great mistake to leave with the Canadian people the feeling that there is an easy solution to any of this, or that we should in any sense intervene in a civil war in Africa. If we were to do that we should be faced with the consequence similar to that faced by other white nations which are intervening in Viet Nam. Those white nations are being accused of telling the yellow races what to do. We should be in the same position in Africa if we went in there and told them how to settle their civil war.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister's
answer certainly did not deserve the applause of an almost overwhelming number of Liberal members in this house.


Mr. Gibson:: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman seems to be making a little speech instead of asking a question.


John George Diefenbaker: I like audience participation, particularly from those who do not usually take part on these occasions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. If he will permit me to say so, may I suggest that we are asking for an answer to a question and not to a straw man the Prime Minister has set up. I say that because no member of this parliament has suggested that Canada should intervene directly or indirectly to find a solution to the problem in Nigeria.
Has the Prime Minister on that basis, not on any basis he has set up or which anyone may have suggested to him, reconsidered placing the matter before the appropriate agency of the United Nations for a discussion of the possibility of a cease fire, something which both sides in Nigeria might welcome and which all members of the O.A.U. might welcome? This is the question we are placing before the Prime Minister.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is hardly a straw man, Mr. Speaker, because some persons very well
Inquiries of the Ministry known to the hon. member are not asking for a cease fire but for an increase in fire-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that no member of this house, not even the Prime Minister, has a right to refer to evidence given before a committee of this parliament-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Lewis: Hold your horses before you bray.


An hon. Member:: Cheaper and cheaper.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member kindly state his point of order.


David Lewis: I suggest that no member of this house, not even the Prime Minister, has a right to refer to evidence given to a parliamentary committee and to distort that evidence when replying in the house. No witness appearing before that committee, certainly not the one who is well known to me, as the Prime Minister said, suggested an increase in fire. What was suggested was that if arms are to continue to be delivered to one side the only way to produce a stalemate and an end to the war might be through the provision of arms to the other side.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: In view of the Prime Minister's earlier statement about difficulties in connection with Hercules aircraft in providing relief supplies direct to Biafra, may I ask whether special efforts are now being made by the government or the Red Cross to have these aircraft deliver supplies to that area of Biafra now under Nigerian control, particularly in the south where there have been many reports of serious starvation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, some efforts are being made in that direction. We were asking whether the Red Cross had been able to arrange for permission to proceed to Port Harcourt, but we understand this has not yet been granted; clearance has not been obtained there. However, we are given to understand there is some possibility that flights to Calabar in the same area will begin tomorrow.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Has the government considered giving notice to the Red Cross that a deadline will be imposed, and that if the deadline is not met other action will be taken?

October 21, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The idea of a deadline is an interesting one, though I am not sure it could operate as the hon. member suggests. If the Red Cross were to report that it was unable to carry out this operation within a specific number of days it might be reasonable to suggest that our aircraft should proceed to other areas, including Canada, where they might be more useful. If on the other hand the Red Cross is doing its best, and we have no reason to believe that any other organization could do better, there does not seem much reason why a deadline should operate in an attempt to force the Red Cross to do more than its best. We must assume they sire doing all they can to solve this problem.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Can the right hon. gentleman advise the house why these Canadian Hercules airplanes were allowed to leave Canada before clearance had been arranged?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of National Defence another .question.
I wish to refer again to the beer aboard the Hercules. The minister told us earlier that there were only 3,600 bottles of beer meant for 71 people working in a spot where there is no drinking water. Would it not have been as easy to send them drinking water, which would have been better for their health than -beer that might help them to become intoxicated while over there?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that question was asked, because it gives me the opportunity to clear up a point I should have mentioned earlier. The beer sent there was bought with private and not public funds, and I think that is a very important *distinction.
Now, as to providing water instead of beer, we have tried to do for the best and we have also sent soft drinks.


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whii-by):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to pursue the analogy given by the Prime Minister, but I would like to ask him whether the United States at any time brought the question of the Vietnamese war before the United Nations prior to sending in armed forces. Did it in fact call for a cease fire before the United Nations?


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question to the Prime Minister is as a result of what he has said this afternoon. Does he agree that the theory of peace restoring as advocated by the Minister of Transport, formerly the minister of national defence, is no longer tenable?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Is the government presently making an intervention in order to bring about a settlement of the basic Near East problems between Israel and the Arab states, with particular reference to the lingering Arab refugee problem and the question of disputed boundaries? I ask this question in view of the recent visit to Canada by the foreign minister of the United Arab Republic and the present visit by the foreign minister of Israel.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, it is correct that members of the government, including myself, have been meeting with the foreign ministers of these two countries. We are doing everything we can to ensure that there will be a continuation of the Jarring mission at the United Nations in the hope that a solution will be found to these problems.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr
Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs but in his absence I will direct it to the Prime Minister. In view of the announcement that a major territorial battle is shaping up between Canadian vessels and French trawlers operating out of France's territorial islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, will the Prime Minister indicate what action his government is contemplating to resolve this jurisdictional dispute over fishery limits?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will consult his roster he will find that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is due to be here tomorrow.
October 21, 1968



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question on a domestic matter to the Minister of Justice. I posed it on Friday but was not able to get an answer. If I could rephrase my question in case the minister has not read it, it related to a decision by county court judge Kirke Smith of British Columbia that Indian reserve land surrendered for lease is in fact no longer reserve land. Because of the dangerous precedent set by this decision, what action is the government taking to cope with this situation and perhaps reverse the decision?


John Napier Turner: I will look into that judgment, Mr. Speaker. I must see whether it is going to be appealed before making any definitive statement here.



STUDY OF TELEVISING HOUSE OR COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw a question to the attention of either the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State. Could encouragement be given at this session of the house to a study by a committee of the house, perhaps by the committee on procedure, into the question of televising at least some of the proceedings of the House of Commons or of some of its committees?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly think that consideration can be given to that question, but I do not think I am wrong in saying that this comes mainly within your own authority, Mr. Speaker.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Could the minister tell the house why there will be a split rate for [DOT]daily newspapers and a flat rate for all other publications sent as second class mail?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, I think we are going to be discussing that later on in the day.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. I think it was on October 4 that the minister said the government was reconsidering its decision to close the Canadian base at Zweibrucken in Germany. Will the minister say whether this review has been completed and, if so, what decision has been reached?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I would like to check what I said on October 4. I would be very surprised if I said we were reconsidering this question. This is part of the over-all review of the national defence and external affairs policy, and no decision has been arrived at yet. No conclusions have been drawn from that study; therefore there is no change in the position we have taken about Zweibrucken.



NATO-REPORTED INCREASE IN MILITARY BUDGET

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I wish to pose a supplementary question. On Friday I addressed it to the Prime Minister, and perhaps the Minister of National Defence could either answer it now or take it as notice. It was with regard to reports that the budget of NATO will be increased over the next five years. Have representations been made to Canada to increase its NATO budget over the next period of years and, if so, what has been Canada's response?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: So far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, I know that some representations were made to Canada concerning the NATO commitment. Naturally by implication that would mean an increased budget, but the study we are going on with is not completed yet, and as far as the eventual position that Canada can take is concerned I think we will have to wait until the NATO alliance meeting takes place in November, at which we will discuss the over-all problems with members of the alliance, and there I suppose we can establish what the position is.

October 21, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a related question to the Minister of National Defence. Is he aware of recent statements that there is a great difference emerging between the United States and Canadian defence departments interpretation of NORAD and its relationship to the A.B.M. system? In view of this will the minister undertake to make a statement to the house tomorrow?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I do not think this question is very clear. The situation now is that the United States government has decided to proceed with what is called the sentinel system, in which some A.B.M.'s would be installed on American soil. Our interest concerns how the sentinel system is correlated with the further development of North American air defence. We are keeping informed of the technological developments taking place, because we know that as a country Canada could eventually get involved in the North American defence system.


Edward Richard Schreyer: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, if the minister would like clarification of my question I would be happy to oblige and rephrase it.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Same answer.


Winona Grace MacInnis: In
view of Premier Bennett's statement that he will be glad to hear from all interested parties at the hearing tomorrow to discuss the Roberts Bank missing rail link, will the federal government be represented at this meeting?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can only give the same answer. The Minister of Transport is not here according to the roster today.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Postmaster General's

name is not on the roster, was he given special permission to be here for today's question period?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt if the question is in order.



COMMUNICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. In the light of the C.R.T.C. decision concerning radio station CHSJ at Saint John, New Brunswick, is it the policy of the government to break up concentration of ownership and control over communications media serving specific communities in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that he is now asking for a general policy statement which should be made on motions rather than by way of answer to a question at this time.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might rephrase my question to bring it into line with your ruling. If the government has plans to break up monopolies in mass communications media in Canada in specific communities, would the responsible minister make such a statement in the house outlining the guide lines that have been established, and make these available to the house and to the general public of Canada?


Gérard Pelletier: The question is under consideration, Mr. Speaker. As soon as the policy has been defined concerning the instructions to be given to the C.R.T.C. in that connection, I will be happy to make a statement in the house, as requested by the member.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Solicitor General. It is in connection with a question I asked him on October 15 regarding
October 21, 1968	COMMONS
glue sniffing, to which I believe he replied that he would take the question under consideration. Since that time another death has occurred in Ottawa as the result of a similar type of activity. Could the minister now give us further information as to what action his department is considering?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the question concerning whether the law is to be changed to make glue sniffing an offence is not one which comes directly under my responsibility. The inference I take from the question is that presumably it should be made an offence under the Criminal Code. That would be a matter for the Minister of Justice.


Max Saltsman: I wonder then whether I might direct the question to the Minister of Justice and ask him whether his department is giving consideration to the question of legislation that would make glue sniffing an illegal offence.


John Napier Turner: We are. I believe the hazardous substances legislation which comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs would have some bearing on the subject of a remedy such as that sought by the hon. member and other hon. members of the house.



NATIONAL CAPITAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister designated as the minister of regional development. Will the minister answer my question of September 19 regarding whether a committee of the house will be established to deal with matters concerning the national capital?


Jean Marchand: Eventually, Mr. Speaker.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct this question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that crop and harvest conditions in western Canada could be very serious, if not desperate, when
DEBATES	1597
Inquiries of the Ministry will the government bring forward an aid program to deal with this serious situation?



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasler):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to ask this question of the acting minister of transport but will ask it instead of the acting acting minister of transport. Further to the questions asked in this house on September 16 and 20 will the minister indicate the intentions of the government with regard to the Saint John-Digby ferry service?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: I am afraid I will have to explain again how the roster system is intended to work. Even if the acting minister were here it would not be up to him to answer the question. The idea is to have questions in respect of departmental areas answered on a given day.


Thomas Miller Bell: I thank the Prime Minister for explaining this, but will the Prime Minister also explain why the people of Saint John and Digby are expected to wait, after the promises he made in the last election on this matter, whether ministers are here or not?



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice, and arises from a statement made last Friday by the director of investigation under the Combines Investigation Act. He is reported as having said, and I quote-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot ask questions in this manner. He must ask the question directly.


Edward Richard Schreyer: In view of the fact that the director of investigation has said that if a large number of Canadian retail stores were to stop buying California grapes he would be compelled to launch an immediate investigation, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether this public servant in making this remark was acting with the advice or consent of the government of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have indicated that the question cannot be accepted in this manner.

October 21. 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Rod Thomson (Baltleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Is the minister considering moving the northern desk in his department from Ottawa to the Yukon?


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In the realization that the Prime Minister is getting older I should like to ask whether the government will accede to the request of several thousand older people in Montreal that a company of elderly Canadians be established to engage in social action programs.


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister tell the house whether the Minister of Fisheries speaks on Canadian policy with one voice within Canada and another voice when addressing audiences in the United States, as was the case recently when he addressed a banquet in Boston, I believe it was, on Friday?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked is argumentative, and is certainly not in the proper form.



CANADIAN YOUTH PARLIAMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, my question for the right hon. Prime Minister arises out of an undertaking given to the house on October 1 to the effect that the Prime Minister would discuss with the house leader the possibility of reconvening the ad hoc committee on the proposed Canadian youth parliament. Will the Prime Minister now say whether a decision has been reached on this matter?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: No decision has been reached yet.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorklon-Melville):: Can
the Prime Minister indicate to the house when he will reach a decision with regard to the youth parliament?



AVAILABILITY OF VACCINE TO COMBAT INFLUENZA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monteith (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. On September 27 the minister indicated that he would undertake to look into the question of the availability of vaccine to combat a possible influenza epidemic. Is the minister as yet in a position to report to the house?


John Carr Munro: Yes, I have a reply which I forwarded to the hon. member for Simcoe North. Unfortunately he is not in the house today.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Did I understand the Minister to say that he has given a reply in the house?


John Carr Munro: No. I have forwarded a reply to the hon. member for Simcoe North.



FROZEN COD FISH-LOSS OF U.S. MARKET

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingaie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. On Friday last the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs agreed to give a statement today in respect of the declining market conditions in the United States with relation to one of the staple products of the eastern Atlantic. Could the Prime Minister say who has been designated to make the statement today in view of the absence of the minister?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: The statement will be given by the minister when he is in the house.


John Howard Lundrigan: The Fisheries Council of Canada is meeting today, and it was imperative that some statement be given by the government in relation to the marketing of this particular product. We posed questions to the minister on Friday, and he agreed that he would make a statement today. This is on record in Friday's Hansard. We were hoping that if the minister were not here, since he is not obliged to be here according to the roster, some person would be designated to make such a statement.
October 21, 1968



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in the designated absence of the different ministers concerned I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether he has been in consultation with his colleagues the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Minister of Finance concerning the establishment of a national securities commission, as advocated by many provincial authorities and many financial organizations in this country.


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt very much whether the hon. member can ask if there has been a consultation between members of the cabinet. Perhaps he might like to phrase the question in another way.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Under the rules now imposed by the Prime Minister there is no other possible way. If the Prime Minister will not assume his reponsibilities we must-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the designated minister of regional development. I should like to ask him whether it is still the intention that the Atlantic Development Board will bring forward a plan for the economic development of the Atlantic provinces.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Atlantic Development Board will submit its report as usual.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor
Inquiries of the Ministry General. In view of the decision not to reappoint a joint committee on penitentiaries, is it the intention of the minister to have the estimates of his department referred to the appropriate committee as speedily as possible, in order that penitentiary matters can be discussed?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding that they already had been referred to the committee.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, if I may reply to the hon. member for Vancouver East, the estimates of the Solicitor General were referred to the standing committee on justice and legal affairs on October 16.



CONTINUATION OF HOUSE DISCUSSION ON POST OFFICE BILL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the President of the Privy Council. To clear up an ambiguity and assuage the anxiety of the Postmaster General, could the President of the Privy Council inform the house the intentions of the government with regard to the post office bill, and tell us whether it will be proceeded with today and tomorrow or just today, as appears from Hansard of Friday?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it would be the intention to continue with the post office bill until it has been completed. We are hopeful that we might complete the committee stage by tonight, but if that is not the case we will continue with it as the first order of business tomorrow and thereafter until it is completed, interrupted only by the budget speech tomorrow night.


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the hon. gentleman indicate when we will be proceeding with the farm loan bills, which this party has twice agreed to facilitate in order that the benefits thereof may be available at once to the farmers?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, both bills would have been passed by this evening if hon. members opposite had been agreeable to that being done. We will proceed with these bills just as soon as we have completed the post office bill.
1600	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Privy Council. I wonder whether, as house leader, he would consider bringing in the cash advances legislation ahead of the farm credit bill. The cash advances legislation is non-controversial and could be passed quite easily this evening; then the money would quickly be made available to the farmers.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, both bills could have been passed by this evening if hon. gentlemen opposite had agreed to the formula we discussed the other night.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think it should be made clear that publicly, in the house, this party agreed that the cash advances bill could be put through last Friday in one day. We agreed that all stages of the bill could be put through at that time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Secretary of State.
Can the hon. minister tell us when he will be able to introduce in the house his bill concerning school telecasts?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the introduction of the bill itself, I could not give a specific answer to the hon. member. With regard to an announcement on that subject, it will be made very soon in the house before the end of this week.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinlhe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to this proposal which the hon. minister has just referred to, can he tell us whether the Quebec provincial authorities have been approached about this matter and whether the details have been discussed?


Mr. Pellelier:: Mr. Speaker, the project was made public more than a year ago and I do not know whether this answers the hon. member's question. A public speech has been made by an hon. minister of the province of Quebec, which seems to express the position

DEBATES	October 21, 1968
of the province on that subject. In this case it is a speech made by Mr. Masse.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to state my question precisely. Has the government or the minister responsible been himself in communication with the Quebec authorities.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, when I came to this department, we had passed the stage of communication and consultations. I do not know what my predecessor had done.



HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works who, according to the roster, is here today. I ask the minister whether he has any plans for a national highway building conference, in order that we can deal with the prospects of a second trans-Canada highway.


Paul Langlois: I will take this question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



POST OFFICE ACT


Eric William Kierans: the second reading of Bill No. C-116, to amend the Post Office Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as I listened to hon. members during the debate on the resolution preceding the bill to amend the Post Office Act, I was impressed and pleased by the interest shown by hon. members on both sides of this house in the Post Office Department. Their interest reflects an understanding, I believe, of what the Glassco royal commission on government organization called the post office's role as a unifying force throughout the country.
The legislation before the house incorporates certain administrative changes and certain changes in rates on those classes of mail the responsibility for which rests with parliament, namely, first and second class mail. The details of those changes in rates have already been announced. At this stage I propose to give the house as much information as
October 21, 1968

possible on the background to those changes, the reasons for them and the implications of them. To that end all hon. members have received copies of a financial statement which sets out in greater detail than I would be able to do in a set speech the statistical background to these changes. Copies were distributed to all members of the house on Friday morning, I believe, and others are still available.
Perhaps I can deal first with principle and then move on to a discussion of specific practice. The post office account, that is, revenues compared to expenditures, was last in balance in the fiscal year 1956-57. This fiscal year, assuming no change in rates, we forecast a deficit of $100 million. Next fiscal year, again assuming no change, the deficit is anticipated to be in the order of $130 million. Exact comparisons between the figures of today and those of the past cannot be made because, as the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Mac-quarrie) has noted, there has been a change in the basis of cost accounting, the essential effect of which is to charge the post office for all its real expenditures such as depreciation of buildings and equipment. However, as stated in the 1968 annual report issued by my prodecessor, "The recording of these figures by the Canada Post Office gives an accurate picture of the financial situation as it is today." In other words, we are dealing with a real deficit of $100 million this year and a real deficit of about $130 million next fiscal year.
Hon. members have raised, and rightly so, the question of whether and why a particular government agency should strive toward a balance between revenues and expenditures. In explanation I would make these points: First, the post office deficit, while it has always existed, is in the process today of reaching critical as well as chronic proportions. A deficit such as the $130 million envisaged next year is simply unsupportable. Unless controlled it will escalate out of sight.
* (3:30 D.m.)
Second, this bill is aimed not at striking a balance but at reducing the deficit to manageable proportions. A balance is not to be achieved solely by raising rates. The new projected deficit for 1969-70 is $40 million, after the adoption of these changes, not $130 million. This gap of $40 million we hope to close by substantially increasing our productivity and efficiency.
Post Office Act
Third, while the post office is aiming toward a narrowing of the gap between revenues and expenditures, it is not our intention to do so in every area of the service. As I shall explain more fully in a moment, as a matter of social policy we intend to accept at this time to run a deficit, that is, to extend a subsidy to certain areas and services, notably to Canadians living in rural areas and to the Canadian publishing industry.
Fourth, the consequences of a deficit, even when the deficit has assumed the proportions we are now facing, are more serious and more damaging to the country as a whole than the size of the deficit itself would suggest. Quite simply, the money has to come from somewhere and that somewhere is the taxpayer. If the post office runs a chronic and substantial deficit, the result is that taxpayers who make little use of the post office services are required to subsidize, either directly through taxes or indirectly through lowered government expenditures in other areas, such as health, education or whatever it may be, those Canadian individuals and business concerns who do make an extensive use of the post office. It means in effect that the financial burden is being distributed unfairly, and this I intend to stop.
Having taken the decision to reduce the post office deficit, we in the department have operated on two bedrock principles, both of which are incorporated in the legislation before you. The first is that the user shall pay for what he uses; the second is that social justice and national need require specific subsidies for specific areas or organizations.
The principle that the user shall pay for what he uses is an extension of the point I made a moment ago. If the user does not pay, then non-users will. This concept was enunciated on page after page of the Glassco commission report, and among many examples I would like to cite the commission's declaration at page 383 of volume 3. It reads as follows:
-charges be made for all services rendered to the public and the amounts thereof be so established as to recover the full cost to the government of the service supplied.
Now there has been for many years one instance of non-users subsidizing the users of the postal services which has given me considerable concern. In studying the graph of post office sales and costs contained on page 4 of the background financial statement, hon. members will have noted that the gap, while

October 21, 1968
Post Office Act
always present, has assumed its present critical proportions only within the last several years. The principal reason for this is that wages, salaries and fringe benefits for the
48,000	post office employees now amount to 63.9 per cent of our total annual costs; in other words, 64 per cent of our total costs are labour. The settlement of last summer's major dispute alone amounted to over $30 million. Other collective agreements signed recently for supervisors, and only last Friday for postmasters, raise the figure to over $40 million. In other words, post office employees want wages and salaries commensurate with the services they render to the users of postal services. They refuse to subsidize those users through their wages, and I agree with them.
We in the Post Office Department are now faced with a real world. Our costs, in accounting terms, are real; so is our wage bill. We intend by this legislation to cope with that real world.
In our approach to this problem we have utilized a combination of three well known techniques for bringing deficits into line. We have improved and will improve even more our efficiency; we have cut unnecessary services so the public is no longer charged for a service it neither needs nor uses; and, finally, we have increased our rates.
Believe me, as a freshman minister I would have been delighted to escape the firing line, provided that efficiency and reduced services could by themselves solve the problem. They cannot, however, and to pretend otherwise would be to mislead the public and this house.
We are taking the following steps to reduce operating costs:
We have instituted a program to close down smaller post offices where expenditures clearly are much more than revenues.
We are amalgamating rural routes wherever it is clearly more economical to do so. This has the advantage of providing the mail contractors with a relatively more remunerative contract.
We are establishing distribution centres across Canada which will make the handling of mail more economical and more efficient.
As new post office buildings are erected new mechanized mail handling equipment is installed, providing for easier and faster movement of mail within postal installations while facilitating the work of our employees.
In the planning of post office buildings care is taken to provide for better and more economical plant utilization.

Letter carriers use small trucks to deliver mail where conditions so warrant.
Experiments are being carried out to find the most economical means of transporting mail within the larger urban centres.
New zoning systems are being implemented in larger urban centres which will be integrated into a code system if and when such a code is warranted on the basis of costs and service.
There are many other areas where efforts are made to reduce costs: In particular, in better financial management, in the review and preparation of departmental estimates for the next year and for five years ahead; in the organization of a long range planning division; in the installation of a total information service so that decisions will be taken on the basis of statistics, data and facts gathered through scientific modern systems; and in research and development in the communications field.
Hon. members may justifiably question why all of these steps taken together are yet insufficient. The immutable problems lie in the nature of the post office itself. We enjoy few economies of scale, and in this we are diffierent from most other industries and businesses but this is the nature of the post office. Each individual letter has to be individually handled and individually brought to the door of the recipient. The awaited breakthrough of automation in postal services has not come. Machines have been developed and tested but still problems remain. Not until optical scanners are perfected beyond their present stage of development, which will allow the reading of handwriting, can much greater savings be made in staff, and productivity in sorting substantially improved. I intend to request the scientists in the research branch of the new department of communications to tackle this problem as a matter of urgency to help the post office meet the challenge of change.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
As part of this program, and as part of the drive to make our post office the most efficient in the world, I might mention two steps under way. First, we have initiated a thorough study of the post office by a task force composed of consultants and departmental officials to study every aspect of its operations and to consider the feasibility and/or desirability of establishing it as a crown corporation. At this point I can say no more except to assure hon. member that the
October 21, 1968

progress of these studies will be rapid and they will be kept informed. Second, we intend from this point forward to consider the post office not as an institution but as a function, that is, not so much as an organization in the business of moving mail but as an organization in the business of communications and therefore as one arm of the over-all communications industry. Perhaps the most immediate effect of this change in outlook will be in the field of research and in the prevention of possible overlapping of communications services and hence waste.
Before moving on to consider a reduction of unnecessary services, I should explain to hon. members that changes in efficiency are geared also to better serving the public. Currently the rural mail contractor may seek an increase once during the life of his contract if the costs incurred by him in rendering that contract have risen. Under the new legislation he will be able to apply for an increase three times during the life of that contract. This will result inevitably in an increased cost burden on the post office, but it will benefit rural mail contractors who have in the past, on occasion, been seriously inconvenienced by current cost increases for which they lack the means or the power to compensate.
Since 1954, when the last adjustment of first class rates was made, "all up" air service has been restricted to letters weighing eight ounces or less. We intend to improve the service for first class letters over eight ounces. At present, an eight ounce letter prepaid at the regular surface rate is given air transmission, whereas the sender of a letter weighing nine ounces must prepay his letter at the air mail rate to get the same service. While this situation could be justified originally because of a problem of space availability on aircraft, this no longer applies.
In terms of reduction of unnecessary services, and hence of a lowering of the over-all cost burden to the general public, the house is aware of the principal steps we have taken. We have decided to abolish the post office savings bank for which no apparent need any longer exists. We have decided to abolish the six day delivery schedule.
However, Mr. Speaker, in respect of the latter reduction in service it has become apparent as a result of representations made directly to me, and by members here including the 35 men good and true and the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Cyr), that a five day delivery will cause serious hardship to Canadians living in rural areas who depend
Post Office Act
upon Saturday delivery for, in particular, their newspapers. Hence, the six day delivery schedule will be maintained in rural areas. In making this decision we have been governed by the needs of our clients, the citizens living in rural areas, not by those of the newspapers though they will naturally be coincidental beneficiaries. As important as the principle that the user should pay for what he uses is the principle that Canadians, no matter where they are living, are entitled to equal government services to the maximum extent possible. This is why we charge the same amount for a letter sent from one address to another in Ottawa as for a letter sent from Ottawa to Resolute Bay, although in the latter instance we incur a loss. This is why, on the basis of social need and justice, I have instructed my officials to proceed with the discontinuance of Saturday delivery in urban centres where demand is minimal and to continue Saturday delivery in rural areas where the demand is substantial. Plainly this will reduce the gross amount of the projected savings, but I am confident some of the net loss can be recovered by our program already mentioned to amalgamate rural routes. In addition no matter the cost, the service is justified.
Let me say that we have already made efforts, and more will be made, to increase productivity and reduce unnecessary expenditures. A wide gap remains. It is of the order, as I have stated, of $100 million this year and $130 million next year. To close this gap taking into account the need for subsidies for those in rural areas and continued subsidies to the publishing industry, we have constructed an integrated scale of increases. Each individual increase is related, I would remain hon. members, to the others.
Third class mail rates, which are at the discretion of the minister, have already been increased. As hon. members will note on page 3.2 of the financial statement, which sets out the effect of those changes in a full fiscal year, the two categories of third class mail, domestic and international and unaddressed householder, which would have been in a net deficit position of just under $30 million next year will be brought almost to balance at a deficit of $1.5 million.
In the instance of first class mail, which is covered by the legislation before you, a forecast deficit of $28.7 million will be changed to a surplus of $12.4 million. Second class mail, also covered by the bill, will shift from a forecast deficit of $54.6 million to $39.1 million. The specific changes proposed for first

October 21. 1968
Post Office Act
class mail are: First, the local drop letter rate will be abolished. Second, the rate for letters will be raised to six cents for the first ounce and four cents for the second ounce.
The local letter rate from a cost point of view can no longer be justified in Canada. It has become an anomaly. Initially a lower rate for local letters was charged on the grounds that such letters were received, sorted and delivered at the same post office. That is what a local letter rate meant. At that time most people had to go to the post office to receive their mail and the transfer was a simple one. This situation has now been changed considerably by the development of Canada and the establishment of letter carrier delivery and rural mail delivery. The increased revenue for first class mails anticipated by this legislation is $17.8 million for the remainder of 1968-69 and $42.7 million for the full fiscal year of 1969-70.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The letter rate moves up from five to six cents. I should like to repeat that there has been no substantial legislation affecting first class mail rates since 1954. Those were the days of the five cent pay telephone call and the five cent cup of coffee. We are now in the era of the 10 cent pay telephone call and, unfortunately, of the 15 cent cup of coffee. Yet we remain in the era of the five cent stamp.
Since first class rates affect every Canadian, I can perhaps usefully give the house background information on which to base its decision. About 75 per cent of first class mail originates from commercial concerns and only 25 per cent from private citizens. So that the bulk of the burden will fall on business, which can bear it, rather than on the man in the street. The average Canadian mails just one piece of mail a week, and the total cost to the average Canadian of this increase will be 49 cents a year, or $2 for the average-sized family. We are confident, Mr. Speaker, that this increase can be borne and, for those reasons. To assess the impact of the six cent rate on Canadians we have on page 1 and 2 of the appendix to the financial statement calculated first class rates as a percentage of average hourly earnings in manufacturing industries. In 1959, a decade ago, first class mail rates as a percentage of average hourly earnings stood at 2.9 per cent. In 1968 the six cent rate stands at 2.41 per cent. At this level it is lower than in any post-war year up to 1964. It is lower even with the increase to six
cents. Obviously it is at its present level higher than for the post three years, when it was five cents. It is higher as an inevitable consequence of that increase. But given the increase in Canadian wages that will result from the sound economic policies of this administration, I am confident that the percentage will once again soon be at a post-war low.
A secondary reason, Mr. Speaker, that we are confident the increase can be borne is the comparisons contained on pages 9.1 and 9.2 of the financial statement between first class rates in Canada and those in comparable countries. At the new level Canadians will mail letters to each other proportionately more cheaply by one half than citizens in Britain and West Germany, and more cheaply by one quarter than citizens of France. The only comparable country better off than ourselves is the United States, and here the difference is subfractional-2.4 per cent in Canada compared to 2.1 per cent in the United States. Everyone knows that this difference can be accounted for, given our geography and population distribution.
I now want to deal at some length with the proposed increase in second class rates. This increase has been the subject of a great many representations to me personally and to members on both sides of the house. It has also been, as we are all aware, the subject of a great many editorials.
Subsidization of Canadian publishing dates back to 1867 and confederation. This practice, undertaken to help disseminate information and ideas, is common to many countries, though I might mention that in Britain the post office, in an attempt to bring expenditures and revenues into balance, has recently abolished all preferential treatment for newspapers and periodicals.
In my judgment, and I believe in the judgment of all hon. members, there are sound reasons for subsidizing an industry which, as said in the O'Leary commission report, adds to the richness and vitality of Canadian life. To quote myself-and I ask the house's indulgence for so doing-the communication of ideas and information is the glue of confederation and the subsidy amounts to an additive to that glue. It is, nevertheless, sound practice, and, more than that, an essential democratic principle for the government to account for all its expenditures to the taxpayers who ultimately foot the bill. All subsidies to any institution, however worthy, should be clearly

October 21. 1968

identified as such, and justified on their own merits.
And, Mr. Speaker, this is what the house will be asked to do. The merit, need and purpose of the subsidy to the publishing industry might, at some other time, be the subject of debate by this house. That is a long term concern; our immediate concern is not the subsidy itself-it exists, it always has and
I	suppose it will continue to exist for a short time-but the amount of that subsidy.
That amount, I have to report, is reaching a staggering size. Second class rates were last altered in 1951, an even longer period than for first class rates. In that year the deficit, or subsidy, amounted to $13.5 million; by 196566 the sum had roughly doubled to $28.2 million. That doubling occurred over a span of 15 years. By next year, fiscal 1969-70, assuming no change in rates, we estimate a deficit or subsidy to the publishing industry of $54 million. But note this, Mr. Speaker: this time the doubling of the size of the subsidy has taken place over a span of only four years, not 15 years.
This rate of progression cannot be allowed to continue. Over the past 10 years alone the Canadian public has disbursed a total of approximately $300 million to publishers by way of a subsidy on second class mail rates, and all of this without debate or with very little debate by members of this house.
That, however, as I have just said, is not our present concern. What we propose to do in this bill is to cap the subsidy, to bring it under control for the first time in 17 years. At present our cost coverage for all types of publications, that is, revenues received as a percentage of audited costs, is 20.5 per cent. We recover approximately one-fifth of our costs in revenue. For some categories of publications-and I cite weekly newspapers as an example-we recover less than 10 per cent of our cost, 9.7 per cent to be exact. As a result of the changes incorporated in the bill, Mr. Speaker, our cost coverage for all types of publications will rise from 20.5 per cent to 53.5 per cent.
B[ere I would refer hon. members to page
II	of the financial statement distributed to them. They will note that we have graduated the cost coverage ratio according to different types of publications. In the case of weekly newspapers, which by their nature are the most economically vulnerable, the new cost coverage is only 13.2 per cent. These publications obviously will continue to be heavily
Post Office Act
subsidized. For magazines, that segment of the industry most vulnerable to foreign competition, the cost coverage rises to 33 per cent. Finally, and here I am dealing with broad categories, for daily newspapers which in most instances enjoy a monopoly or virtual monopoly in their own area, the cost coverage is now set at 79.8 per cent.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
In a parallel attempt to spread the burden as equitably as possible hon. members will have noted that while the per pound rate on the reading content of a daily newspaper is increased from 24 cents to 5 cents, or doubled, the per pound rate on the advertising content has been increased from 4 cents to 15 cents, or almost quadrupled. If these increases sound large, it is only because we are working up from such a low base. Newspapers with a low advertising content and who are therefore more vulnerable for financial terms will gain relative to their better off competitors. As a result, the second class rate increases, in other words, comprise an integrated package.
Here I might mention one particular problem raised by the hon. member for Surrey which concerns the imbalance on second class mail between Canada and other countries. He asked, and I quote from Hansard page 935, "That the government renegotiate the international treaty which has involved us in losses and bring about parity with the United States. . ." My answer is a simple one: Sorry, no, not just yet. This loss is comprised in large part, as hon. members correctly assumed, by our imbalance of postal trade with the United States.
The principle of non-sharing of charges and of non-payment of terminal expenses to the administrations of other countries, as compensation for services provided on arrival of foreign mail, applies to all items of letter-post in the international service.
Since the foundation of the Universal Postal Union almost 100 years ago, this concept has been viewed as basic by its 137 member countries and their territories. Obviously the introduction of terminal charges by one country would mean that that country would be expelled from that union. There would be literal chaos in the transmission of international mail.
While many attempts have been made at the universal postal congresses to introduce some system of payment to compensate countries for the expenses incurred in the delivery

October 21, 1968
Post Office Act
of international mail, these have always been rejected. However, the last universal congress in 1964 adopted a resolution authorizing a study of the cost prices of forwarding, transmitting and distributing letter-post items in the international service. The problem is very complex because any system would require the setting up of expensive and time consuming control and accounting procedures at both the dispatching and receiving ends in Canada and the other member nations of the Universal Postal Union. There is no immediate solution in sight, but a serious study is currently under way and the results will be placed before the next congress to be held in Tokyo in late 1969. Therefore, there is no avenue open to us to solve the problem in relation to the United States or, for that matter, with any other country such as France, Great Britain and the Netherlands, with whom we also are at a disadvantage.
I should point out that in terms of total volume of second and third class mail handled in our service, the imbalance of international traffic, if we exclude that originating in the United States, represents very little. In fact, it has been estimated that this imbalance accounts for less than one-third of one per cent of our total traffic in terms of number of pieces handled. Our deficit attributable to the imbalance of traffic with the United States for second class mail is estimated at approximately $3.5 million annually. With third class mail, however, the latest survey indicated that the flow of exchange seems to be in Canada's favour. Unfortunately, we have no recent figures on this particular type of traffic, but tests made four years ago showed that the imbalance favoured Canada by a margin of 13 per cent.
To return, Mr. Speaker, to the issue before the house; on second class mail rates my position is simple and I now sum it up. The deficit has continued too long; it is now at an unmanageable level; the time therefore has come to cap it.
Such a step involves certain inescapable difficulties. A situation unchanged for 17 years permits what is a privilege to be regarded as a right. In their representations to me, members of the publishing industry have argued that the increase even if justified-and here as readers of the Ottawa Citizen, Toronto Telegram, Montreal Star and many other newspapers know or may have noticed, there is a division in the ranks-is still too much too suddenly. The increase is considerable, and it must be if we are to make
[Mr. Kierans.l
any headway at all. The percentage increases appear large but are so only because the base rates until now have been so low. I am aware, and sympathetically so, that certain publications, simply because they have assumed a privilege was a right and was therefore immutable, have perhaps allowed themselves to become over-extended in certain areas. This is the reason why the increase is proposed to come into effect April 1, 1969, rather than on passage of this legislation, as is the case with first class mail. As for the allegation that the increase is sudden, this I cannot accept. This issue was raised in the house in 1964 and again during consideration of legislation last year. The publishing industry, I submit, has been well aware for some time that changes were coming and were long overdue.
The legislation before you will continue the subsidy on second class mail, not eliminate it. In fiscal year 1969-70 the sum, because of the increased rates, will be about $39 million. At that figure of $39 million the deficit on second class mail will comprise all but about $1 million of the total deficit of the post office on all its operations. The figure is $40 million on all our operations and $39 million on second class mail. Also, the $39 million figure will be substantially larger than sums disbursed by the government to other industries in the private sector such as shipbuilding and gold mining.
I am convinced that the amount of the increase, after a close study of all individual cases, is equitable both to the industry and to the general public. Anything more left as a deficit becomes unmanageable again and therefore becomes an inequitable burden upon the general taxpayer. The timing of the increase will, I believe, allow all publications enough time to take any action that may be needed to absorb the increased cost in the same manner as they regularly absorb unplanned increases in the costs of such items as wages and newsprint.
In the legislation before the house other amendments to sections 11 and 12 of the act have been proposed which would: (a) restrict the conditions for statutory mail rates; (b) reduce and simplify rate categories; (c) establish minimum piece charges; (d) increase rates; (e) restrict the free zone to weekly newspapers with circulation of 10,000 and to the copies of these papers that are addressed to post offices with no letter carrier delivery service; (f) abolish the preferred rates; (g) repeal existing local second class rate; (h) discontinue statutory rates for sample copies
October 21, 1968

of newspapers and periodicals and publications of newspapers and periodicals mailed by news dealers.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Other proposed changes would restrict statutory rates to those newspapers and periodicals which-(a) have not more than 70 per cent of the paper devoted to advertising; (b) have a subscription price of not less than 50 cents per annum; (c) have a paid circulation of not less than 50 per cent of the total circulation, and (d) are registered for second class rates with the Post Office Department.
Another purpose of the amendment is to exclude from the statutory rate publications published as an auxiliary to, or for the purpose of, publicizing the main purpose or calling of the publisher. Excluded would be house organs, church bulletins, trade, fraternal, professional and other association publications.
There are now ten rate groups of newspapers and periodicals based on frequency of issue and size of circulation. Since neither factor is related to the cost, rate anomalies exist which cannot be explained within the context of postal operations. For example, a large weekly periodical is currently subject to a rate of 3 cents per pound, but a monthly periodical pays only 1.75 cents per pound. Furthermore, the number of rate categories is in excess of what is required for efficient administration and accounting.
The new legislation provides for three rate groups-(a) Daily newspapers, (b) Weekly newspapers, and (c) Other newspapers and periodicals.
At the moment, rates on newspapers and periodicals are bulk or pound rates covering an entire mailing. This results in sorting, transporting and delivering some newspapers and periodicals for as little as l/20th and l/30th of a cent per copy. The new minimum per item rate of 2 cents per piece will result in a more equitable distribution of postal charges among the users of second class mail and among all post offices patrons.
The rate change for a daily newspaper, which includes all newspapers published more frequently than weekly, will be 5 cents a pound on the news content and 15 cents a pound on the advertising content.
The rate for a weekly newspaper will be 5 cents a pound, and if the weekly newspaper has a circulation of 10,000 or less and is published and mailed in a community of not more than 10,000 persons, 2,500 copies of each
Post Office Act
issue will be handled free of postage to nonletter carrier offices within a 40 mile radius of the place of publication. This weekly rate is recognized support of the little weekly newspapers which continue to play an important role in local news dissemination in rural parts of our country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eric William Kierans: The third rate, which applies to all other newspapers and periodicals, will be 5 cents per pound with a minimum charge of 2 cents per item.
I have spoken at length, Mr. Speaker, and I wish to thank hon. members for having listened to me with such care and attention. I am aware of their keen interest in the Post Office Department affecting, as it does, literally every Canadian. I am also aware that we are attempting to correct a situation which has been unchanged for 17 years and which, because of that long span, requires some relatively drastic steps.
This legislation will reduce the projected post office deficit for 1969-70 to $40 million from the $130 million it would have been without this bill. We will be back in the land of common sense and of equity, since it will mean that, with specified exceptions, users will pay for what they use and non-users will not bear a burden they did not create.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the minister's statement. It was more nearly adequate, of course, than the one he made on the resolution stage, not totally enlightening, perhaps, but helpful in that direction.
When I spoke on the resolution stage I expressed my views on Saturday closing and on the general question, which now seems to have become one of principle, of whether the Post Office Department, unique among departments of government, should pay its way. I begin today by congratulating the minister for changing his mind with regard to one aspect of the Saturday closing question. I said when we were discussing this subject on the resolution stage that by offering the people of Canada increased cost and decreased services he was giving them a double whammy. Since then he has flickered one eyelid and announced that some areas of Canada, some rural residents, will be excepted from his proposal. I am not one of those who are so unreasonable as to criticize a minister for not being willing to change his view and then, when he does

October 21, 1968
Post Office Act
made a change, denounce him for being weak and irresolute. I commend the hon. gentleman for being sensitive to the urging of many hon. members on this side of the house as well as to his own noble committee of 35 members from the caucus of the Liberal party.
Having spent all my political career as a backbencher in the conclaves of caucus, I know how important it is that a minister be sensitive to the views of backbenchers, his parliamentary colleagues. Indeed, a good minister should be sensitive both before and after he takes important decisions-decisions for which he will expect the undying support of his parliamentary friends. But the minister will not expect me to avoid noting my disappointment that he was not more forthcoming to parliament in connection with his change of mind. Caucus is important, and so are caucus committees, but there is one body which is more important than caucus, more important then any caucus committee, and that is parliament itself. This is the place in which to make announcements. This is the place in which to indicate changes of ministerial intention.
I am glad the minister dropped a hint at the city of London. I am very fond of the city of London; it happens to be the home of outstanding political leaders in this country. But I would like him to recall that this house is the arena in which to make the kind of hints he made on that occasion; they should be made here rather than in the course of public speeches.
I presume the hon. gentleman has reflected upon the changed circumstances. I presume he knows the dangers which are before him as he makes this partial reversal of his previous point of view. I was interested in his statement that there was no demand for mail delivery on Saturday in urban areas. I presume that urban dwellers hand back their mail to the postman as he comes along. I am inclined to think that people living in the cities still like to get mail. I suppose that a communication from a loved one is as well received by a person living in a city of 25,000 as one living in a village of 150. Possibly the minister has made some calculations about this and knows what the distinction is. Incidentally, he may find considerable difficulty in a country like Canada where the shading between urban, suburban and rural is not easy to appreciate.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I am wondering who will be involved in getting the mail out to the rural areas. Most

rural routes emanate from a fairly large centre. If the people in the large centres are freed from work on Saturday, who is going to process and sort the mail which the lucky ruralites are going to get on Saturday? No doubt these are things which the minister has thought out very carefully, but as yet we have not been illuminated or enlightened on the subject of just what this will all mean.
A few days ago I asked the minister if he would not agree that a committee of this house was a better forum for dealing with these important postal matters than a committee of his own caucus, however eminent. It may be interesting to recall that the Hansard reporter did not catch that. Mr. Speaker, I never think my utterances are so vital that they need be corrected for posterity but the reporter had me down as asking if a standing committee was not a better vehicle than the committee of the whole house. I was convinced that this very important, tremendously important piece of legislation, should be referred to a committee of the house.
This was obvious from the time we first heard about the minister's far-sweeping changes and widespread alterations and I submit, Mr. Speaker, that recent events, recent communications and recent protests have made such a course of action of all the more compelling. There has been widespread criticism from the press and the public. Interested parties have sought to have their views heard. There is widespread concern and confusion as to what is involved in this very elaborate piece of legislation. There has been insufficient time for some seriously affected groups to give thorough study to the impact of the new rates.
The minister is right when he said that there have been tremendously interesting editorials on the subject. He said once that the newspapers seemed to be pretty well on his side, but I do not note that type of response from the newspapers I read. I did notice an interesting editorial in the Journal-Pioneer, published in Summerside, P.E.I., headed "Poorer Mail Service At Higher Rates." It reads;
If we keep on getting doses of the just society we are going to start yearning for a bit of old fashioned injustice. Somehow life wasn't ail bad in those bad old unjust days-[DOT]
It is true that we are becoming more and more a five day work week society with two days of leisure on the week end. Yet it is kind of silly, as we said in this space once before, to go to the expense of rushing a letter by air from Vancouver to Summerside, to take an example, and then to
October 21. 1968

have it lie in the Summerside post office undelivered from Friday evening until some time on Monday. What Mr. Kierans is proposing-and what he will undoubtedly get away with-is less service at higher rates.
The government is doing a great job of cutting expenditures and slashing services. We doubt that most people will feel that this was the mandate given it on June 25.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that all hon. members have been receiving complaints and anxious inquiries from their constituents. Some veteran members of this chamber have told me they are receiving more mail about this matter than about any of the controversial issues of which this house has been seized in the last decade-and we have had some really sizzling issues-because this is a fundamental matter which touches all Canadians and there are reasons for concern.
Naturally people tend to ask why, when they are presented with a heavier bill for anything, and this bill does impose heavy gouges on the public, a 20 per cent increase in five cent letter mail and a 50 per cent increase in local first class mail. It may be said that if the minister gets his way he will have made the nickel obsolete. It is a long time since much could be bought for a nickel, but we used to be able to buy a stamp.
I note the minister's constant reference to the great bulk of mail as being business mail. But as my colleague sitting in front of me said, as he heard the minister's statement, "Who in the world keeps business going"? You always get back to that group of people collectively responsible for all of us sitting in this house. The increases for newspapers are in some cases higher than 300 per cent.
Not surprisingly this combination of decreased service and increased rates is an unpopular mixture and an unpalatable brew. But apart from the heavy bite which the public understands all too well, other questions are coming to the fore. How serious is the financial situation in the post office? It is a long time since I have heard anyone sing such a triumphant song from such a dismal score as the minister has succeeded in doing. He said that the deficit will escalate out of sight if something drastic is not done. I noted his reference to high labour costs. I cannot believe that labour is so heavily responsible for these rapidly escalating costs.
The white paper to which the minister referred and which was made available only on Friday, I believe, makes dreary reading. I
Post Office Act
read it on Sunday. We continuing Presbyterians are very careful what we do on the Sabbath but we are allowed to read the Scriptures and are fond of the Old Testament. I thought that reading this white paper would not be different from reading about some of the tribulations of the Israelites, and my conscience was salved thereby. It is confusing reading.
I am not a cost accountant, or a former professor of economics as the minister is. 1 studied a great deal of economics and was always convinced that an ancient description of it as a dismal science was a very apt one. I found it a very dismal science. I found the white paper dismal. I found it pretty complex, pretty confusing. It is quite a demand to take a document of this kind, digest it by Monday, and then come along and say aye to the minister and have the bill shooed through.
Sir Robert Borden records that at the Paris peace conference the then president of Poland tabled a document which graphically illustrated the demographic pattern in Upper Silesia. Prime Minister Hughes, the outspoken prime minister of Australia, looked at it for a long time and then handed his copy back to Paderewski saying, "Perhaps you can play this on your piano but I'll be damned if I understand it." I do not share Prime Minister Hughes point of view but I can understand what he had in mind when he reacted in that way.
I looked at some of the statistics. As a result I wonder how ample is the explanation that is being given. I wonder how much farther advanced we are over where we were at the resolution stage. I would like to know what this expanded all-up service really means. This is dropped in as one of the little plums. Mail over eight ounces will now go all up. How many people will benefit? What does this mean? How big a bonanza is this?
I look at the deficit figures on first class mail alone. The deficit in 1968-69, without passage of these new rates, would be $16,148,000. For the fiscal year 1969-70 it would rise to $28,698,000 without the rate increases projected in this bill. These are vast and frightening figures, but how did they get that way so soon?
The ministers' predecessor said on June 2, 1967, as recorded at page 1098 of Hansard:
I can tell hon. members that at the five cent rate for letters we still make money. At four cents we still make some money although we are on the verge of losing.

October 21, 1968
Post Office Act
Three months later, on September 29, 1967, less than a year before the present minister began his crusade for a black ledger, the minister's predecessor said, as recorded on page 2689 of Hansard:
We are starting right now to have a deficit on first class mail. Our estimates forecast, with regard to the first class, indicates a deficit of over $5 million right now. I can tell hon. members that next year the deficit will be up to $7.7 million and costs are continuing to rise.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The estimated deficit was $7.7 million, but the figure I have just quoted for 1968-69, extracted from the elaborate white paper, is $16,148,000. This is a substantial gap. In June, first class mail was making money, But in September the red ink was flowing freely. Perhaps the adverb "freely" is not a good one to use. My hon. friend says "liberally". Now we are talking about a figure of $16 million plus. This is not exactly precision forecasting. I wonder whether the former minister was using those up to date sophisticated computers used by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) or, and this is even more harrowing, was the present minister using those sophisticated predictors whose advanced calculations were going to make Einstein's work look like child's play? Of course, they were out about $400 million. But I am wondering about the computation. What about these elaborate figures in the White paper? They may be as solid as the rock of Gibraltar or as reliable as the Holy Writ, but because of the former minister's trouble in this connection and the substantial miscalculations of the Minister of Finance I submit that further elucidation and a little more sustained examples would be in order.
I should like these figures to be discussed and examined in full before a house committee. I should also like a chance for the experts to discuss them, not the experts in the post office but the particular users of the post office who will get it in the neck if this legislation goes through. Some of these figures are fascinating. I looked at the breakdown of costs and I discovered that for the sortation of United States publications it takes the sum of $2,223,888. How precise that figure is!


An hon. Member:: And no cents.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: And no cents. There are no figures in that column in this document. I have a picture of sorters in some large post offices who do nothing but sort the New York Times and Life magazine. If any of these newspapers should be on strike, and it often

happens, I suppose these persons would be laid off immediately and we would have a little saving. Or I can think of the little postmistress in the rural area who is paid so much a day for sorting copies of the Christian Science Monitor. This is the kind of calculation that causes one to wonder. I want to speak as moderately as I can because I think so much of the minister who is piloting this bill through the house. When I look at some of the charts my eye focuses on Time magazine.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, that pet.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I wonder whether Time magazine has perhaps been a little more kindly treated in this elaborate calculation than our Canadian daily newspapers. Having asked that question I ask myself why, because we started out by being invoked to think in terms of principle, equity, and so on.


An hon. Member:: And a just society.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Surely these are matters which in a just society we must reflect upon for more than half a day or part of an afternoon. Do I see in this white paper a recognition of what the Post Office Department does for other departments? Are these charges being entered in the accounts and estimates of other departments or are they still charged to the post office? If this is the case, it seems hardly fair to raise a hue and cry about the appalling deficit in this department if in fact others should share it. The minister recognized this in his annual report for 1968, page 9, as follows:
The Canada Post Office has also taken credit for the services provided to other departments; these services do not compensate for the costs assumed from the other departments.
I am not sure what that statement means but I think it means something close to what I am trying to suggest. We want to plan realistically; we must have realistic figures and must have an opportunity to examine these figures fully and carefully. I am not departing one iota from my suggestion-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Does the minister wish to ask a question? It is entirely up to the hon. member for Hillsborough to accept or reject the question.


Eric William Kierans: The hon. member says he wants reliable figures. Is he suggesting that these figures are not reliable?
October 21, 1968


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I used the expression "realistic". I have adopted the policy in this house for 11 years that no matter what I might wish to say I would always wait until the hon. gentleman speaking had finished. I would ask that the same courtesy be returned to me. The quotation from the minister's annual report was the last I have read in that particular connection. I would say that in our search for realistic figures, figures which can be translated to the reality of the day, we want a further examination of the document which the minister made available to us.
But apart from statistics there are broad areas for concern for the members of this house and the people whom we represent. This bill is far more important than a mere increase in the price of stamps. Flippant people may say the minister is suggesting that the people of Canada can lick their way into prosperity by paying more for stamps. But much more is involved than an appraisal of the stamp rate. The bill recognizes that the government has an important degree of involvement in the newspaper field.
I was impressed by the minister's remarks in respect of this very important field. This bill in a sense defines what is a Canadian newspaper. It sets an elaborate scale of rates. It becomes very much involved in the communication of ideas. The bill even invokes considerations of an international character. It singles out foreign publications and sets special rates for them. Some people would say that it sets preferential rates for some of them. It is, therefore, a tremendously important field. The newspapers in this country are very much concerned. Far be it for a member of this party to be overly solicitous about the welfare of Canadian newspapers. They have not been remarkably solicitous of our welfare in the last couple of decades. But they are important in any democracy.
The freedom of the press is not a new or esoteric concept. The minister has heard the views of many people in the newspaper field, as have most of us. One who has written to him is that always thoughtful and perceptive publisher of Le Devoir, Mr. Claude Ryan. I should like to quote a few portions from an open letter to the minister which appeared in this excellent newspaper, Le Devoir, on October 12. It begins with a great deal of well deserved praise for the minister. In fact, as I read the Toronto Globe and Mail this morning I was convinced that six cubits and a
29180-102J
Post Office Act
span was far too short a measure by which to assess the real stature of this man. I was so impressed that I almost withdrew from the discourse altogether, but not quite. Mr. Ryan writes:
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
You have put in the position of a sacred fundamental the principle of having a postal service which pays for itself. On this subject (certain) M.P.'s have asked you pertinent questions. While accepting the principle of a necessary equilibrium in the accounts of the government, they asked you by what criteria you decided particularly at this moment to penalize excessively certain very limited sectors of the groups which benefit every day from the ensemble of government activity. Why, for example, did you put in the position of a sacred principle the goal of a postal service which pays for itself when you will vote soon on considerable subsidies which have the intention of meeting the deficits of other sectors of government activity which could also have been chosen as areas of activity for your rationalizing abilities? . ..
Let us first speak of the raise in the postal rates for second class mail, which includes a newspaper like Le Devoir. If the figures which appeared in certain Journals are well founded, you will double the cost of sending published material and you will change from four cents to fifteen cents per pound the cost of sending advertising material. Quick calculations have allowed us to establish that in the case of a newspaper like Le Devoir, these increases would bring with them a rise of approximately 275 per cent, compared with the costs which we have been used to.
Mr. Ryan argues his case with eloquence and, I think, with fairness. He makes a case to which the minister seems not overly sympathetic. He ends by saying:
Even if you had wanted, Mr. Kierans, to give to the daily newspapers with an average circulation a mortal blow, you would have had difficulty in imagining a more ingenious suggestion than that of which you have become the godfather. I know well your attachment to liberty of the press and to the right of citizens to have information. I know very well too your aptitude for changing your views when you are mistaken. It is for this that I hope that you will be able to revise in time the unacceptable and inequitable suggestions which you have revealed in Bill C-116.
The letter of Mr. Ryan and the presentations of many like him have raised some very, important questions. It is all very well to talk about the publishers, but we know what will happen when these rates are increased. We know who will end up paying the increases. It will be the citizen, the subscriber or, in the context of this debate, the patron of the post office. We cannot cast aside casually and lightly such representations as those of Mr. Ryan.
We spend millions trying to establish a national radio and television network for

Oclober 21, 1968
Post Office Act
good and worthy purposes. We all recall the splendid words of then prime minister Bennett when the Canadian radio commission, as it was then called, was set up, and its worthy purposes, the development of national unity and a national consensus. But what of other media? If by these rates we are preventing a Canadian newspaper becoming a worthy organ of national opinion, are we not taking a course directly opposed to that which we are following in dealing with our radio and television services?
Many of us have regretted that in Canada there has not yet developed a great national newspaper which is truly Canadian and accepted by Canadians all across the country, a newspaper of the calibre of the London Times, the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor or La Presna of Buenos Aires, a paper national in scope, a paper for all Canadians. I believe there are some newspapers in this country which are capable of reaching such a status. These rates will militate against just such a development. The newspaper with nothing but local appeal will be far less injuriously harmed than the one dealing with national issues, ranging over national problems, seeking to apply itself to national questions. This is the one which will suffer by the imposition of these rates.
Can we say it is all a matter of accounting when we spend millions to develop one media which brings the views of radio and television commentators into the living rooms of the nation but make it well nigh impossible for the opinions of highly qualified newspapers and their editors to get into the mail boxes of the nation? I do not want to invite a comparison of the value toi Canadian society of the opinions of Claude Ryan versus Lister Sinclair, or Shaun Herron versus James Ban-nerman, but reflection upon the matter should underline the importance of the potentialities of this legislation.
One of my colleagues, I think semihumorously, said the other day what a saving there would be if we shut down the C.B.C. for one day a week, and another even more critically said what a saving it would be if we shut it down for one day, period. I do not want to get into the C.B.C. phobia group because that is not where I belong, but when we talk about principle and equity we should reflect a little upon questions of this kind.
The minister and the members of the house know the vast increases in subscription rates which will be forced upon newspapers all

across the country as a result of this legislation. That splendid journal of prairie Liberalism, the Winnipeg Free Press, points out that their subscribers will have to pay an extra $25 or $35 a year. Some people might think this is not a tragedy, but I think the Winnipeg Free Press, with all its faults, did develop beyond a city base, beyond a provincial base, and became a regional journal of opinion. Despite its Liberal proclivities, I do not think it will do the country good to have it inhibited in its coverage of the prairies.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We
could not get along without it.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: It has been printing the truth more recently.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on both the right and the left seem to regard the Winnipeg Free Press more highly than I used to when I knew Manitoba well. It is said that newspapers should pay their way. Perhaps increased rates are in order. I have never taken the point of view that we cannot or should not have an increase in these rates; not for a moment do I make that suggestion. I would not suggest that any increase is injurious, but I again reject the suggestion that this department or any sector of its users, in this case the newspapers, must pay their way. The expression "cap the subsidy" is an interesting one, but let us have no delusions that we are going to soak the publishers. In the end it will be the public that pays.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: In other areas we have abandoned the pay as you go policy. I am old enough to remember, and certainly the minister is as well, the days when we used to charge a licence fee to everybody who bought a radio set. The idea was that the people who used the radio service would pay for it. We have long since abandoned that policy. We have said that it is a public service, and I think this was a proper move. We pay the bill for radio and television, and what a bill it is!
There are many areas of uncertainty here. I wonder about the savings. I wonder about what is going to happen to the personnel. In the Gazette of September 28, page 1, the minister is quoted as saying:
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
-the decision to go onto a five day week will mean the elimination of 1,499 post office jobs, and will save the taxpayers at least $13 million a year.
October 21. 1968

You will note it is 1,499 post office jobs, not 1,500. He said:
although almost 1,500 jobs are being done away with, few men will actually be laid off. The normal expansion of the post office will absorb about 1,100 workers, and the normal attrition of staff caused by retirements and resignations should account for most of the balance.
This impressed me. I was brought up under the old fable that you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Yet we are told in one paragraph we are going to save at least $13 million a year and 1,499 jobs will be done away with, and then that hardly anyone holding a job is really going to lose it. I hope I will not offend anyone if I ask again for realistic figures.
The following was written in the Canadian Postal Worker of June, July and August 1968, volume 4, No. 4, headed "5 Day Week-Who Pays?". I may say that many of these people live in urban areas and will not be affected by the announcement made a while ago by the minister. The article reads:
A continuing source of wonder and dismay to us in Vancouver is the naivete of national officers.
For instance, when the Postmaster General announced the initiation of the five day business week in the post office, effective next February, not one national officer's voice was heard in protest.
It should have been obvious that a change as far-reaching as this had to be planned a long time in advance. It could even have started before negotiations did, which means the government had no intention of announcing it before the contract was signed. Razor sharp thinking on their part.
It must also be obvious that a great many members of both unions are going to be affected. Until we know the details and methods of adjustment, and what guarantees we have against lay-offs, we are certainly not prepared to say that the members will like it.
Nor are we prepared to trust the intentions or actions of the Postmaster General who appears hell bent on reforming the post office. We can understand the government's wanting to make some profit out of the post office operation. But we also want to know at whose expense these reforms will be made, and out of whose hides the profits will be sweated.
The postal workers who will be displaced, and those who will be doing six days' work in five would no doubt like to know, too.
Some time ago I read the minister's announced intention to have his department in the black in two years' time. It is a laudable intention, and I wish him well in all his endeavours to improve the administration of his important department. But I am suspicious of what I might describe as deadline achievers. I remember the 60 days of decision and what days those were!
Post Office Act
I would like to comment on one or two more items, Mr. Speaker, before I take my seat. The bill is not all bad. I find nothing to complain about in connection with the savings bank. I have no deposits there that will be lost. I see some improvements in reference to rural routes and I also see some dangers there. I would like to hear a little more about some special cases such as the very good case which was presented by the church press.
I wonder whether the minister is going to move a little more imaginatively in the philately section than some of his predecessors? If he is scrounging around to make the odd dollar, even that can be used more effectively. If he could issue a stamp in honour of the great Robert Burns perhaps he might improve the cost situation. I know my colleague from Nova Scotia would be with him on that.
The thing that disturbs me is the shortage of time in reference to a measure of such importance. It is said in the bill that one section is to go into effect on November 1. This presumes that this body and another body in another part of the constitutional apparatus will have reacted before that date because there is no use chasing down Mr. and Mrs. Smith after November 1 if they have spent four and five cents for their stamps; you cannot collect the extra pennies then. We do not have time to deal with this important legislation, and I think it is a presumptuous suggestion that we do so.
I wish to make a motion but before I make it I should like to indicate briefly the spirit in which it is made. We believe that this measure must go to a standing committee. It is our hope that the committee would be instructed, or that it would be formally or informally understood, that it sit for a limited time. We would like to have the second reading of the measure stay on the order paper. We have no desire to thrust in an inordinate delay at this time. It is in this spirit that I would like to move the following motion which is presented in an effort to expedite passage of this legislation and in an effort to guarantee wider information on behalf of the public we represent. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. McCutcheon):
That all the words after "that" In the said motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"The further consideration of this bill be deferred until the standing committee on transportation and communications has considered the subject matter thereof.

October 21, 1968
Post Office Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The amendment is before the house. With the indulgence of the house I will take it under consideration and report later.


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, it is customary sometimes to summarize one's point of view and one's ideas at the conclusion of one's remarks. The press of the country uses an; entirely different procedure; they summarize right at the beginning what was said or proposed. In my case I intend to summarize my ideas at the start of my remarks. To put the position of my party and my own on this important subject on the record I summarize our position as follows;
First, we wish the proposed post office legislation referred to a standing committee of this house for detailed study and report.
Second, we are opposed to the increase to six cents in the ordinary or consumer mail rates of Canada.
Third, we welcome the move to increase the second class rates on publications published for a profit as being generally in the right direction, but here again we wish a committee study to be made to ensure that the proposed rate increases are sufficient and are borne by those by whom they should be and do not fall upon publications which are not published for commercial profit but rather for the service of some particular educational, health or co-operative association or union.
While welcoming the announcement made today by the Postmaster General (Mr. Kier-ans) that rural mail delivery will be continued on a six day a week basis, we oppose the reduction in delivery service in urban areas. We think there is no reason in this year for a substandard service such as would result from reducing delivery from six to five days a week to be inflicted on the urban areas or any other area in Canada. On this point it seems strange to us that while we as a group of people meeting in the house are entitled to discuss what is proposed in the way of legislation on rates or prices, we are actually not able to do anything right now in regard to the service that those rates or prices are going to buy. Something along that line could well be studied by a committee studying the whole postal situation.
Mr. Speaker, this is a personal proposal by myself. I should like to see a study made of what is in effect a subsidy in the form of an exemption from taxation which is given to advertisers. Advertising, of course, is the

very lifeblood of many publications in this country. This exemption from taxation for advertising would have an effect on what the public is called upon to pay, either in the form of a subsidy or increased postal rates.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The post office legislation before us is massive and yet very detailed in all its respects. The proposals made are of such a nature that in my view they should be referred for detailed study by a standing committee of the house, where adequate representations could be made both by the post office officials and those who are going to be affected by the principal changes in postal procedures. I believe it is true to say that the post office handles, and does it very well, something like 5 billion pieces of mail each year. It employs approximately 47,000 or 48,000 people and deals with a great many categories of postage. The whole matter, therefore, is technical.
It would make a great deal more sense if we and the people of the country had more time to delve into all the aspects of what we are being asked to do. It is all right to say that we in this house can meet as a committee to discuss what is being proposed but really, as I say, the matter before us is so technical that it is very difficult for us in an assembly of this type to come to any real decision on these detailed proposals.
In the previous parliament when we dealt with matters affecting broadcasting in the country, the whole set of recommendations was referred to the standing committee on broadcasting. That committee, of which I had the honour to be a member, met many times, heard many witnesses and finally brought in its report. We believe the same sort of thing could logically be done with regard to this other important channel of communications, the postal system.
For many years my party and its predecessor, the C.C.F., have urged the government and specifically the Postmaster General to take one of the steps he now proposes to take, namely, to bring about a realistic rate for business mail, periodicals and publications published for a profit. I am glad to see that finally, after all these years, the logic of what not only my party but many other groups in the country have long urged has gotten through. I am glad to find that among the proposals, some of which we do not approve, the Postmaster General is saying that while the commercial press of Canada will not be asked to pay their full delivery costs they will
Oclober 21, 1968

at least be asked to begin to pay something more of the cost to which their profit-motivated efforts have put the taxpayer and the ordinary letter writer all these years.
If we look at the financial statements and details of proposed rate adjustments, distributed the other day by the Post Office Department, we see that second class mail deficits, which have all along been carried by the public of Canada, between 1950 and now totaled approximately $400 million. This sum is almost equivalent to that which I understand the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) will be asking us to try to make up tomorrow night in his representations with regard to taxation or borrowing.
What are the relative figures, Mr. Speaker? In respect of second class mail, mail published basically for a profit, we see that it now pays not much more than one-fifth, 22 per cent, of its way. The public is stuck with the rest or a subsidy of about 77 per cent. In my view this is a strange commentary on the alleged independence of private enterprise. What do we see when we look at the cost to us of, say, Reader's Digest and Time magazine? My reading of the figures supplied by the Post Office Department indicates that these publishers pay respectively 15.7 per cent and 21.8 per cent of the cost of carrying their publications to Canadians. The taxpayers, most of whom do not read these publications, pay the other three-quarters of the cost of getting these magazines to their readers. Even with the proposed increases in second class rates, the taxpayers will still be subsidizing the deficit caused by these private operations. I commend the Postmaster General for at least taking a step in the right general direction.
I oppose his proposal to increase by 50 per cent the rate for ordinary, first class locally mailed and delivered letters, and by 20 per cent the rate for forward or air mail. I ask him also to reconsider the idea of increasing rates while decreasing service. He may possibly do one or the other, but surely it is a curious situation when the government expects to move in two different directions at the same time. I say, in the meantime leave the first class rate as it is, where it has been carrying itself for many years. Give it another year or two and let us see, with the new second class rates and some other reforms made which I should like to see, whether we need to increase the ordinary letter rate. It is quite true, as the minister points out, that a great deal of first class mail is made up of
Post Office Act
bills from hydro, telephone and other concerns. This is very true, but it is equally true that an increase in the costs of these business concerns, which for some will be 50 per cent for locally mailed letters, will be promptly passed on by those concerns to the consumer. They will do so very quickly, perhaps even by special delivery.
If this legislation were sent to a committee for study it might be that consideration could be given to the idea of applying the 5 cent rate to all first class mail in Canada. This question is an involved one relating to the whole system of rates, and in my opinion this is another reason for us to have a look at the whole situation in depth in a committee. We certainly support the motion put forward by the official opposition for the reference of this legislation to a standing committee.
I should like to refer now to a proposal which is not really before us but which the Postmaster General has acted upon. I refer to the reduction in our mail service in so far as urban areas are concerned to five days a week. I do not know of another country in the world which is putting up with that kind of substandard service, and I do not know why Canadians should be asked to do so. We do not have five day police, fire, health or broadcast services. The newspapers do not publish just five days a week. In our view the present postal service and the ability of our people to communicate on a six day schedule are important and must be retained. Again, it seems to me to be a curious thing that while we can discuss the prices which people are going to pay to have mail delivered, there is really no legislation before us at the moment concerning what that money will buy in the way of service. Again I say that this is the type of thing that could be looked at by a committee. The very fact that this legislation allows the post office itself to make changes in the standard of delivery while compelling it to refer to the house the second class mail rate is another reason for studying the whole problem in committee.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
When I spoke on this matter earlier I asked a number of questions and I would like answers to them. One question the Postmaster General answered today is, how much imbalance, in dollars, is caused by our reciprocal agreement with other countries, notably the United States? As we all know, Canada is a member of an international organization

October 21, 1968
Post Office Act
which has an agreement concerning the carrying of mail all over the world at certain rates. In regard to second class mail coming to Canada from the United States, I think the minister indicated that this involved a cost to us of some $3.5 million a year. So to that extent that question was answered.
Another question is: 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 proposal now made, as I understand it, to close post offices in cities an extra day of the week will have to be stepped up since regular delivery is to be reduced?
Why is there a different rate for second class mail between the Americas, and between Canada and Great Britain? What percentage of second class mail delivered in Canada originates from American publications or wholly owned American subsidiaries in Canada? 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 postal convention?
To those questions, Mr. Speaker, I would add another. Ten years ago Canada had the reputation of being in the first rank of those countries working in the field of postal service mechanization. We were at that time experimenting with machinery which I understand was capable of sorting thousands of letters per hour. The minister said something on this general subject but I would encourage him to give more consideration to this subject. My question is: What has happened to the modernization and our technological progress? In this ever-growing computerized world it seems that the Canadian post office, at one time in the van of such progress, has now dropped behind. What is the reason for this, and what is proposed to bring our post office back to its leading and very necessary role in that area?
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I reiterate my wish and the wish of the members of my party that this whole complex question affecting readers, correspondents and publishers be referred for detailed study to a standing committee of this house. I hope that this will be done. If it is not, then I want to make one last recommendation. I should like to see a review body established to hear from the representatives of the non-profit publications the case that those publications may make for

exemption from, or subsidy against, the proposed second class mail rate increases.
I began by saying that I would reverse the usual procedure; instead of summarizing my remarks at the end I did so at the beginning. The main point we wish to make is that we support what we think is a very good step proposed at this time by the official opposition, that of having the whole matter referred to a standing committee.


Mr. Mac T. McCuicheon (Lamblon-Keni):: Mr. Speaker, ever since the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) started leaking tidbits about his proposed reforms in the department there has certainly been a rising storm of criticism about the various details of the scheme. I hasten to point out that it is not my intention to add my voice to this storm. My chief concern at the moment is with the minister's basic concept and with what I believe is his confused thinking in regard to economy in the public service.
Everybody wants the government to cut unnecessary spending, Mr. Speaker. Everybody would welcome greater responsibility on the part of this government when it comes to the disposal of tax dollars. But I would point out that at the same time everybody expects the government to supply to the public those services which are both the excuse for a central bureaucracy and its duty to render to the citizenry. Trying to do away with an essential public service is a peculiar way indeed to proceed.
I have never heard it preached anywhere that public services, such as postal services, were supposed to be a device to raise revenue. If so, Mr. Speaker, what about our publicly owned railway, our publicly owned air line and, above all, our publicly owned Canadian broadcasting service? Why indeed should one public service be expected to make money and these others to run at a loss?
I think it is sensible, for anybody administering a public service such as the post office to try to do the job as economically as possible. I think it would be a reasonable aim to try to break even on the operation. But I cannot conceive that a public service such as the post office should be run like a profitseeking, private business.
It is perhaps conceivable, that the present Postmaster General should regard his new responsibilities in the light of a private enterprise where profit is God and shareholders must be paid off. After all, he did spend some
October 21, 19B8



considerable time as head of the Montreal Stock Exchange, an institution that might easily be equated with the temple of profit. I am delighted, however, to see that obviously the Postmaster General has taken note of some of the message and that he is now operating within the demands of a just society; nothing could be more unjust than to put an essential public service beyond the reach of ordinary people. Furthermore, I believe that the concept that government should make a profit from a public service is not only misguided but flies in the face of our theory of government, a theory that supposes that the chief purpose of government is to guard the interests of the people and to supply their needs.
Having said this, Mr. Speaker, I also believe that the Postmaster General deserves some credit. While he may be misguided in his efforts he has tried to break the spendthrift pattern set by many of his colleagues. He at least professes to want to save money; the rest of them make no such pretence. I am thinking now of the expenditures that have gone into providing the Oriental splendour of the new offices of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene), the so-called "Greene rooms". In case any other ministers try to take comfort from mention of only one of their number, let me hasten to assure them, that it is not too difficult to collect instances of general extravagance and disregard for public moneys by members of this government.
I sincerely hope, that the house will see fit to adopt the suggestion of my colleague, the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Mae-quarrie). I think that justice demands that before such arbitrary and sweeping changes are made in a vitally necessary public service every interested citizen should be heard.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
It is quite true that the loudest and most vehement protest against some of the minister's proposals has come really from a group deserving the least sympathy. I am referring to the publishers of our Canadian daily newspapers, a group for whom it is difficult to have much sympathy. We were told by the minister, and we must take his word for it, that for years they have enjoyed a generous subsidy from Canadian taxpayers. If the minister's statement can be accepted at its face value, then the subsidy amounts to some $37 million per year. Personally I question 29180-103
Post Office Act
the figure and the accuracy of the minister's statement.
I do not know whether the Postmaster General really understands the way small country post offices operate. I should like to know how a computer can determine the cost of handling a newspaper at some of our small country post offices. May I cite an example I am familiar with personally. Around five o'clock in the morning newspapers that go out on ordinary rural mail routes from the small post office are deposited on the front steps of the post office by a truck that comes from the London Free Press. These trucks deliver their newspapers to the front steps of our rural post offices. The papers are neatly bundled and addressed. They are already in some sort of order. So many are for rural route 2, so many for rural route 3, and so on.
Around eight o'clock the postmaster appears on the front steps, takes a deep breath of air, yawns probably, picks up the bundle of newspapers and takes them into the sorting room where they are placed on the rural carriers' desks. The carriers then pick up those newspapers. They have 10 papers for this route, 25 for another, and so on. The newspapers are in the hands of paid post office workers for a matter of minutes only. The rural carriers place the newspapers in their automobiles and deposit them at the rural mail boxes.
It must be remembered that these carriers are contractors and they are going to make their rounds anyway. I therefore submit that the cost of delivering 18,000 copies of the London Free Press in southwestern Ontario adds very little to the department's deficit. I cite this as an example to show that in my opinion the entire white paper is questionable. Yes, I would say that it is even suspect.
In the circumstances under which daily newspapers in Canada are published today perhaps our chief concern should be saved for others more in need of consideration, and here I speak of mail subscribers. I became alarmed when I heard the hon. member for Hillsborough mention the fantastic increases in subscription rates to be charged by the Winnipeg Free Press. I believe it was he who mentioned that newspaper. I believe others mentioned increases that would be applicable to newspapers such as the Citizen and the Journal.
Writing in Le Devoir, Mr. Ryan, the editor, said:
Quick calculations have allowed us to establish that in the case of a newspaper like Le Devoir

October 21, 1968
Post Office Act
these increases would bring with them a rise of approximately 275 per cent, compared with the costs which we have been used to.
I know that the postal rate increases are severe, but are they that severe?
Recently I saw a financial report relating to the Southam news services. The report shows that the publishers increased their revenue during the first nine months of this year by approximately 15 per cent. I think we ought to be more concerned about publications other than daily papers which may need assistance, and there are many like that. I am thinking particularly of publications such as the Canadian Church Press and the daily and weekly newspapers that are entirely or almost entirely dependent on mail subscriptions for their circulation and, likewise, for their advertising revenue. The revenue of such publications cannot equal, on any proportionate basis, that of the huge dailies.
There are others, too, who must be mentioned at this time, and here I am thinking of the members of the Canadian direct mail association. I know that many in this house and in this country regard direct advertising circulars that are delivered through the mail as a nuisance which ought to be curtailed. Those who think that way are not interested in the case for direct mail advertising. That is not the point here. Regardless of whether we are sympathetic toward the grievances of this body, we must bear in mind that its members take part in legitimate Canadian enterprises and they are entitled to the same consideration that is extended to other individual Canadians or groups of citizens. In this body are Canadians who have a vested interest in the postal service of their country. In all fairness and decency we ought to give them an opportunity to be heard.
Nothing in the constitution or in the Canada Elections Act transforms the Postmaster General or any other cabinet minister into a god. He is responsible for his actions to the people who entrusted him with the task of providing a postal service with their money, and he ought to have enough sense of responsibility to listen to submissions before imposing radical new changes on the post office. I see no argument against hearing the case for the defence unless someone in high places is afraid to. A consideration of the changes encompassed in this bill along the lines suggested by my colleague for Hillsborough ought to be the minimum amount of justice that the cabinet and the Postmaster General should extend to us. After all, the Postmaster

General is a public servant. Anything he does he does by permission of and in the interests of the public who entrusted him with his job.
The minister's actions might be more understandable if he were running a private company. Then he could make such arbitrary changes as his judgment told him to be in the interest of the company and its shareholders. In this instance the minister is playing God. He is saying in fact; I know what is good for you; shut up and take it. That is a most highhanded and democratic attitude for a government not noted for being sensitive to the rights of individual Canadians to take.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Compare this attitude with the approach of the United Kingdom when the British post office department was recently overhauled. The legislation there envisages a national users' council representing all those who use the mails in Britain. This council will make representations about services, it will consider complaints by users of the services and it will be consulted with regard to fees and rates. It is, therefore, more than a body having only nominal functions; it will be truly consultative and effective in its operations. The minister will appoint the chairman and members of the council and is responsible for policy direction. This is an entirely different approach from what we see here in Canada where in effect the government says: Here it is; take it and like it.
The minister is actually following a course which in my opinion could well lead to silencing those voices which this country most needs to hear. They are voices with which all Canadians do not agree. They are voices of dissent, voices which express varying points of view. They are voices which represent minority views, voices speaking for the many segments of our society which must eventually be reconciled if we are to remain a strong, united nation. They are voices which symbolize what democracy is all about.
These voices are heard in many publications which happen to be among those most closely affected by the proposed changes in postal services and rates. Some of these publications face distinction as a result of these proposals. Their spokesmen must be allowed to make representations fairly and openly before any step is taken which will still these publications forever. I think of the case I mentioned earlier, the case of the French language newspaper Le Devoir and the clear, if sometimes jarring, voice of its editor, Claude
October 21, 1968

Ryan. Does the government intend to silence such a voice as this by ministerial regulation while at the same time heavily subsidizing the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to provide a platform for other voices such as that of Tiny Tim?
Whatever may be said by the minister about economies and savings in the operations of his department, these proposals smell of discrimination. The minister has boasted that his reforms will save $13 million. But at what cost? One cost will be 1,499 jobs in the Post Office Department; at a time when unemployment is heavy and increasing, 1,500 jobs are to be thrown away just to balance the books.
The minister made some comments about changing the system of tenders in connection with rural contractors, bringing them into the just society. But the new measure still uses the tendering system which generally means recommendation by the local patronage chairmen. How many members of this house have seen the one-sided contract which allows the Postmaster General arbitrarily to cut off remuneration as was done by the current occupant of that portfolio? How many have seen the penalties for failure to get through impossible roads, and so on? Every postmaster general since I have been here-and there have been several during that time-has talked about a new deal for the rural contractor. But I submit it is all talk; the legislation has certainly not changed that much.
Normally a contract runs for four years. I understand from the minister's announcement today that a contract can be renegotiated three times. This is a tremendous change in favour of the rural mail carriers. But why, in view of all the information on costs which the department must have on hand, can we not do away with the tendering system and pay the rural contractors their going rate? Why should it be necessary for rural carriers to come on bended knees to the great white father and ask for relief? If the department really wanted to help it would establish rates and judge couriers on the basis of their dependability and integrity rather than on how little they are willing to tender for.
I do not wish to labour the point, Mr. Speaker. I could talk at length about the shortcommings in this bill and the changes it proposes to bring about. To sum up, I would say that the measure before us ought to go to a committee for the most exhaustive examination before any action is taken on it. It is a 29180-1031
Post Office Act
hasty, ill-judged and misjudged piece of legislation, one which reflects the attempt of a new broom to make a dramatic sweep rather than a sincere attempt to run the essential postal services of Canada effectively and efficiently. I hope the minister will have the good judgment to suspend these radical and arbitrary changes until such time as those Canadians most closely affected have had an opportunity to be heard.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps hon. members would wish at this time to address themselves to the procedural aspects of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Hillsborough.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, on the basis of the principle that all things are deemed regular and in order until the contrary is shown, I suggest that if the government feels that the motion is not in order we might hear from one of the hon. gentlemen opposite.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes. It seems to me it is established-and I would refer to May, seventeenth edition, page 526, and to the current edition of Beauchesne, citation 386 and thereafter-that the procedures to be followed on second reading for amending the motion or expressing disagreement with it are relatively stereotyped.
The courses open to hon. gentlemen opposite are, first of all, to vote against the motion for second reading without proposing an amendment. Alternatively they could take a course of action which the editor of Erskine May refers to as being the most courteous proceeding open to them, that is, they could move that the bill be not now read a second time but that it be read six months hence. This has come to be accepted as equivalent to stopping further parliamentary action. A third course is one we have seen followed frequently in this house in recent years; it was used as recently as Friday last. It is the motion that the bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to a committee. It would have been open to the hon. member for Hillsborough to have moved an amendment of that sort, if that had been his intention, in line with established procedure. However, the hon. member has not expressed himself in that way. He has asked that further consideration of the bill be deferred until the standing committee on transport and communications has considered the subject matter thereof. Therefore his amendment has really failed to


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, when the President of the Privy Council used the word "stereotyped" it confirmed my suspicion that, despite all the whining and whimpering we have heard about our objections to the question period, this is really a government which is very reactionary in respect of its approach to the rules.
I would like to draw Your Honour's attention to page 396 of the fourth edition of Beau-chesne. There are provided there a number of precedents to use which I have been following for some time, as have other hon. members, secure in the thought that these had been disclosed as suitable vehicles by which amendments could be moved. I point to form No. 93 which is as follows:
The question being proposed "That Bill No	
intituled an Act....be now read a second time";
Mr	moves in amendment thereto	 that
all the words after "that" in the said motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"The further consideration of this bill be deferred until the principle thereof has, by means of a referendum, been submitted to and approved of by the electors of Canada."
Despite all the defects which my hon. friend from Hillsborough has discerned in this bill we are not suggesting that it should be submitted to the electors of Canada, but for the reasons we have given we think it should be submitted to a committee of this house. All we are doing is following a precedent which appears in Beauchesne and which apparently has been followed in the past. I use that as the first approach to argue with you, sir, that the amendment should be acceptable.

Second, as the President of the Privy Council has said, a practice has been followed from time to time of referring the subject matters of bills to a committee, but in so doing they lose their place in the order of business. I hope that our committee on procedure will be able to amend that so as to permit them to retain their place. However, we must accept the rules as they are. It is the practice that the subject matter of a bill may be referred to a standing committee, after the use of the usual words "that it be not now read a second time," but I suggest there is no difference between that and what the hon. member for Hillsborough has suggested.
The words "that it be not now read a second time" are surely the equivalent of the words "that consideration be deferred," and the words "that consideration be deferred" have been sanctified by their appearance in Beauchesne. In addition the amendment contains a principle declaratory of some adverse view to the one contained in the motion proposed by the Postmaster General. I am reinforced in my view of that by an examination of Beauchesne, citation 386:
On the second reading of a bill, the house may decide to refer the subject matter thereof to a commission although the bill could not be referred to a committee of the house before its second reading. (The subject matter of a bill and the bill itself are two different things.) On the 17th April, 1934, the following amendment was moved to the second reading of a bill to amend the Railway Act in respect of rates on grain: "That the bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada." This amendment was as much a declaration of policy as if it stated that the question of adjusting the railway rates on grain should be investigated by the railway board.
This is precisely what the hon. member for Hillsborough is now saying, that it is a declaration of policy that the various details and issues involved in this bill should be investigated by the standing committee, precisely as was indicated by the decision, if my memory serves me right, of Mr. Speaker Black in 1934.
I am reinforced in this view by citation No. 382 in Beauchesne's fourth edition:
It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill, to move as an amendment to the question, a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill, or expressing opinions as to any circumstances connected with its introduction-
October 21, 1968

This is precisely what the hon. member for Hillsborough is doing, and merely because he has not used words which the President of the Privy Council said are stereotyped his amendment should not be ruled out of order. Mr. Speaker, if we are going to be stereotyped in our approach to the type of motions we move in this house I think it will be a sorry day that we do so decide or, with due respect, that Your Honour so decides. As long as we are establishing, through any combination of words, a principle which is declaratory of an idea adverse to the principle contained in the motion, then the amendment should be accepted.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that the swinging party over there, looking forward to the just society, would be most happy to see this matter considered in detail if it has all the virtues that the minister says it has.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should make it clear at the outset of these brief remarks that I have on my desk several copies of a proposed amendment which, believe it or not, is drafted in the stereotyped form referred to by the President of the Privy Council. As a matter of fact I had even shown it to the hon. member for Hillsborough in case he wanted to take it, and I indicated that if he did not propose an amendment I would pass it to the hon. member for Surrey.
In the light of all this it is obvious that if the amendment of the hon. member for Hillsborough is ruled out of order then the first member of this party who gets the floor will be moving that Bill No. C-116 be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on transport and communications. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I suppose I should be quite partisan and express the hope that you will rule this amendment out of order so that we will have a chance to move ours. However, Mr. Speaker, I do not take that course.
I think Your Honour should realize that these two proposed amendments say precisely the same thing. They say it in different words. The forms are a little different but they say precisely the same thing, and would produce precisely the same result. Let me begin with the stereotyped form, the one we have ready. It says two things, first that Bill C-116 be not now read a second time and, second, that the subject matter of the bill be referred to a committee.
Post Office Act
What does the amendment of my hon. friend from Hillsborough say? It says two things. In the first place it moves to strike out "all the words after "that", and the words in the motion after the word "that" are that the bill be read a second time. So that part of this amendment is saying precisely the same thing as mine is saying, that the bill be not now read a second time.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
The second thing that the hon. member's amendment says is that the subject matter of the bill be referred for consideration to the standing committee on transport and communications. I think our form is perhaps a little better, because it is stereotyped, because it gets by the house and by the Speaker. But in the plain, practical language of this modern, swinging parliament surely there is no difference at all between what is proposed in the amendment of the hon. member for Hillsborough and what is proposed in the wording that I have here on my desk. If there is a difference, I suppose it is because my Conservative friend does not like to hit quite so hard. Its wording is a little softer. My hon. friend does not like to say that the bill be not read a second time. Instead he says, "send the matter elsewhere". It seems to have the effect of taking the present order off the order paper, just as mine does. My friend the hon. member for Hillsborough comes from the maritimes, instead of Manitoba, although he lived for a number of years in Manitoba. He is being a little softer on the minister, that is all.


Thomas Miller Bell: He is soft because he was in Manitoba.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are people who disagree with that. At any rate, that is my point. The house is going to face this issue one way or another. There really is no point in wasting time on this. If this amendment is ruled out of order, I will hand this to the next New Democratic member who takes the floor, or move it myself at the earliest opportunity.


Mr. Speaker:: I am now in a position to give a decision on the basis of the comments made by hon. members. I, of course, have had an opportunity to study the amendment and look at precedents. I had a few minutes before the question was raised in the house at 5.30 to study the precedents and look into the matter as closely as possible in the circumstances.

October 21, 1968
Post Office Act
The proposed amendment of the hon. member for Hillsborough reads as follows:
That all the words after "that" in the said motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
The further consideration of this bill be deferred until the standing committee on transportation and communications has considered the subject matter thereof.
The question before the house on second reading is the principle of the bill. This, of course, is well known and recognized by all members. An amendment at this point must oppose the principle by way of a reasoned amendment or otherwise. It seems to me that the hon. member for Hillsborough is proposing an amendment which does not oppose the principle of the bill nor does it support it. It merely asks to set the bill aside while the subject matter is considered.
I am in full agreement with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that effectively the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Hillsborough would produce the same result as an amendment in the usual form. On the other hand the Chair must give a decision on the basis of the amendment as proposed for the consideration of the Chair. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, along with the hon. member for Peace River, claims that this is a reasoned amendment which effectively opposes the principle of the bill. I suggest to hon. members that this is not the effect of the proposed amendment. It merely seeks to postpone a decision until such time as certain conditions have been fulfilled.
I am also appreciative of the difficulty arising out of the fact that there is a form, No. 93, which is quoted at page 396 of Beau-chesne's fourth edition. I have studied this form and it has caused me some concern. Hon. members will realize, however, that it is not exactly in the same terms as the amendment now before us. For one thing it does not propose the same type of remedy. I suggest there is, on this basis, a substantial difference between the form set out by Beauchesne at page 396 and the form of the amendment advanced by the hon. member for Hillsborough.
The form of amendment No. 93 actually opposes the principle of the bill. If hon. members will study this paragraph closely they will see that if this amendment as proposed in form No. 93 were carried the bill would effectively be taken out of the consideration of the house and to all intents and

purposes it would be in my view in opposition to the principle of the bill. On the contrary, the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Hillsborough merely attaches a condition that is not an amendment in opposition to the principle of the bill and is not a reasoned amendment.
Again I realize we are cutting things a bit fine, if I may use this expression, because in practice the result of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Hillsborough would be exactly the same as if this amendment were proposed in the usual words which are contained in the stereotyped form of amendment on second reading to the effect that the subject matter of a bill be referred to a committee. I am just wondering whether in the circumstances hon. members would allow the hon. member for Hillsborough to change his amendment to read according to the usual form. If he does not wish to do this, I would be rather suspicious that there is a substantial difference between the amendment he proposed and the one the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre wants to advance.
In the circumstances, with much regret, I do not think it possible to accept the hon. member's amendment.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, since it is six o'clock I wonder whether the hon. member for Hillsborough could have until eight o'clock to decide whether he wishes to be stereotyped or would prefer to be swinging.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would have risen at this point in any event. Hon. members in all comers of the house have expressed considerable interest in the function to be given by Your Honour at six o'clock this evening. In order to assist the hon. member for Hillsborough in his reflections I wonder whether an order of this house could be made that the house not sit between six and seven o'clock this evening in private members' hour but that the opposition not, of course, lose the hour involved.


Gerald William Baldwin: And the priority.


Mr. Speaker:: If this is agreed, it is so ordered. The house would then allow the hon. member for Hillsborough the opportunity to speak to a point of order at eight o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
October 21, 1968



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis)-Consumer Affairs-report respecting grocery prices on prairies; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Public Service-superannuated federal employees-request for increased pensions.
It being six o'clock, pursuant to the order of the house I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Kierans for the second reading of Bill No. C-116, to amend the Post Office Act.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie).


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, reflecting over the adjournment period I have come to the conclusion, having listened carefully to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and to the suggestion of His Honour that while it might be possible for me to abandon the phraseology of my amendment, in doing so I should not abandon the principle nor my purpose. I would beg Your Honour's leave and that of the house to substitute for the discussed amendment an amendment in the following terms:
That Bill C-116 be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on transport and communications.
I so move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
Post Office Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) wishes to speak.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on the post office bill, along with other hon. members I am greatly concerned about the changes in rates in the bill and also in the reduction of services that it proposes. I come from a riding that is largely rural in nature; therefore the reduction in services is of prime importance and the rate structure is also of great interest, particularly for farm magazines, periodicals and local papers.
In discussing the various forms of communication it would be unfair to attempt to separate post office communication from other forms of communication such as the telephone, telegraph, radio, television, etc. To some extent the post office has competed with other forms of communication, and I think this is more evident with the telephone especially. A great deal of business is still transacted by letter and much communication is still carried forward in this way, but alternatively much of this communication can be carried out by telephone, such as the placing of business orders, and so on. The written word has the advantage of being exact and subject to copy in a permanent record. Although the cost of a business letter is not inconsiderable, it is an acceptable means of business communication and as such is very valuable.
If the five day week promotes the use of alternative means of communication, particularly in the business world, the post office may lose business that it may never recover. I feel that the five day week will cause some reduction in the efficiency of our industrial and economic machine. In this day, when Canadians are facing ever increasing government expenditures, when we as a nation are embarking upon ever expanding social programs for the benefit of our people and we are being exhorted to increase the productivity of our industrial and agricultural apparatus, it seems to me that we should look with extreme care to not diminishing the means by which the nation carries on its business.
In view of the fact that the post office has a virtual monopoly in the distribution of mail,

October 21, 1968
Post Office Act
and because it is very necessary tor this means of communication to be adequate to serve the public, the post office has a duty to see that with its monopoly position in its eagerness to arrive at a balanced budget it does not cause considerable dislocation to the economic health and efficiency of the business of the community it serves, especially the productive portion of our economy. In these days of inflation and the increased wages that are necessary, I am sure that rates must be increased to bring the postal deficit more closely in line; but the curtailment of services is also of great importance, and as I have stated previously, before major changes are made there should be a considerable study of this problem.
For many people in rural areas Saturday is the biggest day of the week and on this day much business is transacted. Indeed, should there be only a five day week in rural communities it would seem that Saturday closing should fit in with the general business of the community and should not be subject to an arbitrary ruling by Ottawa in respect of the number of business days in a week.
With this in mind, I believe that this whole problem should be referred to committee, wherein various interested people and business interests could put forward their representations. Possible rate increases over a period of years could be considered. This would be of special value to small newspapers because they would be able to absorb increased rates and their subscribers would become accustomed to them.
The doubling of the subscription rate of $20 for a subscription to a daily newspaper carried in the mail is very high, especially in the year in which the increased rate is imposed. Whether people living in rural communities should have this very large increase suddenly thrust upon them is a question to which considerable attention should be given. For many magazines, particularly rural magazines, it will amount to an increase of 350 per cent. Should this rate increase come about suddenly, it is possible that many businesses will not function any longer. There is an irreducible minimum below which the post office cannot function. Few business ventures thrive by increasing their charges and decreasing their service at the same time. It might well be that the post office will be pricing itself out of business in certain areas.
Indeed, we may well look at some of the mechanics of the post office. I have here an editorial from a small newspaper in Swan

River, the Swan River Star and Times. The editorial appeared in the issue of July 8, 1968 and states:
We find that a letter mailed in Mafeking, addressed to Birch River (15 miles) passes through its destination, on to Swan River (50 miles) untouched, then on to Dauphin, 110 miles south, to be sorted and returned to Swan River where it is picked up by a second carrier for delivery in Birch River the next day.
This can be said for a letter from Kenville addressed to Swan River (11 miles), which is carried west to Durban, then to Benito, then back to Swan River and on to Dauphin, to be returned for delivery in Swan River the next day. What sort of nonsense is this?
Mail from this area cannot cross the border of Saskatchewan to points en route to Yorkton, Arran, Pelly, Whitebeech and elsewhere. These villages and towns make up part of the vast shopping area centered by Swan River. The mail for these points must again travel from Swan River to Dauphin to be routed to Yorkton for sorting and distribution, travelling some 400 miles to reach its destination, at times less than 25 miles away from the mailing point in Swan River. It is not hard to realize the inconvenience to people in the matter of mailing drugs and other important items of necessity to everyday life.
If present methods of handling local intercommunity mail cannot be improved, we appeal to the Postmaster General to reinstitute the pony express which, we are confident, will meet local need with credit and give the public the service it rightfully deserves at considerable reduction in cost.
Mr. Speaker, the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) has said that the post office is no longer an institution but a function. Many of the rates have not been raised for 17 years, and it seems incongruous to move so quickly to institute new rates which will drastically change the pattern of the mail within a few days. I would strongly urge that this bill be referred to committee, where many interested people who will be very seriously affected by this measure can have their day in court.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I quite frankly did not intend to take part in the debate about the Post Office Department because I felt that enough speeches had been made already. But after listening to those who have held the floor for many hours, I will say simply that the days and the hours follow one another. Since I came to the house-this is my seventh year here-I have learned to do my homework before getting up to speak, especially when we are dealing with a new minister from our province. It is always
October 21, 1968

interesting to watch his first steps in parliament and we hope to find something new always.
This is a new minister but not a new department and after the many hours I spent listening to speeches, and especially to the minister's replies, I realized that the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) is still the spokesman of the faithful-and they just have to be faithful-senior officials led by other senior officials of the Post Office Department because it is absolutely necessary that the minister should be able to fulfil his duties and perpetuate that line of old timers, as the English would say, within that department which is, in my opinion, a particularly fruitful field of patronage, at least in my riding, and throughout the province, I would imagine.
The old game is still being played; nothing has changed. I feel that, in spite of his good will, the minister will not be able to do anything. He was put there and he will have to do the work he is told to do. Sometimes, when I see him looking up at the gallery where senior officials are sitting, while he is reading statements prepared by them, I get the impression that if I were in his shoes I would say: But what are you making me read?
Mr. Speaker, I respect the minister and I feel sorry for him because he has a heavy burden to carry. I do not know if the government put him there to destroy him or to eliminate him but I think that the measures he is asked to take are not of a nature to get him much sympathy in his province.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to tell you on behalf of our party that we are in favour of the amendment just moved. We think that the statements made to date by the minister are dictatorial. He simply asks the house to give him a free hand to do anything he wishes in the Post Office Department. However, Mr. Speaker, I still believe that we can act democratically, that we still live in a period of democratic government, but I do not think that the majority of the members even on the government side, would agree to pass to dictatorship, and that is precisely what the minister has been doing since he told us of his intention to introduce this bill. I think he would be more at ease in a dictatorship, like Russia for instance, to take such decisions. In fact, I will never admit that a minister is given unlimited powers to administer his department.
I say that we are here to protect democracy. We must progress democratically and I
Post Office Act
urge the minister, if he still enjoys some prestige with his senior officials, or if he can free himself from the ties that bind him today, to give us at least one thing, namely, convince the house, through the will of its members, to refer the bill to the committee, as is suggested in the amendment, so that we can hear the voice of the people really concerned and play our part, in attending the meetings of the committee.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I understand that the minister is merely the victim today, because I saw the way he behaved in the past, and surely he does not have the qualities of a socialist dictator. However, the decision he just took and the position he maintains in this house are indicative of the most authentic socialistic attitude of our times. And that is why, this evening, I should like at least to urge him to come back to a more wholesome democracy, in this supposedly just society, for I have never seen a one-way just society or a just socialist society.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder why the minister still turns a deaf ear to all the opposition expressed in the house, as well as outside the house, when he has surely received the same telegrams that we did. He may have spent hours answering the telephone, trying to calm down the people, because this bill does not only concern newspapers, it concerns the whole population.
An attempt is being made, today, to tax the whole population and the people are fed up with taxes. We are interested in protecting our papers, both our dailies and weeklies. In my riding, we only have weeklies but we want them to be able to survive in this so-called democracy. The situation which is now being created for our weeklies, and our large newspapers as well, will no longer allow them to ask high enough rates for them to survive.
We, as well as the people in all the other areas-although I must say ours is fairly remote-are entitled to our papers and we are also entitled to having the government allow them to continue to exist. The government does not help them, and I do not think it has ever subsidized our newspapers as it has perhaps done in the case of the large dailies during election time by giving them rather large sums of money.
However, if we were dealing today with the C.B.C., with the whole system of state

October 21, 1968
Post Office Act
propaganda heavily subsidized by the government, then we could indeed speak of patronage, but the newspapers have never benefited from any patronage on the part of the federal government. What we want to safeguard are industries and advertising media used by private enterprise, because we do not want some day to have a state-controlled press, and that is what is going to happen if the present situation persists. If our privately owned newspapers are continually harassed the way they are now, the day will come-and I am convinced that that is what the socialists in this house are hoping for- when we will have a state-controlled press, completely under the thumb of the government, which will say only what the government allows it to say.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
This is now happening in the C.B.C. and when questions are asked about the C.B.C. the minister all but tells us that it none of our business. If we had such crown corporations, can one imagine how difficult it would be for the people to obtain trustworthy information? It would be difficult to live in such a democracy and it would be almost impossible to have so-called just society.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention at this stage a few telegrams which I have received and which the minister must also have received from our leading newspapers. I have here a telegram from the Soleil stating that 18 owners and directors of Quebec dailies have met with the minister and his officials.
I hope that the minister admits it.


Eric William Kierans: Yes.


Mr. Gauthier:: The telegram adds that several ministers were also approached. I am sure that they went and knocked at his door and it seems that it did not change anything at all. The minister maintained his position. He decided that on his own, secretly in his office and I would say that he was prompted by his officials who are against private enterprise and who probably told him: "Do that, this is what you must do, you should tax the taxpayer again". It is again private enterprise which becomes the fall guy of this whole ill-planned administration and it is always the same tune: "Curses on the jackass!" let us fight against private enterprise.
Mr. Speaker, I have told the minister that we have received many telegrams from the directors of the leading newspapers-I need

not read them for he is motioning to me that he has received them-even from the directors of the Etoile du Lac a weekly paper of my riding, who have also protested against the decision of the department. I think that the weekly papers are even more concerned, because I have heard that as a result of the adoption of such a measure at least 50 publications in the province of Quebec would disappear.
If that is the goal the minister is aiming at he only has to continue-he is well on his way-and, within two or three years, we will have only State newspapers to read. I have in hand a brief presented on October 17, 1968 which the minister had certainly received, as it was directed to him and I quote:
I have the honour, in my capacity of president of the Corporation des Quotidiens du Quebec Inc., to represent here the French and English daily newspapers of Quebec. On their behalf, I wish to thank you for welcoming us-
The minister can see how polite they are. They begin by thanking him after they have received that staggering blow on the head.
We understand your concern for a healthy administration of government services under your jurisdiction and you know that the press is unanimous in encouraging this. Therefore, we do not intend to stand in the way of the reasonable measures which are under consideration to improve, if necessary, the postal services.
A normal increase would be acceptable; but no one wants to see the rates tripled.
We believe, however, that the proposed reforms, or some of them rather, should be studied again in order to avoid real injustices being perpetrated, even in good faith, or irrevocably damageable measures being adopted.
To set the records straight, let us say first of all that the recent consultation of the officials of your department concerning, particularly, the cancellation of Saturday deliveries, did not receive, on our part, the "extremely warm welcome'' to which you alluded, in the house, on October 8th last. The decision of your department rather had the effect of a bomb on the Quebec newspaper publishers, as proved by the letters, invited by your officials, commenting on the decision. Copy of each one of those letters from the circulation department heads of the Quebec newspapers are herewith enclosed. We regret that we cannot confirm your words of October 8th last in this regard.
But the purpose of the meeting we have asked is far more serious. This morning, we will try to analyse briefly the situation that may stem from the passing or the continued application of the measures already announced by your department.
1. Increase in postal rates for second-class mail.
Taking for granted that the figures supplied by your high officials are accurate, i.e. that the mailing rates for printed matter were being increased from $0,025 to $0.05 per pound, and from $0.04 to $0.15 per pound for publicity material, the results would be disastrous here.
October 21, 1968

Some Quebec newspapers deliver over half their papers by mail.
In addition, in the case of some dailies, mailing costs would be tripled or even quadrupled; this would necessarily lead to an unjustifiable and unreasonable increase in subscription rates (which barely cover the cost of paper and mailing in most cases) and, as will readily be understood, a radical falling off in circulation with ensuing loss in advertising income, the cost of which is directly related to the circulation.
The following table shows better than any argument the increase in newspapers mailing rates and their extravagant and excessive character.
Mr. Speaker, here we are given a table of the mailing rates, which the minister also received:
Sherbrooke's Tribune which has 6,978 subscribers and whose subscription rate is $4.60 at present, would be $13.70 at the new rates.
As far as Montreal-Matin is concerned, the cost would jump from $6 to $9.
In the case of Le Soleil, the subscription rate would be increased from $7.30 to $24.75. There would be less difference in price for Montreal-Matin, because the distribution is made in greater Montreal area. But if we consider the position of Le Soleil, which serves its subscribers across the province of Quebec, you have an idea of the variation of rates, since the subscription rate at present is $7.30, and it would climb up to $24.75. I need not give the names of all newspapers, the minister has certainly considered many times the position of all of them before going to sleep.
I continue to read the brief, Mr. Speaker but I shall not take very long:
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
As those figures indicate, the annual cost for the above mentioned newspapers ... would increase from $615,507 to $1,812,552-
The most surprising aspect of the proposed reforms, is the disproportion between the mailing rates of this class of mail in Canada and those in effect in the United States. In fact, in the United States, since January 1968, the rates on advertising portion are as follows:
(Destination within 150 miles)
1968-	$0,046 per pound
1969-	$0,049 per pound
1970-	$0,053 per pound
(Destination within 500 miles)
1968-	$0,057 per pound
1969-	$0,06 per pound
1970-	$0,064 per pound
The mailing rates for the reading portion (no limited area) are the following:
1968-	$0.03 per pound
1969-	$0,032 per pound
1970-	$0,034 per pound
These are called reasonable and normal increases. I wonder, when we copy the
Post Office Act
United States so often, why our high-ranking officials have not, once more, tried to imitate our neighbours, at least in order to keep rates within the limits of reason.
Should the forwarding charges on second class mail be the same for all publications in the category? Should no distinction be made between the role or nature of publications and their usefulness to society? Do we not burden some class of publications with costs out of proportion with those supported by the department in connection with their handling?
The particular situation of the Quebec dailies (proportionally few, with a large circulation) the above-mentioned chart, the comparison with the rates in the United States mentioned above, and the questions raised here, as well as in the various editorials published, and in the house, are quite enough to show the need for a more detailed study of the conditions of the increase which might have become necessary.
We are ready to participate in it and to provide you with any information you may require.
The writer of this editorial is not asking for anything impossible; he is merely making a reasonable and a sensible request.
Before their taxes are increased threefold, they should at least be allowed to put their case before a government committee, to appear before this government, which is supposed to be the government of the people.
As to the discontinuance of mail delivery on Saturdays, I wish to say that in our areas most weekly papers are delivered on Saturday. We will therefore have to read Friday papers on Monday. The news will by then be pretty stale, and I think that subscriptions to our weekly papers would fall off greatly. This problem is mentioned in the brief. That is the main argument put forward by the representatives of the weekly papers, and I think the committee should give consideration to this question if it wants these weekly papers to survive and their subscribers to be able to pay a fair subscription rate instead of three times that price in order to get news that are four day late.
Mr. Speaker, we find the following passage on page 6 of the brief:
In a democratic system, the citizen has a right to be informed.
That is exactly what I have been saying in my remarks.
The role of the press-especially of the written press-is to collect and to circulate information.
However, the measures which your Department is contemplating now, in order to settle an administrative problem, will result in hindering the right of the citizen to be informed and the freedom of the press to circulate that information.
Therefore, we suggest that these reforms be delayed in order to allow a more detailed study

October 21, 1968
Post Office Act
of the problem causing them and of the opportunity and the possible application of corrective, efficient and just measures.
We express again our desire to participate in this study-
Mr. Speaker, if the Minister dutifully reads all those reports, as well as all the reports and letters we get, I don't think he can do anything else but accept that this proposal be referred to a committee. For the sake of democracy and of simple social justice, we ask of him this evening to allow those affected to be heard by a committee, even if his decision is irretrievable, even if there is nothing he can do about it, as we know that high officials-tools of Canadian high finance-carry more weight than a mere minister. Even if he has to get off the beaten paths followed by his predecessors, let him try for once, here in this house. Let him take his own decision, a human and democratic decision, by allowing this bill to be referred to a committee for study.
We know that the minister belongs to a majority government and that it is almost impossible for him to be a true democrat. However, if he bows to the opposition's wishes, there would have been at least a few hours of democracy in this house, and the people would be grateful to him for that, since they already detect the monumental blunder.
I sympathize with the big dailies who fought for such a government. As for those big daily newspapers who battled to the end in the last election, I would be inclined to apply to them La Fontaine's fable "The Ant and the Grasshopper" and to ask them: "What did you do when the election days were come? You sang? Well, now you go and have a dance."


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, the main purpose of this bill is to provide for the increase in postal rates in this country, and I can honestly say that in some respects I do not entirely disagree with that. I said in some respects, Mr. Speaker, because in the situation we are facing today we are going to get more and pay less.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Elgin McKinley: I mean, pay more and get less.


Mr. Asselin:: The minister is smiling.


Eric William Kierans: He was right the first time.


Robert Elgin McKinley: The cost of our service is going to increase and the extent of the service will diminish. I think that we in this house must make a very careful examination of the course and conduct of the department and the minister in this respect. The minister has come to his department fresh and full of vigour, and for that I think we should commend him. I want to congratulate him and welcome him to this house.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
Undoubtedly, as a result of his former association with the government of Quebec, with which he served as minister of revenue, he has become concerned with revenue matters. As a result he wishes to increase the revenues of his department and make it pay. In this regard may I suggest as a starter that he revert to ordinary black and white notepaper when sending out replies from his office, instead of using the expensive gold embossed paper currently being used. I also suggest that his previous association with the Montreal stock exchange may have left him with the impression that the suspension of Saturday mail deliveries would not occasion any hardship. I am happy that he has announced a change of policy in this regard.
In this connection may I read a letter I received, just to show the minister that he is heading in the right direction. It says in part:
We have had rural mail delivery for over fifty years. It has become a basic right. The Saturday newspaper is by far the most valuable newspaper of the week. We contract for its delivery by the year in advance and we resent the intrusion of the government into this contract. This is a retrograde step on the part of Mr. Kierans and will be resented by all who have been paying for rural mail delivery over these many years. After rural mail delivery had been established fifty some years ago it was found and publicly stated in the newspaper that the increased stamp sales more than paid for rural mail delivery. Mr. Kierans action is a betrayal of trust. He is being paid for Saturday delivery on routes but is refusing to make delivery.
Perhaps the suspension of Saturday mail delivery would not have caused hardship to members of the Montreal stock exchange, but it would have caused hardship to my constituents. We, in the rural areas, are a little tired of being made the goat every time this government decides to cut back on anything. A recent example of this was the measure to make the farmer pay a higher interest rate for farm credit. It was the government, not the farmer, which caused interest rates to go up to a high level in the first place. The spending policies of this government brought
October 21, 1968

about that increase in rates. It should have been doing away back, when there were high employment levels as the result of Conservative government policies, what it is seeking to do now.
The minister has also received a number of recommendations, such as the Montpetit report. Some of these ought to be implemented in order to make the department more efficient, so that we may have happier people in the public service. We should look into these reports before reducing services. As I said before, we now have less service for which we are paying more.
I now wish to read these few sentences from "Sound Off" by Gordon Sanderson:
What's happening to the mail service in this country?
Every week Sound Off investigates problems that have arisen between customers and firms which are traceable to the same cause: "We didn't get the letter."
This can be a pat excuse for internal inefficiency in some firms. Incorrectly addressed mail may also be responsible. The post office is unjustly blamed for much that is not its doing.
Yet how does the post office explain cases of registered mail going astray or correctly addressed letter and pension cheques being delivered to the wrong house?
It would be unfair to make a blanket condemnation of letter carriers or the whole system, but complaints about lost or undelivered mail-once a rarity-are becoming numerous enough to shake public confidence and trust in this most essential government service.
Before raising rates and allowing old inefficiencies to continue the government ought to examine the workings of the department. The government's attitudes towards raising rates is wrong, and I want to explain why I think it is wrong. First, the post office of Canada is a government monopoly. It is a government service and there is no competition. Businessmen, industrialists, farmers, and householders must accept what the government offers, or go without. That in itself may breed inefficiencies. The department is a monopoly that is supported by the people. I therefore think that the government is under an obligation to provide the people with the highest possible level of service.
The government refused to pay the rural mail carriers for being on stand-by during the last postal strike. I am glad to learn that the minister has changed his mind in some aspects of the matter. I ask, why should the letter carriers not be paid? This is the government that is to spend $50 million on an arts centre
Post Office Act
in Ottawa. Few from my constituency will attend any performances at the arts centre, but nearly all of them will feel the pinch from the increased postal rates. The minister's attitude toward the rural mail carriers was that he would not pay them for six days work when they worked only five days. I think he has changed his mind. Has anyone noticed the ministerial attendance roster? The ministers work in the house on three days a week, yet they all expect to be paid for a full week.


Mr. Perrault:: That is a ridiculous statement to make.


Robert Elgin McKinley: The roster is right in front of us.
The minister has changed his attitude, and I am glad. The rural mail carriers in my riding are not organized into a union, but they have a contract with the government which they expect the government to honour. It has been said that rural mail routes are to be amalgamated. It seems to me this would not save a great deal of money and that it would have the effect of putting some mail carriers out of work. In addition, some of the mail would take longer to deliver.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
I am glad to know that the Postmaster General has himself lived in a rural area. I ask him to put himself in the position of some of these people who will be deprived of certain services and who will have to pay higher rates. I should like to think that he will take note of what has been said during the debate and consider having this bill sent to a committee, as hon. members have proposed. I well remember the transport bill which was considered in committee with extreme thoroughness, and was reported back with some 70 amendments. I maintain we should have a chance to listen to those whose interests will be seriously affected by this measure, and give it a thorough examination in order to make sure that it will do what is intended without causing extreme hardship to anyone.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Mr. Speaker, when I listened to the minister's very adequate address this afternoon I could not but think that neither sleet nor storm nor dark of night would stop the mail from going through. I also got the impression that, regardless of sleet or storm or dark of night, it would go through at much higher cost to those who were paying the shot.

October 21, 1968
Post Office Act
I am not critical of the Postmaster General for trying to create confidence in his department but I do suggest that members of the government should use tact and wisdom when applying their powers, when those powers affect the lives of individuals and the enterprises in which they are engaged. I should like to refer in particular to one sector of the economy which is affected by these proposed increases in postal rates, the weekly newspapers. I have been told by the president of a weekly newspaper association in Canada that he knew nothing at all about details of this bill until he got a copy of it from myself.
Did the government not consider that these associations were important enough to be informed in advance of what was happening, or was it an attempt to outmanoeuvre those who would be expected to object to an increase in rates? It is obvious that the Postmaster General did not consult with the newspaper associations. I should like to point out that many of the newspapers in Canada are in financial difficulties. Recently we saw the Family Herald fold up; the Western Producer has been in financial trouble for a long time. Competition for advertising is hard, and these papers are not in a good position to compete for advertising with television and the larger dailies.
Specifically I object to the arbitrary decision by the department to class as dailies newspapers put out in towns or cities whose population exceeds 10,000. There are at least 79 such papers in Canada

almost as many weeklies as there are daily papers, so this is an important section of our newspaper production. The suggestion has been made to me that a 400 per cent increase in rates is being imposed in connection with these papers. In the case of one paper alone it means an increase of about $1,800 in postal rates.
These people should have the opportunity to express their views and explain how the provisions of the bill would affect them. I am not a newspaperman; I am a farmer. Some members of this house may have worked on newspapers, but I do not think there are many here have had the experience of running a newspaper. I wonder whether we are qualified to judge whether the minister's proposals are desirable on the basis of the facts we have before us. That is why I think it is only fair we should refer this bill to a committee where those affected could make representations or where, for that matter, anyone who objected to these increases could explain his case. As I say, I do not feel competent to assess this situation and I have

the feeling that many other hon. members are not competent to do so, either. I find myself wondering whether the department has considered all the angles in this field. In these circumstances the first thing to do would be to refer this subject to a committee, hear representations, and go on from there.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Like my hon. friend from Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) I spent the week end looking at the so-called white paper or the financial statement detailing the proposed rate adjustments, along with other documentation put out by the minister in support of Bill C-116. While we can understand the tables and so forth which have been put forward, none of it is backed up by evidence to show that the tables are right.
I put it to the minister. He is the one who is asking for the change, and the burden of proof is upon him. I maintain that having regard to the paucity of information given us in connection with many of the changes which are proposed, this bill must go to committee, as my hon. friend suggests, in order that we may get at the root of these financial difficulties and ascertain why money is being lost at certain levels.
We ought not to rely merely on the fact that the minister says so. The word of the minister is not necessarily the truth of the matter. After all, my hon. friend did show that somebody's computer, or the hand that was guiding it, was way out of line as between six months ago and the present time. All sorts of figures have been put forward as to what might be the results of the operations of the Post Office Department.
No doubt the minister does face a certain problem in connection with the operation, but I am wondering whether he has chosen the correct remedies. On the one hand they propose to reduce services and on the other to increase the cost to the public. Frankly I think that is the bankrupt way of running a business. What should be done is sell the services, increase the volume and make the operation more efficient.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
With respect to efficiency, I quite appreciate that some of the government members here feel that the gospel has suddenly descended from the minister, and that what the minister proposes is the absolute truth. It is said that every effort has been made to improve the efficiency of the department. I happen to know postal employees and I can
October 21, 1968



tell the minister right now that the relationship between the upper level and the lower level of employees just stinks. Employees are dissatisfied with some of the practices that have been prevalent in the department. Some efforts have been made to improve them, but how on earth can you have an efficient operation where the bottom, or main base of the operation, is not pulling along with the top?
We also want to know whether the minister is satisfied that the increased wages paid to postal clerks, delivery men and other employees will be matched by an increase in productivity. If it is not, then all we are doing is stoking the furnace of inflation. The settlements, the strike, and all that took place last summer will go for naught. As an aside, Mr. Speaker, may I say I think the strike was unnecessary. Aside from certain legitimate grievances I think it could be blamed on dilatoriness on the part of the government in dealing with grievances, and also on lust for power on the part of certain union officials. We can do without both. The government must pick up its socks in dealing with its employees, but this must be matched by a certain degree of responsibility on the part of those who lead the employees.
We are told that we will get a five day postal service for parts of Canada. In a matter of public service I do not see one iota of justification for a distinction to be made between rural and urban residents. In saying that I acknowledge that the rural residents are fully entitled to what they are going to get, but urban residents are entitled to the same degree of service. They have the same claim with regard to mail. They have the same status with regard to legal consequences.
As a classic example I cite a rule of the Immigration Appeal Board which states that the period for appeal shall expire within 15 days, I believe, following the making of an order, not 15 days after receipt of the order by the person concerned. To a person living out in northern Alberta, British Columbia, or some other distant urban point from Ottawa, this means that when a decision of the Immigration Appeal Board is sent to him it will remain in the city post office from Friday until Monday before delivery to him, and three days of the 15 day period will be lost to that person.
First of all, I think that Immigration Appeal Board regulation is wrong. It is a made-in-Ottawa ruling that should have no application across the country. But under the new postal regulations its effect on persons
Post Office Act
living in urban areas at a distance from Ottawa will be worse than on those living in rural areas. The minister and his officials may blithely ignore the effect, but I point out that their proposed step does affect the legal rights of citizens.
There are many other instances where legal matters are not dependant upon the receipt of a letter, but upon the time of its dispatch. In a case such as this the postal authorities may well say, "It is tough luck that you happen to live in a city or urban area." I ask the minister and his officials what relief they will provide in such a case. The minister is quite prepared to provide relief against the hardship of rural residents not receiving their Friday newspapers, but that is a small thing compared to the legal rights of someone who may be adversely affected by the decision to suspend Saturday mail deliveries.
Admittedly there would be no grave danger if other existing legislation were changed to take account of this change in postal deliveries. But the other legislation is not being changed, and no one has told us that it will be changed. I would like the officials of the department to give a detailed answer on this matter, so that we may see whether they have thought it our or not.
I wish to make two more points, Mr. Speaker, with respect to city businessmen. I have here a copy of a letter written to the minister by a national merchandising and warehousing firm which does freight distribution for the Canadian National Railways in many communities both in the west and east. This is what the president of that company wrote with regard to curtailment of the Saturday mail service:
Frankly, it will work a real hardship on us if we are unable to do so-
Meaning to pick up their mail on Saturdays.
and in addition, a hardship on the shipping public as it will not be possible for us to deliver merchandise arriving in cars on Friday night, Saturday night and Sunday night in our various locations-
And these are listed in Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Ontario.
The billings that we receive from the east represent a good portion of our mail for Saturday. The envelopes might almost be described as small parcels and it is imperative that we have these for preparation on Saturday in order that we can be ready to open cars on Monday morning and make delivery. Some of the merchandise is perishable, arriving in refrigerated and heated cars. If they are not unloaded it is necessary to maintain

October 21, 1968
Post Office Act
refrigeration or heat, all of which would add considerably to the cost and increase the cost of the merchandise to the public.
At the present time firms such as this pick up their mail at the post office either from a very large lock box, or as in the case of this particular firm, through a sack arrangement whereby they can pick it up at the counter.


Eric William Kierans: The service will still be available.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the minister received an injunction from my colleague this afternoon and I do not think I need repeat it. If the minister has paid attention to this point, then it is all to the good; but if that service were curtailed or completely eliminated there would be considerable cost and inconvenience. I think it can be said from his gestures that the minister has perhaps modified his stand in this regard. I shall wait for his further answer.
I now wish to deal with the question of the religious press. We are told that under the provisions of this bill a weekly newspaper published in a town of less than 10,000 people will have the first 2,500 copies of its publication handled free of charge if delivered within a radius of 40 miles. Most of the religious publications do not fall in this category. They are not the profit makers. They do not get government advertising in any volume. They do not get lush supermarket advertising. Most of them exist on a hand-to-mouth basis. Yet in the case of one of these publications in western Canada it will have an additional postal charge of $7,000, just about enough to cause it to close its doors unless there is a substantial increase in its subscription rate.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
In this regard we run into some other complications. Canadian magazines as a whole will be penalized vis-a-vis United States and foreign publications. For one thing, in order to meet the increased postal costs Canadian magazines will have to increase their subscription rates. United States magazines will not have to do this because there is nothing in the bill which says there will be any greater charge imposed on United States magazines. The postage on United States magazines is paid in the United States, and therefore the Canadian government does not benefit from this. So therefore it is completely irrelevant. What we are concerned with are Canadian magazines and Canadian newspapers. I shall not talk about those pseudo-Canadian magazines, Reader's Digest and Time magazine.

Just another bonus is being given to them as against truly Canadian publications.
The government of Canada has always held to the principle of subsidizing in some way the press in general because of its importance to the Canadian national life. The minister now says we will get rid of that principle, that the principle no longer applies. Surely to goodness it ought to be enough, that Canadian publications are already under the heaviest possible economic competition from the United States. They do not have the built-in advantage of Time and Reader's Digest, which were legitimatized in some fashion by the action of the administration of which the minister is a member.
Secondly I think-and some people have mentioned this today-that since the Canadian public is being asked to subsidize another communication media for the dissemination of ideas, to wit the C.B.C., we should be able to subsidize in some way Canadian newspapers and periodicals which also disseminate Canadian ideas. With regard to the church press, I believe perhaps it would be a desirable objective to assist the dissemination of views which are a counterpoint to some of the irreligious drivel one sees from time to time on the C.B.C. If we are prepared to subsidize some of the programming on the C.B.C., surely there is a real case for subsidizing the counterargument in the church press. The minister has received a very extensive brief from the representatives of the church press. I think this was worth while reading, but I need not repeat it at this time.
I am not sure that this bill meets the problems of the Post Office Department. It is stated that the department will have a deficit, but no factual proof has been put forward, outside of some tables. Nothing has been said about why it costs so much to handle one piece of first class mail, newspaper, or whatever it might be. Nothing has been said, other than the mere statement that it costs a certain amount. Nothing has been said about improving the efficiency of the department. Nothing has been said about meeting the wage increases and so forth with increased productivity. Many questions have been raised by this bill which remain unanswered.
It is for this reason that I entirely support the contention put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Hillsborough, that this bill must go to a committee for a detailed answer and for the minister to prove his case. It is not up to this house to prove that the minister is wrong.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
October 21, 1968


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, the amendment before us requires that this bill be referred to the standing committee on transport and communications. Why such a request, when the hon. members have all the necessary information to reach at once a just and reasonable decision?
Mr. Speaker, never have the hon. members received for the consideration of a bill, as much material, briefs and working papers as were submitted to us by the hon. minister. In fact, his 21 page document contains all the statistics and every information available to the department. I wonder what else we could learn in committee.
The hon. minister received representations from scores of associations of dailies, weeklies and magazines. Members of the opposition have stated that they have a copy of these requests before them. Mr. Speaker, what else will the representatives of these associations state before a parliamentary committee?
Furthermore, we have also read the editorials and my honourable friends opposite have quoted several this afternoon. All hon. members have also before them a copy of the hundreds of telegrams which were delivered during the weekend.
As was said this afternoon by the hon. minister, newspapers are not taken by sur-pise, and I quote what he said:
As for the allegation that the increase is sudden, this I cannot accept. This issue was raised in the house in 1964 and again during consideration of legislation last year.
The publishing industry, I submit, has been well aware for some time that changes were coming and were overdue.
Mr. Speaker, the opposition parties ask that the bill be referred to a standing committee for the sole purpose of making a little publicity for themselves. Therefore, let us pass the bill at once and later on, let us suggest to the opposition that it should ask the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to present a bill to subsidize newspapers. Then the N.D.P. members especially will be able to appear before the committee and bring their witnesses in order to justify that this house can pay a $982,000 subsidy to the Reader's Digest and a $864,000 subsidy to Time.
Mr. Speaker, what will be the response of the taxpayers to such a legislation? Is it not what the opposition wants to do indirectly today?
We have already spent five hours on that resolution and for the last four hours-
Post Office Act


Martial Asselin: If the
hon. member will allow me a question-


Alexandre Cyr: I will conclude, Mr. Speaker.
We have spent five hours studying that resolution and now we are beginning the fourth hour before giving that bill second reading. Canadians want this house to study the bills quickly and post office patrons, especially all Canadians, approve the increase provided in the bill for first class mail.


Some hon. Members:: Ah, ah.


Alexandre Cyr: Certainly. I would say to the hon. member opposite that last Friday night on a radio program in Montreal I spent two hours answering questions from Montrealers and that all those who called were in favour of the bill introduced by the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans).


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I am so astounded to hear the words just spoken by the member for Gaspe that I want to clear up the matter in the house. How is it that last week, he was the spokesman of the Liberal members in their opposition to the minister's bill? Why this sudden change of mind?


Alexandre Cyr: Mr. Speaker, I aim grateful to the member for Charlevoix for having raised this matter. We are in a democratic country, the party of which I am a member is a democratic party and all members have the right to express their ideas.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Martial Asselin: That sounds like a road roller.


Alexandre Cyr: It is true that I have been appointed chairman of an ad hoc committee, as the minister reported in the house two weeks ago, but that was to consider the statement he had made concerning the abolition of mail distribution on Saturdays. Today, I congratulate the minister for his statement concerning the mail delivery service in rural areas.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Alexandre Cyr: Mr. Speaker, the bill under consideration has nothing to do with the mail delivery on Saturday. I feel that if we refer this bill to the standing committee of the house, that will be merely filibustering on the part of the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

October 21, 1968
Post Office Act


Alexandre Cyr: Let us vote immediately on this amendment, in order that we may achieve something and do what our people have sent us here to do, namely work for the welfare of them all, and I think that the filibustering going on at present will do no good to the country.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say at the outset that I intend to be brief.
My colleague the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) criticized constructively and in detail this afternoon the measure concerning and the operation of the Post Office Department. However, Mr. Speaker, I cannot but take advantage of this opportunity tonight to present the views of my constituents concerning Bill C-116.
Mr. Speaker, the measure now before us may greatly and unfavourably affect the taxpayers of my riding as well as others, and I shall pay no heed to the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Cyr) who has just urged us to support this bill. In my opinion we are here to serve the best interests of our constituents and, by expressing their views and voicing their objections to the measures presented by the minister, we are only doing our duty.
Like many others, we could very well do without the advice of the honourable member for Gaspe, because he changes his mind a little too often. While last week, he was campaigning against his own minister, today he kowtows to him and acts as the spokesman of the very person he was fighting against last week. Mr. Speaker, advice coming from such a frivolous person should be dismissed with the same speed as the one he would like us to use to pass this measure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Alexandre Cyr: Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring to your attention the fact that during our discussions last week there never was any question about the bill.. .


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member resume his seat, please. There can be only one point of order at a time, and I am trying patiently to listen to the point of order, or the alleged point of order, of the hon. member for Gaspe.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, what is the merit of his point of order?


Alexandre Cyr: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out to you that during our discussions in the previous weeks, consideration of Bill C-116 never came up before the minister's statement-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is no point of order.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: There is no point of order in that.
[Translation1


Martial Asselin: The hon. member who just had the floor did not even tell Mr. Speaker that he was raising a point of order, and he rises on a question of privilege. Therefore, let him resume his seat since he has no reason to raise a point of order. Besides, he is delaying the debate and the passage of the bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Ricard).


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I agree with you that the member for Gaspe had no cause to rise on a point of order and, as my colleague for Charlevoix just said, the member for Gaspe is only holding up the passing of the bill, which he would have us rush through.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, in introducing his measure, the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) referred four or five times to the just society he would like to see in Canada. It would seem that it is in the name of that just society that the Postmaster General wants to increase the postal tariff, to reduce postal services and do away with 1,500 jobs which Canadians now hold. If that is the idea the hon. minister has of a just society, I think he should reconsider what a just society is and reconsider his plans for the future.
As a former provincial minister and in view of the aspirations the minister had last April, it is quite proper that he should try to impress the house and the whole country. It is quite understandable that the minister
October 21, 1968

should have chosen as his aim the reorganization of the Post Office Department.
He must be congratulated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I see that the surplus of Liberal members sitting on this side of the house have been well trained, because every time the word "congratulate" is mentioned, they immediately becomes noisy. They do it by nature.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You see, Mr. Speaker.
The minister must surely be congratulated for trying to save up tidy sums for the Canadian people. However, he should also take that opportunity to practise what he preaches and encourage his other colleagues of the cabinet to do likewise, because we now have a cabinet which has already gone down in history for allowing exorbitant and rising expenses.
If we compare, Mr. Speaker, the statements made this afternoon by the Postmaster General with those made by his predecessor during the first months of the year, we are justified in pondering over the matter.
Contrary to his predecessor who said that first class mail did cover its cost and even brought profits to the government, the minister claims that first class mail bring no profits. Mr. Speaker, it will certainly be agreed that we are right to demand more information, more light on that question, and it is strange indeed that the minister does not comply with the request to defer the proposed measure to a committee so that those who are the most interested get the opportunity to air their views. We would benefit, I am sure, of the mass of information brought to light by businessmen, newspaper editors, newsmen, in a word, all the people who will have to foot the bill of the increase of rates the hon. minister is proposing.
The proposals made by the minister are so unpopular among the people that, as soon as they were announced, they were met with a general outcry. I have here an article from the Granby newspaper, La Voix de I'Est, which reports the conclusions drawn by Les Quotidiens du Quebec Inc., at a meeting held recently. Here is the heading.
"Mr. Kierans must respect the right of the rural population to be informed".
Mr. Speaker, responsible people such as newspapermen and newspaper owners do not make such statements lightly and they claim
Post Office Act
that with those proposals Mr. Kierans would like to deny the rural population the right to be informed.
There is in that measure something which must necessarily stir up the population and which gives us the opportunity to make representations on behalf of the rural people and, at the same time, say that the people who live in urban areas are entitled also to be informed.
Mr. Speaker, the people who would have been willing to accept a certain increase, if it had been reasonable. But the increases proposed by the hon. minister are simply extravagant. When we refer for instance to 100 per cent, 375 per cent, and 150 per cent increases, there is a reason not only to be concerned but also to object. Besides, it is our right and our privilege in this house, and we are using it at this time, because we want the honourable minister to realize that he is about to do a disservice to the people.
With its majority and the docility of its members-we have not heard a single Liberal member who dared protest-the government is going to use the steam-roller in order to steam up all its supporters and compel them to vote for the proposal which is before them. It is not the first time that we see such a complete reversal of opinion among government members, and we will surely see it again before long.
With regard to the brief recently presented to the Postmaster General, for a minister who wants to make every effort to establish a just society, it is surprising to see that he makes no bones about increases.
I have here a table of the increases proposed by the minister, and I would like to quote a few:
For instance, the Sherbrooke Tribune which is now paying $32,099 a year for the forwarding of its mail will have to pay $59,599 a year for the same service. I say for the same service provided that it is maintained as it is now. If the minister's suggestion is carried out, some readers will not be able to read, as they used to, their daily paper on Saturday, since there will be no distribution in urban districts on that day.
With regard to La Voix de I'Est de Granby, they now pay $12,970 to get their paper delivered; with the rates proposed by the one who would establish a just society, they would have to pay $35,647. Who, in the final analysis, will have to pay the cost of those increases?
Post Office Act

October 21. 1968
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
The minister would have us believe that the newspapers and the publishers will, but logic has taught us tor a long time that when taxes go up the consumers always end up paying the piper.
Mr. Speaker, God knows that the cost of living has increased in such leaps and bounds under the present administration that we should not allow that same administration, under the cover of a just society, to act in such a way that taxes are increased once again, for lack of foresight or lack of ties between the members of the cabinet and the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that this legislation should be referred to the committee so that all interested parties can express their points of view on the matter. I am convinced that allowing this bill to be studied in committee would serve the Canadian people well.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have just listened attentively, along with everybody else, to the remarks made first by the member for Gaspe (Mr. Cyr) and, right after, by the member for Sainte-Hyaeinthe (Mr. Ricard).
The hon. member for Gaspe told us that he had taken part for two hours in a radio broadcast in Montreal and that everybody told him that they were satisfied with the increase in postal rates and taxes. I think the hon. member would find it difficult to tell us who exactly supported this measure, when we are receiving telegrams of protest against Bill No. C-116 from all parts of the province and the country, and when we read in a newspaper that a committee of 35 Liberal members is opposing Bill No. C-116.


An hon. Member:: That is not true.


David Réal Caouette: I think one hon. member has just said that is not true. However, there are others in the lobby who tell us that it is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, among the Liberal members who object to a rate increase, not one was courageous enough to rise. Most of the Liberals from Quebec, for example, were elected on the free publicity given to them by the Liberal newspapers of the province. And today, at a time when they should protect the interests of those who helped them to be elected to parliament, they are glued to their seats with Lepage glue. Not

one dares to rise and defend those who made them win their election.
Let us take as an exemple the case of the member for Langelier (Mr. Marchand) who benefited from ample publicity in Le Soleil of Quebec City. Now, we receive loads of telegrams to protest against this measure from none other than Gabriel Gilbert, chief editor of the newspaper Le Soleil. He is sending us rather long telegrams, Mr. Speaker, two pages long. Mr. Gilbert did not send me such long telegrams during the election campaign in order to help me to be elected in my riding.
Now that the hour has come to defend the interests of private enterprise, Mr. Gilbert knows where we are. He knows we are now in the House of Commons and I would like to point out that I share his views, even though he does not share mine in the field of politics. He agrees with the Postmaster General's views. He now complains that the Post Office Department is going to be the death of him.
There are others in the region of Quebec; the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Duquet), for example, who is now in the house and has been well treated by the Quebec newspaper Le Soleil when he was given half page publicity on a free basis. What is the hon. member for Quebec East waiting for? Let him rise and take the defence of his sponsors in Quebec city the newspaper Le Soleil. What is he waiting for?


An hon. Member:: He is stuck to his seat.


David Réal Caouette: He is stuck to his seat. This will appear in Hansard to-morrow morning. Mr. Gilbert, of Quebec City, will read that the hon. member was stuck to his seat in front of me this evening.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Laflamme), is doing likewise. He is stuck to his seat, he does not move, he does not undertake the defence of those who helped him to get elected.
In the Hull area, it is the same. The hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) does not rise to his feet to defend Le Droit which entirely supported him when he was elected.


An hon. Member:: He is ill!


David Réal Caouette: He is ill, yes, as all the Liberals should be under the circumstances.
Mr. Speaker, in another constituency, that of Levis-in the Quebec area-there is the problem of the shipyards. The hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay) is here, but he seems to
October 21, 1968



be away since he never moves when he should rise to defend his supporters of the Quebec area. He stays seated. The member for Levis knows that he cannot even speak up to defend the newspaper Le Soleil of Quebec City, because the government forbids him. The government stays still and the Liberals remain seated. My friend of the Montreal area is also keeping rather quiet.
Mr. Speaker, the member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) who was looking after the interests of his people in the Mauricie district and who the other day was accusing me of not being present in the house, realizes now that I am more present in the house than he is, since he does not have the courage to stand up and fight for Le Nouvelliste of Trois-Rivieres.


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
The hon. member seems to suggest that I follow dictates contrary to those of my conscience. My attitude proves at least that I am not in the pay of the large circulation newspapers of this province.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the question of privilege the hon. member has raised shows that he has no political conscience, we know that by experience.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member just said I had no political conscience. I think he is a very poor judge in that matter.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres is aware of that. Besides, the electors in his constituency also know about it. Whenever it suits him, he supports the Union Nationale; whenever it suits him, he is independent, whenever he can get creditistes votes, he is in favour of Social Credit, and, after all, he is a Liberal-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I should like to ask the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) to stick to the question under consideration.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, such is my intention; nevertheless I was speaking on the question of privilege raised by the member for Trois-Rivieres.
Post Office Act
Now I am coming to the question before us.
I think that whenever the member for Trois-Rivieres raises in the future a question of privilege that is accepted by Your Honour, I will at least be able to reply to the hon. member; I shall be happy to do so, because I know him so well. So that is why I allow myself to reply to his questions of privilege.
Mr. Speaker, I shall say no more on the question of privilege, since the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) is presently as white as a sheet. He finds it hard to swallow what I have just said, because his colleagues in the Liberal party are applauding my charges against him.
Mr. Speaker, I shall now resume my remarks on Bill No. C-116. We have received plenty of telegrams from various newspapers in the province.
I while ago, I mentioned Mr. Gabriel Gilbert, publisher and general manager of Le Soleil. We have also received a telegram from Mr. Eric Perras-not Mr. Eric Kierans, but Mr. Eric Perras-president of the newspaper Le Nouvelliste in Trois-Rivieres, who was opposing Bill No. C-116. We have got a telegram from L'Action, of Quebec City, signed by Mr. Fernand Blais, its director of public relations. Another one was sent by Les Quotidiens du Quebec, Inc., under the signature of Mr. Andre Bureau. We have received a telegram from the Quebec Chronicle Telegraph, signed by Mr. J. H. Moonigan, and a second one from Mr. Gabriel Gilbert, who was objecting to that same bill.
Mr. Speaker, we are against that bill. Why? Because we want first of all to protect the democratic rights. We want the public to be informed more completely and we do not want the voice of the information media to be stifled or their power diminished. That does not mean that we accept without reservations what is printed in the newspapers and all the news they publish. We have had cause to complain quite often about the way the newspapers treated us by forgetting our existence. Today we are less easily forgotten; we are reminded of that because we are considering this bill.
The Conservatives, whose stand was explained earlier by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Ricard), criticize the government for wanting to increase the rates. They also criticized the government at the time of the postal strike. The Conservatives

October 21, 1968
Post Office Act
spent whole days putting questions to the Postmaster General-who was not the present minister-about the settlement of the strike while the postal workers were asking for rather high salary increases. The Conservatives were saying: Settle the strike, grant salary increases. The Conservatives knew then that salary increases would lead us inevitably to Bill No. C-116 now under consideration.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
The member for Temiscamingue should tell us when and what members of the Conservative party urged the government to grant increases to postal workers. That is not what we said. We told the government that it had to intervene and settle the postal strike as soon as possible, for the good of the people. Nothing was said about salaries. We said that the government had to develop a salary policy.
When the member for Temiscamingue tells us that all Conservatives-


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Charlevoix is in fine fettle tonight. That is exactly what I said a while ago. The Conservatives badgered the government with questions, to settle the strike as quickly as possible when the only way to bring it to an end was to agree with the salary increases. This the member for Charlevoix is well aware of. Only, I would like to know why, when the Conservatives were in power, they did not then solve the postal problem? What about the way Canadian postal employees were treated?
The Conservatives were in power from 1957 to 1962, that is five years, and we had strikes at that time. There was unrest amongst postal employees throughout Canada'-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No strikes.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, no strikes. There was a strike as soon as the Conservatives came to the end of their mandate, and there was unrest amongst them at that time. What did the Conservatives suggest to the government to solve the last conflict? Absolutely nothing. But today they are willing to say: We are against increases.
It is obvious that salary increases granted at that time are part of the present costs of

the Post Office Department. We know that, and the minister is right on this point. However, that does not mean, for example, that the Canadian people are able to pay more in taxes than they do now, and that is why we are always saying that we should balance the budget not according to the taxes we collect, but according to the various commodities we are able to produce in Canada, according to the number of services we can provide, and by means of new credit. The Postmaster General is not considering that possibility. Indeed, he told us this afternoon: The only means at our disposal to increase our revenue is to ask the taxpayers for more money. That is the only way we can operate and raise the salaries of Post Office employees.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot accept such a reply from a responsible minister of a federal government which claims to be sovereign. A sovereign government does not grovel before those who control the economic blood of a nation. If you are sovereign, you manage to control your own economic blood, and this is what the Creditistes ask for. We are not surprised at the protests that came from Canadian and Quebec newspapers. We are not surprised to see the Liberals rooted to the spot. We are not surprised to-


Alexandre Cyr: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


David Réal Caouette: Certainly.


Alexandre Cyr: Does he also take the defence of the owner of the Vers Demain newspaper?


David Réal Caouette: The hon. member's question shows beyond doubt, Mr. Speaker, how much intelligence is to be found between his two ears. Never mind. If he were a reader of Vers Demain, he would have shown perhaps more shrewdness in his questioning.
Mr. Speaker, I see that the newspaper Vers Demain is not even published in my constituency. In fact, it was in a nice Liberal constituency that the Blessed Virgin was recently supposed to appear, that is in Saint-Bruno. She probably did not appear, because the constituency was too Liberal.


Some hon. Members:: Ha, ha.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, in the Montreal area, there is not a single member who is not
October 21, 1968	COMMONS
Liberal. I think there are 25 or 26 constituencies, but they are all Liberal. Someone is telling me about satiation. Yes indeed, we are satiated. I beg your pardon, he says they are seated, which is not the same thing. It is true that they are seated. The authorities of La Presse from Montreal are also complaining about the new legislation and the minister comes from that area. The minister has taken advantage of the free publicity and now in acknowledgment, the newspapers are subjected to a tax levy which will increase the cost of newspapers for consumers or Canadian readers. Newspapers cannot live on their subscriptions, they live on their advertisements. The price of advertisements will have to be increased. Even though the cost of advertisements can be deducted from the income tax, they still are part of the price and they will result in an increase of prices to consumers. Finally, it is not the newspapers which will pay, it is not the rich who will pay but the common people, those who subscribe, those who pay for ads in the paper, those who buy in the stores which advertise; they will all pay the increase and in the present system, Mr. Speaker, I know it cannot be helped. I also know that nothing is done to beat the system. There are palavers on either side of the house. We know that the bill will be adopted and this allows us at least to vent our feelings. Some have such and such an opinion. Conservatives, who are on your left, Mr. Speaker, would have quite another opinion if they were on your right. And they say they are sincere.
Mr. Speaker, may I say that it is ten o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on October 16 I tried, rather clumsily I admit, to question the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs about the recent decision of the Director of
DEBATES	1639
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Investigation and Research under the Combines Investigation Act that the Batten report "contains no convincing evidence that grocery prices on the prairies are excessive". For this reason, said the director, no prosecution is warranted.
Having again gone over the evidence contained in the Batten report, I am at a loss to understand the director's decision, Mr. Speaker. I am equally at a loss to understand the minister's apparent acquiescence in this decision. The Batten report table 10-26, for example, presenting impeccable data, including bureau of statistics data, makes a comparison between all of Canada, and the five main prairie cities. This comparison shows that for unincorporated grocery stores in those five prairie cities the operating profits are 21 per cent above the Canadian average, and for corporations and co-operatives-which sell at the regular trade prices-the profits are 57.5 per cent above the Canadian average.
How excessive does "excessive" have to be before it becomes excessive, Mr. Speaker? That is what I should like to know. Profits on the prairies having been found to be 21 per cent above the Canadian average in unincorporated grocery stores, and 57.5 per cent above the Canadian average in corporations and co-operatives, no wonder the Batten report found and proved that prices charged for groceries were excessive. In a comparison with United States, prairie grocers have been making between two and three hundred per cent profit above the U.S. level.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
Should the combines investigation branch require further convincing evidence that prairie prices are excessive, here is is-and I am quoting from the pages of the Batten report:
The top four firms directly control over two-thirds of the market in Regina, Saskatoon and Calgary, and indirectly control through affiliated groups over two-thirds of the market in all five cities. This strongly indicates that the excess profits which are earned on the prairies are due to monopoly power.
Some of us had thought that the purpose of the Combines Investigation Act was to prevent the growth of monopoly power. Perhaps it works that way only with mini-monopolies. It seems that when the Batten commission recommends that there be a combines investigation to focus particular attention on the dominant positions which Canada Safeway
October 21, 1968
1640	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion and the Weston companies have secured, the combines investigation director turns a deaf ear, the excuse being that the Batten commission did not prove its case.
I wish to cite just one more carefully documented set of conclusions from the Batten report, which ought to convince the Combines Director as it does the Canadian consumer of the need for government action. I quote:
Taken together, excess profits and costly excess capacity reduced consumer well-being by $61.28 per family of four in 1966. This is an extremely large loss when it is recalled that the gross margin of retail grocers is only 15 per cent to 20 per cent which means that retail grocers render only about $190 to $250 of service per family of four each year-
A further loss in consumer well-being occurs through advertising, and again I wish to quote the words of the commission report:
Without judging what is excessive, it may be noted that at present grocery advertising costs the average family of four $14.80 on the groceries it buys.
How much more evidence is required before the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs moves to protect prairie consumers? It seems to me that if further convincing evidence is required the director should be in a position to live up to his title and conduct the sort of investigation and research that will convince him of the truth of the facts cited in the Batten commission report. In his own report the director shows uneasiness about the whole prairie grocery retailing situation, in these words:
However, while the corporate chains by no means have the field to themselves, a few of the largest ones have a degree of economic power in some regions which calls for vigilance by public authorities.
My question, Mr. Speaker, was this: In view of the decision not to prosecute, what measures is the branch or department taking to deal with this situation? I await the minister's reply with interest.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in three minutes it is impossible to deal completely with all the recommendations of the Batten commission. I wish to make it clear that the director's annual report commented on the evidence and recommendations of the report. It said that these recommendations and evidence did not constitute grounds for a prosecution under the act.
The hon. member for Vaneouver-Kingsway mentioned a few of the points that were


brought out in the Batten report, and perhaps I might deal with them. It may be that there is an alleged overbuilding and underutilization of stores in some prairie cities, but fortunately or unfortunately, that is not an offence under the Combines Investigation Act. The Batten report commented on the building of luxurious stores. That may or may not be the case. But, in any event, that is not an offence under the Combines Investigation Act.
The Batten report talked about costly advertising campaigns; and again, rightly or wrongly, expensive advertising campaigns are not offences under the Combines Investigation Act. The evidence in the report, and this is really what the director was saying, did not justify an inquiry or a charge under our Combines Investigation Act.
I am glad the hon. member quoted from that part of the director's report where he expressed uneasiness about conditions on the prairies, and where he said that the situation required and would receive continued vigilance on the part of public authorities. That vigilance has been exercised and is being exercised by the combines branch. The branch conducted a thorough study of concentration in the food industry in 1959. It has followed up that work and made it clear that it would continue to study concentration in the food industry across Canada.
The hon. member served on the joint Senate-House of Commons committee of which I was co-chairman. It was concerned with this question, and following the recommendation which was made by that committee the branch has been continuing its studies and its policy of vigilance in this field, not only on the prairies but in the whole of Canada. In the press release accompanying the director's annual report I revealed that this vigilance had been exercised and was resulting, for example, in an examination of predatory pricing practices by one of the major chains in one of the prairie cities.
What we are saying is that the evidence presented in that report did not justify a charge. The branch and its officials are maintaining within the limits of their resources surveillance of conditions on the prairies and throughout Canada, and when evidence is presented to them justifying a charge under the Combines Investigation Act a charge will be laid, as charges have been laid in the past.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry, but the minister's time has expired.
October 21, 1968	COMMONS



PUBLIC SERVICE-SUPERANNUATED FEDERAL EMPLOYEES-REQUEST FOR INCREASED PENSIONS

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on October 18, as reported at page 1534 of Hansard I put the following question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson):
In view of the minister's long, strong personal record of support for increases in the pensions of retired civil servants, can he say whether this matter is actually under consideration by the government of which he is now a member.
The minister replied that he had nothing to add to the answer he gave a short while ago to a similar question. I pressed him as to whether there would be an announcement about this matter at an early date, and his reply was: "Probably in due course."
I read that extract from page 1534 of Hansard for Friday, October 18, but as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gray) must know, because I assume he has done some research into this matter and because I realize he is interested in a personal way, that same kind of exchange can be found on scores of pages of Hansard over the past number of years.
Despite the difficulty we face in getting action I rise again tonight to plead with the government to take action on this important matter. I plead with the parliamentary secretary, if he is making the answer to me tonight, not to put us off again with the story that the matter is under consideration. I have been told that for 20 years. The whole house has been told this repeatedly since May 8, 1967, when a joint committee of both houses recommended unanimously that increases be provided for federal superannuates.
I also plead with the parliamentary secretary not to give us the line about inflation, the need to curb expenditure and so on. We know that line very well. But, surely, you don't take this sort of thing out on people who are in the kind of need that faces many of those who are pensioners of the government in various categories.
It is not necessary for me to go over all the arguments we have made from time to time about these employees-that they have a special claim on the government because the government was their employer, and so on. I would remind the parliamentary secretary, I would remind this house and I would remind the country that the issue does not stop here.
DEBATES	1G41
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion I would remind him that there are others who also have a right to have their pensions increased because the cost of living has gone up and because standards of living have gone up. But surely this is a place where the government ought to start. Surely this is a place where the government cannot plead that it is not in a position to give a lead.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
I notice, Mr. Speaker, that almost every time this question is raised in this house, especially if it is raised by someone else, hon. members look at me as if it is my question. I am glad to have it associated with my name, but I am also pleased to note the growing number of members in this house who take the same stand. The Public Service Alliance of Canada put out a release on October 9 indicating that a number of members had written to the Alliance expressing their support for increases in pensions for retired civil servants. I am sure more letters have been written since then, and in that sense it is unfair to indicate these names; but I think it is significant that the people who support the position I am taking include the following Liberal members: the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand), the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen), the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Kaplan) and the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet). I have already referred to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance, the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray). And I see down to my far right is the leader of the rump, the unquestioned leader of the rump tonight, the only one down there, the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault) who stood up the other night and added his support to the proposition that something should be done for these people.
This same release names several Conservative members who have written to indicate their support for increased pensions for retired civil servants, and these include the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell), the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Harkness), the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave), the hon. member for Fundy Royal (Mr. Fairweather), and the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Gundlock).
The release lists about half the members of the New Democratic party, so I need not put their names down because I can speak for all
1642	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion of us and say we are all behind this proposition. In recent weeks there have been members from the Creditistes, led by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise), also rising in support of this proposition. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, Claude Edwards, president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, is in a position to say, as this release does say:
We are convinced that there is solid support for an increase in public service pensions among members of all parties in the House of Commons and we urge the government to bring forward legislation to increase public service pensions without further delay.
He also points out, as we all know, that there is a tremendous reserve of employee contributions in the superannuation fund. It is a fund that is growing every year and these employees do not see why some of that money, that at least is on the books, cannot be used to give them a touch of the just society.
The last time the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was drawn into saying more than a sentence or two on this issue was on October 11 when he answered a question put by the hon. member for Abitibi, as recorded at page 1084 of Hansard. This is what the Prime Minister said on that occasion:
It was answered last week, and I myself stated that the matter was under consideration. Indeed, there has been an exchange of correspondence between the representatives of the civil servants and myself; I indicated that we were not in a position to grant those increases now but that we would consider it as soon as possible.
I ask the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gray), how much longer do these people have to wait? How many more times do they have to be told that the matter is under consideration? The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) must know, Mr. Speaker, that no points of order are allowed on this late show, but if he is standing because he wants me to include his name as in favour of the proposition I will be glad to do so, and if other hon. members want to stand up to include their names I will be glad to put them on the list as well.
To the young, hopeful, parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance-he can interpret that "hopeful" any way he wants, and he comes from Windsor where there is keen interest in this matter-I say for heaven's sake let us not have this stalling any more. Let us have action on behalf of these former employees, for whom an increase in their pensions was unanimously recommended by a joint committee of both houses of parliament on May 8, 1967.

DEBATES	October 21, 1968


Mr. H. E. Gray (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the ever hopeful hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for what I take to be kind remarks expressed in my direction. I also want to thank him for confirming that interest in this particular problem is not confined to one particular political party. In fact it is one which engages the concern of members both on the government side and on the opposition sides of the house as well. I think this is important to note, because had I risen first and made this assertion, someone might have said that this is a form of self-serving evidence. But coming from the ever hopeful hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) this evening it confirms that I can join at this time and on future occasions with others regarding the concern that is felt on all sides of the house about this particular matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now do something about it.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I know the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) would have wanted to be here to comment on this important matter himself. As hon. members know the budget is being presented tomorrow evening and he is involved in putting the finishing touches to his very important budget speech. In reply to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre I should like to say that the Minister of Finance on numerous occasions has expressed his sympathy and understanding for the retired civil servants.
Speaking personally I regret I can only say that at the present time this matter is under active consideration by the government. I should point out however that since 1963 Liberal governments have taken important steps to provide further help for the older Canadians, including superannuates. The basic old age pension has been increased to $75 a month. Steps are being taken to make it available at age 65 by 1970. A guaranteed income supplement has been put into effect to provide an amount of up to $30 a month for people on old age security pensions who have no other income. The federal government today guarantees to retired Canadians 65 years of age or over, including superannuates, $107 a month. I think this is important to remember at this time.
I am not suggesting that superannuates do not continue to face financial problems. I am not suggesting that their request for increases and changes in the management of the superannuation fund are not worthy of serious
Oclober 21, 1968

and active consideration by the government. However, at the present time I can add nothing further-and I say this with some regret-other than, as has already been stated by the Minister of Finance, that this very important matter continues to be under active and serious consideration by this government.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Pursuant to provisional standing order 39A the motion to adjourn the house is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this house stands adjourned until 2.30 p.m. tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house adjourned at 10.20 p.m.
29180-104i
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, October 22, 1968