1968-10-24

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate has passed Bill No. S-8, an act to amend the Supreme Court Act, to which the concurrence of this house is desired.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege affecting Hansard and an answer therein recorded which came from the right hon. Prime Minister. I am referring to page 1936, the bottom of the left hand column. I asked the Prime Minister a question with regard to foreign aid provided by Canada. The Prime Minister is recorded as having said the following, and I am particularly referring to the last sentence of his answer at the bottom of the column:
We are still aiming in this direction, and perhaps in next year s budget we will discover new ways of finding more money so we can help more people in other countries.
I am quite confident in my mind, Mr. Speaker, and I have not the slightest doubt that that is not what the Prime Minister said; that the Prime Minister said "We will discover new ways of levying more money so we can help more people in other countries."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Lewis: And the difference, Mr. Speaker, is very significant. That answer astounded me at the time because it seemed to me to have a very definite edge to it. It warned the Canadian people that they would have to pay more taxes. The word was "levying", Mr. Speaker, and it was changed. That changes entirely the meaning of the Prime Minister's answer and I submit, sir, that this is an abuse of the editing privilege that members of the house have. 1 hope the Prime Minister will see to it that this is corrected and that the true answer is put in Hansard.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I am perhaps not getting the inference, subtle or otherwise, of the point of privilege. I can only say that my memory is of having used "finding". I do not know that any correction was done. If I did say "levying" I am quite prepared to leave it at that, but I confess that when I made the answer, Mr. Speaker, I did not have any of this distinction in mind. I do not believe any correction was made, in my name or otherwise.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, that is the Prime Minister's statement. I suggest that in his reply he used the word "levying". If he now states that he is prepared to say to Hansard that the original word is to be reintroduced, that satisfies me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, quite frankly I find myself in agreement with the hon. member for York South.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Stanfield:: I suggest in all seriousness to hon. members opposite who may joke about this that the integrity of Hansard is as important as the integrity of forecasts of estimates is important.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I say in all sincerity that the sense I had of what the Prime Minister said was that the government might be able to raise or levy more money for this purpose. It was not that it would find ways to raise additional money for this purpose. So I must rise in support of the hon. member for York South on this point.


Mr. Trudeau:: Mr. Speaker, my recollection again is having used "finding". "Levying" is a rather more sophisticated word, and as hon. members know I do not use sophisticated words.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can put my feeling on record. I wanted to convey to hon. members
October 24, 1968



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
Ministerial Mission to Latin America of the opposition and to the people of this country that all our good intentions, in this as in other fields, have to be paid for; that any progress which this country makes in the field of external aid or internal development has to be paid for, whether by borrowing or by levying taxes. Borrowing has to be repaid eventually, too.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether we might not allow the matter to stand where it is at the present time. My understanding of what the Prime Minister is suggesting now is that if Hansard is actually to the effect that the word "levying" was used, he would have no objection to the official record eventually carrying the word "levying" rather than the other word referred to.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I was really indicating that I have no quarrel with the opposition on this, but I do not want any inference to be drawn that we have corrected Hansard. My recollection is that I used the word "finding" and that is the word I am prepared to stand by, but there should be no inference drawn that anyone in my office corrected Hansard. If that is the case I will apologize to the house tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wanted to say something along the lines of what the Prime Minister has said. My suggestion is simply that it is very easy to go to the Hansard take, and whatever the word is that is reported will be the word which will appear eventually in the official record.


David Lewis: On that point, I tried Hansard and of course they are not permitted to let me see the original transcript.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member to have confidence in the Speaker to that extent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
First and second reports of standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs -Mr. Clermont.
First report, in English and in French, of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills and standing orders-Mr. Duquet.
Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, hon members will recall that last May I announced that the government had decided to send a special ministerial mission to Latin America.
I wish to announce today that this mission will leave Ottawa on Sunday, October 27, on an official visit to Venezuela, Colombia, Peru, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico and two countries of Central America-Guatemala and Costa Rica-in that order. It will be back in Ottawa on November 27.
While making plans for that mission we tried to make representative the wide field of Canadian interests in Latin America. To that effect and so that the ministers will not have to be away from their normal responsibilities for too long, five ministers will be included in that mission. They are the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene), the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) and the Hon. Otto Lang, Minister without Portfolio. Most of the time two of these ministers will be present in each country visited.
I have said many times, and I repeat now, that the government considers our relations with the countries in this hemisphere as being of high priority. The mission which will visit nine of the Latin American countries shortly is to be considered not only as an indication of our anxiety to strengthen our bilateral relations with these countries, but also as a clear demonstration of the importance we attach to our relations with all our neighbours, and especially with those of our hemisphere.

The mission will be equipped to pursue all important aspects of our relations with Latin American countries, political and cultural as well as economic and commercial. It will enable ministers to have direct talks with Latin American leaders, and it will give them an opportunity to see at first hand something of what is happening in those countries. Ministers will make a voyage of exploration during which they will not only make Canada better known but also during which I hope they will
[Editors Note: Text of the foregoing reports lay the groundwork for better understanding appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.l of Latin America on the part of Canadians.

October 24, 1968

Perhaps most important, the experience gained will be invaluable in assisting the government to determine what new avenues may now be opening up for closer relations with Latin American countries, both bilaterally and with respect to our common interest in the world at large.
The work of the mission is part of a review of Canadian policy toward Latin America which is already under way. I am confident that this review will demonstrate that there is real scope for strengthening Canada's relations with Latin America to the mutual advantage of both. The ministerial mission which is about to depart will help the government to determine what the real possibilities are and how best to proceed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I do not want the Prime Minister to think I am being facetious, but I should commence by saying that we will hardly notice the absence of the ministers from the house.
With regard to the import of the Prime Minister's statement, I think we all approve of the establishment of closer associations with the countries of Latin America. I hope the ministers will have in mind the possibilities of establishing closer trading relationships. I believe that in the course of time, if not immediately, our country will be confronted by the need for exploring the possibility of becoming part of a larger trading union than is presently the case. I hope the ministers will have in mind the possibility of closer and more permanent trading associations with the Latin American countries.
I do not know whether the Prime Minister has in mind the possibility of Canada entering the O.A.S. or anything of this sort, but whatever reservations we might have in this connection I am sure we all approve of improvement in understanding between the Latin American countries and our own, and the importance that we must all attach to the fact that we share this hemisphere and that we have an important role to play together.
We will wish the ministers the best of luck in connection with this mission, and hope we will eventually see them again in the House of Commons.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker,
I do not think one needs more than a sentence or two to say that we entirely approve of and are delighted with the initiative taken by the government. It is obvious that this mission can do a great deal of work, and I
Ministerial Mission to Latin America have no doubt the ministers will find ways of improving our relations with Latin American countries and opportunities for later exchanges, both cultural and economic.
As my second point, Mr. Speaker, I may suggest it would be worth while for the government to consider sending a similar mission to the Caribbean countries which are members of the Commonwealth as well as being countries in this hemisphere, and with which our commercial and cultural relations can be improved a great deal.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues I hope this is not the first step toward membership in the Organization of American States, something which should not occur at this time. But it should be the first step in strengthening relations with all countries in the hemisphere that are smaller and less powerful than our powerful neighbour to the south.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to comment briefly on the statement the right hon. Prime Minister just made on the special ministerial mission to Latin America and two countries in Central America.
We are very pleased to hear this because, personally, I feel that compared to the assistance Canada has given other regions of the world, we have sadly neglected South America.
According to the information we have and the news we get, the ministers will be visiting countries where there is quite a subversive ferment. If it so desires, the ministerial mission can bring some hope of better days to those peoples, through the support and direct assistance Canada can give them.
As mentioned by the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), I suppose that the mission will take this opportunity to study the possibility of Canada entering the O.A.S. in order to establish closer relations between our country and the countries of America which, in fact, are located in our continent.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I know it is the fault of my bilingualistic inadequacies, but I did not really suggest that the minister should explore the possibilities of entering O.A.S.
I did not really express any views in that regard.
Ociober 24, 1968
1968	COMMONS
Statement on Educational Broadcasting BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE



SUSPENSION OF PRIVATE MEMBERS' HOUR THIS DAY

Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know an invitation has been issued for a ceremony at six o'clock this evening, on the occasion of the unveiling of a portrait of Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson. I have had certain consultations and I believe there will be general agreement, on account of this occasion, that the house make an order dispensing with private members' hour for this evening, on the understanding that all motions will retain their place and that the day will not be lost in respect of private members' hour.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



TELEVISION


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, last Monday, in response to an inquiry from the hon. member for Selkirk, (Mr. Schreyer), I said that I hoped to be able to make a statement on educational broadcasting this week, and if the house is agreeable, I should like to do so now. However, I must apologize for having sent a bit late that statement to the leaders of the opposition as a result of a misunderstanding.

In view of the importance attached by provincial governments to the development of educational broadcasting facilities, I should like to inform the house that the government intends to introduce legislation, as early as possible in the current session, to establish a Canadian educational broadcasting agency for this purpose.
A task force is to be established immediately, which will include representatives of the Privy Council office, the Canadian Radio-Television Commission, the post office -which now includes the core of the proposed department of communications

the department of the Secretary of State, and others, to advise the government on a number of important aspects of this problem, including the details of the proposed legislation and the method of financing the new agency. The task force will ascertain provincial requirements and priorities for the provision of


facilities, and will carry out research and planning to ensure the most rational development of these facilities in relation to the country's broadcasting and other communications systems, with particular attention to the rapid pace of technological developments. Technical advice from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation will be sought when appropriate.
The task force will also consider and advise on the most practical means of satisfying the most urgent provincial requirements pending the enactment of new legislation. In this connection the government will be prepared, if necessary, to consider issuing a formal direction to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, under section 39(2) of the Broadcasting Act, to provide required educational broadcasting facilities on an interim basis, which would be transferred to the new agency when it has been established.

I should like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that these decisions are consistent with the present apportionment of powers under the constitution which gives the provinces full authority in the field of education whereas communication systems, including broadcasting, fall within the jurisdiction of the federal government.
It is proposed that the Canadian RadioTelevision Commission will issue to the agency that will be set up, broadcasting licences to be used in connection with provincially-approved programs. This arrangement will enable the provinces to retain their basic responsibility with regard to the preparation and production of programs. However, since the actual broadcasting of these programs remains a responsibility of the federal government, there will be no need to change the long-standing federal policy of not issuing broadcasting licences to the provinces or their agents.

The task force which will be established to assist in the implementation of this new program will have as one of its primary tasks to pursue earlier discussions with the provinces to work out the details of the program, including the extent and timing of the federal government's financial participation, which will be limited to the support of its own responsibilities under the proposed arrangement.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a
October 24, 1968

matter of very considerable importance to Canada as a whole and to all the provinces, and a matter about which the government of the province of Quebec has expressed particular interest and concern. It is my hope that the procedure outlined by the Secretary of State will facilitate a cordial settlement of the various points of view which have been expressed, and allow this matter to proceed satisfactorily.
I must say, however, I personally have some doubts about this idea of turning over the negotiations, discussions and arrangements with the provinces to a task force, particularly in view of the concern which has been expressed by one province. I am not persuaded at this moment that this is the proper approach. The Secretary of State has expressed his apology for the shortness of notice in respect of this statement, and I accept his apology. Surely the procedure he has suggested is not satisfactory in view of the constitutional importance which is attached to this matter, at least by one province.
Let me at this time content myself by emphasizing an aspect of this matter of which I am sure the Secretary of State is aware. I refer to the procedure he suggests should be followed. Without trespassing too far let me say we have noticed lately that those who are seized with finding solutions to federal problems have coalesced.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
I do not think the federal government should adopt a procedure which unnecessarily gives encouragement to and provokes that kind of reaction.
In all sincerity, Mr. Speaker, I would urge that the government of Canada proceed with these discussions in a different way, one which fully recognizes the importance the provinces attach to a full discussion of these problems. The federal government should not simply relegate the matter to a task force appointed by it.


Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, like the Leader of the Opposition I wish to express the view that the advent of E.T.V. is a matter of great importance to the cultural and educational enrichment of Canada. On balance we welcome the statement which the Secretary of State has just made. However, I want to express some feeling of disappointment it is thought necessary to resort to the procedure of setting up a task force. This is disappointing in view of the fact that last 29180-125
Statement on Educational Broadcasting fall we held rather extensive hearings in the standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts, wherein we received weighty and well articulated briefs from provincial departments of education and adult education associations, and one would have hoped the minister would have been confident enough, armed with these briefs, to proceed a little more quickly.
However, I commend the minister, since he is going to set up a task force, for giving it terms of reference that will really help him to appreciate all the ramifications of the problem. In particular I welcome the reference at the middle of page 2 of the statement, wherein the minister says he is prepared to issue a direction to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that it soon provide facilities to the departments of education of the provinces so they can quickly set about providing television to the classrooms across the country.
I am sure the minister is well aware that some of the provinces, at least, and adult education associations in the provinces have a deep sense of frustration over what they regard as a long drawn out delay in setting up in this country an E.T.V. capability and the necessary facilities therefor.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) for the speed with which he assumed that responsibility.
I would add that doubtless many problems will stem from E.T.V. and the powers conferred by the constitution. Still, thanks to wisdom and knowledge, the Secretary of State will command respect for his views.


Mr. Rene  Malle@Champlain: Mr. Speaker, although at first glance the statement of a minister may look like a step forward, it should not be forgotten that in Quebec it will be considered as another federal intrusion in the fields of exclusively provincial jurisdiction. The statement reads in part as follows:
-however, since the actual broadcasting of these programs remains a responsibility of the federal government, there will be no need to change the long-standing federal policy of not issuing broadcasting licences to the provinces or their agents.
Why add that sentence? If the licence is required to safeguard the special interests of a province and, amongst others, those of the province of Quebec, let one be issued. Let us not get stuck for that. The situation is the

October 24, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry same, in the field of radio, with Radio-Quebec. Information, and especially education, benefit from television and radio broadcasting; they are, at the present time, the most important and essential means of communication from which a nation can benefit to improve the cultural level of its citizens.
Quebec will always jealously guard its rights in that field, and that is why I think this is a good thing for the other provinces. As usual, we agree about that, since there are no special problems with regard to the other provinces. As concerns Quebec, however, if the federal government has a surplus of money which it can put to use in this field, let it give this surplus to Quebec and let that province organize its own cultural and educational programs.



TABLING OF REPORT OF ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE BOARD

Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: I shall make my statement tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, but may I table today the French and English versions of the report on the activities of the Adjustment Assistance Board?


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave of the house to table the documents to which he has referred?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:	*
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. With respect to the legislation on farm improvement loans and the urgency which the government attaches to the implementation of all legislation relating to farm credit, I ask the minister when he will be prepared to announce the establishment of an interest rate, or the formula for the establishment of an interest rate with regard to farm improvement loans, in view of the fact that the legislation was passed through this house about two weeks ago.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could answer this

question. The Minister of Agriculture indicated in his statement to the house the basis upon which we would be discussing the rate of interest with the banks. Discussions are presently going on, and we hope to announce the interest rate immediately after royal assent.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What is the holdup on this piece of legislation, in view of the fact that it has now passed this house? Why is it not in effect? This program has been out of existence since June 30, and in fact the Minister of Agriculture informed the house that it was all prepared last February.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, it is true that the legislation has been prepared for a long time. It has gone through the normal process in this house. I am not sure of this, but I think it has completed the normal process in the other place and will soon receive royal assent. In the interim, as the Minister of Agriculture mentioned to the house, we have been discussing with the banks the rate of interest which will be proclaimed, I hope, on royal assent.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Minister of Finance, now that he has his budget speech out of the way, will be able to give his attention to this matter and announce to the house and the country the rate of interest at which farmers will be able to borrow money under this program. I urge that the minister do this, in view of the great urgency of the matter.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that this will be done at the first possible moment. The importance to us as a government, and I am sure to the people of the country as a whole, especially the farmers, is that the legislation should work, which means that the interest rate is established at a level that is fair and equitable to the farmers of Canada and yet encourages the banks to promote the use of this particular legislation which has proven so useful to the farmers of Canada.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the minister has had a long time to discuss these matters with the banks and other lending institutions, may we express the hope that the government will in fact produce some action and that the first possible moment will prove to be the earliest possible moment.


Edgar John Benson: We will, Mr. Speaker.
October 24, 1968


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: May I
ask the Minister of Finance whether at the time of making an announcement in regard to farm improvement loans he will also be in a position to indicate to the house what the rates will be on the Farm Credit Corporation loans?


Edgar John Benson: It is very difficult for me to announce this until the opposition shows a willingness to proceed with the legislation, at which time I will try not to disappoint them.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that a cargo of military equipment provided by the U.S.S.R. has recently been landed in Nigeria, has the Canadian government made or will it make representations to the government of the U.S.S.R. recommending that they should join with other nations in bringing about an end to the supplying of arms or military equipment to the combatants on either side, with a view to putting an end to the deadly conflict in that country?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The government of the Soviet union knows the Canadian views upon the subject, which have been expressed very eloquently by the Prime Minister. I do not think there is any need for us to go any further than that.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, at this time when we speak so highly of the United Nations and what it has done may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs what possible reason there is for the government of Canada to continue a sit-down strike against bringing this matter of a cease fire in that country before the United Nations. Is there any objection being raised by any country to bringing before the United Nations the matter of a cease fire between Nigeria and Biafra?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have answered similar questions on previous occasions, but perhaps I could draw attention to the statement made just yesterday by one of the distinguished leaders of an African nation, who suggested that we should be very careful as a country not to intervene in the internal 29180-125*
Inquiries of the Ministry affairs of any member country, particularly one in Africa.


John George Diefenbaker: Then may I ask the
minister, when did he develop this peculiar predisposition? He did not have it regarding the situation which has existed in Rhodesia. Why does he have it in respect to a situation which affects the future of the world so seriously?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the supplementary question is argumentative.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he looks under his bed for General de Gaulle every night?



CROWN CORPORATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, since the present government has made bilingualism in the public service a priority, and in view of the Speech from the Throne and the new legislation on the official languages, I put on the order paper


which was answered yesterday-about six crown corporations. I asked how many senior civil servants earn $17,000 and more and I was told that there were 225.: I am coming to my question, Mr. Speaker. There are 225 English-speaking and 14 French-speaking senior officials.
I therefore ask the Prime Minister to tell me if that situation will soon change because it seems that it will go on for ever.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, we have already indicated in what direction we are heading and what progress has been made. However, there is still much more to do, and that is why we will be very happy when parliament passes the bill on the official languages, because then we will be able to deal with other projects.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday afternoon, two constituents of mine presented themselves at the main entrance of the parliament building and were unable to secure the assistance of a Frenchspeaking or a bilingual person; would the Prime Minister take the necessary steps so

October 24, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry that French-speaking persons will be on duty at the entrance of the parliament building?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's representations have been noted.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question-which is not supplementary-to the hon. Secretary of State.
It concerns a statement on educational television he made earlier. Would the minister tell the house whether he intends to ask the provinces to send him their suggestions and their opinions on the matter, either by letter or otherwise, before he establishes another federal research commission?


Gérard Pelletier: This is precisely one of the things which are included in the terms of reference of the task force which has been set up in this regard. However, Mr. Speaker, I wish to remind the hon. member that all the provinces have been invited and that most of them have accepted to give evidence before the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts which, during the last session, heard numerous representations.


Georges-J. Valade: I wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Does the Secretary of State intend to ask the provinces to appoint a permanent delegate to that research agency?


Gérard Pelletier: The matter has not been considered, Mr. Speaker, we have not set up the task force yet. When we get to that stage, and when the time comes to select the personnel, I will be able to answer the hon. member.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolietie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a supplementary question to the hon. minister.
When the minister says that most of the provinces have accepted the invitation, can he tell us whether the province of Quebec did too?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker the province of Quebec has not answered our invitation to appear before the parliamentary committee,

but through one of its ministers, it has already made a very brief but rather significant comment.
Mr. Marcel Masse, a Quebec minister, said: These portions of the White Paper which propose what I have announced today open the door to a concrete co-operation between the federal and the provincial governments.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saini-Hyacinihe):: Does the minister not think that it would be greatly preferable if he communicated with the government himself in order to know its views, rather than leave the matter in abeyance and interpret a speech in his own way?


Mr. Pellelier:: Mr. Speaker, a question is put to me and I try to answer. On the other hand, it is the first time that the hon. member makes that suggestion, but I am taking note thereof.



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmoni):: My question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the alarming leaks which have been coming in recent days from the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism I wonder what steps the Prime Minister and his government are taking to prevent this damaging appearance of perhaps even inaccurate material from the commission.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, as the house knows, the proceedings of a royal commission which is still engaged in the preparation of its report are a matter for that commission, and royal commissions are established in such a way as to have the degree of independence from the government which is required in order to make their own research and prepare reports in conformity with their own views. Therefore I do not think it is proper for us to intervene in the procedures and proceedings of a royal commission. They are in full control of them or, to use another expression, they are the masters of their own proceedings.
I can only say that until yesterday-and I do not believe any communication has arrived today-this commission has not communicated with my office to indicate that we
October 24, 1968

should be doing something about the leaks. I will add, however, that I am distressed about the matter, and I have asked the Solicitor General to use whatever means he can to see whether any question of theft arises. If we can find the guilty party we will certainly want to punish him.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of the considerable delay which has already occurred in the publishing of successive copies of this document, and in view of its importance in the light of the legislation before the house at present, can the Prime Minister and his government take any steps to accelerate the publication of these important documents?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we are all anxiously awaiting the publication of this report. The leak concerns the third report and it seems to be a fairly clear infringement of the Copyright Act, in view of the fact that it seems to be a leak concerning a document which is nearly ready. The point is that it is only the commission which can decide at what point of preparation it will publish its report. Of course I have spoken to the cochairmen of the commission and told them that it was our desire and that it was in the interests of the country to have the report as soon as possible. I conclude from the fact that the third volume has been leaked in this particular way that probably the second and third volumes are very close to publication.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, I want simply to ask the Prime Minister whether it is the position of this government that the royal commission be left to take the decision whether any effort will be made to investigate and find the source of this problem.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I know the members of the commission are aware of this matter, because one of them has already made a public statement about it. I have discussed with the law officers of the crown, the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General steps that we might contemplate. But once again, we cannot tell the commission what they should be doing; I am waiting for advice from them. If they feel that anything useful can be done then we will discuss with them any possible steps that might be taken.
For the information of hon. members, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should say that though this appears to be fairly clear infringement of
Inquiries of the Ministry copyright in regard to property belonging to the crown, the steps that could be taken to redress the matter are not easily available in law in the sense that they might not be as effective as we might like. Perhaps the most effective solution would be to try to find whether there has been any theft, and if so to pursue the matter in that direction. I repeat that I have discussed any steps that should be taken with the Solicitor General.
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince
Albert): Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I know I do not understand sophisticated language. What is the nature of the copyright in connection with a prospective report from a commission? I am just asking for information, Mr. Speaker, so we can understand exactly what it is the Prime Minister has in mind. If there has been any breach of copyright, then there is a law available to deal with it. Surely the Prime Minister is not suggesting that they are going to apply the sealing wax to people who submit their ideas about what is in a report.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can see that the right hon. gentleman is not informed about what was published in La Presse. If he obtains a translation then perhaps he will see that this is not a matter of someone giving his idea about what is going on.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: On a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand that the right hon. gentleman wishes to raise a supplementary question.


John George Diefenbaker: I would remind the right hon. gentleman when speaking about language that I remember last February hearing the Prime Minister say in this house: "Nous avons perdu la confiance de la chambre". When the Prime Minister's words appeared in Hansard they were: "We have lost the vote".
I knew sufficient French as I listened to him to know the difference.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether the point of order should be pursued further.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that is afterwit, what we call in French "de 1'esprit d'escalier".

October 24, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of Agriculture. Would the minister now report to the house what plans he has in mind to assist the corn growers of southwestern Ontario who are presently suffering a near disaster, and are suffering more and more each day? In this regard can he also tell the house how the conversations with the United States government are proceeding in connection with exercising some control over the importation of United States corn?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has asked several questions.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Just two.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: First, Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to say that in his budget speech the Minister of Finance indicated that the government is going to provide for accelerated depreciation on storage facilities, which will be helpful in the long run in view of the corn marketing problem at the moment in southern Ontario.
In reply to the second part of his question I would say that negotiations have been going on with United States officials, and I expect that perhaps within a few hours, but certainly very shortly, I will be in a position to make an announcement in connection with the import competitive factors involved in the marketing problem.



REQUEST FOR ACCELERATED DEPRECIATION ON GRAIN DRYING EQUIPMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Would he agree, in light of the harvesting conditions in western Canada and the large volume of tough and damp grain stored on farms, to adding a further provision for accelerated depreciation on equipment that is used for grain drying?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I must admit ignorance with respect to what equipment is used for grain drying-I believe it is elevator equipment- but I would be very pleased to look into the matter. U my hon. friend will meet with me privately *nd inform a poor fellow from
[Mr. Trudeau.1
a small town what equipment is involved, then I would be pleased to look into the question.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: A supplementary question for clarification, Mr. Speaker. I am referring to grain dryers that farmers purchase for use on their farms before the grain is stored in bins. Would the minister allow some accelerated depreciation on this equipment, as well as on storage equipment?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I have great sympathy for the farmers of western Canada and for the particular problems they have at this time, and I would be pleased to look into the matter that has been raised by the hon. member.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker,
I have a supplementary question for the minister with regard to this problem. Is the minister now in a position to say that special quota privileges will be given to farmers who are attempting to harvest damp grain this fall, such as was the case in 1953 when conditions were very similar to those of this year?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, this question should be directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who reports to this house for the Canadian Wheat Board. I believe the minister has already announced that the wheat board have taken extraordinary measures to deal with the extraordinary situation created by this tough and damp grain.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the government going to make special delivery quotas available to farmers who are now harvesting damp grain, such as was the case in former years?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, It
appears to me that the situation today is very different from that of previous years when such steps were taken. In previous years the damp grain was found in certain areas only; today the situation is fairly broadly generalized. Therefore up to now we have felt that there is no possibility of doing what was done in the past.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: A further supplementary. Are the wheat board and the minister s department making grain drying facilities available at the terminals to aid in drying the grain?
October 24, 1968


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I answered this question the other day when I said that on October 15, 1968 the Canadian Wheat Board issued an instruction that priority should be given to the shipment of damp grain to terminal positions. I announced that four or five days ago.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct this question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that some specialty crops in western Canada, specifically flax and rape-seed, will suffer considerably if they are left out for the winter, is any thought being given by the hon. gentleman's department or by the wheat board to making special provision in order that these crops, which are not large in volume, may be moved quickly to the dryers?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated that some measures have been taken by the wheat board to give priority to the moving of damp grain. I will And out whether they apply to the grains mentioned by the hon. member.



CHEESE-REDUCTION IN FLOOR PRICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lee Grills (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I would direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. Since the floor price of Cheddar cheese is being lowered by 5 cents a pound- from 47 cents to 42 cents-on November 1, has any action been taken, or will it be taken, to relieve producers who find themselves in an impossible position, perhaps being forced to close their doors? The price of milk, as the minister knows, is exactly the same-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has asked his question.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I have had a number of meetings with members of the house and representatives from the cheese producing industry, particularly the processors. The lowering of the floor price from 47 cents to 42 cents a pound effective November 1 is something that has been well known to the industry for a long time. The reason for it is that some of the Cheddar cheese produced in the wintertime is surplus and is costing the dairy industry around 15 cents a pound to export from Canada. The policy has been announced that we need to discourage the production of more cheese in this season, when we produce against the surplus stock.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lee Elgy Grills: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If that is the case, is any consideration being given to some reimbursement for diverting commercial milk to butter plants and thus maintaining the staff of cheese plants in employment and relieving the cheese situation by helping manufacturers?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, this problem arises with processing plants that are exclusively producing cheese. As the hon. member knows, this is a problem of particular concern to some parts of Ontario. I believe it is up to the provincial officials to make arrangements for the transfers during certain seasons, because they have control of that matter and of the pooling of fluid and manufacturing milk in Ontario.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Is he now in a position to name the members of the consumer advisory council, as Dr. Leighton was appointed on July 17?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker, but I am very optimistic that I shall be able to name them within two weeks.


William Skoreyko: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the federal-provincial conference is scheduled for next Monday, is the minister able to table the agenda for that conference?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, when I announced the holding of the conference on October 28 I said the conference would explore areas of federal-provincial co-operation in fields of credit, consumer protection and trade practices. However, since this is an exploratory conference the arrangement and agreement among governments have been that a detailed agenda would not be published.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breion-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the
1976	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of Forestry and Rural Development who answers in this house for the Cape Breton Development Corporation. In view of conflicting and argumentative statements released in recent days by Charles E. MacCul-loch of the Dominion Coal Company and Douglas Fullerton, chairman of the Cape Breton Development Corporation, in reference to a proposed meeting to negotiate a value to be placed on Dosco's assets, can the minister advise the house when such a meeting will take place?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Mr. Speaker, a meeting? I do not understand. A meeting with whom?


Robert Muir: Between Devco and Dosco.


Jean Marchand: This I am not aware of, Mr. Speaker, but I shall obtain the information and transmit it to the hon. gentleman.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I wished to direct my question to the Minister of Transport but I see he is not in the house although his name is on that paper whose title we cannot mention. I know he will miss his daily Roberts Bank question and regret it. Was the meeting on Tuesday with Premier Bennett of British Columbia and other officials about the Roberts Bank rail link closed to the public? Perhaps I might direct my question to his parliamentary assistant.


Mr. Baldwin:: Perhaps the premier could give his opinion of the budget.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I fail to see the urgency of the question. If there is urgency the hon. member might give the usual notice.


Mark Willson Rose: Am I permitted a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: I will take the supplementary question as notice.

DEBATES	Ociober 24, 1968



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Duquet (Quebec Easl):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Now that Expo is over, could the minister tell us what are his intentions concerning the replica of the Grande Hermine? Does he intend to have it taken to the Cartier Bre-beuf park?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think this question should be put on the order paper.


Gérard Duquet: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



EXPO '67 INQUIRY AS TO SALE OF EXPO EXPRESS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I put a question to the hon. minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, regarding Expo-Express. The minister seemed to say that the tenderers had to withdraw their tenders. He also said that he was to meet his Quebec counterpart.
Could the hon. minister make a detailed statement today on this important matter of the sale of Expo-Express?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I believe the best thing would be to read two sentences from the news release given out this morning after the meeting.
They-the two ministers-acquainted themselves with the representations made by the city of Montreal. They have taken due notice of the de facto situation created by the sale made by the Canadian Corportation for the 1967 World Exhibition to the Socttt6 Urbaine des Transports Rapides Inc. of Montreal, following public tenders.	.
The two ministers had received information which led them to believe that nothing prevents negotiations between the interested parties. They share the hope that the needs of Montreal as well as of the other parties can be met equitably and satisfactorily.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.
As a result of that statement, can the minister confirm that the city of Montreal will buy Expo Express?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to that text, which is extremely clear.
October 24, 1968



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a question that arises out of the brief presented to the government yesterday by the premier and cabinet of Prince Edward Island? What answer did he give the government of Prince Edward Island in regard to its urgent demand that tenders be called within a month for the resumption of the causeway project?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, the premier presented to members of the federal government, including myself, a very interesting brief and we promised to look at it, study it and take into account the arguments therein in reaching a final decision, which we hope will be made in the very near future.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Prime Minister accept the calculations put forward by the government of Prince Edward Island to the effect that maintaining a fleet of vessels to provide an adequate ferry service would cost upward of $1 billion over the next 60 years?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Simcoe North.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I put it to the acting minister on September 20, as found on page 270 of Hansard. The question was:
-what program is being devised to take the place of the winter works program which has been discontinued-
At that time the acting minister said that he would refer the question to the minister for answer within a few days. We have not yet received an answer, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, no new program is being devised to replace the winter works program, but we are accelerating as much as we can our special training
Inquiries of the Ministry program and we are concentrating as much of that training as possible in the winter months. For example, in the province of Ontario we have increased our allotment for this year by $15 million, which is roughly three times the amount spent in Ontario for winter works.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. First, may I ask the minister whether he has received representations from the advisory committee on manpower retraining for metropolitan Toronto that in that area there has been a drop in referrals to the federal government's adult training program? Second, could the minister inform the house why there is this cut-back in retraining since in view of recent statements it is expected that there will be increased unemployment during the winter?


Mr. Speaker:: The second part of the supplementary question asked by the hon. member is argumentative.


Robert Norman Thompson: Could the first part of my question be answered, Mr. Speaker.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have had representations from the group the hon. member mentioned, and I repeated to that group, as I have repeated in the house, that we have increased our expenditures in Ontario by $15 million this year. That is not a cut-back but a growth in expenditure.


Mr. Warren Allmand (Nolre-Dame-de-Grace):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister say whether he has also increased the allocation for manpower retraining in the province of Quebec?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have increased the budget, I think, to $60 million from a previous amount of $48 million for that province.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think we should go much farther along this line. Perhaps the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond wishes to ask a supplementary?


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Brelon-Easl Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask as a supplementary question why the hon. member from Quebec, whose constituency I will not name, was not aware of an increase even though he is a government supporter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

October 24, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) asked me whether any application had been made for my department to participate in financing an appeal on a British Columbia superior court ruling on rented lands.
Representations were made to the department asking that it help pay the cost of an appeal on that ruling. The matter is now under study with the Department of Justice. As soon as a decision has been reached, I shall advise the hon. member.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bernard Dumonl (Fronienac):: Mr. Speaker, on page 48 of today's order paper you will see question No. 300, which I put there on September 27, about the authorization granted to a Cypriot ship, registered at Tamagusta, to sail between Montreal and Newfoundland. In the absence of the Minister of Transport, I would ask the Prime Minister if he could give us an answer. In view of recent events, I am wondering if it was not the Christina, a ship owned by Mr. Onas-sis of Greece-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is not allowed to make a speech at this time.


Bernard Dumont: I will ask my question, Mr. Speaker, if you will let me.
I would like the Prime Minister to tell us if it was not the Christina which was preventing-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Fron-tenac (Mr. Dumont) on a point of order.


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, on a similar question put by the member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) you allowed comments to be made. I merely wanted to ask the right hon. Prime Minister if he had been kept by Mrs. Kennedy's husband from meeting her?
[Mr. Speaker.)



NATIONAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Fundy Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has Canada any indication that NATO secrets or other information essential to national security have been compromised in the security scandal recently revealed in West Germany?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I believe the answer to the question is no, but I should like to check.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: supplementary question to the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker. Is the government now able and prepared to table in the house the report of the royal commission on security which has been promised?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I think the same question was addressed to the Prime Minister who gave a clear answer at that time, if I recall correctly.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether he is in a position to explain to the house how it is that a London daily paper was apparently able to print facts about the report of the commission on security and make reflections on the R.C.M.P. before the report has been tabled? In view of the interest which the Prime Minister has expressed about leaks from the B and B commission, I should like to know whether the hon. gentleman has taken any interest in these apparent leaks from the security commission?


John Napier Turner: I am always interested in that sort of subject. I would think that here again, as in the case when a similar question was addressed to the Prime Minister, the Solicitor General would be taking whatever action he deemed necessary.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the fact that it is not the Solicitor General's day, I hope some responsible person in the government will bring this matter to his attention.
October 24, 1968



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of Agriculture. It is a follow-up to a question I placed before him two weeks ago concerning the serious economic situation faced by western farmers as a result of loss of markets and inclement harvest weather. In view of these conditions, will the minister give consideration to making acreage payments to help in this emergency?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I gave a detailed answer to a series of questions yesterday which dealt with almost the same subject as does this question. If the hon. member will look at the replies I gave yesterday I think he will feel satisfied that we have a good program.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think I
should remind hon. members that we are running short of time.


Richard Russell Southam: A supplementary question. If the minister is giving consideration to this important matter, will he consider increasing the acreage payment to a maximum of $300 rather than the $200 currently provided for?



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Can he advise us whether he has yet received the report of the conciliation board which was set up to look into a dispute between unions representing technicians of the C.B.C. and the corporation itself?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I received the report officially yesterday.


Howard Russell MacEwan: When does the minister intend to make this report public?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Under section 31, subsection 2, of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act I have the right to return the report to the conciliation board with a recommendation that it be amplified or that
Inquiries of the Ministry certain areas be treated in greater depth. I have followed this course and therefore the report will not be published until a new version is officially brought to my desk in a matter of a few weeks.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. On October 2 I asked the minister whether contractors working on urban renewal schemes were permitted to pay wages below prevailing rates as is now the case in St. John's, Newfoundland. Is the minister now in a position to answer my question?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member indicated at the time, this is indeed the case. I have found that the particular project to which the hon. member has referred involves $2,200,000 of federal funds. These funds were advanced by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and due to a technicality in the law the usual provision that prevailing rates should be paid was omitted. I may say I have informed C.M.H.C. that this is not my concept of justice or of the act, and I have suggested that in future they have regard to the principle implied in the hon. member's question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the President of the Privy Council whether he can indicate the nature and order of business for this week and next?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It would be the government's intention to call the post office bill until the house has reached a final decision on all its stages, thereafter to call the remaining stages of the bill to amend the Farm Credit Act, and then to call the second reading and subsequent stages of the prairie grain advance payments bill. When these three measures have been disposed of we propose to begin the debate on the budget and to spend the balance of next week on the budget debate. The actual time of calling any measure will, of course, depend on the time

October 24, 1968
Post Office Act
taken by the house to deal with the preceding one, and is subject to any unforeseen contingencies.


Gerald William Baldwin: Do I understand that it is the intention of the government that the house should deal with the post office bill before we can deal with the farm bills and that we will not be allowed to deal with the budget until the two farm bills have been completed?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Of course, if in the course of a particular debate we reach a decision on a stage in one or other of these three pieces of legislation, it will be up to the house whether to continue with that or go on to another bill. Certainly it is the hope that a decision will be reached on all three bills at an early date and that we can then proceed to consideration of the budget.


Gerald William Baldwin: As a supplementary question, would the house leader give some consideration to discussing the matter of an extra sitting so we can get to these very important farm bills so essential to the economy of western Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I will welcome any opportunity to discuss with hon. gentlemen opposite a procedure whereby we can effectively get through the program in this house.



POST OFFICE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, October 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. Kierans for the second reading of Bill No. C-116, to amend the Post Office Act, and the amendment (page 1623) thereto of Mr. Macquarrie.
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, since the minister is new to this house one can understand his enthusiasm in wanting to exhibit his wares, his experience and his many abilities by trying to produce legislation fairly quickly for consumption by members of the house. But it has seemed to me and to other hon. members that so far the minister has not received the best of advice from his senior civil servants and colleagues. I refer first to the advice given him with respect to the pay of rural mail contractors during the recent postal strike.
I give full marks to the minister of at least being flexible enough to pay attention to

representations from both sides of this house and elsewhere and change his mind with regard to the advice he had previously been given. Likewise, after receiving representations from all quarters of this house and many other places with regard to cancellation of six day rural mail delivery, the minister again exhibited his flexibility of mind. He listened to those representations and made the necessary change so that six day rural mail delivery will continue.
Because the minister has exhibited a great deal of flexibility of mind and shown his willingness to listen to reason and sensible representations, I am quite surprised he has not followed the example of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) who, when he was minister of finance in the last parliament, agreed to send a very elaborate piece of legislation amending the Bank Act to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs. Representations were made to the finance committee, witnesses were called and, if I recall correctly, the minister accepted some 40 amendments moved by members representing both sides of the house.
On another occasion a former minister of transport, Mr. Pickersgill, now head of the transport commission, presented an elaborate piece of legislation, the National Transportation Act. It was a complex piece of legislation with many ramifications, but after it received second reading Mr. Pickersgill agreed to send it to the committee on transport and communications and, as I recall, he accepted over 70 recommendations made largely by opposition members but some also made by government members.
That sort of thing is parliament at its best. It is true that it does not get much publicity in the press because it does not raise disagreeableness. But that is the way this house should operate. Although the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) appears to have made up his mind I still hope he will consider the excellent examples set in the past by his colleagues and friends.
The minister may reply: It is quite true that the Bank Act and the National Transportation Act were sent to committees but they were very complex bills; the postal bill is much less complex. To that I say that in view of two pieces of advice already given the minister which did not seem to be too good, and in view of the fact that the minister himself has reversed certain initial decisions, a case exists for sending this bill to a committee.
October 24, 1968

Senior post office officials may be very competent to advise the minister on the technicalities of letter carrying, delivering and so on but I submit that they are not competent to advise him on the public's wishes regarding this essential service. This has been demonstrated all too well so far. More than that, these senior advisers, I submit, are not competent to weigh adequately the long range effects of the minister's proposals with respect to rate increases.
Many representations have been made by weekly newspapers, daily newspapers and other organizations. I have one in front of me from the graphic arts industry. No doubt the minister has received these representations and so I will not take up the time of the house to go into them. However, these industries and the press have indicated that there may well be very disagreeable effects over the long-range as a result of the minister's proposals.
Recently I received representations from what I would describe as a weekly newspaper although in fact it is published twice a week. This kind of publication will not receive the same advantages under the proposed legislation as papers which are published only once a week. But for all practical purposes this kind of publication is a weekly newspaper. Things like this should be examined carefully.
Reference has already been made to an editorial written by Claude Ryan, who is well known to members of the house. In it he pointed out the danger to Canadian publications. I do not feel that the minister's advisers in the postal department are really able to advise him as well as other people in this country on the possible damage to Canadian identity by the loss of Canadian publications as a result of his proposals. Canadian identity is an important thing in our country at present. There is the possibility of the loss of valuable editorial opinion from the smaller papers.
We have seen recently how the big newspaper chains are growing. An example is the acquisition of the Gazette by one chain. The big daily newspapers seem to be falling into just two hands in Canada, and in the future we may well need the valuable opinion of smaller newspapers simply because the larger ones will have fallen into two hands which, I might add, may be a dangerous situation.
For these reasons the minister would be well advised to let this bill go to a committee. I cannot understand his rush. He has never
Post Office Act
explained it. He has mentioned November 1, and I understand that some of the proposed new rates will go into effect next February or March. Certainly a few weeks delay in passage of the bill could be entertained. As a matter of fact, if the minister would agree to send it to a committee he might suggest directly or indirectly through the committee chairman that a deadline be placed on the committee hearings.
Perhaps the minister is still considering sending the bill to a committee. If he does the committee could consider something else, although this might be gone into during committee stage in the house. I refer to the question of proper accounting by the postal department. I do not profess to be a chartered accountant although I have had some training in that regard, but the post office method of accounting seems strange. Of course government methods of accounting are always peculiar, particularly railway accounting, but the post office accounting is odd. All mail that goes out from government departments under frank is charged to the post office, which gives the appearance that the Post Office Department is bearing all this weight for other departments.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
This is not a proper costing method. I believe it should be looked into. This point has been alluded to by other hon. members in this debate. My feeling is that we are not being shown a really accurate picture of the finances of the post office. The minister speaks of the great losses. There probably are losses, but I am wondering whether they are being accurately presented and whether they may not be as great as it is suggested they are.
The suggestion is made that we should pass this measure and get on with the budget. These proposed postal increases really are nothing but another aspect of the budget because these increases in effect subsidize other government departments. This certainly has an effect on the general finances of the country. I cannot see the need for haste in this regard.
The wishes of the people in the rural areas with regard to the six day week have been made very evident. I congratulate the minister for acceding to the wishes of the public in this regard. About 60 per cent of my constituency is urban and the other 40 per cent is rural. Never during the 15 years I have been

October 24, 1968
Post Office Act
in this house have I had as many representations on any subject, including capital punishment, the flag debate and many other matters, as I have had concerning this matter. I have had more than 1,500 letters regarding the proposed five day delivery service. It is true that about 65 or 70 per cent of these were from people in the rural areas, but there were a substantial number from people in the urban areas. They objected to the loss of the Saturday delivery. I believe this is something which should be considered much more carefully by the minister before he reaches a final decision.
From the representations which have been made to me, it would appear that people do not object too much to increases in the postal rates if they can be justified. On the other hand, as has been mentioned earlier, the newspapers, both daily and weekly as well as bi-weekly and others, object very much because they feel they will be forced to raise their prices or advertising rates. Of course we know who will have to pay for the increase. It will go right back to the public. The minister may reply that if the rates do not go up in this manner then the cost will fall on the public in another way because the treasury will have to pay. I submit there is a greater inflationary pressure involved when advertising costs are passed on to the public than when the treasury is asked to make up any deficit in the Post Office Department. There may be room for argument in this regard, but I submit that this is indeed the case.
There have been many suggestions to the effect that our post office is very efficient. I believe that over the years the Canadian post office has been a model of efficiency compared with those of other countries, for example, the United States. This, however, can be said no longer. After consulting with a number of hon. members I find that their experience has been similar to mine. My home is in Woodstock and my experience in the past 15 years has been that letters mailed in Ottawa in the evening have been delivered in my city in the morning. During the past year I have found that sometimes this would be the case but that on other occasions letters would be delivered in three or four days. I find that other members have had exactly the same experience.
The minister is proposing an increase in the rates while the efficiency of the service is going down rather than up. If the rates are increased I hope we will see a more efficient

operation in the Post Office Department. If for one reason or another the minister does not wish to send this bill to a committee for detailed study-and I believe that his officials are not qualified to advise the minister in respect of many of these matters-then I would hope that at some date, perhaps in six months' time, he would review this matter very carefully. The bill no doubt will be passed in due course. Therefore I suggest that he might undertake to review the whole matter at a later date, particularly in respect of the legitimate suggestions which have been made by responsible people.
I do not think this whole matter should be brushed aside on the ground that some people are engaging in some sort of small-time politics. I am sure the minister realizes that all members of this house are not always interested in playing some kind of small-time politics. Most members on both sides I believe have a genuine interest in improving conditions in the country.
Members of this house are faced with what I consider to be a most unsavoury proposal by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald). In the 15 years I have been here I have never seen anything like it. We are told that until we pass the post office legislation we will not have the budget debate and indeed will not have an opportunity to return to the farm legislation. To say the least, this is a very shocking statement. I notice that the President of the Privy Council is not present at this time. I dislike making remarks of this nature about a minister when he is not present.
Since the Postmaster General seems to be reluctant to send this bill to a committee, I suggest that perhaps we might vote on the amendment and conclude second reading. When we reach the committee stage we might then have an opportunity to obtain some of the information we desire. Although we would prefer that the bill be studied in a standing committee of the house, at least in committee of the whole we might be able to obtain some answers.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to comment briefly on the proposed amendment to Bill No. C-116, to amend the Post Office Act. As we all know, the amendment before the house would have the result of referring the bill to the standing committee on transport and communications. I fully support the amendment. It must be clear to every member of the house who has
October 24, 1968



listened to the debate that the proposed legislation should have a thorough review. It seems to me that it would be very foolish to push this legislation through in haste and then find we have created more problems than we have solved.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
At this time members are receiving communications from their constituencies which make it crystal clear that there are many side effects to this legislation about which we should have some information before we make it law. There is nothing wrong with the idea of a committee examination of this legislation. Surely this is the way democracy works. We have all heard both inside and outside of this house what people think about this legislation and how it will affect them. Many of them have asked for a review by a committee. They want to express their views and explain their positions. Frankly, I am of the opinion that they should be given every opportunity to do so. Every organization in this country should be given the opportunity to express to the Postmaster General its feelings as to the effect of this legislation. It is for that reason I plead with members of the house and the Postmaster General not to be stubborn but to allow the referral of this matter to a committee where a proper study can be made.
Quite frankly, I am not opposed to an increase in postal rates in certain categories. Practically every member of this house is, I believe, of the same opinion, that an increase can and should be effected. Let me point out, however, that to increase rates and reduce services at the same time is not the way we in Canada wish to see postal services operated. Some increases in postal rates will have a very detrimental effect on certain segments of our population. It is not my intention to repeat the details that have been pointed out by hon. members before but there are one or two aspects of this legislation I intend to draw to the attention of the minister.
It seems to me that sometimes we do not pay enough attention to the effects that certain legislation will have on the rural areas. I represent a riding in British Columbia of which a large part consists of rural communities. That is one reason I want this legislation to be reconsidered by a committee. We should certainly determine whether these rate increases are to be passed on to the consumer, particularly whether the increases in newspaper rates will in turn be paid by the rural readers.
Post Office Act
From the information I have received from my own constituents and from other people in Canada I gather there is going to be a very sharp increase in the cost of newspapers, and I refer primarily to daily newspapers. I am told that the Nelson Daily News has been in contact with the department and has indicated that the newspaper rate is going up by at least 25 per cent. This increase will be paid primarily by the people in rural areas who must receive their papers by mail.
I subscribe to a number of daily newspapers. When I am at home I like to read the papers of larger urban centres like Vancouver. This increase in postal rates will almost completely eliminate my subscriptions to these newspapers. Surely this must be true of many people in Canada if this increase is to be passed on to the consumer. These people are not going to be in a position to pay the increased rates. The fact is as simple as that.
One example of this feeling was expressed in an editorial in an Ottawa newspaper. It was suggested there would be a $20 per year increase in cost to rural readers. The members of this house know what will happen. Hundreds of these rural subscribers will cancel their subscriptions. Whatever enjoyment can be obtained by reading these newspapers will be denied to those people who live in rural sections of Canada. I object very strongly to this.
People living in rural areas are the last to receive adequate television and radio coverage, the last to get good roads and educational facilities, but they are the first to be hit by increases of this type. Surely we should examine thoroughly all aspects of this legislation in a committee. These people should be allowed to make representations to us. We should have another look at the legislation to determine whether there is something we can do.
There is no doubt that the Postmaster General and his staff examined this legislation before bringing it before the house, but surely they did not thoroughly examine the problems which will arise. Had they done so they would not at the last moment have announced to the country that the government had changed its mind in respect of rural Saturday delivery. At the outset the government indicated it intended to stop Saturday delivery throughout Canada. When the Postmaster General began to realize the problem this would create in rural areas he changed his mind. So as far as I am concerned, Saturday mail delivery in urban areas should also be

October 24, 1968
Post Office Act
continued. It is sheer and utter nonsense to introduce a sharp increase in postal rates while at the same time curtailing service in certain areas.
These are some of the answers we should have before we pass this legislation. How is it going to affect the postal workers? What effect will it have on the over-all employment picture? What effect will it have on the earnings of postal employees? These are all problems which face members of this house and we should know the answers to these questions before we are asked to vote intelligently on this measure.
I should like to bring this fact to the attention of the minister. There is a need for an extension of postal services in an area of my riding. I refer to the Castlegar-Kinnaird area. These communities have grown rapidly. Most of the mail is received by the Castlegar post office and distributed from there. This is a fairly densely settled area. There should be greater postal service in this district. I ask the minister to consider this situation and provide the greater service which I think we should have in this modem day and age.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
There are one or two more points I wish to make before resuming my seat. We have talked about the rates of increase in the various postal categories. As I said before, some increase is certainly warranted; it has to come. But, again, the rural people are hit the hardest. For example, we have had an overall increase of roughly 25 per cent in respect of money orders. The minister indicated this some time ago. People in rural areas do a great deal of buying through catalogues and the local post office and they have to foot a big chunk of this increase. They have to pay the additional charge simply because they live in rural areas and do their shopping through the mail.
One can go right down the list of postal increases and find that the people hardest hit are those who live in rural areas. These are the pioneers of this country who have moved into the wildernesses, hacked down the trees and built communities. These are the people who have helped build this great nation in which we live. This is why I ask the Postmaster General and members of the house not to be in such a terrific hurry to pass this legislation. Right now there is more urgent legislation on the order paper which could and should be debated in the house.
I appeal to hon. members, when this amendment comes to a vote, to vote to refer the question to a committee where every

aspect of the problem and the side effects thereof can be taken into consideration before the legislation is passed. I do so because this measure may cause far more headaches than it will cure.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to urge the minister to consider sending this bill to a committee for study. I have been interested in following the career of the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) and have had the opportunity of meeting and getting to know members of his family who have some very far advanced ideas. I was impressed with the approach of the Postmaster General to the operation of the post office, but I would think that if he were sincerely interested in really doing something for it he would refer this legislation to a parliamentary committee so that he might gain enlightenment on whether the post office should be a department of government or a crown agency. I think there is a great deal of merit in considering this proposition because one would be able to say: We will subsidize certain aspects of the problem but the over-all operation must pay for itself. This, of course, has not always been true of crown corporations, but it has been true of those countries which have set the postal department apart from other departments of government and have made it a crown corporation or operated it as a separate agency.
I do not think we in Canada have done too badly with our post office. Over the years we have developed it into a highly satisfactory service. In my part of the country we have in the last five years been plagued with a decrease in mail and postal services. This has resulted from the discontinuance of the operation of mail service cars to many rural areas. Many years ago, when the railway first went into northern Ontario, letters would be sent by train from one point to another and post office employees sorted the mail on the trains. If a letter was going only 20 miles the sorter in the car would see that it was put off at the next post office.
It is now possible, with our modern technology and advancement, for a letter addressed to someone in the next town 20 miles away, to be put on a train in northern Ontario, carried to Toronto, sorted there, reshipped to Kirkland Lake or Timmins and reshipped from there in another mail bag. In some cases it will take 30 days for a letter to reach a person 20 miles away. Therefore 1 question whether we have really improved this service very rapidly when we have not
October 24, 1968

been able to deal with the problem of changing transportation facilities.
This is also a problem in the United States. In that country all sorts of systems have been tried to speed up the delivery of mail. Sorting the mail while in highway transportation has been tried. I understand that a gyro-stabilized truck is used whereby the body of the truck moves with the contours of the road. I am told they have not been able to find employees who can work in these trucks because people become sick operating under these conditions. We have not been able to replace the railroads in this regard. This is just one example of the changes that have been made in the delivery of mail. They are not always advantageous.
Some of the suggestions made by the Postmaster General-and I agree with the previous speaker in this respect-are probably necessary and some of them may even be advantageous. But I believe we still have not really faced the problem-and the minister will have to face it-of what does and does not make the service pay. Then we have to be honest about cutting out those things that do not make the service pay and considering those that do make it pay.
First class mail was a problem six months ago. It is not any more a problem now than it was at that time. It was an immediate problem when we were considering raising the postage rate for first class mail. First class mail is not the culprit. We are not getting as good a service as we did. The new proposals would reduce the service in all areas and yet we would have to pay more for it. It really will not make any difference to Eaton's catalogues. It will not make any difference to our throwing away what I might call household mail, or perhaps even to the mail members of parliament send to their constituents, which we think has some merit. The same thing applies to Eaton's; they believe their flyers have some influence on the recipients, but this is not always the case.
However, this change in service will make a great difference to those operating a business and using first class mail where other services are not readily available. There are many such areas in Canada. There are in this country many areas where mail is still the main source of communication and five-cent, first class, mail is the means of communication by which business is conducted. These people are not able to take advantage of some of the less expensive means of communication for business purposes. They have to operate
Post Office Act
through the mail and they are the ones who will be penalized.
We have talked a great deal about some of the changes that could be made. Yet Time magazine and Reader's Digest, those pseudoCanadian magazines, are costing a great deal more than the minister will gain by way of increasing the postage rate of first class mail. These are just two items in the total picture.
I believe the committee should make a decision on this question. We are all aware that the status of Reader's Digest and Time magazine was a political decision which really had nothing to do with good housekeeping or good bookkeeping. Therefore the minister should not be greatly influenced by that argument, because as I understand it he looks at things on a dollars and cents basis. The argument that was used in respect of Time and Reader's Digest does not fit into that category.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The minister will probably not give much consideration to the arguments which have been put forward by those interested in maintaining the delivery in rural areas of dailies and more particularly weeklies perhaps because he may consider them to be based on sentimental rather than economic reasons. We know that three newspapers have closed down, one of them being the Family Herald and Weekly Star, perhaps not as a result of the anticipated increase in postal rates but because they had been operating on a very slim margin. For city dwellers this may not matter much one way or the other, but for those who have been raised on the farm and who are living in the farming community The Western Producer, the Family Herald and Weekly Star and the Winnipeg Free Press Weekly have been more than just newspapers. For many years they have served many functions on the farm. I suppose they were more useful on farms than anywhere else. They were read from cover to cover. When one got up in the morning one could light the fire with them. I see there are some hon. members here who remember to what uses these newspapers could be put. They played a great role in helping the farmer doctor his cow if she was sick. A farmer could increase his wife's culinary achievements by pointing out to her new recipes contained in these papers, and his children could read the comics. There was something in them for everyone, and a sentimental value was attached to them which I think was worth more than the money they cost.

October 24, 1968
Post Office Act
I believe I pay $18 a year for a subscription to a local daily paper. With the proposed change it will now cost me $35. I know there are other people in the area who buy the same newspaper. Let me give the house an illustration. There is a small community which has been served by the railroad but this branch line is now being closed. The post office there is having some difficulty in providing mail service to the community. If the people there are lucky they will have mail delivery twice a week. However, before their mail reaches them there is a delay of perhaps three or four days. If anyone reads a newspaper in that area it will be a week or a week and a half old before he gets it. I believe the newspapers will find a great curtailment in subscriptions from that rural area.
Many changes should take place in the Post Office Department. Over the years I have been pleased to see that there has been a change in patronage in the operation of post offices and I think the Conservatives may be given some credit for it. I know this practice will continue but it is not as flagrant as it used to be. Post office officials are becoming more and more aware of their responsibility in recommending who should be appointed to be in charge of local post offices, who should get contracts and whether or not tenders are sufficiently high to sustain the required service. Formerly the tender system, particularly with regard to rural mail, was notorious in that a person could make a bid which would be accepted by the Post Office Department although it was well known that the bidder could not deliver mail with a horse and buggy at the price at which he bid. In many cases the local offices are now assisting people in their bids so that this problem does not exist to such an extent. We are also not running into the problem of a change in local post offices after an election which puts a new government in office.
I am still concerned about the number of requests that have come across my desk from people in my area asking for a new post office. I find that one has to go through the procedure of asking for a survey to be made to ascertain whether or not a post office in that area would bring revenue and whether premises should be rented or built. It seems to me that the officials in the Post Office Department are sufficiently well trained and able so that a member of parliament should not have to go through the process of asking for a survey to be made but should be able to write and ask them for a copy of the survey

which they have made. This information should be brought up to date continually if the department is to be run in a businesslike way.
One person writes to me periodically asking that a count be made for the establishment of a postman's route for house delivery. Of course, sometimes this is a shady business. The mayor of the town may be opposed to a postal route in that area because he thinks that if people received their mail at home they would not walk by his store and he might be out of business. This is a pretty old-fashioned philosophy but the mayor may make so much fuss that the Post Office Department does not wish to oppose him after he has appeared on television and explained his point of view. These are the things which the minister should consider changing if he wishes to bring the act up to date.
I believe that the department should operate separately as a crown corporation or as a separate agency which would report periodically to parliament. I do not wish to become involved in the operation of the Post Office Department any more than I have to, and I hope other hon. members also feel that way. All we would have to do then would be to decide to what extent we want to subsidize such an agency, and instructions would be given by parliament toward that end.
I believe that referring this matter to a committee will assist the minister in deciding on the over-all direction which the Post Office Department should take. Judging from the remarks which the minister has made since he has been appointed Postmaster General and, even more important, before he came to this place, it is apparent at least to me that he has a business sense and wants to run the department in a businesslike way. If that is so, parliament should have the opportunity to decide on what kind of department we want before we give the Postmaster General the task of developing it. Therefore I hope the bill will be referred to a committee. I support the amendment.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) and his government, in spite of all the representations made to them, are determined to keep to the main lines of Bill No. C-116. As everyone can see, they will only concede some points with regard to second
October 24, 1968

class mail to the recalcitrant members of the Liberal caucus. As for the rest, the guillotine of the Post Office Department is to work to the full.
In spite of everything, the question remains open. The minister is impatient to see this bill passed, but if he wants a quicker solution, let him refer the bill as soon as possible to a committee in order to get some good suggestions.
I must first point out the brutality of the suggested increase in rates for second class mail, and particularly for the dailies and the weeklies sent from here and elsewhere in Canada.
Regardless of any other consideration, that increase, by its size alone, is unreasonable. I might be allowed to mention that, if this new rate is enforced, contrary to our demands, it will mean a further expenditure of $75,000 a year for one daily alone. Up to now, postal charges accounted for about 2.9 per cent of the whole management budget of a newspaper; in the future, they will account for more than 6.4 per cent. This has been decided without previous warning, without any awareness of it nor the least consideration for contract commitments which, in some cases, bind the newspapers for a period of time overlapping the coming into force of the new postal rates. We cannot remember of any economic sector being hit as brutally as this one, these last few years, by a government. We cannot remember of any Canadian government which has behaved in such an inconsiderate manner towards the daily press and which resorted to similar means to express its opinions. Even the size of the additional charges which the Postmaster General and his colleagues are about to impose on some newspapers shows the rash contempt for the role of those communication media.
I am now quoting from a brief under date of October 17, sent to the hon. Minister by Les Quotidiens de Quebec Inc.
In a democratic system, the citizen has a right to be informed. It is the role of the press- and in particular the written press-to collect and circulate information.
But the net result of the measures now contemplated by your department to solve an administrative problem is to interfere with that right of the citizen to be informed and with the freedom of the press to publish the news.
We therefore submit that those reforms must be postponed so that a more exhaustive study can be made of the problem which makes them necessary and the advisability and terms of the possible application of efficient and fair corrective measures.
Post Office Act
That a government should dare to increase so much in a single year the rates for such a vital service as this one is in itself a real scandal that can never be deplored enough. The Postmaster General is trying to justify his bill by mentioning the disastrous deficits that the mailing of newspapers entails each year.
In that regard, I would like to say three things. First of all, I question seriously the calculations on which the Postmaster General's argument is based. He said recently, at a meeting with newspapers editors, that shipment by mail of a daily newspaper like Le Devoir or La Tribune of Sherbrooke, for example, was costing the government $385,000 a year, for a total of about six million copies.
Evidently, those figures do not stand up. Furthermore, the member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. McCutcheon) gave to the house the example of the London Free Press to place this vital question in its true context. The minister's officials established arbitrary averages which do not take into account all the operations involved in the administration of a newspaper as, for example Le Devoir, or La Tribune of Sherbrooke, averages which are misleading and unfair, in fact.
Let us take the example of the many thousand copies of Quebec newspapers distributed every day which are carried to Quebec City at the expense of their editors, whether they are for mail delivery by mail or by newsboys, or for newstands sales.
At the point of arrival, some are deposited at the post office, for delivery by the Post Office Department services, some are either directed to the depositary or delivered at their destination by carrier. In these last two cases, the cost per copy is averaging 25c.
How can the Postmaster General reach a cost of 65c. per copy in his calculations, when his services are in most cases doing less work than the newspapers to ensure delivery to other categories of subscribers or readers in the same area? The hon. member for Lambton-Kent said in the house that the averages put forward by the Postmaster General seemed suspicious to him, and I agree with him.
Liberal members have the duty to inquire further, instead of admitting with closed eyes that the averages put forward by the minister are correct. He has handed out to the members a lengthy document full of figures to support his argument. This document gives comparative figures on the first and third

October 24, 1968
Post Office Act
class mail tarifs in various countries, of which the United States. It would seem that, by accident, this document does not give comparative figures on second class rates in the United States and in Canada. Yet, the Post Office Department was supplied with those figures. They proved beyond a doubt that the proposed increase in Canada was simply extravagant compared with the one adopted in the United States.
The American government decreed an increase of approximately 15 per cent over a three-year period; this increase was supposedly reasonable. Canada stupidly accepts a total increase of 200 per cent over a year, when barely a year ago the rates were roughly the same in both countries.
Is this how the Postmaster General and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) intend to encourage dynamic Canadian publishing? Which of the American or Canadian publishers have the most difficulty in firmly setting themselves up under the American sun?
The Liberal government also intends to adjust the rates applied to two American publishers. The member who spoke before me mentioned this. I mean, the Reader's Digest and Time. But we can see to what extent he follows his traditionally prudent and servile reflexes when he attacks really powerful institutions.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
In the case of dailies, they will have to pay in postal charges nearly three times more than what they are paying now, that is $6,250,000 as compared with their present expenditures of $2,250,000. As far as the Reader's Digest and Time are concerned, the government draws in its claws. These two publications pay at this time $422,000, they would be paying $747,000, that is only 80 per cent more. I hate making comparisons, I find them odious in many respects, but we disapprove of a government that compels, us to do so, because it is unfair.
The Postmaster General has feigned to be a prince in continuing the rural mail delivery service on Saturday. We rejoice with the residents of rural areas for this major concession. This concession, however, does not solve the problem that would create for thousands of subscribers to a newspaper, the general suspension of the mail delivery on Saturdays, in urban centres.
Would the Postmaster General accept, for example, that in centres such as Chicoutimi,

Riviere-du-Loup, Sherbrooke, Rimouski, Saint-Hyacinthe, Nicolet, Drummondville, Trois-Rivieres, Thetford-Mines or Plessisville, at least the post offices would be opened on Saturday mornings, so that citizens could go and get their mail? Will he find another way to deliver the mail to them on that day? Would he be ready to provide for newspapers deprived of a delivery service to which they are undeniably entitled, financial compensations to permit them to plan otherwise?
The Postmaster General admitted the other day that every citizen is entitled to an equal service from his department. He must recognize, in consequence, that this principle is equally valid in the case of citizens and concerns using postal services for the delivery of their goods or products. The compromise announced by the Postmaster General solves only a small part of the problem deriving from the proposal to eliminate the Saturday mail. Will the victims have to yield once more to the purpose set by the Postmaster General without any means of redress, any compensation?
In his desire to nationalize the operations of the postal service, the minister is trying to reach a necessary objective. In his desire to bring rates to a more realistic level, he is equally partially right. But on the basis of such legitimate objectives, he goes astray in acting with a precipitation that can but betray the superficial character of his investigations on this question. The postal rate problem is a capital and complex matter. It must be thoroughly considered by parliament and the public.
Should the Postmaster General succeed in having this bill passed at full speed without accepting to make a more thorough investigation, as required by the opposition, he may be sure he will have dealt a treacherous blow to many institutions who deserved better than that. He will not be forgiven for having shown himself as a lamb with the outsiders and as a tyrant with his own people. The same reprobation will encompass the sheep that will follow him without further scrutiny, and those sheep, Mr. Speaker, are those Liberal members who do not even care to rise in the house and say something. Yet, when these Liberals were elected, the daily newspapers were their best propagandists. Today, only the members on this side of the house, namely we from the Ralliement, who are the official opposition from the province of Quebec, are giving the example of good work, and yet the newspapers barely say a word about our just contributions. Nevertheless,
October 24, 1968

since we feel this bill is unjust, we rise in spite of the fact that this is a majority government, and we are standing for newspapers, like the Sherbrooke Tribune, that never say a word about us, newspapers reaching places like Plessisville and Thetford Mines and newspapers like Le Devoir. Those newspapers had hoped for the coming into power of this majority government. As for us, accustomed as we are to be accused from all sides, we still say that Bill No. C-116, as introduced by the Postmaster General, is unjust and that is why we ask that it be referred for a more thorough consideration, so that the necessary amendments may be made.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, as some of my colleagues who stated their views on this motion, I would like to underline a few other points.
When, on October 8, the minister brought in his resolution, I had already mentioned the unpopular reaction about Bill No. C-116. I remember that when I stated my point of view, no newspaper mentioned it and this is why we are somewhat astonished at such an insistence by those who, in this house, are going to the aid of the newspapers which objected; they have just understood that they should object. The alarm was sounded right away and they have just understood that we were right when we objected and that it was not just empty words. I would like to take up certain statements of the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) who is not here at the present time. I would have like him to be here.
The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres is well known for his verbal acrobatics, and he hurled yesterday some untimely invectives against the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste (Mr. Caouette). However, we are used to that, and we simply continue to express our views freely.
For this reason, I remain very happy to belong to a party whose members are truly free and can express and reflect exactly the views of their constituents. The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres has told us that he holds to the basic principle that those who use the service are the ones who should pay. We should determine who these users are. The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres seems to think that the users are those who send newspapers, parcels and letters; however, that is not the only point to be considered. The fact is that newspapers are not a luxury; the publishers and those who receive newspapers must pay the cost.
Post Office Act
There are areas-and this is the case in my district-where television is non-existent and radio almost non-existent too. Such a situation exists in the northern part of the district of Champlain, La Tuque and up to Parent. The newspaper is then the only means of information for the people of these areas. As a matter of fact, every family does get a newspaper; newspapers are very popular there. It is already rather expensive for the people to have to pay $20, $25 and $30 for the subscription to their newspaper. If the cost of the service is going to be passed on to the readers-as obviously the cost of subscriptions will be increased after this legislation has been passed-it is once more the people who will have to pay. Therefore, at first sight, the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres seems to be sensible when he says that the users will foot the bill, but if you take a closer look at the situation, you realize that the users are everybody. So, let us be careful in that regard.
I come back to the arguments which I put forward early in October to the effect that it is truly a public service and that if the Post Office Department used to pay its way, why can it not do so today? We should seek the reasons which make the Post Office Department uneconomical. What are the true reasons? If the Post Office Department acts as a milk cow for other departments, of course it will show deficits. Planning or administration may be lacking, then let us consider the matter further. That is why we support the motion to refer this bill to a committee, because the question should be considered in depth, we should get more information and find out what methods are used in the operation of the Post Office. I should like to see an attempt made so that the Post Office Department would become economical. In my opinion, what prevents it from paying its way is simply mismanagement. We should correct that mismanagement instead of increasing the cost of the postal service.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
As the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) suggested yesterday, if, at least, we were sure that next year we shall not be told: Unfortunately, the Post Office Department once more is in the red, the postal rates will have to be raised again. If, indeed, we were sure that the service will pay its way, but even that certainty is not available. Past experience demonstrates beyond doubt that this never happens and that the rates increase constantly.

October 24, 1968
Post Office Act
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, any animosity or partisanship should be set aside, and the possibility of the bill being examined under all its facets in committee should be seriously considered, so that we might decide on that bill only once in possession of all possible information. Such was the particular point I wanted to stress.
When will we be given an explanation why the expenditures of such or such department are included in the Post Office Department budget, why the Post Office Department which once yielded profits is no longer making any, in a word when we shall know the specific reasons for those deficits, we shall then be able to judge in a much more objective way, since all those to be hurt by that Legislation, all the weeklies-as was pointed out by my neighbour, the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin)-and the dailies have sent us a number of protest telegrams. So, all what was said by those who complained, who showed that this bill is running counter to something quite popular, all that should indeed be taken into consideration.
And I should like to mention at this stage the serious periodicals which do not have a large number of subscribers and which therefore must ask a high subscription rate. They would need a larger circulation which is impossible at the present time for the very reason that the cost price is too heavy. Now, we must not forget that some of those periodicals are doomed to disappear, especially the French-Canadian periodicals. The French-Canadian periodicals in America only have 6 million subscribers. The problem is still more serious when one thinks of the French-Canadian periodicals which will have to disappear. It would be most inappropriate at the present time to encourage their disappearance, when French Canadians urgently need culture and information. It is certainly not the time to stop their publication. I would like to state some precise examples. Let us take the case of the magazine Relations which is considered as serious and noteworthy. It is not popular, in the sense that it does not have a large distribution, but for a population of a few million, it is normal that the more a magazine is serious, the more the number of its subscribers is limited, since it is not essentially popular. Now, this is the problem we should consider. It must be kept in mind that this measure will affect the entire population since everyone subscribes to, or buys newspapers, and once again the people will foot the bill.

Secondly, French periodicals will be particularly affected since they do not have enough subscribers to stay in business.
So, for all these reasons, I believe that we should think twice before doubling, or tripling indeed, the postal rates. Let us forget about partisanship and consider the possibility of other solutions.
Here is once again my solution. We should know exactly what causes such deficits, in what specific cases the Post Office Department must come to the financial assistance of other departments and why. Through this information and the restoration of sounder, more reasonable and more scientific management, perhaps such increases would not be required.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of delivering a speech because I did so yesterday. I simply wish to put a question to the minister.
Would the minister tell us at this stage what progress has been made towards the setting up of a task force the purpose of which was to determine whether or not the Post Office Department should become a Crown corporation? Has the task force been established? If not, when does he expect to set it up? If so, can he give us some idea as to the progress made in the discussions?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General):: Those questions should be asked in committee, Mr. Speaker, but I have already answered them. That task force is already in existence.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, the minister
should not hesitate to provide further details so that the members may know what stage has reached the study of the problem arising from the Post Office Department.


Mr. Mcllraith:: In the committee stage.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question on the main motion?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Bill read the second time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell):
That the ordinary hour of daily adjournment of this house this day be extended beyond 10 o'clock p.m. until 11 o'clock p.m.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Eric William Kierans: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. C-116, to amend the Post Office Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Faulkner in the chair.


The Chairman:: Order. House in committee of the whole on Bill No. C-116, to amend the Post Office Act.
On clause 1-Oaths.


Mr. Hees:: Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock?


James Hugh Faulkner: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Hugh Faulkner: May I point out that we shall not proceed with the adjournment proceedings this evening. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman:: Order. Shall clause 1 carry?
October 24, 1968


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, in the past week we in this house and people in the country have twice experienced action by this government which has very materially increased the cost of living of every Canadian. The first such experience was the announcement in the postal measure before us that postal rates will be very, very much increased. The second serious rise in the cost of living that we have experienced in the past week was on Tuesday night, when the Minister of Finance announced that there would be a 2 per cent increase in income tax, which the government tried to glorify by calling it a social development tax. Of course everybody knows it is not that at all; it is simply a 2 per cent increase in personal income tax and is no more and no less than a measure to bail out a government that has completely lost control of its expenditures, and requires the taxpayer to bail it out, at very great cost to himself. As I say, Mr. Chairman, both these measures have very much increased the cost of living to the ordinary citizen.
Our experience has usually been that when there have been price increases to the consumer, the ordinary citizen has received an increase in service; that is, you pay more but you get more for it. But this measure is quite the reverse. Postal services will cost the Canadian people a great deal more, and they will receive far less service than they did before the increase.
Why should we suddenly be shouldered with this very, very steep rise in costs? A very short time ago the postmaster general of that day told us that the Post Office Department was paying its way and showing a surplus of many millions of dollars. Now, a short time later, quite the reverse is the case. The answer of course is that as in the case of general expenditures, as expressed through the budget as a whole, where costs have risen astronomically during the past five years and are today completely out of control, the Post Office Department has lost control over its expenditures and the taxpayers of Canada have to bear the brunt of the government's inefficiency in this important department.
One of the most important increases in cost to the Canadian people, aside from the fact that they will have to pay more for every letter they post, every parcel they send through the mail or any way in which they use the post office, is the sharp increase in the cost of that very important news medium, the newspapers. We all know that newspapers today, as they have been for many, many 29180-126
Post Office Act
years, are a very real necessity of life to all people in this country, as they are to all people in every country. It is true that we have television and radio to give us the news, but most people, in addition to listening to the radio or watching television, want to be able to sit down quietly and study the news at their leisure. There is nothing that takes the place of the newspaper, and people like to absorb the news in this way.
As we know, Bill C-116 greatly increases the cost of distribution of our newspapers, whether they be dailies, semi-weeklies, triweeklies or weeklies. We also know that as in the case of all other costs of production, the greatly increased costs of distribution which will be imposed by the government through so materially increasing the postal rate of newspapers, as well as other things that go by mail, will be passed on, as in all other cases, to the consumer, the person who receives his newspaper.
The publishers of our various newspapers, our dailies, tri-weeklies, bi-weeklies and weeklies, have through their representative associations asked this government for the right to appear before the appropriate committee of parliament, in this case the committee on transport and communications, explain their case to the government, and have indicated that they are prepared to answer all questions that the government would like to ask about their operations.
Unfortunately, as was expressed in the vote that took place between five and six o'clock tonight, the government has refused our newspaper publishers the right to appear before this committee and explain their point of view.


An hon. Member:: Majority rule.


Mr.   Kees@: The hon. member says, "majority rule." If the hon. member wants to look back in Hansard of last February, he will see the Prime Minister's eloquent words when he said, in effect, "We are your masters and", in so many words, "you will do what we tell you to do."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Harris Hees: I want to tell government members that this is exactly the attitude adopted by another Liberal government in 1956, when Right Hon. C. D. Howe said he would have a certain measure, the pipe line bill passed by July 1.

October 24, 1968
Post Office Act


Albert Béchard: Order. I would remind the hon. member that we are on clause 1 of Bill C-116, an act to amend the Post Office Act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I was just trying to better educate some of the members on the government side, and show them the great similarity between what happened in 1956 and what is happening today. This government does have an over-all majority, and the majority does rule; there is no question about that. All the government has to do is to call in the members. It can vote us down, it can ram anything it wants down our throats, it can impose closure. This government is the master of parliament.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Albert Béchard: Order, please.


Mr. Pringle:: As a new member, Mr. Chairman, I am humbly respectful of the experience of hon. members such as the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings and of other hon. members, but if the majority rules, I wonder how we got into all these problems during a majority opposition.


George Harris Hees: You did not have a majority opposition; you had a minority government, in case you do not know about it. That is how ignorant some of the members on the government side are.


Albert Béchard: Order, please. I would ask the hon. member to revert to the matter of the bill before us and I would ask all hon. members not to interrupt the hon. member who has the floor.


George Harris Hees: I will be glad to do that, Mr. Chairman and I will finish by saying that one year after the pipe line debate, that great majority government was defeated, and the man who rammed that bill down our throats was defeated by over 3,000 votes. I want to tell the minister this, so he can look forward to it in the future.


Albert Béchard: hope the hon. member has said all he wanted to say.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I think you will agree that I was continuing with my speech in which I dealt with this measure, but I was

interrupted and asked some questions for clarification by some hon. members on the government side, so I felt obliged to give them an answer. Mr. Chairman, we on this side are not arrogant.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: We give information when it is asked for, as a complete opposite to what goes on on the other side of the house.
Now, Mr. Chairman, if I may be permitted to continue my speech I will be very pleased to do so. I should like to deal with the hardships that are encountered by some of our newspapers. First of all I will start with the daily papers. In the second class mail classification, daily newspapers will be charged 5 cents a pound on news content, and 15 cents a pound on advertising content. No other publication in the second class mail group pays a higher rate on advertising content than it does on news or editorial content. In this regard I want to ask the minister a question which I hope he will answer. Why are newspapers being charged 15 cents a pound on advertising when magazines-notably Time and Reader's Digest-will pay only 5 cents a pound? I claim this discriminates against daily newspapers, and is, in fact, a tax on daily newspaper advertising.
I would like to hear an explanation from the minister as to why this unsatisfactory and unfair situation has been brought about by this government, and by the minister in charge of these operations. I hope that very soon he will take the opportunity to rise and explain the reason for this. Perhaps he would like to do so now.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Chairman, I will answer the hon. member's question when we get to the clause in which this matter is dealt with. Now we are on clause 1.


George Harris Hees: The house can appreciate the minister's reluctance. He has a right to delay answering that question, but when the time comes, I think he will slough over it and hide it under something else. We had a minister at one time who was very good at that, and then he was defeated. Mr. Gardiner was very good at that.


An hon. Member:: Would the hon. member resign at once.


George Harris Hees: Yes, and I certainly did. This is something I do not suppose the hon. member would ever have the courage to do if he felt he disagreed with his party. He would continue to be a rubber stamp.
October 24, 1968

Now, Mr. Chairman, the second group that is very unfairly hit is the biweekly and triweekly newspapers of this country, because they have been classed as dailies, and they have to pay the same distribution rate as do the daily newspapers. The big metropolitan dailies, with a large urban circulation, and usually a comparatively small rural circulation, are able to cover a great deal of their costs by the revenue from their urban circulation, which does not have to be delivered through the mail. But for biweekly or triweekly newspapers, which have a relatively small circulation, a very large proportion of which has to be delivered through the mails on rural routes, this would be a great hardship. These newspapers are denied the free zone that is accorded to the weekly newspapers, so they are very unfairly dealt with, and very hard hit. As I have said, the people who will have to foot the bill in the long run are the recipients of these biweekly and triweekly newspapers, very important organs which give our people the news they want to receive.
Finally, there are the weekly newspapers which have to pay a very much higher rate for distribution. So we can see that this department is not sparing any readers of news in Canada, because everyone who receives newspapers from now on will have to pay a higher price for them, raising the cost of living very materially. As I have pointed out, these newspapers are a necessity, not a luxury. I say the government has arrogantly refused to allow the newspapers of Canada, the dailies, the biweeklies, the triweeklies and the weeklies, to be represented at a hearing of the committee on transport and communications, to put forward their point of view and to explain why they believe they and those who read those newspapers will be unfairly treated.
During the election campaign the Prime Minister said over and over again that he wanted the people of Canada to become more involved in the process of government. He wanted them to know more about government. He said on the hustings and in the shopping plazas, that he wanted the people of Canada to become more involved in government.


An hon. Member:: So they are.


George Harris Hees: This is not the case. We see how ridiculous this situation has become, because to become involved in government you must be able to talk to the government. You must be able to converse with the government and
Post Office Act
to learn what it has in mind when it expresses opinions about something. You should not simply be talked to by government, which is obviously the intention of the minister who is in charge of this bill. That is what the government has told the minister to do. The Prime Minister and the members of the cabinet have told the minister to refuse to allow the newspapers of Canada, through their associations, to appear before the appropriate committee of this house, the standing committee on transport and communications, to answer questions and to put forward their point of view.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: How can the minister do that?


George Harris Hees: That remark shows how ignorant my hon. friend is, because this kind of procedure has been used in parliament for many, many years. It was used extremely well by Mr. Pickersgill when he presented to this parliament a very complex bill about a year ago, the transportation bill. That bill, like this one, had many complicated clauses and was very controversial. But Mr. Pickersgill had the good sense and judgment to send it to the appropriate committee, where witnesses, and all those who wanted to appear, were heard. As a result, Mr. Chairman, of the hearings before that committee, a very excellent bill emerged. The members of the committee gained a great deal of information from those experienced in transportation matters in this country, thereby enabling this parliament to pass a bill much more valuable to the people of Canada than would otherwise have been the case.
Over and over again, Mr. Chairman, controversial bills have been sent to the appropriate committee and people who wanted to appear have been heard. As a result, the legislation was improved, and a far better bill passed by parliament. However, Mr. Chairman, we are now back to majority Liberal government. It is the kind of government that is determined to jam legislation down the throats of the opposition. Hon. members opposite have the votes; the members of the house can be called in at any time, or closure can be brought down, because they have a majority. But let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the last time the Liberals did that they were defeated one year later, and this is what is going to happen four years from now. Let me tell this minister that the last minister who did this, C. D. Howe, was defeated by an

October 24, 1968
Post Office Act
unknown by no less than 3,000 votes. I say to the minister that if he wants a career in this parliament, then I suggest he pay some attention to history and learn what has happened to those who in the past did what he is trying to do today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Albert Béchard: Order. I think at this stage I must remind all members of the committee of standing order 12, paragraph (3), which reads as follows:
When a member is speaking, no member shall... interrupt him, except to raise a point of order.


George Harris Hees: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.


Albert Béchard: Order. The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres on a point of order.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Would my hon. friend allow a question at this time?


George Harris Hees: Certainly.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Could my hon. friend tell me whether, when he was a minister of the crown and his party was in power, he always referred his bills to committee of the house?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, my answer is that any time I brought in a bill that was in any way controversial, and with regard to which anyone wanted to make representations and express their opinions, that bill went to a committee. I want to thank my hon. friend very much for posing that question, and if any other member has a question to pose I would very much like to answer it.


Mr. Ouellei:: Mr. Chairman-


Albert Béchard: Order.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, my time is limited, but since I should like to answer the hon. member, perhaps he would wait until I have finished, and then I shall accommodate him.


André Ouellet: Could I ask the hon. member a question?


Albert Béchard: The hon. member does not want to receive a question now.


George Harris Hees: My time is running out, Mr. Chairman, so perhaps the hon. member will wait till I have finished my remarks.


André Ouellet: It has to do with-


George Harris Hees: I said, my time is running out and I will answer the hon. member's question immediately I have concluded.


Albert Béchard: Order. Another rule of this house states that when an hon. member does not want to answer a question in the course of his speech he remains standing. Therefore the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings has the floor.


George Harris Hees: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to tell hon. members that I will answer questions for as long as they want to ask them. However, I do want time to finish my very fair and constructive address.
I would strongly urge the Prime Minister, the man who aims at leading the "just society"-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Harris Hees: I said, Mr. Chairman, the man who aims at leading the "just society". I would ask this man to stop it being derailed so early in its journey, and to make it possible for this country to have a more just society, instead of a very unjust society where people are not allowed to come before a parliamentary committee-


Albert Béchard: Order. I regret the interruption but I have to ask the hon. member once again to come back to the bill under study, Bill No. C-116.


George Harris Hees: I will end, Mr. Chairman, simply by making an appeal to the Prime Minister. I appeal to him to reconsider this refusal to allow the publishers, through their associations, to appear before a committee of this house. I ask him to let them appear and answer questions. After all, the Prime Minister said that he wants the people of Canada to participate in government. Let us have him show that he really meant what he said on the hustings, that he did not just want communications to be one way, but that he wants it to be both ways.
However, Mr. Chairman, through the action of the Postmaster General the Prime Minister is saying that he does not want this communication to be both ways. He wants to tell the people of Canada what they are going to do. He also wants to tell the members of this house what to do. Other governments have welcomed the opportunity to let representations be made to committees. If this is done in this case, I feel sure that these
October 24, 1968

publishers will be able to make it very clear why the only fair thing to do is greatly to revise the measures that are being put forward by this minister, measures that are going to cost the Canadian people a very great deal more out of their pockets year by year.
I say, Mr. Chairman, that these postal increases, and this latest 2 per cent tax that has just been announced in the budget are something for which the people of Canada will not stand. They are something they should not be asked to absorb at a time when costs are already far too high. They are the result of the gross mismanagement of our financial affairs that has been perpetrated on the people of this country by the government.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I might be permitted a few preliminary remarks before addressing myself to the first clause that is before the committee. During the last four days hon. members have posed a number of questions that I think could be answered very quickly.
Before doing this, Mr. Chairman, I should like to make two points. The hon. member for Kootenay West asked how this legislation is going to affect postal employees. I think I can give a better answer by reading a telegram I received this morning: It says:
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)

Best wishes for the passing of your bill. The post office must be operated on a business-like and economic basis. Let us hope that the study on the crown agency proposal is speeded up.

The telegram was signed by someone well known to all Canadians, W. L. Houle, President National du Syndicat des Postiers du Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eric William Kierans: Those who work for the post office, including all union employees, have made known how they feel about this bill.
I wish to talk about definitions. One hon. member argued, as did the press, that the deficit on second class mail is a subsidy. Some said that I called it a subsidy to the publishing industry. In reply I wish to quote from Webster's dictionary, where a subsidy is defined asa grant of funds or property from a government, as of the state or a municipal corporation, to a private person or company to assist in the establishment or support of an enterprise deemed
Post Office Act
advantageous to the public;... A subsidy may be a simple gift or may consist in the payment of an amount in excess of the usual charges in establishing or maintaining a service,-
The example given is, carrying the mails.


An hon. Member:: Tell us about Time magazine.


Eric William Kierans: The hon. member for Hillsborough asked about benefits to be gained from expanded all-up services. I am glad he asked that question, because the answer surprised me also, as I am sure it will surprise the hon. member. The extension of all-up service to first class mail over 8 ounces will result in an additional 2.5 million ton miles being carried.
The hon. member for Edmonton West asked why urban dwellers should not be entitled to deliveries on Saturday, in light of our decision to continue with Saturday service on rural routes. It must be kept in mind that the rural post office is almost a post office on wheels. The patron receives his mail from it and posts his letter in the rural mail box. From the carrier he buys stamps or money orders. If the route does not operate on Saturday, the rural route patron has no service whatsoever. Generally speaking, it is advantageous to maintain such service, since there is no source other than the mobile post office from which he can obtain newspapers, an important point to consider.
The urban dweller on the other hand has access to sub post offices on Saturday. If he wishes to purchase stamps or money orders, he can do so. If it is absolutely necessary, as might be the case with a business, lock boxes may be rented as an aid to delivery. Also, the urban dweller may receive newspapers from a newspaper carrier boy, or from a store. Consequently, the curtailment of service in urban centres does not inconvenience the urban dweller nearly to the same extent that a curtailment would inconvenience the rural dweller.
The hon. member for Hillsborough asked about the imbalance of newspaper and periodical traffic between this country and the United States. The Post Office Department keeps records of the mailing of nevTspapers, as does the United States post office. Consequently there is no problem in arriving at the exact number of copies of publications which are addressed to either country. A check is kept by both administrations.
The hon. member for Hillsborough also asked a question about sorting of mail on rural routes. It has never been comtemplated

October 24, 1968
Post Office Act
that mail would not be sorted, since that would be to our disadvantage generally. Obviously, mail will be collected. The collection, sortation and dispatch of mail will be maintained over the week end.
The hon. member for Surrey asked what happened to our programs of modernization and technological progress. I think I mentioned in my opening statement that the mechanization of our new post office buildings is as advanced as anywhere else. The containerization of mail in our new postal terminals in cities like Winnipeg and Edmonton, say, compares favourably with facilities of similar size anywhere else in the world. In addition, we are sharing in the costs of developing certain aspects of postal mechanization on a tripartite basis with the United States and England. Also, since we have membership in the universal postal union, which has 137 members, we share our development information with other countries, and they in turn pass on their developments to Canada.
The hon. member for Surrey asked about the cost of handling money packets. He wanted a comparison of postal rates, and the rate charged by private security services. We do not insure the full amount of the money packets that we may handle, and no comparison is possible. But private services charge a great deal more than we do. We charge $1.75 per money packet, but we do not guarantee the amounts involved.
The hon. member for Surrey inquired about printed matter rates with Great Britain, as compared with the rates between the Americas and Spain. I might point out that the printed matter rate between Britain and other countries of the world is the internationally regulated printed matter rate. This comes within charges prescribed by the universal postal union. The Americas to Spain printed matter rate extends to our domestic third class mail, as prescribed by the convention of the Americas and Spain postal unions, to which Canada is a signatory.
The hon. member for Surrey also wanted to know the deficit applicable to special deliveries for 1967-68. It was $73,000. Special delivery, however, could be regarded as part of our first class service. It provides a preferred delivery facility.
The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar talked about weekly farm newspapers. I might mention an example involving one large weekly paper. The newspaper or magazine salesmen concentrated on this because of the lucrative returns it brought. For instance
IMr. Klerans.l
a 5-year subscription cost $7. Whether the subscription was a new one or a renewal, the salesmen pocketed $6.30 of the $7, or almost 90 per cent. The remaining 10 per cent is turned over to a subscription clearing house which keeps the permitted 70 cents and forwards the order to the company. In other words, the economics of this industry must be changed because the paper itself receives not a single cent from the subscription rate.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The Saskatoon wheat pool picks up the tab.


Eric William Kierans: If hon. members want me to name the paper, I will.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is the Western Producer.


Eric William Kierans: Later, when we discuss this bill clause by clause, I shall ask a colleague of mine to present an amendment which will have the effect of striking out lines 24 to 34 on page 4 of the bill, in effect stretching out the impact of the second class increases.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the minister permit a question?


Eric William Kierans: Could the hon. member wait a moment, until I have finished perhaps?


Mr. Noble:: On a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I asked the Postmaster General a question last Monday and he promised to answer it when he came to this part of the debate. Perhaps I should repeat my question. Could he tell the committee why there will be a split rate for daily newspapers and a flat rate for all other publications, save second class mail.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Eric William Kierans: The question the hon. member has posed is: Why are we charging advertising rates on newspapers and not on magazines? I think the answer is fairly simple. It is that the magazines are under severe pressure from United States magazines and their competitive position is nowhere near as strong as that of the majority of our daily newspapers in this country, with their monopoly position.


Percy Verner Noble: What about the weekly
newspapers?


Eric William Kierans: The purpose of section 1 is simply to give specific authority for delegation of this power to the postmasters in order to make a number of ordinary, routine activities easier from an administrative point of
October 24, 1968

view. When this power has been delegated, a postmaster in Orillia or in Shippegan, Nova Scotia can witness testimony by a claimant that he has lost a money order, or if he wants to lay a claim under the Bankruptcy Act on behalf of the post office and file it with a trustee, he would be empowered to make such an affidavit and swear to it. This is a simple administrative change which will reduce some of the frustration and improve administration.


George Harris Hees: Can the hon. gentleman answer the question I put to him. I asked him why newspapers were charged 15 cents a pound on advertizing while magazines were not and the minister said it was because newspapers were not facing the same intensity of competition as were magazines. Does he not consider that there is fierce competition between, for example, the Toronto Star and the Toronto Telegram or between the Ottawa Citizen and the Ottawa Journal which are fighting tooth and nail against each other?


Mr, Kierans:: But the newspapers in question are all paying the same 15 cents, so the competitive position vis-a-vis each other does not change.


George Harris Hees: But are not all newspapers in Canada fighting tooth and nail against the radio and television stations for the advertizing dollar?


Eric William Kierans: We do not carry radio or television messages. We do carry newspapers which weigh up to one pound, for which we get as little as one third of one cent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Harris Hees: Again I ask the minister whether he considers that the competition faced by Canadian magazines is as tough as that which the daily newspapers face, when they have to fight radio and television competition for the advertizing dollar? The answer is obviously, no.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I ask the minister one question arising out of something he said? He talked about a subsidy to the publishers, and gave a definition of subsidy. Is it not fair to assume that the subsidy is really not paid to the publisher at all, but is actually directed to the consumer? Its benefits are received by subscribers either to daily or weekly newspapers, if there is in fact a subsidy paid. This is the point which is made by some of the leading newspapers in Canada, both daily and
Post Office Act
weekly. Would the minister not agree in this regard?


Eric William Kierans: No, I would not agree. In point of fact we carry a newspaper which costs 6.81 cents to deliver, and at the present time we recover less than 1 cent. As it is we are only demanding 2 cents as a minimum, and this still leaves a subsidy of $39 million to the entire class. If the newspapers choose to pass it on, that is their responsibility. I do not know what they will do.
I might point out that when we go to buy a newspaper we pay 10 cents a copy, whereas a subscriber might be able to buy it for as little as $10, $12 or $13 a year. This is a policy which the newspapers have adopted, so as to acquire additional circulation in order that their advertizing rates can be increased. If they want to continue to do that, it is their responsibility. But my responsibility is to see that we make some kind of an appropriate charge for the work we are performing.
If the hon. member wishes to argue that the newspapers have simply been passing this benefit over, and that we should therefore continue these uneconomic rates because the consumers are getting the benefit of them, why should the postal services make any charge for anything? Why should there be any pricing policy at all?


George Harris Hees: The minister answered my original question by saying that the magazines are up against much tougher competition for advertizing dollars than are the newspapers of Canada. I ask him: Does he consider that the dailies face less competition from the television and radio media than the Canadian magazines which compete with magazines from the United States?


Eric William Kierans: The advertizing dollar is divided in a number of different ways. What has changed in Canada is that a greater proportion of it now goes to television and radio. This affects newspapers, it affects magazines and it affects the third class mail. The particular position of the magazines is not one in which the daily newspapers find themselves. Like the newspapers, the magazines have this struggle for their percentage of the advertizing dollar. The situation is now improving to a fair extent, though, and this bill will as a matter of fact be, on balance, of genuine help to the magazine industry because of the effect of changes in the third class mail as a result of which the advertizing man will have to ask himself: How much of my dollar will I place

October 24, 1968
Post Office Act
in television and radio, how much in newspapers and magazines, and, now, how much of the dollar I have spent on direct mail will I continue to spend on direct mail?
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
The point I wish to make is that magazines share with newspapers the competition for the advertizing dollar, but there is one special type of competition which magazines have to face. The daily newspapers have a market that is not seriously damaged by the Chicago Tribune, the New York Times or the Los Angeles Examiner, whereas any Canadian magazine has the tremendous competition of all the additional runs of all the American magazines that come in here. If we taxed their advertizing dollar, we being bound by the postal union convention to admit all magazines-the only alternative to placing terminal charges on imported magazines is to get out of the postal union-then obviously we would be doing a disservice to Canadian magazines.


George Harris Hees: Does that mean-


Albert Béchard: Order. To be fair to all hon. members who want to participate in the debate on clause 1, I think other hon. members should wait until we reach other clauses of the bill, at which stage they can ask their questions.


Mr. Orlikow:: First, Mr. Chairman, I want to disagree completely with the principle that the minister has enunciated as if it were one of the ten commandments, namely that all of a sudden after 100 years or more the Post Office Department must operate in the black, and that there is something immoral or illegal about subsidizing postal service. I do not say that we must subsidize postal rates, or must subsidize them to the extent which we are doing at the moment, but the minister seems to have come to the conclusion that there must be no subsidy.
If we had applied this principle to the country as a whole it would never have become a country in the first place. It never made economic sense to build the transcontinental railway, but if we had not built it there would not have been a Canada.


An hon. Member:: Speak on the bill.


David Orlikow: It is true that we have a majority government. It is true that members opposite form the government but, Mr. Chairman, members on this side of the chamber
[Mr. Kierans.l
were elected to come here and express the views of their constituents, and I do not intend to be howled down by the kind of spectacle we have had tonight, with all that prolonged clapping. I have lots of patience. If the members over there and the yahoos in the top corner want to applaud other speakers, I will just take my time; but I am entitled to my say. I listened to the minister. I will listen to him again, and to anybody else on that side who wants to speak, although I must say it is damned seldom that they do get up to speak. However, I am sure members on this side will listen to them, but I think we are entitled to the same consideration.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Orlikow: Thank God I don't have to account to members over there for what I say. They can account to their constituents and I will account to mine.
We have had subsidies in every sector of the life of this country. We have industries in Ontario and Quebec which would not have existed for a week if we did not have a tariff structure, paid for by the people of western Canada, so that the prices which those industries get for their products permit them to operate. We could buy goods cheaper from the United States, but we have a tariff because we decided that we wanted an auto and a steel industry in Canada. We also have subsidies for farm products.
All I am saying is that there is nothing wrong with subsidies for postal rates, if we think there is a social purpose for them. That is something the minister has not begun to think about.
Speaking from memory, and I do not think I am very wrong, I understood the minister to say that only 25 per cent of the first class mail that goes out is sent by the ordinary citizen, by the mother writing to her daughter or son at the other end of the country, and that 75 per cent of the first class mail is posted by business organizations. That is true; nobody questions it. But surely the minister and all members of this house know that every business organization which faces an increase in postal costs, or in any other costs, will recover that increase from the consumer. When the minister increases first class postal rates from five cents to six cents per letter he is in fact imposing another tax on the ordinary consumer, and I am not satisfied that we need to do that.
I now wish to deal with the question of the cost of second class mail. I don't think I need
October 24, 1968

tell the minister that I am not very friendly, politically or personally, with the Thomson publishers, the Sifton publishers, the McConnells, or whoever publishes the Montreal newspaper. They are much more accustomed to supporting his party than my party. They are not very poor. They have done very well. They have done very well, partly because of the fact that for 17 years or more we have left untouched the postal rates for mailing newspapers and magazines.
I am not for a moment suggesting that those rates must never increase but, Mr. Chairman, I believe that if we are to have a country which has a national identity it is necessary that we have living newspapers, effective newspapers and magazines.
I would like to know whether the minister has really given consideration to what this kind of increase means to newspapers, not so much to daily newspapers because the bulk of their circulation is not delivered by using the mails, but the weekly newspapers, the small town, rural newspapers. How many of them will survive, with the kind of increases which the minister is proposing, increases which run from 200 per cent to 300 per cent?
Last week I had a talk with the editor of the Manitoba Co-Operator. There are some Liberal members in the house from rural Manitoba. I am sure they know much more about the Manitoba Co-Operator than I do, but the editor of the newspaper told me that the mailing charges for a 20 page issue have been $148 and those charges will now be increased to $375. I am not a professor of economics, as the minister used to be, but I can quickly calculate that that increase is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 250 per cent.
I am told that the Western Producer is in the same boat. I am sure the farm union newspapers are also in the same boat. Important non-profit organizations which form such an integral part of our democracy, our democracy about which the Prime Minister has so frequently and eloquently spoken, will not be able to function as effectively as previously. Non-profit organizations, trade unions, cooperatives and professional organizations will have to curtail the frequency of the publications that they issue.
At present university publications such as the quarterly put out by Queen's, the magazine put out by Dalhousie, and the University of Toronto quarterly are hanging on only by the skin of their teeth. None of them is making money. In fact, all the time, they teeter on 29180-127
Post Office Act
the brink of going out of business. I suggest to the minister it is extremely likely that what he proposes will drive the last nails into the coffins of those publications. Is that what the minister wants? I don't think many members of this house want it.
What about the other non-profit organizations? Some days ago the minister received a delegation consisting of editors of labour newspapers who discussed their problems with him. The editor of the machinists union paper pointed out that their publication, which is sent to every one of their 37,000 members in Canada, has been mailed at a cost of $154 per week, but under the new regulations the cost will go up from one fifth of a cent per copy to two and a half cents per copy. This is an increase from $154 a week to $925 a week. What this means is that in all likelihood the union will cut back on the publications it sends out to its members. I suggest to the minister this means that the membership will be less informed than it has been up until now. It will be much less knowledgeable about the problems of the union and the industry.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
The situation will be similar in respect of many other unions in this country. The minister heard representations by the editor of the Canadian Labourer, the official organ of the Canadian Labour Congress, which publication was in the same situation. I am sure this is the position of many professional organizations, not just trade unions. It will include credit unions, co-operatives and organizations such as teachers associations, medical associations, nurses associations and so on.
What about the newspapers? I do not hold a brief for them in any way. It may be that the time has come when the charges against them should be increased. But, should they be increased in the amount the minister proposes? I suggest that many of them in all likelihood will be forced to the wall. I do not have the figures-the minister may have them-about the large number of weekly newspapers in every province of Canada which have gone out of business in the last 15 years. I am certain the increases the minister has in mind will mean that another batch of weekly newspapers will be forced out of business. Is this what we want? I am not suggesting the rates should remain as they are; but where is it written that rates which have existed for 17 years must be increased in one

Ociober 24, 1968
Post Office Act
fell swoop? Why can rates not be increased over a general period of five years or more? I think this could be done. I believe the minister is so determined to prove he is an efficient administrator and is so anxious to get things done that he believes he should proceed full speed ahead, and damn the consequences.
When we talk about an increase in rates I am very curious as to how the minister can explain and justify what I consider to be some very peculiar effects of his proposed increases. I shall try to quote exactly from the financial statement and the details of this proposed rate adjustment which the minister sent to every member of parliament. Here we have a page headed "Summary of Volume Revenue, Cost and Deficit, Second Class Mail, 1967-68". The deficit in respect of delivering daily newspapers is estimated to be $5,637,000. The percentage of the cost for delivering daily newspapers which we collected is 30.1 per cent.
The minister is proposing some very drastic increases. The deficit under his proposal will be reduced from the $5,600,000 to a figure of $1,600,000. He proposes to cut this deficit by $4 million in one year. The average costs which will be collected for delivering daily newspapers under the new rates quoted by the minister will be 79.8 per cent. In other words, from 30 per cent, he goes up to almost 80 per cent. That is a very substantial increase.
I am sure the minister is aware of this, but I should like to bring to the attention of members of this house that Mr. Ryan, the editor of Le Devoir, one of the best newspapers in this country, has stated that if the minister proceeds with his various proposals the position of Le Devoir will be almost completely untenable and that the possibilities of its continuing in existence are pretty slim. That is sufficient comment about what the minister proposes in respect of the newspapers. The minister shakes his head. If I am mistaken and if Mr. Ryan has been misquoted I would be very happy to hear anything more the minister may have heard from Mr. Ryan.
I should like to turn now to some publications which are very important to this country. I have in mind Reader's Digest and Time magazine. In this regard I should like to quote again from the same statement. The amount the post office has collected from Reader's Digest for mailing this magazine to subscribers across Canada is, percentagewise, just half of what is collected from the daily newspapers. In other words, we have been

collecting 15.7 per cent of the cost and we had a deficit which the taxpayers of Canada paid in the amount of $982,000. Under the new proposal we will collect the grand total of 31.3 per cent of the cost. From the newspapers we will collect 80 per cent, but from Reader's Digest we will collect 31.3 per cent. I mentioned that previously the deficit was $982,000. It will now be cut to $800,000. I wonder what magic Reader's Digest has, that it is to be allowed to retain this very favourable position.
Let us turn now to Time magazine, that great organ of the Liberal party of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Orlikow: Last year Time magazine paid 21.8 per cent of the cost of delivering its magazines to its subscribers in Canada. The deficit last year, according to the Postmaster General-these are not my figures; they are the minister's figures-was $864,000. Having proposed these Draconian increases, what does the minister propose for the daily newspapers? Time magazine, the organ of the Liberal party, will be paying a fantastic amount. They will be paying 34.7 per cent of the cost of mailing Time magazine, compared to 80 per cent for the daily newspapers. Last year the deficit in respect of delivering Time magazine was $864,000. This year the minister says we will only lose $721,000.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is still ridiculous.


David Orlikow: In reply to the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings the minister spoke of the difficulties of the magazines. This is true. The Canadian Forum, the Canadian Commentator, and the Queen's Quarterly are in great difficulty. I did not realize, however, that the Luce publication and Reader's Digest were in such difficulty that they needed a handout from the Canadian people. I believe in free speech and I believe in freedom of the press. If Time magazine wishes to portray the Prime Minister as a new Messiah, that is its right. If Time magazine wants to say that we never had a better government than the present Liberal government, that is its right, but I object to the taxes gathered from the almost 50 per cent of the Canadian people who voted against this government

my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says the figure is more than 50 per cent-being used to pay a subsidy in order to get Liberal propaganda into the hundreds of thousands of
October 24, 1968	COMMONS
homes across this country. Surely the minister is a competent man and can devise methods of getting rid of deficits. I am sure he can devise something a great deal more equitable than what he is proposing tonight.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I await, with a good deal of interest, an explanation in respect of this strange and mysterious subsidy which I consider to be completely unjustified.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has raised a number of points which I should like to explain. I hope I do not forget one or two of them. He has suggested that I feel it is absolutely necessary that the post office operate in the black. The fact is, as all of the evidence shows, that the post office, with the best intentions in the world, is going to have a deficit of $39 or $40 million next year.
It is my belief the post office should charge those people for whom it renders service. As a fact, the hon. member for Three Rivers said yesterday very clearly that this is not a tax, that it is-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh; Trois-Rivieres.


Eric William Kierans: The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) said yesterday that it was not a tax but rather charges.

These are charges to the people who are using the services. They are not like taxes which are imposed and where an individual has no alternative but to pay them. These people can choose not to use the services. If they use the services of the post office, the post office wants to be paid something approaching an appropriate cost.
The Reader's Digest and Time magazine cannot be compared to newspapers, because they are not in the same class. Let us compare them with the class of publications in which they belong, which includes all magazines, weekly and urban newspapers. Without selecting 1, 2, 11 or 12 out of this class, the average cost is 33 per cent. It so happens that the cost of handling Time magazine is above that average and the cost of handling Reader's Digest is below that average. These magazines are all assessed according to the format, the weight, the circulation and so on. It happens that the two of them cost 31.3 per cent and 34.7 per cent, yet they come out
DEBATES	2003
Post Office Act
exactly even. There is no discrimination in favour of or against them.
Let me make it quite clear that we do not compare magazines with newspapers. I cannot single them out and put them in the newspaper class, because they are not in that class. I have listed them separately because they have specific Canadian editions and are published in Canada on a pattern very much different from other publications. This is an issue I am quite willing to discuss, but we are forgetting something.
I made an announcement earlier this day that a colleague of mine would be presenting an amendment. This amendment will have the effect of stretching out the rules which most people seem to feel are too severe. We intend to stretch out these increases over a period of time, specifically over another year. This will apply particularly to the rates in respect of newspapers, mainly weeklies. The remarks of hon. members would indicate that this class of publication is in a particularly perilous situation financially. These publications pay only 9 per cent of the cost of carrying them. This is now only going to be 13.5 per cent of the cost. I submit with all deference that the people of Canada should know that they are paying subsidies, and that is what these are, in one way or another.
It is true that the hon. member mentioned a number of names of publications. He referred to the national machinists union publication. This union distributes approximately 40,000 copies, once each week, across Canada. It is published in Washington and there is some editorial comment added for Canada. The computation of this is 40,000 copies, 52 times a year, or approximately 2 million copies. We were receiving from $9,000 to $10,000 for carrying these copies. I asked them what they charged for their weekly publication or bulletin and I was informed that it is $1 per year. They said it was very worth while and that it contained a number of articles of interest to all members. I suggested the net effect of this charge would allow them to recover their entire stamp bill by adding 83 cents to the annual cost. Is that labour union publication worth $1.83 for 52 copies a year? I think it is.
The hon. member mentioned a number of farm publications, including Farm of the Week. Representatives of that publication have been in to see me. The actual cost of carrying Farm of the Week for a year is $150,115. And this is an audited cost as a result of a four year study by people inside

October 24, 1968
Post Office Act
the post office and P. S. Ross and Partners, a management consulting firm outside the post office, for whom I will vouch. Do you know what this paper paid us last year for postage? They paid us $3,489 to carry that publication 19 times per year. I asked representatives of that firm what they charged for this publication and I was informed that for 19 issues they were paid a nominal subscription rate of $1.50. In effect their cost is 25 cents, or 98 per cent or 99 per cent of our cost for distributing this publication. I suggested that instead of charging 25 cents, if they added 35 cents and charged 60 cents per year it would cover the cost of distribution.
If a publication is not considered as a vehicle for attracting advertising I think we should make a reasonable charge to the people who subscribe to it. The Western Producer was mentioned.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I mentioned it.


Eric William Kierans: We carried 8,561,592 copies last year. The average weight was 6.31 ounces. The cost of carrying them was $574,000 and we received from the Western Producer for this service $59,000. If the Western Producer wanted to charge an amount for this publication which would cover our cost of handling it, it would cost an additional 1.4 cents a week. They now charge $1.50 per year. I do not know how many people get it for less, under what terms or conditions, but it may be distributed in certain cases for less. An additional 1.4 cents per week would be roughly 80 cents per year per subscriber.
Someone mentioned the Free Press Weekly Farmer. Thank the Lord that this particular postmaster cannot be blamed for putting the Family Herald out of business. This publication went out of business some months ago, I think long before or perhaps shortly after I was nominated. I do not think these people could have seen this coming.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
With regard to the Free Press Weekly, 22,676,000 copies were carried last year. The Free Press Weekly, as everybody knows, belongs to an extremely wealthy gentleman.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Be careful; it's Liberal.


Eric William Kierans: That's right; I doubt if they are going to speak to me after this. But a good deal of static comes from Mr. Malone of the Free Press Weekly. If I mention co-operative papers I should give figures of all the papers. I have them for representative

groups. The cost of carrying the Free Press Weekly last year-I do not imagine Mr. Malone will agree with these figures, but he can come down and see P. S. Ross and us- was $1,622,000. Our postage revenue from the Free Press Weekly was not $1,622,000; it was $112,000.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Eric William Kierans: If the people of Canada are going to give a subsidy to the Free Press Weekly, I think the people of Canada should know it. It is $1J million.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eric William Kierans: Incidentally, this is another paper that, by putting up its subscription rate by a very modest amount, and by not giving 100 per cent of that subscription rate to the people who sell the subscriptions, could quite easily meet the increased cost of postage. We are dealing with a rough situation, a situation which has not been handled, as the hon. member mentioned, since 1951. In 1951, going back over what transpired at that time, the Post Office Department tried to put on a rate of four cents a pound, and it was forced to yield; I do not know why. It was forced to yield, even though we had a majority government in 1951. Perhaps it was forced to yield because of external pressure; I don't know. There has been enough of it, believe me.
However, this paper did not raise the subscription rate from 2 cents to 4 cents a pound; it raised it from 2 cents to 21 cents a pound. Since 1951 the cost of everything has been going up, but not the amount that we the people of Canada, and we in the post office, have been charging for the services for which we could rightfully charge, and for which people are willing to pay.
We all talk of fiscal responsibility. We all talk of the need to balance budgets. We all talk of the new needs in respect of regional development, satellite communication, and keeping research going in Canada. I think that by attempting to bring my particular budget as close as I possibly can to balance, the government and the members of this house will have that much greater freedom to choose the new directions in which the country wants to go.


James Hugh Faulkner: The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Winnipeg North on a question.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the details which the minister gave in his
October 24, 1968


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but I recognized him on the basis that he wanted to pose a question in respect of the minister's remarks. In fairness to other members of the committee, if the hon. member has a question he should put it to the minister, otherwise the Chair would like to recognize another hon. member.


David Orlikow: 
Eric William Kierans: Mr. Chairman, with the billion items that the Post Office Department handles, we have to run this on some sort of classification basis. Obviously the kind of classification system is that dailies is a class, weeklies is a class, magazines is a class, and so on. The only way in which I could recover all the money from two, three or five out of hundreds of magazines, and cover them 100 per cent, would be to charge all of them 100 per cent of the cost. I am charging that class 33 per cent for particular reasons.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What are the reasons?


Eric William Kierans: Because the whole magazine industry is in a very difficult situation because of its particular competition. We had the O'Leary report, and all kinds of reports about that particular industry. We want to

October 24, 1968
Post Office Act
encourage that industry to develop. It seems from all appearances to be growing somewhat stronger. I am asked whether in a certain class I am going to single out certain weekly newspapers because they are Tory, Social Credit, or for whatever other reason. Will I in a certain class single out this or that magazine because it is a U.S. magazine such as the Reader's Digest, which is doing a tremendous job in Canada with the number of people it employs, its record of business and so on? I am not discriminating against a class; I am discriminating between classes by saying to the daily newspapers that although they have the peculiar situation of urban and rural distribution, this particular rate will apply to them.
I will say to the weekly newspaper that, as the hon. member has pointed out, they are in a difficult situation, they are running a marginal business, and this is taken into account.
I say again, I am not discriminating against members of a group. The class as a whole is charged 33 per cent. It happened by accident that the two classes come out to the average of a class.
Mr. Chairman, is the first clause adopted?


James Hugh Faulkner: No, not yet.


Mr. Macquarrie:: Mr. Chairman, I will certainly not repeat what I have said in the earlier stages of the debate on this measure. I should like to thank the minister for answering my question about the mail service being two and a half million ton miles. This is a most impressive expression. As I was looking over his statistics I noticed that the air mail over eight ounces was one of the few items in the whole draft which showed a favourable balance of about three quarters of a million dollars projected for 1968-69. That will be gone. I may say that when I asked the other day about U.S. publications I was not asking the Postmaster General to count the number that came in. I was impressed by the figure that was given as to how much it would cost the Canadian postal workers to sort these U.S. publications, this very precise figure in table 12, and I am still impressed by the prevision of that interesting little calculation.
It will be difficult to deal adequately with this very complex measure in committee of the whole. It is a source of great regret that the people vitally concerned and the people with an intimate knowledge, which members of the House of Commons could not possibly have and which I doubt the minister's officials would have, are not able to present their case

directly to a committee. I regret also the suggestion which has been made that this very important matter must be dealt with in an expeditious way because of the deadline which the minister has placed in his legislation. I may say that, considering the parliamentary timetable and the presentation of this particular piece of legislation to this house, the imposition of the deadline of November 1 was, to say the least, a little presumptuous.
I feel that we must ask general questions because we must deal with this particular piece of legislation against the background of some fundamental changes which the minister on his authority has already taken action upon, or made decisions upon. This is why it is going to be extremely difficult to confine oneself to the legislation that is set before us. For instance, I would be interested in having the minister's revised estimate on the savings which will result from what I suppose we will now have to call the semi-Saturday closing. I would like to know how much he anticipates the Post Office Department will now save with the limitation of the service to rural Canadians, and the exclusion of urban Canadians. I would like to know also the effect of the change upon his projection in reference to personnel. I am interested also, as I looked over some of his figures and some that I have found in annual reports, in the drastic increase in the deficit on the first class mail operation. We seem to be zeroing in on the second class with a vengeance, and yet proportionately the increase in the first class mail in the last three fiscal years has been phenomenal.
I should also like to know whether the Postmaster General has any changes in mind, other than that which he told us a while ago he would have a colleague move. I am wondering if he has found a way to respond favourably to the suggestion and indeed the pleas of the church press, as we know he has yielded to some persuasion in other matters.
Another matter which has already been alluded to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North is the question of the learned journals. I think this is an extremely important matter. The minister is a former academic and he knows it has been a grim struggle to keep learned journals, such as quarterlies on science and the humanities, going. They have asked for relief from a particular section of the proposed bill, and I would hope that even at this late date the Postmaster General could find room for another change in his attitude, and in the direction of his legislation.
October 24, 1968

It would be a tragedy if the University of Toronto Quarterly and the Canadian Journal of Political Science were to perish while Time magazine flourished. Surely we have sufficient ingenuity in this highly computerized age to cope with the situation. I may say that I listened carefully to the minister's reply to the very serious and searching question put to him by the hon. member for Winnipeg North. However, like Agrippa, I was not persuaded. It seems to me that with the ability which he personally has and all that he can command from his colleagues and others, some way could be found to deal with this matter. I must plead at this late stage that some way be found of preserving the academic press in this country. We know how the Canada Council is so frequently asked for help. We talk so much about our Canadian identity, we talk so much about trying to enhance our university standards and to enrich our intellectual life, that to inflict upon our struggling academic journals the kind of things they have complained about is shameful, and I use that word advisedly.
I am wondering also whether the minister, who has been talking in rather general terms about newspaper publishers and their place in society, has given any thought to the matter which the hon. member for Oxford raised earlier in the discussion. We find that one arm of the government, if I may use that expression, namely the Canadian radio and television commission, is looking at one of the media and is referring to the consolidation of ownership and control. I wonder if in this whole elaborate process of sorting out newspapers, defining what is a Canadian newspaper and setting up elaborate rates, this very important thought might be considered.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
I hope we will be given some further elucidation. Passage of the bill may take longer in committee of the whole than in standing committee, but many matters remain to be answered. We will have to put questions as we go along, about, for example, on the white paper and the reports. Further explanation is required of the deplorable situation in which the post office finds itself.
I hope the minister will retain the flexibility he has displayed hitherto, Mr. Chairman, and it might well be that he will convince himself that not all wisdom is his, bright as his corner is. We want to assist him in this matter, but this will be difficult. That is why the challenge upon us to assist in the passage of this legislation is all the greater.
Post Office Act


Mr. Crouse:: October 24, 1968
Post Office Act
which at Easter time distributes Easter seals, as well as the key tag service.
The president of the war amputees has suggested, Mr. Chairman, if such classification is not feasible, that parliament approve a financial grant similar to that suggested by the Glassco commission for second class mail. This grant, the president states, would be in the form of a rebate based on extra mailing costs arising out of the increase from three to five cents in the third class rate.
I am pleased to endorse this special request of the war amputees of Canada. I hope that the minister has had an opportunity since receiving this brief from the war amputees to give the matter consideration, and that he can give us some indication of what his department is planning to do to financially assist in some way this very worthy and needy group of Canadians.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I would have a few brief remarks to make about the discussion now going on.
First of all, I would like to point out that the hon. members for South Shore and Hillsborough (Messrs. Crouse and Macquarrie) have made constructive contributions to the debate although they might not bear any relation to the questions which arise with regard to that bill if it is to be studied in a general way.
I wish to recall just the same what the learned member for Hillsborough said when he tried in his own way to refer to the principle mentioned by General de Gaulle to the effect that one must go to the bottom of things without allowing oneself to be influenced by personal interests or any partisan consideration whatsoever, which has a lot to be said for it.
Starting from that principle, Mr. Chairman, I find absolutely shocking the figures just quoted by the minister. In fact, some newspapers and publications receive extravagant subsidies from the government at the expense of all taxpayers and there is no comparison between the subsidies granted by the government to one newspaper or another. He just said that some newspapers take advantage of those indirect subsidies and charge a very inadequate subscription rate, and I again use the word "shocking" to qualify the advertisement rates which are of another order, indeed.

Anyhow the government must practise some distributive justice in granting direct or indirect subsidies.
We have noticed also in this house, Mr. Chairman, that the minister has made certain concessions up to now to please my hon. friends the members of the opposition. He has taken into account the suggestions made by his colleagues, the members on the government side of the house, as well as some of those made by the members of the opposition. Perhaps he will be willing to make other concessions as the debate continues on specific clauses. I am not sure, but I think that he has already shown some indication of good will.
However, we always come back to a principle which we must not forget and which some of our hon. friends in the opposition seem to overlook, and that is the question of who is to pay for the services provided by the government.
This afternoon, I heard a member of the Ralliement creditiste or of the opposition say: If the minister raises the postal rate for newspapers, the subscribers are the ones who will pay the cost. Let us say, for the benefit of the discussion, that it is true. Would it be more fair for the government to impose on all taxpayers, poor or rich, the deficit of the Post Office Department? Is that distributive justice? It is a fact, though. Does it not compel the government to impose. the burden on those who profit by these subventions, namely the publishers as well as the subscribers, rather than on all taxpayers who, in many cases, do not earn high wages? In my opinion, distributive justice always brings us back to the principle that the users of a service have to pay for it. But there is more than that, Mr. Chairman.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
It was mentioned earlier that this surcharge could be distributed over a period of two, three or four years, but I say that in two, three or four years, it will be too late for the government to make both ends meet. Now I come to the essential point.
The increase in mail rates was discussed in detail with reference being made to specific cases which in my opinion are definitely of minor importance. We must not forget what is essentially at stake, and nobody in this house will suggest that what I say is not entirely true. All Western countries are now going through a painful financial crisis and we have seen what happened in Great Britain
October 24, 1968

where the pound sterling was devaluated and all kinds of problems occurred.
We have seen stable countries, like Denmark, forced to devaluate their money. France, another stable country, which was tied to the gold standard, today encounters many difficulties. One has only to read the papers or confidential documents to realize this. The United States had to raise their income tax by 10 per cent. A great many Western countries had and still have to contend with a very difficult international situation.
In recent months we have seen that Canada has been able to get successfully through this international financial crisis and in doing so has earned the admiration of all the countries in the world. But on what condition, Mr. Speaker? On condition that we inspire confidence to foreign and Canadian investors, who otherwise might wish to invest their money elsewhere, if they were able to get a better return there. Therefore, the sine qua non condition of the investors' confidence is, first of all-students of economics know-that the government should balance its budget as much as possible. I say again that, under the circumstances, to avoid disastrous inflation in Canada, the measure proposed by the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) is indispensable, even though it is painful, even though many of us will have to pay their share, even though many of the members of the opposition find it distressing.
It is not the only indispensable one, Mr. Chairman, because it touches upon only one aspect of the problem. Still, it is a step in the right direction, and I am sure that those who are concerned with the commonweal, will overlook their personal interest in seeking additional publicity in the newspapers. They will recognize that if we are to inspire confidence to foreign investors-as well as our own-who are interested in the development of our present businesses and in setting up new ones-which will help to reduce unemployment in Canada-the government must set the example of austerity in its own administration and adopt legislation to ensure that its own services pay their own way.
It is by taking into account that primary consideration about which, in my opinion, all hon. members are concerned, that we will make sure that the Canadian economy will remain healthy and that there will be less unemployment. We must all have the courage-and I agree with what the hon. member for Hillsborough said-to forget our personal
Post Office Act
considerations, our partisan considerations and think about the primary interest. We must all accept to make sacrifices so that Canada will not know the slowdown that other countries have gone through.
Taking that into account I strongly support the bill introduced by the Postmaster General.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Chairman, I have two brief comments to make on what the minister has said. It seems, from the minister's answers, that he has been playing eeny, meeny, miny, mo in a bureaucratic jungle and has had a hard time making up his mind about anything worth while.
The field has been well covered and the debate has been good. I want to examine briefly what the Postmaster General proposes to do to our postal services. I am reminded of one who now is in a safe haven who said that if advertising were removed from newspapers, articles would cost less in the marketplace. He forgot to say that reading a newspaper would then become the prerogative of the rich, only, instead of costing 10 cents, they might cost about $1 each. Also, they might be then controlled by only money Barons and the government, which would certainly be bad for the Canadian people. They would not know what went on.
It seems passing strange that the post office, which showed a profit of $20 million just before the Liberal party came to power a few years ago, now suffers from a deficit of over $100 million after five years of Liberal rule. It is claimed that newspapers have paid only about one third of their delivery costs. The new rate is 5 per cent on news and 50 per cent on advertising. This means the Postmaster General will increase this rate to 75 per cent, or a total increase of over 150 per cent.
What will be the effect of this? Newspapers will have to increase their subscription rates and their advertising rates. This places a tax on dissemination of knowledge, a tax on knowledge and of current events. Business will have to increase the costs of its goods by an amount equal to the increase in advertising rates, and the poor taxpayer will have to pay the shot for the cost on news.
I am wondering about cases when newspaper subscriptions have been purchased for a few years ahead. How many of these cases are there, and who is to absorb the loss?

October 24, 1968
Post Office Act
I am wondering why Maclean's should pay an increase of 136 per cent, Reader's Digest 100 per cent and Time magazine 59 per cent. The Postmaster General tried to explain the advantages of his arrangement, but with no success. He said, "This matter fits into that compartment and this other matter fits into another compartment." He did not convince anybody of the correctness of his assertions.
Perhaps the minister would tell us why he has imposed a tax on education, since this disturbs me. This tax is being imposed on professional magazines, on journals which doctors, dentists, and veterinarians receive, on journals which bring the results of modern scientific research to the professional man. Journals to do with science and education, religious magazines, law, and the arts will all cost more. The hon. member for Winnipeg North has already put this on the record.
Meeting the other day under the auspices of the Royal Society of Canada, 67 learned societies discussing items of common interest passed the following resolution unanimously:
-the representatives of sixty-seven learned and professional societies wish to draw to the attention of the Postmaster General the apparent discrimination against members of the scientific and learned professions which would result from the application of provisions of clause 11(1)0 of Bill C116 to publications of the aforementioned societies.
Now in my own field, just as an example, the Canadian Medical Association Journal issues 22,000 copies weekly to members in Canada and contains scientific material originating in Canada, material dealing with the work of clinical and medical scientists. The journal is devoted to promoting the advancement of medical knowledge. The government supports a health resources fund. On the one hand it wishes to provide training to doctors, under the health resources fund, and on the other hand it wishes to tax scientific knowledge that is brought to these doctors by journals like the Canadian Medical Association Journal. This is also the government that introduced medicare.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
In 1967 the Canadian Medical Association lost $19,443 on the publication of the association journal, and expenditures on postage under the second class rate amounted to about $20,000. But to the end of September of this year losses amounted to almost $65,000 mainly because of a decline in advertizing by pharmaceutical companies, which have been subjected to such criticism in government

circles. I do not want to guess what the postage costs will be under the amended act, but let me say this: a voluntary association such as the Canadian Medical Association cannot long sustain substantial losses and steadily rising costs. Does the minister not realize what he is doing to the dissemination of scientific knowledge, the very thing we need so badly in this country, when there is a brain drain to the south. I would like the minister to take a long look at this and refrain from hurting education and scientific knowledge in Canada, because we are having a hard enough job competing with our friends to the south, and with their medical and scientific journals.
As a matter of fact, this proposal of the government carries us back in some ways to the stagecoach days. The minister mentioned Orillia, and I was happy to hear him mention that town. As a graduate of McGill he would know that the great humorist Stephen Leacock lived there. Anyway, a letter sent out on a Friday might not get to its destination until the following Tuesday-or if the mail were particularly heavy, it might not be seen until Wednesday. This carries us right back to stagecoach days. Is there any other country with our standard of living which is running a five-day-a-week mail service? I would like to know.
The minister has yet to explain to my satisfaction why the technology of the post office and its use of modern methods have not kept pace with the need. I believe that when the Liberal party came to power the department was showing a surplus of $20 million. Why in the world was not more done in the scientific field to make use of advancing technology, bearing in mind the fact that the mails are used more today then ever before? I am not blaming the minister for this, because he was not responsible then.
In the scientific field the proposals here will certainly do untold damage to dissemination of scientific knowledge. The bill will do damage to many doctors who get their information on research, and the latest treatment methods, from the medical journals. Then again, why is the minister being so unfair to the post office at a time when the government is subsidizing the C.B.C. to the extent, I believe, of $150 million? The corporation carries the same kind of advertising as do the newspapers. In my opinion this is ridiculous. The minister should have done a lot more research in this field. People would like to have the answers to these questions. They would like to be told of a better way instead
October 24, 1968

of increasing the cost and cutting the service to the Canadian people.


Mr. Skoberg:: October 24. 1968
Post Office Act
There are a few points which I should like to ask the minister to consider. Can he give us some assurance that he will take another look at the publications to which I have referred. I do not believe that rigidity in the bill at this particular time is something which medical, professional and union publications should be expected to bear.
The minister has mentioned that this is a small increase from the standpoint of the individual who is subscribing to the particular papers. I suggest, however, that we should not consider this as just one particular item. Every increase on every item in respect of consumer costs, and the interest rates with which the farmers will now be faced, contributes to the increase in the over-all cost of living index. This brings about a spiralling increase in the rising cost of living. It is not a matter of saying that this is just one item, it is the many things put together that we must take into consideration.
I would ask the minister again, when he answers later on, to inform us whether the railways were deliberately left out of the mail carrying contracts or whether they asked to be relieved from such contracts. I am sure this could be handled under one of the items which are before us.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Chairman, I take this opportunity, now that my turn has come, to say a few words about such an important and controversial bill.
I am convinced that the Postmaster General is not happy to lead such a delicate and difficult attack against Canadian voters, I am perfectly aware that the minister has inherited a very difficult post. I am ready to sympathize with him to a certain extent. I even ask myself if the previous government which ignored the findings of the Montpetit Commission is not responsible for the present minister's increasing difficulties.
I suppose that it is not too late however to ask the minister to show better understanding and I think that, in the name of common sense, we will be able at this stage of the bill to score a few points in the public interest.
I noticed this afternoon that government members were overjoyed by the defeat of the amendment. However I am convinced that all members are not willing to impose such heavy increases on small taxpayers. Of course, the minister is perfectly right on certain points, but I wonder how high increases as those proposed can be generalized.
[Mr. Skoberg.l
I have not yet agreed that the Post Office Department must pay its own way at the expense of the quality of services rendered to the people. It has become generally accepted in various administration that one department can show a deficit which can be covered by others or out of the consolidated revenue fund.
I suppose that the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) must consider in the first place the services to be rendered to the community before trying to make his department profitable. As he is now bringing in the bill, the present minister is only considering whether his department is economic, and I wonder if he is right. I understand that he is used to handling figures and he is well versed in financial matters, but I would like to assure the minister that the Canadian people do not understand so easily the importance of an increase.
I cannot refrain from defending the situation of weeklies, since we are lucky enough to have in my constituency four weeklies which are quite well organized and render tremendous services to the people. I quite agree with the hon. member who said yesterday that those weeklies are even more useful than television and that if the bill is passed, we shall be deprived of a number of weeklies, which would be unfortunate indeed. On behalf of those weeklies, in my district as well as all over Canada, I tell the minister that I hope he will be sensible enough to change his position and to give particular consideration to this class of mail which is absolutely necessary in all areas so that they can get adequate information.
A little while ago, I asked the minister a question to which I would very much have liked to receive an answer. I asked him if, in view of the information received to the effect that Saturday was the worst day of the week to cancel postal delivery, another day of the week could be considered? I should like the minister to consider this, if he has not already done so. I should think that Wednesday, for instance, in the middle of the week, would be less damageable. I am not saying that it would suit everyone, but somehow I feel that a day in the middle of the week would be more acceptable to everyone. I make this suggestion because I think the members of the opposition should not be content to say no, for the fun of it: they should try to suggest an alternative. I thought of this suggestion, and after discussing it with several people, it seems to me a day in the middle
October 24, 1968

of the week would be less inconvenient than Saturday.
I am pleased to say to the minister that I appreciate the fact that he reversed his decision on rural delivery. It must be remembered that in my riding alone, for instance, out of 36 parishes, 30 do not even have postoffice boxes. Well, it is obvious that from the day this legislation comes into force, 30 municipalities will not be able to get any service on Saturday; it is too bad and it is regrettable. That is why the fact of selecting another day than Saturday would seem more acceptable I think than the measure before us.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
I should also like to say to the minister that as a new member of parliament, and I do not want to miss this opportunity, that I am a little surprised and even disappointed at the carelessness with which all these commitments have been made by the government, or the party, that took office on June 25. They were assuring us they would cut expenses and limit the increase in taxes. Therefore, I am most unhappy to see that after five or six weeks at the most, they have already announced a tremendous increase in postal rates.
The budget has revealed another, and the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) assures us that the ceiling on the interest rate will disappear. I wonder whether this is the just society we were led to expect. I am sorry, and others in the house with me, to see the government increase taxes that way.
Once more, I appeal to all members of the government party, because I do not think they are happy with such a large increase. The extension of the reimbursement of the deficit over a period of a few years has been refused, on the grounds that, three or four years from now, nothing will have been gained.
I would rather see the increase distributed over two, three, four or five years, which would make it less painful this year. Perhaps, with time, we would arrive at the same increase, but people would know in advance and could accept it more easily.
Again, I take this opportunity to invite all the hon. members to plead with the minister to show greater understanding for the electorate and the whole Canadian people. I have to do that. Naturally, much has been said. Some hon. members have a talent for expressing this sort of thing better than I can, but I think the minister understands me. I also think the hon. members understand me and,
Post Office Act
in my opinion, every one of them should plead for a slightly more humane policy than the one expressed in this bill and a more humane attitude on the part of the minister.
I hope this exhortation will lead the minister to be a little more understanding, and perhaps allow the Canadian people to accept a raise somewhat less steep than the one which the minister is now suggesting. I also hope that some consideration will be given to reducing expenditure in other departments, so that the Post Office Department, which is in the first place a public service, may be more protected than it seems to be at present.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I would like to direct a question to the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle).
I have heard my hon. friend say that there are four weeklies in his riding. Is he not convinced, supposing that two of them should go bankrupt, that the other two would manage much better and would be able to pay their due to the Post Office Department?


Roch La Salle: Mr. Chairman, I shall reply to the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) that I would not at all like to see two weeklies go bankrupt.
The question he is asking leads me to think that he already foresees the bankruptcy of the two weeklies; that would be very unfortunate.
The attitude of the present government might lead some weeklies to bankruptcy. That is the reason why I intervened in the debate and asked the minister to change his mind, so that weeklies will not be forced to go bankrupt.


Mr. Ritchie:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to address two points to the Postmaster General. In his definition of weekly and daily newspapers there is a class of newspaper he has not considered, and that is the triweekly newspapers usually published in small towns. Often they are only overgrown weeklies, and they are not in the class of large city newspapers. The postal rate on one of these newspapers of which I know is at present $30 a month. Under the new rates it will be $120 a month. This is a substantial increase. There are not many of these papers, but there are a few and I think they have probably not been considered. So I would suggest to the minister that he make another classification between the daily and the weekly category. I believe that many small town newspapers would fit into this category.

October 24, 1968
Post Office Act
Secondly, I should like to reinforce what has already been said about scientific journals in this country. Not only will they be subject to increases, the same as all second class mail, but apparently the privilege of second class mail which, so far as the Canadian Medical Journal is concerned has been accorded since 1911, will be taken away from them. There are at least 56 journals that fall into this category. They are only of interest to people in various professions to whom they are sent. As the minister stated, magazines are in general under intense competition from the United States journals. This competition exists perhaps to an even greater extent in the scientific world. Canadians spend quite a large amount on medical and scientific work and bursaries. In medical research alone the bursaries for the coming year amount to approximately $26 million. The final production of all these people working on various research projects is usually a paper of a scientific nature. Often the waiting list for the publication in U.S. and other journals of papers prepared by these people is three or four years, at least in the field with which I am familiar.
The Canadian Medical Journal is already making plans to reduce its publication by half. Many of these journals have to reduce the outflow, and the area in which our research people can project their views. If there was ever any indication of a necessity for a subsidy in the mails, surely it is in this area because television does not publish a scientific paper or a new article. It is most important that we give as much help to our scientists as possible. Without the dissemination of knowledge, much of the scientific work for which we have already paid will be lost, because unless a scientist can publish his paper in a journal which has a scientific audience it is of little value to anyone.
Another thing which I would like to say is that we might consider closing down our scientific journals in Canada because the United States has so many of them. There is such a vast outpouring of scientific knowledge in the United States that it would overwhelm us. However, I would like to point out that many of the scientific journals are published in both English and French, while the United States journals are only published in English. While it might be said that much of our scientific knowledge for the French speaking people in this country could be garnered from France, we do have to recognize that science in western Europe is somewhat different from

science in North America. The emphasis is different, and if we closed down our journals we would be much the poorer for it. I make a very strong plea to the Postmaster General that if we ever needed a subsidy it is in the scientific field. He should seriously consider this.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the suggestion which has come from the last speaker and from many others before him. I think we have to accept the fact that it is generally considered that statutory rates should be limited to publications which contain news or articles of general interest to the public. This is set out in one of the clauses in the bill, Mr. Chairman. The general public includes those concerned in religious, scientific, literary and educational fields. However, another consideration must be taken into account here. Clause 11 (1) (o) provides that-
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)
-in the case of a publication described in paragraph (b) or (c), it is published primarily for the benefit of the members of a particular profession-
One of the hon. members who spoke is a doctor. He has been an economist and subscribes to the professional economists journal.
I imagine the hon. member for Hillsborough also subscribes, because it is a sister journal. The actual cost to that quarterly as a result of this increase will be roughly 3i cents per issue per subscriber. I do not know whether the association will raise our membership due by $1 to cover what, in effect, will be an increase of about 14 cents a year, but I imagine that the hon. member for Hillsborough-[DOT] certainly I will-will continue to be a member.
What we are trying to do, Mr. Chairman, is to restrict subsidization by the people of Canada of publications that are of general interest. I have every sympathy for these journals and also for the medical journal. The medical journal may have to increase its costs by something in the order of $1 per year per member as a result of this rate increase, and I am sure the doctors can well afford the difference. If the journal is what the hon. member said it was, of medico-scientific value, then it is in the doctors own interests to subscribe to it.
I do not think doctors would refuse to subscribe to the journal, Mr. Chairman, because the Post Office Department suddenly demanded a reasonable return-nowhere near
October 24, 1968

100 per cent return, believe me, but a reasonable return-on its actual costs, or an approximation of those costs. On the other hand, there may be many people who want a subsidized medical journal, and perhaps the answer is for the hon. member for Hillsborough and myself to increase our donations to the economists and political scientists in this country.
In regard to the situation mentioned by the hon. member for South Shore, there is a case of interest to all of us. We are all aware of the tremendous work that war amputees are doing to sustain themselves and to be independent. They provide a service to the people of Canada, and I think most of us return a cheque to them in the envelope they send us. Perhaps this year our cheques should be worth a little more, in which case it would enable them to meet their problem.
The hon. member for South Shore suggested that parliament itself might vote a grant to the war amputees organization. Although this debate has been drawn out over the last four days, a number of points have emerged of which the Canadian people were not previously aware. One of them is that there have been all sorts of hidden grants made to all sorts of bodies to meet increased costs. Some bodies might have been able to meet those costs independently, but some do find difficulty and have to present their case to the people. Having received support in the past the people naturally have sympathy for the particular activity concerned.
It is not part of the function of a department that provides services to continue hidden subsidies, whether to the National Arts Council or to other bodies, when there are crown corporations or bodies that are chiefly concerned with the matter. In the case of the arts council the Secretary of State is involved. The deficits of such bodies are taken into account when their annual grants are made in a recognized forum. We know very well that a subsidy is being provided, whether that subsidy is to some consumer co-operative movement, to the National Arts Council, to the Winnipeg ballet, or what have you. But, we do not want hidden any more the subsidy in postal rates.
A distinction must be drawn. We have talked about the definitions of Canadian newspapers or publications. These publications are put out primarily for the benefit of the members of a particular profession, whether they are in the field of agriculture, medicine, economics or political science.
Post Office Act


An hon. Member:: It might be the Canadian Medical Association Journal.


Eric William Kierans: Yes. The Canadian Medical Association Journal will be in there, so will the Canadian Hereford Digest which does not affect me. The United Church Observer will not be included in the list of specialized publications, since it is of general interest to its membership at large, as distinct from a bulletin put out by a particular parish in the United Church.
Similarly, the Canadian Boy is the official publication of the Boy Scouts of Canada, and is of general interest to the entire movement. On the other hand, a certain group in Montreal or in St. Boniface if it put out a publication, would not come under the general definition. Yet all these publications have been contributing to the problems of the post office.
Many hon. members have asked, "How did the post office suddenly get in a mess?". Well, it is not in a mess.


Mr. Dinsdale:: But it will be.


Eric William Kierans: It has a deficit of over $99 million because members of this house on many previous occasions have refused to accept their responsibilities, either when they were in power or in opposition. The 1951 bill was emasculated, and between 1957 and 1962 no bill came forward. A bill was withdrawn in 1964, and another defeated in 1967.
Hon. members have asked me to meet with members of every association, and I dare say nobody in this committee of the whole is not aware of certain worthy cases which might be brought to mind. The point is that when anyone cries for a balanced budget, any individual who comes forward says, "Do not balance the budget at our expense".
It has also been said that increases range up to 300 percentage points. When you start at 10 per cent and increase the rate by 50 per cent, you arrive at a final figure of 15 per cent. Yet if costs go up by 10 per cent in one year, they go from 100 per cent to 110 per cent. I admit that this is a radical attempt to bring the post office into the land of common sense.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eric William Kierans: I will guarantee the figures I have laid before the house. They are the result of four years of intensive work by people inside and outside the department.
Post Office Act

October 24, 1968
[DOT] (10:40 p.m.)
I also say that if this legislation is not passed this house will be responsible to the Canadian people for a deficit next year of $130 million. The Canadian people can think of very many choices for making far better use of $130 million than to continue to subsidize those who use these resources.
Mr. Chairman, we have not yet got past clause one, though we have ranged widely across this bill. I think this is about the third time we have done this.


An hon. Member:: Stick around for a while.


Eric William Kierans: I think I can sense something of the unhappiness of the Canadian people about the maimer in which parliament sometimes functions.


Gerald William Baldwin: If we had considered this in committee we would have been finished by now.


Eric William Kierans: But nothing would have come out in the committee that you do not already know. All of you have been quoting from every brief that has been made.


Gerald William Baldwin: We would have been able to test the accuracy of your statements.


Eric William Kierans: Well, you have not found out that anything I have said was untrue, although this was put into doubt by the hon. member for Edmonton West the other evening when he said that because a minister said a thing it was not necessarily the whole truth of the matter.
I am not accustomed to having my word doubted publicly or privately. However, I did not rise on a question of privilege. If that is the fashion of speaking which the hon. member adopts, so be it; let him speak that way. But try and show that some of the figures or information presented to this house are wrong. Try to do so with the help of the tremendous resources which you have behind you-and which have been using you to create a considerable delay over the passage of a bill which the people themselves recognize as being timely and appropriate.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We have just listened to a most surprising explanation. In fact, I shall have to leave undelivered the speech I was about to make in order to answer the minister. When the hon. member for Edmonton West said we could not accept all the facts given by the minister he was not calling into question the minister's integrity or honesty.

All we wanted from the minister was to get the facts.


Mr. Mahoney:: You already have the facts.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Oh, you will have your chance. You have been sitting around without saying a thing since you were elected the member for Calgary South. The minister has set out certain facts and told us that those costs were correct. If he had nothing to fear, why did he not allow this matter to go before a committee, where members of the opposition and members of his own party could have asked questions? After all, it was his own supporters who in caucus last week complained that this was an unreasonable piece of legislation. Had the hon. gentleman followed the course suggested to him he would not be in difficulty now, and he would not have to make explanations tonight.
After all, we asked only for what was reasonable. We said: Let this matter be brought before a standing committee. The minister has set out certain facts. But we all know the manner in which costs can change in one way or another.
Take the case of railway costs. There are some fixed costs and some changing costs. You can draw up a balance sheet and say these happen to be the costs; the costs happen to be this or that, or the costs can change. There can be floating costs. We wanted to find out what the costs really were so that we could have gone into a standing committee and asked intelligent questions of witnesses.
If the minister had sent the bill to a standing committee we could have heard from the people who are in the business of publishing daily and weekly newspapers. They could have said, "The situation will affect us this way, or that way." We could have questioned them. Then we would have had the facts, instead of having them swept under the carpet as the minister has done.
I am surprised that the minister has taken this attitude because we heard of the new deal for his party, we heard that it was going to function with efficiency. But this is a case where they will not allow the use of a committee so that we can get the facts and intelligently accept or reject the minister's case. What the minister is saying is, "There is a loss allocated to the daily and weekly newspapers of $37 million, and I have got to make it up."
Tonight he was asked a question about subsidies and he replied, "We are not going to
October 24, 1968

subsidize the publisher." I say that the country is not subsidizing the publisher at all, and the minister knows that. It is subsidizing the subscriber, the consumer. It is the little man in the country who is buying a daily or weekly newspaper who is subsidized.
I am sure that this is not a new argument to the Liberal backbenchers who have been clapping like trained seals all night. They made this argument themselves.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Albert Béchard: Order, please.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I realize that they want to howl me down. They made the same argument in caucus to the minister last week. Now they are applauding something they don't even believe in.
There is one thing I will say to the Liberal backbenchers, that the daily and weekly newspapers of this country will know who their friends were. They will know the people who went along with this thing, just because the minister wanted it.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Would my hon. friend allow a question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Certainly I will allow a question.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Is there anything that
prevents the hon. gentleman from asking his questions of the minister here tonight?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would have thought the hon. member would have understood the point I was making.


An hon. Member:: What is the point?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If you had come into this house with your mind as open as your mouth you would be better serving this parliament.
Now I come back to answer my hon. friend opposite. I am not interested in asking the minister questions. I want to ask questions of witnesses. I want to question publishers who have been in the daily and weekly newspaper business, and in the magazine business. If the bill were sent to a standing committee we could hear from representatives of Time magazine and Reader's Digest. Then I could find out who was being discriminated against. I want to ask questions in a standing committee of those people who have been in the business for a certain length of time. That is
Post Office Act
the point I am making. I hope I have made that point very clear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: It takes a while for it to sink in.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It certainly does. Now we come to the question of subsidies. We know, and the minister and the governement know that the extra cost is going to be passed on to the newspaper subscriber. Take the case of the Calgary Herald and The Albertan: If the subscription costs to their rural readers is now $12, $14 or $15 and the new postal increases are passed on to them they will have to pay $40 to obtain newspapers in the rural areas outside the city of Calgary. The same will apply in the city of Edmonton. The same situation will exist all across the nation.
This is the evidence we wanted to bring out in a standing committee. The Canadian people want to hear more evidence about the figures the minister has produced. We want to know how those figures were arrived at. We know what happened about the figures in the budget. Even with the use of the great modem equipment, they were only out $400 million or $500 million. I know I might hurt the sensitivity of the minister in saying this, but if they can make a mistake like that, then it is quite possible that this minister could be out in his figures. Let us have a committee examine the facts so that those facts can be brought forward in this house in an intelligent manner, so that parliament and then the people will be able to determine whether the figures the minister has now set out in the rate studies are proper.
[DOT] (10:50 p.m.)
The minister says there has been some disregard for parliament because we dare debate a bill. What is this bill all about? It is a very important bill. This government is prepared, as another member said, to give a bonus to the C.B.C of $150 million. The daily newspapers, the weekly newspapers and periodicals of this nation disseminate the news across the nation. That is what parliament is all about. This is probably the most important bill that will come before parliament. After all, the most important thing in a democracy is an informed public. How can the public become informed if the people do not have an opportunity to read the daily newspapers, the weekly newspapers and periodicals? After all, we have found out during this debate that

October 24, 1988
Post Office Act
we do not influence the Liberals. They stand together back to back, block to block.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: And they clap at their own idiocy. The people we influence in this parliament, whether we speak from that side of the house, this side of the house or even in that corner where they clap so much, are the Canadian people-public opinion. When public opinion is influenced, that is what democracy is about. When a government cannot stand the heat, it gets out because public opinion has found that it is wrong. We have seen governments retreat. The last Liberal government was a retreating government. This government says it is going to bull its way through, no matter what. That is the attitude of this government.
I should like to put on record the opinion of the daily newspapers. I am sure the hon. member for Calgary South received a letter from the daily newspaper in our city. This is the newspaper opinion I should like to quote:
Postmaster General Eric Klerans continues to display a lamentable misunderstanding of the significance of his proposal to increase newspaper postal rates by 100 per cent on news content and 300 per cent on advertising content.
It is interesting to note that we are increasing our rates on second class mail by 100 per cent and 300 percent, while the United States-and I am taking into account the concentration of population-has only increased its rate by 13 per cent or 14 per cent.
It is the subscribers who get their newspapers by mail-rural subscribers in particular-who will bear the brunt of this tremendous jump in cost, not the newspaper.
The minister really has said to the daily newspapers that the farmers are not entitled to their mail. We know that the other minister has handed over the farms to the chartered banks of Canada because of the interest rates. Now this minister has taken away the weekly and daily newspapers from the farmers by these costs. The quotation continues:
Yet Mr. Kierans complained in the House of Commons on Tuesday that the present post office 'subsidy' to newspaper publishers amounts to around $37 million.
Does the problem not boil down to one thing, the financial priorities? It is fine for this government to squander $54 million on the national arts centre, which will cost this nation perhaps $3 million or $4 million a year to operate. That is fine. But it is not fine that we should subsidize the consumers or subscribers of the daily newspapers of the nation in the amount of $30 million. We squander $54 million, and another $3 million per year to operate this arts centre, and when will it be finished? The Prime Minister has suggested that we cannot knock this down now because it has cost the nation too much money.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is their attitude. An hon. member has said "order". He has been out of order mentally and physically since he came here.
Newspapers do not recover production costs from subscriptions; they rely on advertisements for their revenue.


An hon. Member:: $145 million for the C.B.C.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Someone said "Hear, hear". Obviously he is getting good coverage over the C.B.C. I should like to ask the government how it is that the C.B.C. can come to this government, when we are worrying about deficits in this country, and ask for moneys in the way of loans which will never be paid back, without the approval of parliament? If that is not discrimination-and I have some respect for the C.B.C. because it was created under a Conservative government-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: This is discrimination
against the daily and weekly newspapers in preference to the C.B.C., so far as the dissemination of news is concerned.
May I call it eleven o'clock, sir?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It now
being eleven o'clock I shall rise and report progress and seek leave to sit at the next sitting of the house.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, while the Postmaster General is leisurely considering his answers to all the questions put to him today, I should like to ask the house leader to consider bringing the cash advances bill before the house first thing tomorrow so we can pass that?

October 24, 1968


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it is just one week ago tonight that hon. members opposite had the opportunity to pass these farm credit measures, but they refused to do so. If hon. members opposite will stop their filibuster and pass the post office bill, and then co-operate in the remaining stages of the amendments to the Farm Credit Corporation Act; then if they are really keen on having the cash advances measure put through, perhaps we can do so.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I rise on a point of order, sir.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please.
Business of the House


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, why should he have the opportunity to speak when I am denied the right to speak? I am very happy that you have sat down, because if that hon. member has the right to speak, then someone on this side should also have the right to speak. There is no filibuster on this side.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That minister, "Mr. Goebbels", the minister of propaganda, knows there is no filibuster. He is just doing this to refute a reasonable argument.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, October 25, 1968