1968-10-25

Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members are aware that last evening a pleasant function for all concerned was held on the occasion of the unveiling of the portrait of a former prime minister, Right Hon. Lester Pearson.
Arrangements were made to take a verbatim report of the proceedings, and it is my suggestion to the house that the report be made a part of today's Hansard. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For document referred to above, see appendix.]



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Speaker:: I have now had an opportunity to look into the alleged alteration of Hansard, raised yesterday as a question of privilege by the hon. member for York South.
I have ascertained that as claimed by the hon. member for York South there has been an alteration in the Prime Minister's spoken words. The words "levying more money" were changed to "finding more money". Upon further inquiry it has been ascertained that the changes were made by the editorial staff of Hansard on their own initiative. Neither the Prime Minister nor his staff were consulted in making the alteration. The explanation given by the editor is that in his view the phrase "finding money" appeared to be more idiomatic than "levying money". This, of course, is a matter of judgment. Obviously the editor's opinion has not met with the approval of all hon. members of the house. At the same time I am sure most members will acknowledge that editorial changes normally tend to improve verbatim reports.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: I see the hon. member for York South shaking his hands. I wonder whether he is going to withdraw his insinuations.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I do not at
all blame the right hon. gentleman for suggesting that I acknowledge the fact that the change, which I think was substantial, was made by a member of the Hansard editorial staff and not by anyone in the Prime Minister's office, and I do so gladly. May I say I never suggested that the Prime Minister himself was responsible for it. I am delighted as a member of this parliament to learn that the staff in the Prime Minister's office was not responsible, and I gladly acknowledge it.


Mr. Trudeau:: I am very glad for the acknowledgement, but I read in Hansard of yesterday that the hon. member said this was an abuse of the editing privileges which members of the house have. I think this was a very clear inference, and it was supported by the Leader of the Opposition. Now we find that neither I nor my people had done any editing on this, and I think the accusation was quite wrong.


Mr. Bell:: Why don't you quit while you are ahead?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If this were the rule the hon. member followed he would never quit, because he has never been ahead on this. I said yesterday that I would stand by any word I used because I really did not see the significance of the point of order one way or the other. I am prepared to say I am very glad that the editorial staff of Hansard makes my grammatical errors appear less obvious. I have no objection if they do the same thing for members of the opposition, but I have been told that I have been using an undefendable editing privilege. Now the answer is that I have not, so I suggest that the hon. member for York South and the Leader of the Opposition, who agreed with him, admit that they made a mistake in suggesting I had misused editing privileges. Let us see him answer that.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rose yesterday to
October 25, 1968

Statement on Alteration in Hansard Report indicate that my recollection of what the Prime Minister had said was the same as that of the hon. member for York South. We now find I was right in this regard, from what you have reported this morning, Your Honour.
I did not understand I was making any imputation against the Prime Minister; I was stating my impression of what the Prime Minister had said. The Prime Minister yesterday disputed what the hon. member for York South said, indicating his recollection was that he had used the word "finding". My impression was that he had used a different word conveying to me a different sense; and with all respect, Mr. Speaker, the word "levying" does convey quite a different impression in this context than the word "finding". I want to make it very clear that I do not want to be associated with any imputation against the Prime Minister. I don't think I have anything to withdraw.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What about the words about the integrity of Hansard?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The integrity of Hansard is the sense of reporting accurately what the Prime Minister had said. I don't want to continue this, but I think it is clear now Hansard did not report in fact what the Prime Minister had said, and I think the matter should be dropped there with the explanation you have given, Mr. Speaker.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I don't really quite know what the Prime Minister is after in his interjection. I said very clearly that 1 was very happy to acknowledge that neither he nor any member of his office staff had made the change. I remind the house, Mr. Speaker, that yesterday instead of the Prime Minister saying, as he ought to have, that he did not quite remember, that maybe I was right but he did not remember, he said very emphatically his memory was that he used the word "finding".
I have expressed and acknowledged clearly my satisfaction as a member of this house that neither the Prime Minister nor anyone of his office staff had made the change. To that extent I believe the Prime Minister's statement yesterday that he had not made it, and I certainly am happy to know the fact today. But if I apologize, as I did, for having suggested anything to the contrary, I think the Prime Minister has an even greater duty to apologize to the house for being so emphatic about the word that was used in Hansard yesterday, which was wrong and which gave

a completely different meaning to his statement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether we should pursue the matter further. We have had explanations indicating that perhaps everybody was right yesterday.


Mr. Baldwin:: The Prime Minister is just more sophisticated than he thought he was.



LABOUR, MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
First report of standing committee on labour, manpower and immigration-Mr. Caccia.
[Note: Text of the foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.f

Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the house that the United Nations Sugar Conference, which was reconvened on September 23 in Geneva, was successfully concluded October 23. The conference adopted the text of a new International Sugar Agreement for the consideration of governments with a view to bringing it into force on January 1, 1969. This follows a number of attempts to negotiate an arrangement to replace the former International Sugar Agreement which lapsed on January 1, 1962. The new agreement is for a period of five years, subject to a review of its economic provisions in the third year.
The new agreement provides for export quotas to be adjusted when market prices exceed or fall below specified price levels from 3.25 to 5.25 U.S. cents per pound, f.o.b. Caribbean Port. Other provisions include supply commitments by exporting countries as well as importer undertakings regarding access and limitation of imports from nonmembers. The supply commitments are of particular importance to importing countries such as Canada since they are designed to ensure that consumers will not be called upon to pay excessive prices in periods of world scarcity of sugar.
The purpose of the new agreement is to achieve a more orderly world sugar economy
October 25, 1968

in the interests of both exporting and importing countries. It will protect the interest of Canadian consumers in the event of excessive prices, such as occurred in 1963, and at the same time will benefit many developing countries, including those of the Commonwealth Caribbean, by improving the returns from one of their chief exports. The government fully supported the negotiation of this agreement, which represents a major achievement of international co-operation.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, the house is interested in hearing this report on the United Nations sugar conference. I am at a loss to know why it has taken six years for this conference to be reconvened after it had lapsed in 1962. I wonder why Canada did not make a greater effort to have this conference called and concluded long before now. This report does not tell us what is the government's stand on this matter. It simply says that Canada has agreed with other nations to enter into negotiations. As I understand it, Canada has until some time in December to decide whether to sign it.
In the past Canada has not been a signatory to this world sugar agreement. I do not understand why. It seems as though we have been more willing to buy sugar on the open market as cheaply as we can from whomever we can including Cuba, and that we have not considered those Commonwealth friends of ours in the Caribbean who produce sugar and have been eking out a very meagre existence from the sale of sugar. I am sure the people in the Caribbean would much sooner receive a fair price for their sugar production than be given a handout in the form of external aid.
I hope therefore, when the time comes to sign this proposed document, Canada will see fit to become a member of the world sugar market.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join with the hon. member for Wellington who has just spoken, in welcoming this announcement. I do not claim to be an expert on the subject of sugar, but we all know that sugar is an important commodity for consumers. The minister in making his statement emphasized the value of stability of prices and supplies for consuming or importing countries such as Canada.
I should like to emphasize the importance of this commodity to the exporting countries. We all know of the tremendous poverty which exists. Among the countries which are
Announcement of New International Agreement
suffering from extreme poverty are those which are producers of sugar supplies. Any stabilization under a national agreement would be of very great importance to these countries.
We therefore welcome this announcement. We hope the government will proceed to deal favourably with the proposal which as we see it will be of benefit to all concerned in this matter. We hope this will be the precursor of more international arrangements. The deep problem of poverty in the world will not be solved by handouts alone, although economic aid is important. It will be solved by expanded trade, and this is the way to achieve it.
[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)



SUPREME COURT ACT


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (for the Minister of Justice) moved: the first reading of Bill No. S-8 (from the Senate), to amend the Supreme Court Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



EXTERNAL AID


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the urgent need of making Canadian Hercules aircraft immediately available to the churches and other relief organizations now engaged in flying supplies from Sao Tome to Biafra in order to provide urgently needed supplies to the starving children in that area.
Perhaps I may address the Chair on the question of the urgency of debate. I am well aware that what is now to be discussed is not the subject matter of the motion but the question of urgency of debate. I believe I can establish this urgency. I am well aware that this matter is generally under discussion by the standing committee on external affairs and national defence, but I intend to point out to Your Honour that the specific emergency which is dealt with in this motion is under the immediate control of the government, and cannot await the deliberations of that committee.
October 25, 1968

Delay in Use of Aircraft for Biafra
The general background of this matter is well known to the house, and I will only mention the outstanding matters which have to be considered when considering the urgency of debate. There is reliable evidence that upwards of 6,000 are dying daily in Biafra, mostly children, and that the provision of supplies to relieve this starvation is an urgent matter. Surely that requires no argument.
More than two weeks ago the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) and I visited Sao Tome and Biafra. We inquired as to what should be done by way of relief. We discovered that the nightly airlift from Sao Tome to the airstrip of Uli within the Biafra-occupied region was the most efficient operating means of getting in supplies. This is being operated by Caritas International and the Protestant churches as a non-political activity using aircraft loaned, among others, by the Swedish and West German governments, and chartered by the church organizations.
When we asked the man in charge, who happens to be a Canadian, what was the greatest need to increase the supplies he replied "Hercules planes are urgently needed, as their capacity is in the neighbourhood of 20 tons per trip." This can be compared to roughly 10 tons per trip in respect of the planes now being used. He also indicated the Hercules have adequate cargo doors to enable loading and unloading more quickly. He said "I would give my eye teeth for even one Hercules".
Upon our return we reported this to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in New York on October 8. About this time the minister announced that the government of Nigeria had agreed to the flying in of supplies to Biafran-held territory by a Canadian aircraft in conjunction with the International Red Cross, and stated that the Canadian government had indicated its willingness to make this Hercules plane available.
At a meeting on the same day in New York, October 8, at the United Nations offices of the Nigerian government-the meeting was arranged by the Department of External Affairs-Dr. Arikpo, the distinguished foreign commissioner of Nigeria, stated in the presence of representatives of the Department of External Affairs, the minister's parliamentary secretary, several other members of parliament on the delegation to the United Nations, the hon. member for Egmont and myself, that the Nigerian government was willing to permit the Canadian government to loan aircraft
[Mr. Brewin.l
to the Red Cross for the operation of the emergency airlift into Biafra.
At that time, knowing the urgent need of the churches' operation from Sao Tome for Hercules, and the efficiency of this operation, I specifically asked Dr. Arikpo whether this consent extended to Hercules aircraft made available for the churches' operation from Sao Tome. Dr. Arikpo replied with perfect clarity that it did, subject to one proviso only, that the Red Cross would provide someone to inspect the cargoes of the airlift, and would provide insignia for the aircraft so used.
We all know that since that time the Canadian government has sent two Hercules to Africa-perhaps it is three, but I understand two have been flown to Africa-one of which I understand is in Lagos, which it was proposed should be used to transport supplies into the Nigerian-occupied sections of Biafra. Another aircraft is at Tenerife island to be available to go to Fernando Po, and another is in Brazil. I believe this aircraft is still in Brazil, ready to fly over as required.
These plans have proved to be abortive. It has been suggested that the landing strips in the areas of Biafra occupied by Nigerian forces are not suitable for landing in Nigeria, or the Nigerian military authorities are unwilling to give their final consent. The difficulty in respect of the airlift from Fernando Po seems to lie in making contact with the government of Equatorial Guinea. But there is one avenue left, and that is the one from Sao Tome. That avenue has proved in the past the most successful and promising outlet of all, and in this respect a very strange situation has arisen. On Tuesday last I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question, and he said in reply:
-I have not been able to confirm that such statement-
That is the statement by the foreign minister of Nigeria that he would agree to the flights from Sao Tome if supervised by the Red Cross.
-is true, but I am still making inquiries.
I asked him again on Wednesday and on that day the Secretary of State for External Affairs repeated that he was trying to find out whether this was so, but that unfortunately the commissioner for foreign affairs for Nigeria was in hospital.
I find it very difficult to understand why the minister needs to delay in finding out
October 25, 1968	COMMONS
whether or not Dr. Arikpo made the statement which I have asserted he did make. If the minister does not believe the hon. member for Egmont and myself when we make this assertion, surely he can confirm this from his officials in New York, his parliamentary secretary and others who were there. I suggest there is no need to wait for consent, because it is there.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that I must bring these remarks to a conclusion shortly, and I shall. I appreciate that the consent of the Red Cross is required, but surely the minister, who can arrange to send 100 or so armed personnel, can arrange with the Red Cross to send the one or two men necessary to Sao Tome to carry out the inspection there. That was the only condition.
I am sure that in a desperate emergency, when children are starving by the thousands, the Red Cross will not delay its co-operation, and 1 am quite sure I speak for the church organizations who are running the supplies in when I say they will do all they can to cooperate. This is a matter in which death and agony increase day by day, and each and every day wasted is a day in which more thousands will die.
While the minister hesitates about confirming something which happened nearly three weeks ago, of which I suggest there is firm and credible evidence, and while he hesitates to establish the necessary co-operation with the International Red Cross, the one most promising means of sending in supplies is not used. It has even been suggested that we are going to bring back the Hercules and provide smaller aircraft that can fly into Nigeria.
[DOT] (11:30 a.m.)
Canada's good intentions will be made a mockery unless there is immediate action. The government must not postpone until the committee has reported, or postpone from day to day, perhaps for weeks, the provision of the urgently needed Hercules in the Sao Tome operation. I suggest the reason for this debate is not only that the matter may be clarified, but also that this house may express its views on a matter deeply affecting Canada's humanitarian purpose, deeply concerning public opinion and deeply affecting Canada's reputation for efficiency.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I will not take very long in speaking on the urgency of this motion because I believe Your Honour has already heard a very full and excellent statement on this 29180-128
DEBATES	2025
Delay in Use of Aircraft for Biafra point from the hon. member for Greenwood. But I would like to indicate to the house that what we are faced with is in fact a matter that is of great interest and one that will undoubtedly cause considerable suffering not only to the people of Biafra and Nigeria but also to the people of this country. We have become well aware in the weeks that have passed that a tremendous amount of public interest and concern has grown in this country.
I would refer Your Honour to citation 100 (2) of Beauchesne's fourth edition, which says in part:
The "definite matter of urgent public importance", for the discussion of which the adjournment of the house may be moved under standing order 26, must be so pressing that public interest will suffer if it is not given immediate attention.
May I emphasize in particular the last phrase which reads "must be so pressing that public interest will suffer if it is not given immediate attention". It is particularly in this area that we must think very seriously of the motion proposed by the hon. member for Greenwood. For the last two and a half weeks there has been an unusually keen public interest in the activities of our government with regard to the relief operations for Biafra and Nigeria. When the government was finally able to arrange with the government of Nigeria the use of our Hercules aircraft I think all Canadians breathed a great sigh of relief that we would now be able to take a forward step to relieve the starvation of many thousands of people both in Biafra and in Nigeria. Since that time two and a half weeks ago many thousands of lives have been lost. Perhaps it is a little too callous to suggest that part of the reason is that we have not been able as yet to put our Hercules aircraft into service. How many lives were lost can never be determined, and now we face future uncertainty.
Whether it is a matter of 6,000 or 10,000 lives lost a day, each day as it goes by spells untold suffering for the people in that area. We know from personal experience, and we are not alone in this, that there are facilities that could be used tonight if our Hercules aircraft were available. We believe there is some danger that if further delays occur in the possible use of the Fernando Po route, these aircraft may have to return to this country. It seems to be of the utmost importance that we take action not in two days' time or in two weeks' time but today, to make sure that our Canadian aircraft can serve the purpose for which they were sent,
October 25, 1968

Delay in Use of Aircraft for Biafra that is to alleviate the suffering and starvation in Biafra and Nigeria.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make two points to Your Honour which, to me at least, suggest there is clearly urgency of debate in addition to the urgency of the matter with which the motion deals. May I remind Your Honour that on a number of occasions several of us in this house asked the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether they would not consider sending the Hercules aircraft to Sao Tome pending the various consents which they are trying to obtain with respect to the use of the Hercules via Lagos and Fernando Po. In every case the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs insisted that the arrangement through the International Red Cross had to stand and that they were not prepared to send the Hercules to Sao Tome for use by the church relief organizations. We have therefore had the spectacle of planes, which for the last number of days could have been delivering urgently required supplies to Biafra, standing idle in Lagos, in Cerife and on Ascension island doing nothing.
I would also remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the other day when the Secretary of State for External Affairs was asked by a member of this house why the Hercules were not being used, he informed this house that there was an additional reason, namely that the airstrips in occupied Biafra did not appear to be good enough to receive the Hercules. If my memory serves me correctly, and I think I am accurate, he added that they had to consider whether to pull the Hercules back and replace them with other, smaller planes.
Mr. Speaker, the main reason I rise today in support of urgency of debate of this matter is the fact that this operation can be undertaken either today or over the week end. According to the answer which the Secretary of State for External Affairs gave, and according to reports, it is quite possible that the government, in line with its determination that the Hercules only be used through Fernando Po and Lagos by the International Red Cross and by no one else, will decide that these planes will be brought back home and we will have to start the whole thing over again by sending planes back to do this urgent and humanitarian job of providing relief.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the obvious likelihood contained in the answer by the minister that the planes will be returned


home makes this matter of immediate urgency for debate in this house so the government may have its mind changed as a result of discussions in this house, and so these planes which are waiting helplessly and uselessly now may be used as they ought to have been used from the first day, through Sao Tome for the delivery of supplies to starving thousands in Biafra. *
Mr. Speaker, if I may put this as strongly as I can, I ask you to permit the members of the opposition to tell the government today that so far as we are concerned we will not stand for the return of these planes to Canada. They can be used. There are church organizations in Sao Tome that have already flown supplies into Biafra, and they are eager to have these planes. It is nothing but the most arid, irrelevant and hard headed obstinacy which prevents these planes from being used for this humanitarian purpose and that lets them stand idle and useless instead. We have to express this view today, not tomorrow or on any other day, because Monday may be too late.
Before I sit down may I say, Mr. Speaker, that it would have been desirable if the Secretary of State for External Affairs had been here. He is not here today, and on Sunday he leaves for a very necessary mission to Latin America which, if my memory serves me right, will keep him away for a month, from October 27 to November 27. So the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs today cannot possibly be a reason why this should not be debated today. If this parliament is at all meaningful in the life of the people of Canada and in the life of peoples throughout the world, and if our job as parliamentarians has any purpose at all, then the discussion of this urgent matter of providing necessary relief for starving thousands seems to me to transcend any other subject which may come before the house today. The likelihood of these planes being returned home makes it all the more urgent that we debate the matter now, and not even an hour from now.
[DOT] (11:40 a.m.)


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in support of the motion of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin).
I do not intend to talk at length of the urgency of the matter, for I think that point has been quite well made by the member for
Ociober 25, 1968

Greenwood and those who spoke after him. However, I should also like to insist on the debate taking place today, Mr. Speaker, because although the government has not misled us deliberately, it has not clearly stated its intentions concerning the humanitarian help it has been asked to give to Biafra, and it seems to be stubbornly refusing to help that country. The government seems to have agreed to lend its Hercules aircraft to help the Nigerians rather than the Biafrans, although, according to the information we have received in the committee on external affairs and national defence, the need exists rather on the Biafran side.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, one knows that other organizations such as Caritas and the World Council of Churches can go to Biafra. It may be that the Hercules are too heavy to use the landing strips in Nigeria, but if the other organizations can go where the disorder is most serious, I think that the government should consider using the Sao Tome base to send relief where it is most needed. We are told that the two Hercules are ready to take off, but no one does very much except drink beer.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think that we should study the matter today in order to find out exactly what the government intends to do. It is unfortunate, as stated by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) is not here today, but I think that his colleague the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) could be here within a short time to tell us the government's plans.
Mr. Speaker, we learned this morning that there is a possibility that the Hercules might be brought back to Canada instead of being sent to Biafra; I feel that perhaps we should consider replacing the Hercules by lighter planes which could land on the runways in that area.
What we want to know today is whether the Canadian people are not directly involved in the urgency of this matter. I feel that the Canadian people are entitled to know what is being done with their money and what humanitarian steps are being considered. Of course, we are not asking the government to go and wage war in that area, but we are asking it to help those who are hungry, who are sick. In fact, we are told that thousands of people are dying each day from starvation and disease. If the government used the planes which are in readiness, we could help
2027
Delay in Use of Aircraft for Biafra
these people and save a large number of lives.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I believe the time has come to act and to know clearly what the intentions of the government are in this regard.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the great importance of this motion I wonder whether the Prime Minister would ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to come into the house, in spite of the fact it is his day off, so he could give us his views on this important problem.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: I should like to address myself, Mr. Speaker, not to the merits of the issue as other hon. members have, but to the only question which should be considered at this time, that is the procedural question of whether there are other opportunities available for this matter to be discussed. I should like to remind you, sir, that according to citation 100(3) of Beauchesne's fourth edition, the following distinction is made:
"Urgency" within this rule does not apply to the matter itself, but it means "urgency of debate", when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the house do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough and public interest demands that discussion take place immediately.
On October 7, by means of a motion I moved, the estimates of the Department of External Affairs were referred by this house to the standing committee on external affairs and national defence. As Your Honour knows, since then that committee has been engaged in a very active consideration of the events in Nigeria. It is not open to me at this stage in the proceedings to go into what the committee has been discussing, but I believe it is quite clear there is every opportunity for hon. members, if they are interested in this particular aspect of the situation, to have it discussed within the framework of that particular committee. This committee is still meeting; therefore there will be every opportunity in the committee for the question to be discussed.
Perhaps the only other citation which is of interest in this procedural discussion is citation 288 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, which reads as follows:
Committees are regarded as portions of the house and are governed for the most part in their proceedings by the same rules which prevail in the house.
2028	COMMONS
Delay in Use of Aircraft for Biafra
It is clear, therefore, that since the estimates are still being considered by that committee, this is the area of parliamentary proceedings in which the matter should be discussed. By a specific motion this house has chosen the committee as the place to deal with this particular question. If I may borrow some of the terminology used by the hon. member for Greenwood, it seems to me it would be making a mockery of the proceedings of the committee, and indeed of the standing orders of this house, to suggest that a matter which has been so actively pursued during the last several weeks before that committee should be taken away from the committee and dealt with in this chamber. The subject matter before the committee provides the fullest opportunity to go into all aspects of the question. I think we can take notice of the fact that this has taken place.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there is not the urgency of debate necessary to adjourn the ordinary business of the house. If there be urgency in the subject matter which is referred to in the motion of the hon. member, then he and others who have supported him should be active in seeking a discussion of that matter within the standing committee on external affairs and national defence.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: It is often said, Mr. Speaker, that parliament is in disrepute. Parliamentary institutions everywhere in the free world are under attack. Here we are, under circumstances that touch the hearts and minds of humans everywhere, with occurrences taking place that we have it within our power to do something about, regardless of the attitude of those people who live in countries adjoining Nigeria, and we stultify ourselves by the rules. It was never intended that a government should hide behind the rules when a matter as emergent as this is taking place. There are no arguments that can be advanced. The government is adamant in inaction and refuses to give the members of this house an opportunity to speak. This is the clear import of the words of the hon. gentleman who just preceded me.
Surely there are members in this house supporting the government who are prepared to take a stand on an occasion like this when a principle is at stake. This nation's prestige is at stake. Canadians everywhere ask "Why don't you do something? Can't you get this government to act?" Parliament has been stultified and hamstrung. The hon. gentleman

DEBATES	October 25. 1968
says "Why don't you go to a committee?" Parliament is supreme, and a committee is simply an adjunct. Surely, regardless of the rules, the government will at least take a stand instead of pussyfooting around, procrastinating, promising action for three weeks and doing nothing.
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)


Mr. Ian Wahn (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, the question before us is the urgency of debate. About three weeks ago this general subject matter was referred to the committee on external affairs, of which I am chairman. Since then the committee has met almost daily, meeting two or three times a day sometimes, and has heard a great many authoritative witnesses among whom were some suggested by the hon. member for Greenwood and his colleagues. We are still awaiting a brief which the hon. member for Greenwood says is essential for the preparation of our report. The report is being prepared now and will be considered by the steering committee on Monday. If at that time we have the cooperation of the hon. member for Greenwood and others on both sides of the house, we hope to have the report available for debate early next week.
As a result, I find it difficult to understand why this motion has been put. In any event I do not think it should be proceeded with, since there is no urgency of debate.
The right hon. member for Prince Albert spoke sincerely of the importance of parliamentary institutions. Important to our parliamentary institutions are committees and the development and maturing of our committee system. Entertaining this type of motion would do a great deal to undermine the development of our parliamentary committee system. I do not understand the purpose of the motion, when one considers that the external affairs committee, on which there are 30 members of all parties, has sat for three weeks considering the matter which the hon. member now wishes to have debated by this house.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Will the hon. member permit a question? Does the hon. member not think that it is important today, tomorrow and Sunday, to move emergency supplies?


Ian Grant Wahn: Naturally I consider that important. Supplies should be moved at the earliest moment, but I do not think the procedure suggested by the hon. member for Greenwood will advance us very far toward that goal.
Oclober 25, 1968


Mr. Ralph Siewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, without doubt the situation in Nigeria and Biafra is urgent. It was urgent some time ago, urgent enough to bring the committee on external affairs into emergency session. Hon. members of the New Democratic party have pleaded eloquently, and have described the urgency of the situation in Nigeria. Nevertheless, here we are concerned with the urgency of debate, and it is for Your Honour to decide whether such a debate is a matter of urgency weighty enough to adjourn the normal proceedings of this house.
It has been said that this matter is before the committee on external affairs. Though it is an urgent matter, it is interesting to note that the N.D.P. members have not made any concrete proposals before that committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I remind the hon. member that he ought not to discuss the deliberations of the committee itself.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: I am sorry, sir. I was carried away. The urgency of debate-


An hon. Member:: Let me help you.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: I need no help from the hon. member from Nova Scotia.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member is casting reflections on a Nova Scotia member. I am a Nova Scotian, and at no time did I make a remark about helping the hon. member. I think the hon. member owes an apology to every individual in this house from Nova Scotia. The hon. member ought to identify whoever he is addressing his remarks to.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have listened to arguments in favour of and against the motion, but should any other hon. member wish to talk about the procedural aspect of the matter I will not stand in his way. I may tell hon. members that, having heard arguments, I am now ready to exercise my prerogative and render a decision, but I see the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre wishes to continue the debate.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, addressing himself to the question of urgency of debate the President of the Privy Council if I understood him correctly, dealt with two main points. Perhaps I might be permitted to deal with them in reverse order. His second point was that this matter ought to be left to the standing
Delay in Use of Aircraft for Biafra committee on external affairs and national defence. I submit that the chairman of that committee, the hon. member for St. Paul's, has answered that argument by saying that the committee can deal with this matter some day next week, at the earliest. I submit this is a matter of urgency, and by that I mean it is urgent today, tonight, this week end.
May I also say that the commtitee did not dispatch the Hercules aircraft. The government dispatched them after the Secretary of State for External Affairs had announced the matter in the house. The use of Hercules aircraft was raised on the floor of the house. In this motion we are not dealing with the entire problem, but only with the use of the aircraft that have been dispatched and are not being used for the purposes for which the Secretary of State for External Affairs said they would be used.
We are led to believe that these aircraft will be brought back, and that has created a new emergency that is of urgency this very week end.
As the right hon. member for Prince Albert correctly said, the other point raised by the President of the Privy Council relied on the technicality of the rules. He said the matter should not be raised under standing order 26 if it could be debated at some other opportunity. Yes, Mr. Speaker, there will be further opportunities for debate; we shall continue with the budget debate in a week or so, and that will provide an opportunity. But, as has been said by speaker after speaker, the urgency is today. I submit that the hon. member for Egmont was quite correct is saying that citation 100(2) of Beauchesne's fourth edition is fully appropriate when it says that the issue must be so pressing that the public interest will suffer if the matter is not given immediate attention.
The hon. members for Greenwood and Egmont have said these aircraft could be used tonight to save lives. There will be no pressure for that to be done if this matter is debated next week or the week after. I therefore contend that this issue ought to be dealt with here, where it arose and where it has been dealt with thus far. The government itself sent the aircraft, and the government is responsible to parliament itself.
I also contend that there is no other opportunity for this debate to take place. There will be no opportunity next week or the week after. There is an urgent need to make use of these aircraft tonight, tomorrow night and Sunday night to fly supplies into Biafra. We
2030	COMMONS
Delay in Use of Aircraft for Biafra must have a clear statement from the government that these aircraft will not be brought back with their mission unfulfilled.
Canadians are concerned, as is evident from the many young people who were in the minister's office the other day and who are on parliament hill this very week end. Their concern reflects the concern of all Canadians. We must act at once and I think we ought to debate the matter, not next week or the week after, but at once, this very day.


Mr. Barney Danson (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief. The anguish and deep concern hon. members on this side of the house feel is no less than the anguish and deep concern felt by hon. members on the other side. Yet I do not think a debate here will answer the matter. The action the government proposes to take, an action I support, will ultimately solve the problem. It is not to be solved by having hon. members score debating points or discussing this matter further.
[DOT] (12 noon)


Mr. Andre Foriin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to unduly prolong this debate. I would just like to quote briefly two authors who insisted upon the sovereignty of this parliament and the importance for every member to express his views on a question as significant as the one which is facing us now, the matter of Biafra.
It is essential that the majority should be neither brutal nor tyrannical, that it should not abuse its power to go ahead without taking into account the respectable minorities which it meets on the way.
This is somewhat the problem opposing Biafra and Nigeria.
The law ought not to be the expression of an unreasoning will: "It is first and foremost-suggests Mr. Esmein, well-known author-a rule of justice and public interest.
That is why I fail to understand the stand taken by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), who hides behind legislation in order to curtail the sovereignty of this parliament when we know full well that the government makes decisions with regard to Biafra and Nigeria without any consideration for the proceedings of the committee, indeed it had taken some before the said committee had met.

DEBATES	October 25, 1968
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is of vital importance, of national and even international urgency that this sovereign parliament be informed of this matter. Since the government agrees to account to this parliament, the matter must therefore be placed before parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Again, I thank hon. members for their contributions to the debate. This is obviously a very difficult decision to reach because it involves a matter of great importance and concern, I know, to all hon. members.
The hon. member for Greenwood has made a very strong case in support of his motion, and he was ably supported by other hon. members who have taken part in the procedural debate. The hon. member for Egmont has referred the Chair to a citation which is quite to the point, that is citation 100(3) of Beauchesne. I wonder, however, if the Chair can ignore the fact that as a matter of special importance and immediate urgency the whole of the Nigeria and Biafra situation has been referred by this house to a special committee. As hon. members have indicated, this committee is sitting now, and I assume it has the power to consider the special aspect of the problem which was raised by the hon. member for Greenwood in the course of his contribution.
Normally I would not think it sufficient to refuse such a debate for the simple reason that a forum existed in a committee of the house, but the situation is essentially different in this case because the house by its own special order agreed that this question of Nigeria and Biafra should be considered by a special committee.
In the exercise of its supremacy, the house has decided that this is what should be done, and I find it extremely difficult to disregard a special instruction to the committee that the situation referred to by the hon. member for Greenwood is, generally speaking, to be considered by that committee.
One of the prime purposes of a debate obtained or agreed to under the terms of standing order 26 is to permit hon. members to seek reports or to advocate specific action on the part of the government. This, it seems to me, has been done effectively by hon. members. It is obvious that the debate has ranged far beyond the usual procedural limitations on such a discussion, when contributions should be limited specifically to the question of urgency of debate rather than to the urgency
Oclober 25, 1968

of the matter itself. Hon. members, in particular the mover of the proposed motion, the hon. member for Greenwood, in my humble view have gone somewhat beyond those limitations, have pointed out to the government the urgency of the matter and have sought some action on the part of the government which they feel should be taken. This was the approach followed by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. In other words, it seems to me that the hon. members who would normally have taken part in this debate have had spokesmen express their views on their behalf and that perhaps not very much would be gained by having hon. members repeat the representations they have already made to the Prime Minister and to the government.
In view of these circumstances I hope hon. members will agree with me that it is not possible for me at the present time to grant the proposed motion.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. It relates to a report that the government has sold treasury bills of 11 days duration to the extent of $100 million. Would the minister care to explain why it should be necessary to issue these bills of such short duration, as it seems to indicate an alarming shortage of cash?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, what happens almost every year in the early part of November is that a great many Canada savings bonds are cashed in and the cash from the new bonds does not become available to the government until a couple of weeks later. Incidentally, tenders have simply been called for this $100 million. The bills will not be sold until next week; the announcement was made yesterday. In order to get through this period when we are paying out money for Canada savings bonds which are being redeemed in very large amounts, and to protect the government's cash balances, we are issuing these short term bills.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not wish to press the minister unduly, but does not this shortage of cash leave the government in a vulnerable position, particularly should external or other difficulties be encountered? Does not this reliance upon short term money to the extent
Inquiries of the Ministry indicated leave the government in a vulnerable position, and might not difficulties arise in this connection?


Edgar John Benson: I think not, Mr. Speaker. As the hon. gentleman knows, the government sells treasury bills all the time. The cash balances in November are lower because of the redeeming of Canada savings bonds, but I really think there is no difficulty of the kind suggested.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, does this situation not arise, at least in part, because this year a disproportionately large number of Canada savings bonds are being converted into the new issue and that early sales are not producing cash but merely represent an exchange of bonds?


Edgar John Benson: What happens is that the early sales do produce cash but most of that cash does not come in until after the bonds have been converted. So there is a play of a week or ten days during which the government's cash balances are run down.



EXTERNAL AID


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the assurances given to this house that Nigeria will not object to planes being flown from Sao Tome to territory held by Biafra, will the Prime Minister consider dispatching immediately the Hercules aircraft which are now standing idle so that relief may be brought to Biafra without delay?
Righf Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, I believe the Secretary of State for External Affairs told the house a few days ago that he was attempting to receive from the Nigerian authorities assurance that they would have no objection to our having the Hercules used by the churches as opposed to the International Red Cross. These discussions are continuing. We cannot, of course, force the mind of the Nigerian authorities. Our position throughout has been-and I believe hon. members of the opposition agreed with it-that once authorization was obtained by us from the Nigerian authorities they would in turn authorize the Red Cross to operate. That was a good solution. Now that there are difficulties with the Red Cross the opposition is suggesting that we use the

October 25, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry churches. We would have to obtain the same permission from the Nigerian authorities with respect to the churches as we did with respect to the Red Cross. This is the way we are proceeding. We still believe it is important that we do not disregard international law and that we do not follow the advice of the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert who feels that rules in this matter are of no importance.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I never made any such suggestion. The Prime Minister is hiding behind such statements as an excuse for inaction. I was speaking of the rules of the House of Commons and suggested that they were never designed to be used by this government to stultify and prevent the Canadian people doing what is necessary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear from the right hon. gentleman that this government is invited to disregard the rules of this house when it sees it is convenient to do so.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Would the Prime Minister tell the house whether or not a determined effort is being made to check the statement I have made on a number of occasions, and which has also been made by the hon. member for Egmont, that on Tuesday, October 8, the High Commissioner for Nigeria agreed to the supplies being flown in from Sao Tome with one condition only, that they be inspected by the Red Cross? Why is further consent needed? Will the Prime Minister tell us that?


John George Diefenbaker: It is an escape hatch for the government.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we are making determined efforts to proceed in this way if the government of Nigeria indicates its consent. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated, the Commissioner for External Affairs of Nigeria is in hospital and it is very difficult to communicate with him. But my belief is that if the Nigerians ask the Red Cross to inspect the cargoes supplied by the churches and if the Red Cross is agreeable to do that, we will certainly find no difficulty. We will be very happy to proceed in this way.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question I wish to direct to the hon. member for St. Paul's as chairman of the committee. Would 
the hon. member undertake, as chairman of the committee, that when the report is brought in next week he will move a motion for concurrence by the house so that the house and the country can find out who is hiding and who lacks intestinal fortitude?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that before the house meets again the Secretary of State for External Affairs will have left the country, and in view of the fact that we urgently need to hear from him in some detail about negotiations or arrangements being made, either through the Red Cross or with the government of Nigeria, to bring about an effective relief action, either from Fernando Po or Sao Tome, will the Prime Minister not make the Secretary of State for External Affairs available to the house some time later today in order that he can make a clear statement so there will not be this tremendous uncertainty and confusion about what seems to be a very basic concern of many Canadians as to the whole operation of our relief effort? I am sure the Prime Minister would be anxious to have the Secretary of State for External Affairs make that kind of explanation to the house.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs is not leaving the country on Sunday as the hon. member suggests. He will be here next week to answer questions or make statements as the need arises. During the time he is not here, and if it is a matter concerning the whole nation, I would be prepared to answer in his place.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: We are very glad to note that the minister will be here next week but there is this element of urgency of time. I think it is very important that a statement be made today. Even a matter of two or three days can be very important. We have already lost somewhat over two weeks and I am sure hon. members on both sides of the house would like this matter resolved as quickly as possible.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary question concerning the Hercules aircraft, but the Prime Minister said something a moment ago that puzzled me and, if you will permit me, I would like to clear that up first. The Prime Minister said that the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be here next week, but the Prime Minister's statement yesterday on the ministerial mission to Latin America indicated that
October 25, 1968

the mission would leave on Sunday, October 27, and he named the Secretary of State for External Affairs as one of the ministers who would be on that mission.


Mr, Trudeau:: I would be glad to clear that up, Mr. Speaker. The statement went on to say that we were naming five ministers to that mission in order that at any one time there would be at least two there. I indicated that the ministers would be replacing one another during the course of the mission in order that not too many of them would be absent from the house at any one time. The ministers leaving on Sunday will be the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, which means that at a later date the other three ministers I named will be replacing them in a kind of shuttle service.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Abitibi.


David Lewis: I thought I had Your Honour's permission to ask a supplementary question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand the hon. member for York South rose on a point of order and he now wishes to ask a supplementary question.


David Lewis: That is what I was trying to convey, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask the Prime Minister or the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs, whichever one can tell us, about these attempts to get Nigerian consent through Dr. Arikpo in New York. When the Nigerian foreign commissioner was found to be in hospital in New York did our Department of External Affairs use our high commissioner in Lagos to get some kind of answer to this problem? Surely the Prime Minister is not depending only on the foreign secretary for Nigeria who is in New York?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we are in constant and intense communication with our high commissioner in Lagos who, I may say, is doing an excellent job in a very difficult situation. I should like to put on record very clearly our position on this matter, if I may do so once again. It is that we are trying to act in a way which the Nigerian authorities will not consider hostile, and will not regard as an intervention in the internal affairs of that country. We may be right or wrong in not wanting to be hostile to Nigeria, but this is our position.
We want to act in a way which does not constitute an infringement on Nigerian sovereignty. We do so because the rules of international order mean something to us. We do not 29180-129
Inquiries of the Ministry believe we should intervene, as one African leader described it at the United Nations, in a way which would be determined by the imperialist press or by opportunism. This being our position, Mr. Speaker, we decided to act. We first invited the Canadian people to act as generously as they could as individuals to relieve suffering anywhere, including Bia-fra. We encouraged them to do so.
But as far as the government of Canada's action is concerned we only consented to put our aircraft, our official planes and our air force apparatus at the disposition of the Red Cross when the Nigerian government said that that was all right, that it would not be interpreted as a hostile act. If the same agreement can be obtained as regards the churches-


Francis Andrew Brewin: It has been obtained from Dr. Arikpo.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But that is the difficulty; to arrange that the Nigerian government is able to make sure that the cargoes going through under the control of the churches will be authorized by the Red Cross. The negotiation now is between the Red Cross and the government of Lagos.
I will go on record again as saying that as soon as that has been obtained, as soon as the Red Cross has been given the green light by the Nigerian government to inspect cargoes, the planes will fly in any direction and from any point of departure. Here again, however, we are in the hands of the agreement to be reached between the Red Cross and the government at Lagos. Our authorization lies there. I state again that probably if the Nigerian government makes this arrangement with the Red Cross, if the Red Cross is there to inspect the cargoes, and if this is done with the authority of the Nigerian government, our planes will fly from Sao Tome, Fernando Po or anywhere else.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, so far as I am concerned I should like to ask the Prime Minister to finally assure this house that the government will not recall the Hercules planes and that they will be used from Sao Tome as soon as this, to me, unnecessary agreement is finally received.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, with respect I must disagree with the expression "unnecessary agreement". If we do not obtain the agreement we will then be performing a hostile act.

October 25, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry


David Lewis: It is unnecessary because you have it already.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have it, sir, but apparently the people on the spot are not able to operate in that direction. But, to answer the question, it is not our intention to recall the Hercules aircraft, at least not within the next few days. On our own initiative we offered to supply Buffalo aircraft because apparently they could be of more service. It is our intention to supply some type of plane. It is not our intention to withdraw the Hercules if we find they can be of service.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is very simple and to the point. Would the Prime Minister reconsider his position and ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to come into the house today? If this cannot be arranged, will he assure the house that the minister will be here on Monday?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
Since Canada is considered a friend of both parties involved, that is Biafra and Nigeria, has the government intended or does it intend to facilitate a meeting in Canada between the two parties in order to end the conflict?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must have learned through the evidence given before the committee that both parties have already met on several occasions. In fact, they have met in African countries and they were unable to reach an agreement, because the lawful government of Lagos states: "We are ready to negotiate about the forms of federalism, provided the country is not split up".
On the other hand, the Biafran authorities say that they want to separate and that they do not trust the unity of that state.
Since the meetings between the parties have remained fruitless, I do not see in what way it would serve the case of humanity to open discussions here, when the discussions which took place in Africa or in other friendly countries bore no fruits.
It is easy, Mr. Speaker, to speak about a cease-fire, but this means that we are asking the government of Nigeria to accept the division of its country. Obviously, Nigeria does

not agree to a cease-fire under such conditions.
As far as the question of knowing whether a cease-fire with Biafra being integrated into Nigeria should be looked for, I may say that the Biafran authorities themselves have refused that solution. Therefore, I wonder what new solution will be proposed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Prime Minister for the purpose of clarification. Is the government of Canada now making representations directly to the government of Nigeria so that the Red Cross may be given clearances from the government of Nigeria?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I cannot answer that question with absolute certainty. Once again our authorities in Lagos have been asked to implement the policy I have just announced. I am sure they are in communication with the Red Cross. I do not know exactly what exchanges have occurred between them. But the Red Cross authorities know we have the aircraft. They know we have supplies and they know we are prepared to fly them from one place to another. It is up to them to obtain agreement from the Lagos governmental authorities.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I most sincerely ask the Prime Minister whether he or the Secretary of State for External Affairs would make direct representations to the government of Nigeria not in an unfriendly way but for the purpose of assisting the Red Cross in obtaining the necessary clearances.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes. I am discussing this very matter with the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I have discussed it with him this morning before coming into the house and I am due to meet with him after the house adjourns.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a couple of related supplementa-ries. Earlier the Prime Minister seemed to imply that an agreement which was reached earlier with the Nigerian authorities is now being reneged on in Lagos. Is this the situation which now exists? If so, this surely must be a strange situation in international arrangements. In view of the fact that the minister is not here today and is not scheduled to be here on Monday, and in view of the fact this would mean that a period of four days would elapse before we could have an explanation
October 25, 1968

from him, would the Prime Minister arrange for the minister to be here some time today to give us a statement in some detail?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the minister is not here because he is in his office working actively on this very question. I feel it is more useful for him to do that than to be here in the house to answer questions.


Thomas Miller Bell: Does the Prime Minister realize that a delay of three of four days in waiting for a statement from the minister on this matter may mean 20,000 Biafran lives?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to get some clarification from the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the answer he just gave the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise), are we to understand that he no longer believes in mediation between the two parties concerned?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In the confusion I think the Prime Minister was not able to answer the part of my question with regard to whether or not Lagos is in fact reneging on the agreement.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, I would not make that accusation against the government of Lagos. Hon. members apparently have referred to a statement which was made to the United Nations by the minister of external affairs of Lagos. Apparently there is some problem in respect of knowing how this will be interpreted by the government of Lagos. Frankly, at this point I cannot speak for them. I repeat that we have been endeavouring without success to clear it up both at this end by talking to the commissioner, who is in hospital and at the other end by obtaining a confirmation. Here again, however, I must repeat that the negotiation is essentially a matter for the Red Cross and if the government in Lagos chooses to interpret the words spoken in New York in a different way than they are interpreted by hon. members, then of course there is nothing we can do about it. I am not saying that this is what is being done. I am saying that it is the policy of the government at Lagos which has to be translated into action
Inquiries of the Ministry for it to be the way hon. members heard it in New York.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Could the Prime Minister explain about whom he is concerned in respect of his reference a few moments ago to the imperialistic press?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I was quoting the representative of the government of Mali at the United Nations. I was indicating to hon. members that our concern regarding the internal affairs of Nigeria, as defined by the Organization for African Unity, was well founded and that the case in that respect for internal affairs had been made by the government of Mali by saying that la presse imperialiste et les philanthropes opportunistes-I believe the phrase was-of our countries should not try to interfere in Nigeria. In other words, they are telling those who, under the guise of humanitarianism, are trying to tell Nigeria how it should settle its internal affairs; that they are acting in some direction of imperialism rather than in a sense of real concern.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Is the Prime Minister in accord with the philosophies of the government of Mali?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think we should enter into a philosophical debate at this point.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he has received representations from the minister of agriculture for the province of Saskatchewan and, if so, will he now accede to the request to allow farmers accelerated depreciation on grain dryers?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I have not received that representation in this regard. However, I did receive a representation from the hon. member yesterday and I have received representations from several members on this side of the house. I am having the matter examined at the present time.

October 25, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE



WHEAT-NEGOTIATIONS RESPECTING SALES TO CHINA AND RUSSIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce at this time in view of the Prime Minister's advice that that minister will be out of the country for some time. In view of the tremendous importance of wheat sales to the prairie economy, can the minister now state when negotiations will get under way with Russia and China regarding the remainder of our present contracts with these two countries?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Mr. Speaker. I do not think it is traditional to give this information. I regret that, but it is better that I do not do so.


Richard Russell Southam: Would the minister advise whether or not any new, large wheat sales are in prospect which may alleviate the serious economic problems now facing western Canada?


Jean-Luc Pepin: New what?


Richard Russell Southam: New, large wheat sales. Are there any new, large wheat sales in prospect?


Jean-Luc Pepin: As I have said three or four times in the last ten days, this is not the market place. I have said that one of the conditions of success in business is not to announce your intentions in advance.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Defence and the Secretary of State for External Affairs perhaps I could direct my question to the Minister of Defence Production. Will he request a reconsideration by officials of NATO of the decision to bypass the purchase of counter-mortar radar equipment developed by the National Research Council of Canada in favour of comparable but inferior equipment developed in the United States?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, I will be

glad to take the question as notice and refer it to my colleague, the Minister of National Defence.


John Angus MacLean: Will the minister indicate what representations, if any, were made to the government of the United States regarding its interference in NATO purchasing to ensure the sale of a less suitable United States product?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: As I said, I will take the question as notice and discuss it with the Minister of National Defence.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister kindly inform the house whether the government has consulted the governments of Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania and Zambia and the Gold Coast on the question of obtaining a cease fire in Nigeria through United Nations action? If so, would he indicate what the response has been?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will check on this matter with the Secretary of State for External Affairs and find out whether there have been any such conversations. When the hon. member referred to the Gold Coast I felt he was perhaps thinking of some other country. The Gold Coast no longer exists.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
In view of the representations made by the Chambers of Commerce and intermediate bodies, especially those from the eastern townships, is the Department of Trade and Commerce considering the removal of the toll on Champlain bridge in Montreal?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, that question comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport.
October 25, 1S68



EXPO '67 INQUIRY AS TO SALE OF EXPO EXPRESS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon, Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Could he advise the house of the results of the talks he had yesterday or the day before with hon. Beaudry, Quebec Minister of Industry and Commerce, concerning the sale of Expo Express, and how the legitimate interests of the city of Edmonton in that connection are to be protected?
Jean-Luc Pepin: I answered that question yesterday, at least in part, Mr. Speaker.
As far as we are concerned, we respect the legal procedures already undertaken. The SUTRI company was considered the highest tenderer, the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition collected the deposit made by that company, and normal procedures are now under way.
However, outside of that, I said yesterday that there was a possibility of reconciling all the parties concerned. Obviously, if all the parties are reconciled, and more particularly those of the city of Edmonton, it might then be possible to come to an agreement allowing SUTRI to desist from its present legal obligation.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
What is the attitude of the Canadian government and the management of the corporation with regard to the proposal made by the city of Montreal to reverse the decision to sell Expo Express by public tender or, at least, to invoke the principle of annulment?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, what I have just said implies that we do not agree with that attitude.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question has to do with a report to the effect that certain elements of the Bienvenu empire have collapsed and the relationship with British International Finance (Canada) Limited to which the government granted a licence to
Inquiries of the Ministry operate the Bank of Western Canada. Is the minister undertaking an inquiry into the whole matter in the interest of according a high degree of protection and security to Canadian investors?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, we have been looking into this situation to determine the effect this might have on corporations which have insurance under our deposit insurance provisions, set up by the previous government a year or a year and a half ago. I will make a report to the hon. member shortly, but after a cursory examination I do not think there is any danger to depositors covered by our deposit insurance. I should like to make absolutely sure and then answer the hon. member.


John George Diefenbaker: Thank you very much. In view of the tangled web of financial manipulation which was apparent at the time of granting the charter to the Bank of Western Canada, what is the present position of that charter, particularly having regard to what has happened to these financial corporations connected with the Bienvenu interests?


Edgar John Benson: I believe that the position of the Bank of Western Canada is, as my hon. friend knows, that it is being wound up. Its charter will lapse unless action is taken by the government to reinstate the charter. Otherwise the charter will just not be in use.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darlmouih-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the Minister of Transport, with whom it might be of interest to have an eyeball to eyeball confrontation this morning, perhaps I might ask the Prime Minister to inquire of the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement at an early date in connection with allegations regarding television station CKVR in Barrie?
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thought the right hon. gentleman was about to give the house some indication of the situation and thereby let the public know what is happening.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I was only going to ask the Minister without Portfolio to bring this question to the attention of the minister.

October 25, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister without Portfolio when the Minister of Transport is going to be in the house?



STUDENT LOANS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Has he received a request from any province for an extra allocation of funds under the Canada student loans plan and, if so, what has been the response of the federal government to such a request?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I have received requests from several of the provinces for additional amounts under this plan. We have, as the hon. member knows, a fairly large amount of money unallocated which we normally allocate after discussions with the appropriate ministers and after we find out the needs of the various provinces. When speaking to the ministers of the various provinces I indicated that funds would be made available for loans that are made under the criteria upon which the provinces have agreed among themselves. We will provide funds even if it requires that we come back to the house with a very short bill in order to take care of this matter.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Will one of the responsibilities of the grains council be to look into and possibly recommend the growing of low quality, high yield grains?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minisier of Agriculture):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I hope that is one of the first subjects the council will take under consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton West.


Mr. Alexander:: Mr. Speaker, my question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret that the hon. member for Hamilton West cannot ask his question now because there are a number of supplementaries.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement by Mr. Shuttleworth of the Board of Grain Commissioners that the regulations might be relaxed, is the government in fact planning to relax the regulations pertaining to grades of grain that have not until now been allowed in Canada?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, that statement is also related to the relaxation of the rules so we could allow some farmers in the maritime provinces to try a new variety of grain called "Opal". But we have reason to believe that there is very little or no possibility of this grain degrading the high quality standards that we have in western Canada. I am sure that Mr. Shuttleworth's statement was related to that matter.


Stanley James Korchinski: Is this-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is now becoming a debate. The hon. member for Hamilton West.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank hon. members for their concern. I would just like to say, with great respect, that a note was passed to me yesterday in appreciation of my efforts to draw Mr. Speaker's attention to myself. The note said that if I continued these efforts much further I would lose ten pounds, and I do not think I can afford to do that.
My question is directed to the Minister of Transport, but I believe this is his day off.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I see that the Acting
Minister of Transport is here, the Minister without Portfolio. In view of the representations that have been made by many people in Ontario who are doubtful about what is happening with the housing task force, I ask the minister whether the task force intends to attend Hamilton to hear briefs on housing and, if so, when?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, the schedule of the task force hearings has been made public. I do not know whether there is a specific date for Hamilton. I do not believe there is. But I will be pleased to relay the hon. member's
October 25, 1968

concern and interest to the Minister of Transport.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Am I to conclude from the minister's answer that Hamilton is not on the task force list for-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: May I rephrase my question, Mr. Speaker? Because of the peculiar situation of Hamilton in terms of its population and because of the uniqueness of the area, would the minister consider revising the itinerary in order that Hamilton may be placed thereon and briefs may be submitted to the task force? I believe the type of briefs submitted would be of help to the task force.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will agree that the problems of one city are in many ways similar to those of other cities. The task force has a very tight schedule to meet. It simply cannot go everywhere. However, I will certainly bring the hon. member's representation to the attention of the Minister of Transport.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of the continued absence of the Minister of Transport from the house, both on days that he should be here and days that he should not, will the Prime Minister consider making the Acting Minister of Transport, the Minister without Portfolio, the minister of transport, because at least he seems to want to come here and is not afraid to answer questions on this very important matter?



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate have passed the following bills to which the concurrence of this house is desired:
Bill S-9, an act respecting British Northwestern Insurance Company.
Bill S-ll, an act to incorporate Aetna Casualty Company of Canada.



POST OFFICE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, October 24, consideration in committee of Bill No.
Post Office Act
C-116, to amend the Post Office Act-Mr. Kierans-Mr. Bechard in the chair.
The Deputy Chairman:: Order. House again in committee of the whole on Bill C-116, to amend the Post Office Act. When the committee rose last evening clause 1 was under consideration. Shall clause 1 carry?
On clause 1-Oaths.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, when I called it eleven o'clock last night I was in the middle of some remarks in reference to this bill. In summary, I had dealt with the question of the important functions of daily and weekly newspapers and periodicals. I pointed out that they represented an important function of democracy, that they were very essential in order to shape public opinion. This is part of our democratic process and is partly how we carry out our function as parliamentarians, because it is through us that the newspapers reflect public opinion and changes come about in government.
Yesterday the hon. member for Winnipeg North referred to the figures published by the Postmaster General in the Canada Post Office financial statements and details of proposed rate adjustments. I refer to these figures because last evening the Postmaster General seemed to take the position that to have this question reviewed by a standing committee would be somewhat ridiculous because he had already set out the figures.
Let us look at the figures of the Postmaster General. With regard to daily newspapers the deficit, which is paid by the nation, was $5,637,197, and under the new proposal the Postmaster General hopes to reduce this deficit to $1,632,333. It would appear from the figures that the weekly newspapers have come out of the situation a little better, that is, they fared better than the daily newspapers. The deficit paid by the nation in respect of weekly newspapers was $2,106,669. Under this proposal the Postmaster General hopes to reduce this deficit to $2,024,808.
It is the general feeling of the weekly newspapers that these figures do not reflect the true situation because some weekly newspapers are distributed through the mail and some are carried by agents. The main burden of the increase in second class mail rates will fall on newspapers in cities of 10,000 to 20,000 people, particularly in areas of western Canada. This burden will fall on newspapers in areas like North Battleford where the local newspaper has a large rural circulation and it

October 25, 1968
Post Office Act
is impractical to distribute the newspaper other than by postal delivery. Most dailies rely to a major extent on carrier distribution; mail rates are not a major factor. In other words, the weekly newspapers feel they are being discriminated against, particularly when they service small areas.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
I remind the minister that the weekly newspapers perform an important function for the government. This is true of many weekly newspapers, particularly those such as one in my riding of Calgary North, the Rocky View and Market Examiner, which is published in the city of Calgary and is distributed to rural areas and small towns. Many of the bulletins which the government wishes to publish are published as a service by these weekly newspapers free of charge to the government. Therefore they are performing a service for the government and some consideration should be given them in that regard.
When one looks at the whole picture one realizes that this is where a committee should have examined the true set of facts. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North said, the deficit in delivering Reader's Digest was $982,388 and for Time, $864,000, but even under the new proposal these two U.S. periodicals will fare the best. Of course the Postmaster General said last evening that one cannot compare Time magazine with a daily or weekly newspaper. Nevertheless they are still competing for the advertising dollar in Canada. The deficit on the delivery of Reader's Digest will still cost the nation $800,570. The yearly deficit on Time magazine was $864,362, but under the new proposal it will still be $721,527.
I think it would be very interesting to have these figures examined by a standing committee. I ask again: What is the minister afraid of, even if there were to be a delay of 30 days in coping with the deficit in his department? We heard this morning how these committees were going to function. It is to be the beginning of a new era. The funny thing about the philosophy of this government is that when it wants to sweep things under the carpet it does not use committees but when it wants to sweep other things under a different kind of carpet and keep them out of the House of Commons so as not to embarrass the government it refers them to a committee. What kind of nonsense is this? The government cannot have it both ways. Either these committees will function properly or they will not
[Mr. Woolliams.l
function at all. According to the methods adopted by the committees, it seems to me that a committee headed by a government chairman and with a government majority will sweep things under the carpet anyway.
Perhaps the following words which appeared in the Star Weekly of July 31, 1965, were not far wrong. This is what was written in reference to the Liberal government:
What did the government do? It exempted Time and Reader's Digest from the very tax that was supposed to curb foreign looters of the Canadian advertising dollar.
Now the minister is doing it once again and it shows in his own figures. I would like to see them analysed and carefully scrutinized by a standing committee. The article went on to say:
But Senator O'Leary left his fellow senators- and the country-a disturbing thought to ponder: By voting for the exemption of Time and Reader's Digest from the magazine tax, parliament "is voting for the proposition that Washington has a right to interfere in a matter of purely Canadian concern, and voting a probable death sentence on Canada's periodical press, with all that can entail for our future voyage through history".
In other words, there is discrimination because people who are competing for the advertising dollar in Canada are being discriminated against. Although these two periodicals have a Canadian section they are really published in the United States. I have nothing against United States periodicals coming to Canada. I do not have such a prejudice but I want fair play for Canadian daily and weekly newspapers and magazines and periodicals published in Canada. These two United States periodicals are receiving special treatment. It may be a little refreshing to hear talk about how Sifton Press made about $1 million but even Sifton Press, which over the years may have been liberally inclined, to put it mildly, did not fare as well as did the Reader's Digest and Time magazine because both these periodicals taken together will be subsidized by the Canadian taxpayer to the tune of $14 million.
Many sharp words were used with regard to the Postmaster General. I feel most sincerely sorry for him. He is the instrument to pilot this bill through for the government. Hon. members will recall that he was the last to be appointed to the cabinet. I believe the Prime Minister let the cat out of the bag today when he referred to the imperialistic press. I was going to say this anyhow but it only confirmed and corroborated what I was thinking. Some publishers who are very liberally inclined have told me that they have a
October 25, 1968

feeling-and this is why I have some sympathy for the Postmaster General-that the Prime Minister has a dislike and mistrust of newspapers. In the swinging era, as he calls it, with half the cabinet here and half the cabinet away he would rather be on television and would rather run the country by himself through television than allow the news to be disseminated through daily newspapers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In that regard I have some sympathy for the Postmaster General because he is doing the job for the Trudeau government in the Trudeau way and he is the unfortunate instrument to pilot this bill through against a lot of pressure with regard to discrimination against our daily and weekly newspapers.
Perhaps the old thinking still exists in the new era, and to prove this let me repeat some of the Prime Minister's statements. In March, 1963, in a very famous article in which he dealt with the philosophy of the Liberal government, which is so evident in the way in which this bill is being piloted through the house, this is what he said about his Liberal friends:
Say anything, think anything you like. But put us in power, because we are best fitted to govern.
He also said: "What idiots they all are", speak'ng about the Liberals. This is what he called them, not I. Now he uses the same philosophy in this House of Commons in appointing the Postmaster General to pilot this legislation through and to thrust it on the country whether or not it wants it.


Mr. Harding:: Mr. Chairman, it is one
o'clock and there are still a few questions to be asked on this clause. May I call it one o'clock?


Albert Béchard: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock, the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Randolph Harding: Just prior to the recess, Mr. Chairman, a number of questions were put to the minister. I do not know whether he wants to reply before a few more questions are
Post Office Act
asked. Probably he could add another question or two to the list which he no doubt has before him.
We have had a fairly lengthy debate on the legislation dealing with the Post Office Act but I think there are still a number of questions which have not really been cleared up by the Postmaster General. It is my intention to try to get a little more information before we allow clause 1 to pass. I want to point out that when we started the debate on the post office bill the Postmaster General indicated that a large number of changes would be made. Since that time we have seen the pleas put forward, mainly by opposition members, gradually soften the stand he had taken. One of the issues is related to rural delivery, which is vital to my area. I am very happy to learn that apparently the Post Office Department is going to continue delivery of mail to rural areas on Saturday. The minister also suggested that there would be a graduated increase in some of the rates to be charged under clause 4. We have not been told what this scale will be but I presume we will learn that when the clause is before us.
There are several other points I should like to draw to the attention of the minister before we proceed. I feel it is true, as has been stated, that the newspapers are certainly getting a subsidy. However, it is a subsidy that is passed on to the consumer. In my area the people are going to have a substantial increase in the cost of their daily newspaper because it is delivered by mail. I believe this is one of the few areas in British Columbia where over a quarter of the total circulation of this newspaper goes through the post office. An extremely heavy burden by way of postal charges will be borne by this newspaper. I refer to the Nelson Daily News. I am certainly fed up with having the people who live in the 62 rural communities in that area called upon to pay a 25 per cent increase in the cost of their reading material.
As I indicated yesterday, there is no doubt in my mind about what is going to happen. Many of them will be forced to drop their subscriptions. As we heard last night, we are subsidizing two United States magazines to the tune of $1.5 million, $800,000 for one and $700,000 for the other. I have no hesitation in saying that if anyone deserves a real subsidy it is the people who have pioneered and live in the rural areas. I have no hesitation in making the submission to the Postmaster General that I think some of these changes are rather severe.

October 25. 1968
Post Office Act
I should like to ask a tew questions regarding the effect of these new postal regulations on the postal workers involved. I am speaking of the men and women who belong to the postal unions and do the distributing and sorting of the mail. I presume that the Postmaster General and his staff have done a great deal of research on this problem. I cannot visualize anyone coming into this house, with all the facts and figures on the circulation of mail, who has not done a great deal of work on how these measures will affect the workers involved.
It appears to me that we cannot have a sharp reduction in mail service without some lay-offs. If one day's delivery is eliminated, as is going to be done in the urban areas, it would seem that some postal workers will have to be discharged from the service. I may be wrong. I should like to ask the Postmaster General to advise this house what the cutback will be, if any, in the total number of postal employees throughout the country. In plain words, are there going to be any postal employees discharged and, if so how many?
I should like to ask the Postmaster General how many man-days will be saved by eliminating the sixth day of delivery service in urban areas? I presume he has this information too. What will be the average saving by the Post Office Department in this regard? May I also ask the Postmaster General what specific measures he has in mind whereby employees of the department will, in five days, do six days' work? Obviously they cannot do in five days the work they have been doing in six days. If staff is to be reduced the seriousness of the problem will be aggravated. What has the minister in mind to maintain services at their present level?
e (2:40 p.m.)
Will workers be forced to speed up their work or will the department hire extra staff to take care of the increased work load? Also, has the minister talked with representatives of the unions about this matter? What is their attitude to the contemplated change in employment conditions?
Yesterday a question was directed to the Postmaster General in regard to bi-weekly newspapers. I did not hear his answer. Looking at the report of yesterday's proceedings I gather that newspapers published twice a week are to lose most of the concessions which were available to weekly papers. It seems to me that in this regard newspapers in the category I have mentioned have been

placed in the same category as daily newspapers in that they have lost free mailing privileges, something the dailies did not enjoy but which the smaller weekly newspapers did.
Small, weekly newspapers will be seriously hurt as a result of the increases the minister has announced. Without doubt other questions will be asked. I should appreciate hearing some answers from the Postmaster General to the questions I have asked this afternoon.


Mr. Kierans:: Perhaps I might reply to some of the questions which have just been raised. The hon. member asked if we consulted with the officials of the unions. May I remind him that last night I read a telegram from the president of the postal carriers union, Mr. Houle, in which he said he felt happy about the bill. He wished us all speed and congratulated me for it. I might say that that is also the position of Roger Decarie who is the leader of the other union in the Post Office Department. Both men have been consulted and informed about the bill, and they are extremely happy that we are working toward the concept of balancing the budget and charging for the service rendered to the people of Canada.
It was announced some time ago that by working five days a week we expected to save $13 million. We have never contemplated laying anyone off, and neither I nor my officers want to cut back to a five day contract any six day contracts at the expense of our rural mail carriers. Normally, when a worker is asked to work for 40 hours a week instead of 45 hours he takes home the same pay. In any event, we expect to save over $13 million.
The hon. member for Hillsborough and the last speaker asked how it is possible to cut back 1,499 jobs and still not lay anyone off. May I remind hon. members that when you have a staff of 48,000 there is considerable attrition owing to retirement, job changes and so on. Among 32,000 public service employees the attrition rate is about 2,000 employees per year. Also, the jobs of many letter carriers will be redundant. We have instituted a policy of holding down the expansion of positions. We already expand at the rate of 1,100 openings per year and it is hoped to fill jobs which become open with those whose positions are declared redundant. None of this comes into effect, of course, until February 1, so that we have considerable time in which to plan. Taking into consideration normal attrition and the expansion of certain job categories, we feel that full and efficient use will be made of the people affected by this change.
October 25, 1968

Semi-weekly and tri-weekly newspapers are considered, for our purposes here, as daily newspapers. They have never had prezoning privileges, and in that sense nothing is being taken away from them.


Mr. Yewchuk:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak on behalf of some who have hardly been mentioned so far, the residents of the north. They live in extreme isolation, keeping in touch with the outside world mainly by newspaper. They have little access to radio or television and often cannot be reached by road. The amenities we in southern Canada take for granted are non-existent for these people. I am speaking particularly of the residents of northern Alberta. Their main link with civilization is by way of a newspaper.
The new rates announced with respect to daily newspapers will mean that the cost of these newspapers will be increased. In some instances newspapers will more than double in price. For example, newspapers which sell yearly for $15 will now cost $35 on a subscription basis. I am referring to one newspaper in particular.


Eric William Kierans: May I ask the hon. member a question? Is he thinking of the Edmonton Journal?


Paul Yewchuk: Yes. Many who live in our isolated northern areas live almost on the poverty line and cannot afford to have the cost of their newspaper doubled. Is it fair to penalize such people, when one considers that newspapers are their main link with civilization?
It is true that many weekly newspapers are published in the north, and many of these will not be affected by the increased rates. But such newspapers do not carry the daily news and daily happenings in the world at large. I submit that special consideration ought to be given to those living in isloated areas.
I submit that periodicals and weekly publications such as religious magazines also ought to be considered. Generally speaking they are non-profit publications. Increasing their postage rates will have an adverse effect. After all, the dissemination of religious news is good for the country and for its inhabitants. An increase in second class mail rates will certainly have an adverse effect on those publications. They are non-profit making. Their publishers also desire the widest possible distribution in order to reach as many people as possible. Some of those who are receiving .such publications at the present time may not
Post Office Act
be willing to increase their payments. This is another case which I believe should receive special consideration. To sum up, I make a plea for special consideration for those living in the north and for those who are receiving religious publications.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Mr. McIntosh:: Mr. Chairman, my main reason for speaking on this bill is to protest not only against the proposed increase in the postal rates but against the policy of the department in closing down a large number of rural post offices, particularly in the prairie provinces.
I say "departmental policy" deliberately. I refrained from calling it the minister's policy because I believe the minister is a hostage of his own department and officials. He is a captive of his bureaucrats and he has been sold a bill of goods by them which he has swallowed hook, line and sinker. He is now trying to sell the same bill of goods to the Canadian public. Actually this bill of goods is a red herring to cover the excessive spending of the government over the past several years. The minister has been conned into using his department as a vehicle for replenishing the federal treasury in lieu of a direct tax by the Minister of Finance. In other words, it is being used as a vehicle for the imposition of a hidden tax on the public of Canada.
I was surprised last night to hear some of the remarks made by the Postmaster General. I do not have time to refer to all of them. In my view the most astonishing remark he made is that reported on page 2003 of Hansard where we find the minister saying:
It is my belief that the post office should charge those people for whom it renders service. .. 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.
I would say that an individual has no choice but to pay the tax which the minister is imposing. If the policy advocated by the minister had been followed over the years, I ask, Mr. Chairman, whether the west would ever have been developed. Remote areas have always enjoyed postal service. For the minister to say that everyone who uses the service must pay for it implies discrimination. I believe there has been a change in government policy as announced by the Postmaster General. It has a familiar ring. Not loo long ago the Minister of National Revenue who is also, I believe, in charge of our national parks, made a statement along exactly the

October 25, 1968
Post Office Act
same lines. He intends to increase the charges to Canadians who use the national parks and he said at that time that the people who use the parks should pay for them. How in Heaven's name would our parks ever have been developed if this policy had been adopted by the hon. gentleman's predecessors in this house? I say we are being asked to approve a hidden tax, and the Postmaster General is using this legislation to make the Minister of Finance look good.
I am sure that had the Postmaster General been in this house prior to the last election he would agree with me that spokesmen for the government did not use the same argument in connection with the medicare bill which was being put through. I think it is ridiculous for the Post Office Department to say now that those who use the service should pay for it. If that is right, then why not let the people who use the C.B.C. pay for it? The principle could be followed right down to the old age pensioners. I represent a large area of western Canada where people have been paying for the C.B.C. ever since the service was started to the tune of $20 a year. Yet they are not able to get television service even though it is possible to provide it there. Using the same argument, the people who use the services of the R.C.M.P. might be expected to pay for them. To me, it is a ridiculous argument.
Again, as reported on page 2016 the minister had this to say:
But try and show that some of the figures or information presented to the house are wrong.
I hope in a few moments to show the minister that some of the information provided to this house by his officials is wrong. I have written proof of this. The hon. gentleman went on to say:
Try to do so with the help of the tremendous resources which you have behind you and which you have been using to create a considerable delay over the passage of a bill which the people themselves recognize as being timely and appropriate.
The minister was addressing members of the opposition. In other words, he was implying that we have powerful resources behind us, and I assume he meant that the daily press is trying to help us. Very few of the daily newspapers support the party to which I belong. If the minister will recall the last election he will agree that the daily press supported the party to which he belongs. For my part, if I were sure that the charges which the minister is imposing would be absorbed by the daily press I would say: Let them stew in their own juice; they deserve to do so for supporting this government.

I suggest too that the rural people of Canada do not agree with the minister. They do not recognize these postal increases as being fair and appropriate. In fact, I should like to read to the minister an article which appeared in one of the daily newspapers which he implied were supporting us. By no stretch of the imagination could the Winnipeg Free Press be thought of as supporting the Conservative party. This very interesting article appeared in the issue of October 21. It is headed "Mr. Kierans' Statistics" and I think the minister should hear it all. It reads:
a (3:00 p.m.)
Postmaster General Kierans has been attempting to justify his proposed increases in second class mail rates by statistics which purport to show that this operation of the post office has been heavily subsidized and those who have been using it have been getting the service for much less than it costs to provide it.
Like any statistics, those of Mr. Kierans are open to quesion and interpretation. For example, the post office must carry first class mail and must provide facilities for handling it. The increased personnel and equipment needed to handle second class mail must, by comparison, be relatively slight. From second class mail the post office receives revenue. If this mail were discontinued, the post office would not save much in operating costs and certainly would lose the revenue it now derives from second class mail.
Everyone to his own statistics; Mr. Kierans' could probably be used to show that far from being subsidized, second class mail is paying its own way.
This is one of the reasons that the opposition wanted this bill to go to a committee.
But if the Postmaster General wishes to insist that there is a subsidy, then it is not a subsidy to newspaper publishers. It is a subsidy for the benefit of readers of newspapers and journals who live in remote parts of Canada. These are the people that a subsidy, if there is one, benefits. They are the ones who will be hurt by increases in mail rates.
The article goes on to give a comparison of the increase in the United States postal rates with the proposed postal increases in Canada. The increase in the United States is about 13 per cent. In Canada the increase varies between 100 per cent and 275 per cent. The minister had better start reading his daily newspapers before he makes another statement that the public recognizes this bill as one which should not be delayed.
The minister stated, as recorded on page 2015 of Hansard:
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.
October 25, 1958

How gullible does he think the Canadian people are? He is trying to convince them that the additional revenue he seeks to raise will be paid by the publishers. Such is not the case. Many of these articles have clearly shown that it is the subscriber who will be the ultimate payer of the increase. As I said before, it is another hidden tax and it is also contributing to inflation.
The policy of the department to close rural post offices under the criteria enunciated by it over the past several years is, I submit, a penny wise and pound foolish policy. It is a poor argument. The minister has been sold a bill of goods and has swallowed it hook, line and sinker. To prove my point I shall refer to two pieces of correspondence I received from his department, one almost a year ago to the day, dated October 16, 1967, and the second one dated October 15, 1968. I may add that these are just two pieces of correspondence out of possibly 30 or 40 that I have received in the same vein. I wish to refer to three statements in the most recent piece of correspondence. The first is:
Because of changing conditions throughout the country, revenue post offices in many of our smaller communities are no longer required.
One year ago the correspondence I received said:
I should perhaps first explain that early this year, this department initiated a program to close smaller post offices throughout the country that had outlived their usefulness.
I would like to know how these officials are so all-wise that they know when these post offices have outlived their usefulness, and how they know that these offices in smaller communities are no longer required. Such a statement does not apply to the area I represent. Post offices are required there and have been required for the last 60 years. The situation in ranching country has not changed very much.
I draw attention to another statement contained in the letter that I received this month:
-one of the basic requirements now governing the establishment of post offices is that there should be a minimum of 30 families.
Let me compare that with the policy the minister has swallowed, the policy enunciated by his department one year ago. In 1967 his department said:
Our efforts in this regard have been concentrated mainly on offices where the number of householders using the office on a full time basis is below 20-
Post Office Act
One year ago they said the criterion was 20. Now they say it is 30. I presume the department has closed all post offices across the country that had less than 20 subscribers but is now jumping the number by 10. Possibly next year it will be increased by 10 again. Eventually it will dispense with rural post offices.
The 1967 letter also said:
It is not our intention to deprive the patrons concerned of an effective postal service but rather to institute, where possible, a better service than presently in operation or at least one which is equal in all aspects.
That was pretty hard to argue against a year ago. Let us see what they say now:
The economic situation is therefore such that we cannot justify retaining this office.
They say nothing whatever about service to the people. I should like to give an example of the closing of rural post offices, and I told the minister that I will prove to him that members of this house have received wrong information from his department. This is in regard to the closing of two post offices in one particular area at the same time. It is ranching country. The particular letter reads in part as follows:
It is an unfortunate fact but this office like many others throughout the country has gradually decreased in usefulness and has now reached the stage where it has outlived the purpose for which it was originally established... In addition, there are no stores or other business places at Battle Creek and since the residents of the area are travelling regularly to Merryflat in order to do their shopping and conduct other business, they can at the same time conveniently attend to their postal requirements.
I would like to describe at length the fight I had on this matter and the advice that the then postmaster general got from his departmental officials. Hon. members will have noticed that I used the names Battle Creek and Merryflat. The officials said they were going to close the Battle Creek post office because people there had to go to Merryflat to do their shopping and conduct other business. It did not take me very long to point out that Merryflat, where the officials suggested the residents should go for their mail, was an ordinary ranch house. Anyone who gave the minister such information should be fired because he is being paid with Canadian funds and has given the minister wrong information.
I could read another article from the Winnipeg Free Press, which supports the minister's party. I do not think it is necessary to do so, but the minister was very annoyed that

October 25, 1968
Post Office Act
one of our members suggested the other night that he was giving false facts to the house. I do not think the statement made by the hon. member on this side was intentional, and I do not think the officials of the minister's department are little tin gods. They can make mistakes the same as anyone else, and the place to find out is in a committee. So said the Winnipeg Free Press in an article published on October 20. It said that inasmuch as the government's proposed increases on second class mail do not take effect until 1969, there would appear to be plenty of time for study of this proposal by a parliamentary committee. Why not? Why all the rush?
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Albert Béchard: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but I should like to point out to the hon. member and the members of the committee that the subject of referring the bill to a committee was settled by a vote of the house. I must ask the hon. member, therefore, to restrict his remarks to clause 1.


John (Jack) McIntosh: All right, Mr. Chairman, but I can still wonder. In respect of the closing of rural post offices I can only say that this shows a lack of understanding on the part of the officials of the department concerning rural needs. The formula which states that there now must be 30 families while a year ago it was 20 families does not take into consideration the needs of the people. I see that the previous postmaster general is giving advice to the present Postmaster General. The present Postmaster General will need more advice than that if he wishes the people to swallow what he intends to do.
I say that the present minister is a captive of his officials and a hostage of his department. The need for postal services in our rural areas is as great today as it is in the urban centres and possibly greater at the present time under the circumstances. The preceding speaker, my friend from northern Alberta, gave some indication of why it is essential that people in the rural areas receive their daily newspapers. Those who live on ranches are isolated. I believe that the officials have been very shortsighted in advancing this policy. On the prairies the people who reside in urban centres-we call them distribution centres but perhaps in the east they are called cities-are there mainly to service the rural areas or those engaged in agriculture. The Postmaster General by his actions is taking away this service.

The present action of the department in closing rural post offices curtails this service and makes it more difficult and more costly for the agriculturalists to operate. When the officials of the department use the revenue factor as their reason for closing rural post offices they fail to take into account the value of the products produced by these ranch and farm operators who undoubtedly contribute more to the federal treasury through taxation and other means than do a like number of urban dwellers in eastern Canada.
To carry the department's economic argument to the extreme, I would ask why this department bothers to service any of the rural areas of Canada where the cost factor per capita, according to the reasoning of the officials, is much greater than it is for servicing urban areas. The cost factor for servicing the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories on a per capita basis is much greater than it is for servicing metropolitan Montreal or Toronto. Again using the department's economic argument I ask, why service these two areas?
I say that the Post Office Department is not a revenue producing department. Rather it is a service department and should retain that function. I suggest it was never intended to be a revenue making department but rather a service department for the people of Canada. I suggest further that if this department is intended to be a profit making department the opening up of our western provinces and the north will be curtailed.
I suggest that the first consideration of the department should be the service it gives to the people of the country and not the amount of profit or revenue it can obtain for the federal treasury. The people of Canada want this service and have always paid for the service through direct or indirect means. As I said before, if there is excessive spending in other areas by this extravagant government, the Post Office Department should not be used as an instrument to raise additional funds to offset the uncontrolled spending in other areas. I say that the minister should have second thoughts before he imposes this indirect tax upon the people of Canada because if he does I am sure that in the future he and his party will be sorry.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I am persuaded by the approving look of hon. gentlemen on the other side to make a very short contribution to this debate. I hope it will be the last one so far as we are concerned. I always wanted to know how to get approval from the
October 25. 1968

other side and now I know. Because of the initiative of this party which provided the extra hour last night it is our hope that this bill will be passed through its stages today. I hope the government might take this idea into consideration when the situation is ripe.
May I say first of all that the hon. member for Athabasca said some of the things I had intended to say. He now represents part of the constituency I had the honour to represent for many years. There is a problem in that section of the country. The people there do not receive television programs although they do receive some radio programs. They depend on the written word. How can we get to the people of the north information about the misdeeds this government continues to commit unless newspapers are made available all through the north country?
I was very struck by what the minister said about balancing the budget. The Minister of Finance is desperately reaching for that idol. The Prime Minister said that he stands for a balanced budget. I gather this is the hope of the minister in respect of this department. He nods his head.
I should like to quote some authorities whom I will identify in a little while. This is a statement with which the minister probably will take issue:
Among other things, it is inconceivable that politicians should continue to dread budgetary deficits and that, even when resorting to them, they should continue to pay homage to the sacred cow of a balanced budget.
The minister obviously is paying homage to the sacred cow. His colleagues are doing the same thing. The statement I have quoted appeared in the Montreal Star of Thursday, May 14, 1964, under the heading "Manifesto For The Nation." This manifesto was drawn up by a group of French Canadian intellectuals, only one of whom was over 35 years of age. Two of these intellectuals were Mr. Marc Lalonde and Mr. Pierre-Elliott Trudeau. Perhaps the minister has a right to change his mind and now believes that a balanced budget is a sacred cow which should be worshipped.
I should like to direct attention to a little exchange which took place between the minister and me last night. I raise this not only for its importance in this particular issue but because of its importance in the future. As reported at page 2016 of Hansard I said the following:
If we had considered this in committee we would have been finished by now.
Post Office Act
The minister replied:
But nothing would have come out in the committee that we do not already know. All of you have been quoting from every brief that has been made.
Then I rejoined:
We would have been able to test the accuracy of your statements.
I think the minister appeared to take a little exception to that. I shall not infringe on your ruling, Mr. Chairman. The chairman knows the scrupulous and desperate anxiety with which members of this party defer to his rulings on all occasions while some opposite hang around the fringe and perimeter of illegality.
I should like to put this forward as a conjecture. The house has made a ruling. We are bound by the rules and there can be no question of challenging them. But this is a situation which may recur in the future. I utter these words with this in mind. I say, purely on an objective basis, that if this measure had gone to a committee it would have required only a week of committee hearings in a form that I suggest would have been similar to an examination for discovery. This would have provided an opportunity to test the accuracy of the statements which have been made.
* (3:20 D.m.)
I have every respect for the integrity of the Postmaster General and I have the greatest respect for the integrity and knowledge of the officials of his department. It is a fact, however, that the government was elected as a result of a combination of circumstances. It was elected because of the changes in the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, because of a certain amount of political deceit in respect of budgets, and two or three other intangible factors that I will not go into at this time. However, it happens that the government represents 45 per cent of the people and will be here for another four years. That is a fact of life. We are going to be here for four years as well, and if we are to do the things that should be done we must get along and co-operate. We do not have to accept everything the government asks for and the government does not have to accept everything we suggest. If good legislation were proposed, even by the devil himself, and I think he sits in different forms on the other side, we would approve it and expedite its passage. We would see that it was passed as quickly as possible. However, we must know the facts.

October 25, 1968
Post Office Act
I had the honour to be the chairman of the public accounts committee some years ago when Mr. Wilson was the deputy postmaster general. He appeared before that committee and gave an excellent exposition of the facts. At that time we dealt with this particular subject. We questioned him for several hours during which he went into statistics dealing with first, second, third and other classes of mail. I think he convinced the members of that committee of those facts, and this was reflected in the report which was filed and became part of the records of this house. Mr. Wilson in effect said that from time immemorial the policy of the Post Office Department regarding first, second, third and other types of mail had been such and such. He dealt with the question of subsidies, which the minister has now refined. He calls it a subsidy and we accept that, but we refer to it as indirect taxation.
In any event, when a custom is changed it has been traditional to grant an opportunity to be heard to those people who will be affected. In other words, they should have their day in court to make their views known. The minister has said he has received briefs. We have all received briefs and representations. I like to challenge a man who has made a statement by asking him to give the basis on which he has made the statement.
I read the Glassco commission report regarding the post office. That commission gave high marks to the Post Office Department in respect of its method of selecting statistics in relation to costing. That commission had some doubts about the entire situation and these doubts were expressed in that report. The report suggested that this whole question should have been more carefully studied and that it might have been possible to obtain more precise information. If I remember correctly the report suggested this in respect of second class mail.
The hon. member for Calgary North related this matter to railway costing. In parts of North America railway experts are deeply involved in costing techniques. They are trying to decide how to allocate costs as between main and branch lines and different types of services. This is precisely the same problem which faces the Post Office Department and which it is, within the limits of its capacity, attempting to solve. This department is trying to allocate costs in relation to first, second, and third class mail. I think it has done a pretty good job, but I would like the opportunity, as would many other members on this

side, of asking these officials about the techniques they use.
Are the techniques used by the Post Office Department of a similar nature to those used in other parts of the world or are they better? These are the things we would like to find out. It might well be that we would come away from the committee hearings quite satisfied with the methods used by the department in working out these costing statistics. That being the case we would then be faced only with a simple issue, namely, is the government right in changing these longstanding practices and introducing other practices?
Let me say as convincingly as I can that if this procedure had been followed this debate would have been concluded a week ago, the farm bills would have been passed, and we would now be deeply engaged in the budget debate. There are areas where it is essential that we conduct an inquisition in the form of a question and answer session. Certain things cannot be accomplished in any other way.
It is my suggestion that if the principle I have attempted to outline were adopted on both sides of the house the business of the government would be expedited. Let me leave the matter at that point. I think everything else has been said which could usefully be said during this debate. I did want to put those remarks on the record before the conclusion of this debate.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Chairman, I think there is one other speaker. Following him I should like to conclude this debate.


Mr. Thomson (Balileford-Kindersley):: I
should like to ask a question for the purpose of clarification. I understood the Postmaster General to say that bi-weekly and tri-weekly newspapers have always been classed as dailies. I just phoned Mr. Irwin McIntosh, the president of the Canadian Weekly Newspaper Association, and this is not his understanding. He thought the decision was made on the basis of content rather than the number of times each week a newspaper was published. I should like the minister to clear up this point. Are the daily newspapers facing a 400 per cent increase in rates?


Eric William Kierans: What I said in connection with bi-weeklies and tri-weeklies is that they have never had pre-zoning privileges and therefore these privileges were not being taken away. For purposes of definition we are in a sense classing newspapers which are published more than once a week as daily
October 25, 1968


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, would the minister allow a question at this time?


Eric William Kierans: No; I think you have had your say.
Post Office Act


John (Jack) McIntosh: The minister has just made a statement which I do not think is correct. He said that wherever they close down a post office-


The Chairman:: Order, please.


John (Jack) McIntosh: All right; I will ask the question later.


James Hugh Faulkner: The Postmaster General has the right to answer a question if he wishes to do so, but if he wants to continue he should be allowed to do so.


Eric William Kierans: If the hon. member wants to ask a question, fair enough.


John (Jack) McIntosh: That is what I said in the first place. The Postmaster General just made a statement in which he said it is the policy of his department, whenever they close down a post office in rural Canada-I believe he said eastern Canada, but I assume he meant all of Canada, or he wanted the Canadian public to believe that he meant all of Canada-they would provide a rural route. That is not correct. The minister should ask his officials about this, and he would find that what he said is not correct. In the southern part of my constituency, the southwestern part of my constituency, the southwestern corner of Saskatchewan, where there are many ranchers, the Postmaster General does not give them rural route delivery service.


Eric William Kierans: Wherever this is feasible.


John (Jack) McIntosh: It is feasible there.


Eric William Kierans: Let me answer the question. We had in Alberta a post office, and the 15 families of the area sent me a letter. They are along the United States border and they wanted this service maintained. When I examined the costs of this post office I found they were in excess of $1,200 or $1,300. The actual use those 15 families had made of that post office was exactly $82 in an entire year.


John (Jack) McIntosh: You have the wrong
principle.


Eric William Kierans: The wrong province, but it is all part of Canada.


John (Jack) McIntosh: The wrong principle, I said.


Eric William Kierans: This was decided, yes. Hon. members keep referring to this question and saying that if this measure had gone before a committee-your predecessor, Mr. Chairman, said this was out of order-the matter would have been settled a week ago. It was settled

October 25, 1968
Post Office Act
yesterday afternoon, but it was also settled for me this morning when I heard the right hon. member for Prince Albert say that he wanted something taken out of committee. The right hon. member was referring to the committee dealing with the Biafra situation. He did not want it in the committee; he wanted it discussed here' in this house because this is the supreme parliament. I am in complete accord with the right hon. member for Prince Albert.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, does the minister not realize that any committee report must come back to this house and must be decided upon by this supreme parliament?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Tell your colleagues so they will know, too.


Paul Yewchuk: I wanted to clarify a point, Mr. Chairman. In the comments I made to the Postmaster General and hon. members of the house I was not complaining that the service had been cut down; I was complaining that when the new rates go into effect a newspaper will cost a resident of the north more than twice as much as it does now. My question was whether the Postmaster General would give special consideration to this group of people.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Chairman, I think the question is very debatable. It is: Who is being subsidized here: Is it the person who buys a subscription to a newspaper, or is it the advertiser? The Edmonton Journal charges the people who live in Edmonton $31.20 a year for buying that newspaper at the newsstand. They sell 135,000 out of their 145,000 copies on this basis. They charge people living outside their immediate delivery area-that is the other 10,353 subscribers- not $31.20 but $15. Why have they done this? They have done it because they have not had to pay the 2 per cent to the news vendor or the two cents per copy to the post office. They have paid us one third of a cent and one quarter of a cent. But our people, through rain, hail, sleet, snow and all weather conditions, deliver this newspaper on 312 or 315 days of the year. These people want to be paid, and all we are asking is the minimum 2 cents a copy, which is exactly what the Edmonton Journal gives to the people who sell the paper on a commission basis.
Our people refuse to subsidize this kind of activity any further, and I do not think the people of Canada expect this subsidy to be

borne by the 28,000 or 32,000 people who work among the 48,000 member family of the post office. I do not think the people of Canada expect this subsidy to be borne by those groups. If they wanted to pass on the whole increase, they would have to put up the subscription by $17.39. This would bring it up to $32.39. But people living throughout the north will get the newspaper delivered to them by aeroplane. There is a little additional cost involved in that.
I am not telling the proprietors of the Edmonton Journal how to run their business, but I imagine their decision will be something like this, "We will pass part of it on to the subscribers; maybe $5, maybe $10." It is still less than the normal price. Then they will say, "We will increase our advertising rates, because we want to keep these people on our circulation list." That is the whole basis of the exercise, so they can charge the kind of advertising rates to cover their circulation, but it will not all be passed on.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister a very brief question. I might say, by way of explanation, that he stated that a number of rural post offices had been closed because the residents of the area were not using them and the revenue was very small. I know for a fact that many small post offices that have been closed in my area, particularly summer post offices, were used very extensively by the public; but the public brought the postage stamps with them from the city, from Toronto, Hamilton, or whatever city they came from, they received their mail at these post offices and mailed their letters from them, but in fact the record of the use of the post offices is not there. This is one of the complaints I have had in connection with the method of determining whether a post office is sufficiently used. I would like to ask the Postmaster General whether a check of incoming mail is made before a small post office is closed, in order to determine whether the post office is actually being used.


Eric William Kierans: In answer to the last question, yes, this is done. We make special arrangements by keeping post offices open during the summer months. With regard to the rest of the question, these people can always mail their letters. There are perfect facilities anyway, even if the post office or local revenue office is closed for receiving and mailing. Our way of judging this is by the number of people who use it to buy stamps, to send parcels or do whatever may be required.
October 25, 1968

[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Gordon Harvey Aiken: What happens it they do not buy stamps?


Eric William Kierans: They do not use the post office.


Mr, Aiken:: Certainly they use the post office to drop letters into the mail box.


Eric William Kierans: The box will stay there.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I do not accept that argument. What I am trying to say, in a reasonable way, is that many of the summer post offices are used for mailing and receiving letters. People do not necessarily buy their stamps because sometimes they bring them with them. It is unfair to judge the use of a post office by the number of stamps bought and the number of money orders made. The minister gave his answer and I will not pursue this any further, but I want to point out to him that in several of the cases brought to my attention, in which there has been a reversal of the policy and a post office was closed, it has been found, on looking into the matter further, that in fact the post office had been used, but that this did not show up in the sale of stamps.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few more comments. I appreciate the Postmaster General's conjecture that the Journal would probably raise its rates by only $5, and I recognize this is a possibility. I also want to point out that the service is provided in many isolated areas in my constituency by aeroplane, which comes in every two weeks or once a month. I can imagine what it would be like to get one month's issue of the Journal, and the price which the Journal has quoted me is $35 a year, rather than $20. People in the north would then be paying more for old papers than people living in large urban areas would pay for daily newspapers.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I asked the minister a question to which I did not receive an answer. My inquiry was as to the criteria upon which the minister or his departmental officials determine that a post office has outlived its usefulness, and the purpose for which it was originally established.


Eric William Kierans: By the use that the local patrons make of that particular unit.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I wonder if the minister has also taken into consideration, in his economic argument or that of his officials, the amount of revenue derived from the taxation of the
Post Office Act
people employed in ranching and farming in those areas, or does he only consider the direct revenue derived from the post office? If this is so, how do we serve the people on the ranches and the farms in the remote rural areas in western Canada? I say again that this is a penny wise and pound foolish policy which will bring disaster to the Canadian people.


Mr. Skoberg:: I will deal specifically with clause 1 concerning the filling of vacancies in the post offices and the letting of contracts. Everyone realizes that the public generally believes that the Post Office Department is filled with people who have obtained their positions through political patronage. I believe that recently there may have been some change in that practice and I should like to know whether or not the Postmaster General would give us his views regarding some of the changes in the policies of his department.


Eric William Kierans: This is all under review, Mr. Chairman.


John Leroy Skoberg: Am I correct in understanding from the minister's remark that there is still political patronage in the Post Office Department?


An hon. Member:: You know better than that.


Stanley James Korchinski: I will be very brief, Mr. Chairman. Now that the minister indicated that consideration will be given with regard to the setting up of post offices, and as to the amount of revenue which they may bring in, and now that he has the former postmaster general right beside him, I wonder if he could look over some of the records to see how many post offices have been established in areas where the revenue is small, as compared with the number that have much larger revenues. What was the consideration in setting up the former. I wish he would do that in view of the fact that he said he would scrutinize the costs very closely. I can refer him to several cases with which I am familiar, which have come up last year, and regarding which I had considerable correspondence with the former postmaster general and officials of other departments. I asked for the reason for constructing post offices in areas which bring small revenue and where expenses are greater.
There does not seem to be any fairness in the administration. Without opening a whole can of worms I should like to point out to the

October 25, 1968
Post Office Act
minister that if he is going to scrutinize the cost he should look into correspondence with the former postmaster general.


Eric William Kierans: I will, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Orlikow:: I should like to direct one question to the minister. He has told us that the reduction from the six day to the five day service will not mean a great reduction in staff because in the period of a year, with the normal attrition and with the large staff the department has-I think the minister spoke of 48,000 employees-this could be handled. I do not have the figures with me, although I am sure we can get them by the time we deal with the minister's estimates, but I am given to understand that in some of the larger post offices, such as in Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver, to mention just a few, there has been consistently and, I can say, regularly a very large number of temporary employees who are not included in the complement of 48,000. Can the minister tell us what is the average number of extra employees in the course of the year, and how many of them who have been working almost continuously will be laid off under the proposed legislation?


Eric William Kierans: We have a great number of continuous casual employees in peak periods, such as around Christmas time. I think we will continue to need them for the special services which they can render us at particular times. There is nothing more that I can say about this.


David Orlikow: Is the minister saying that he cannot tell us how many of them there are? Let us forget about the Christmas period. Are there 3,000, 5,000 or 8,000 who work more or less regularly, and will these people be laid off as a result of the reduction in service?


Eric William Kierans: I have said no. The casual people whom we hire around Christmas time, and at other times, are just part-time or seasonal employees and they do not figure in the numbers which the hon. member for Winnipeg North and I are discussing. As I tried to explain, no one is going to be laid off, because we would normally expand by 1,100 people by next year and we will probably lose about 2,000 next year. So it is easy to move the 1,499 employees into the positions that have become open with the planning which we do in the department.


David Orlikow: The minister does not get the point I am making. Today is October 25: How
[Mr. Korchinski.l
many casual employees are working in the Post Office Department in Canada on this day? Is it 1,000, 2,000 or 5,000?


Eric William Kierans: As the hon. member realizes, not even the senior officers in the department could give him an exact number because it varies from day to day, depending on the work load. But I would think there are about 2,000 people normally involved in the kind of position which we call casual.


John Leroy Skoberg: One of the questions which among others I put to the Postmaster General the other day concerned the decentralization of post office facilities. I wonder whether or not the Postmaster General at this time believes in the complete decentralization of all post office facilities for the sorting of mail. Does he consider that decentralization is in the interest of the country as a whole, and what is his view regarding congestion in this area?


Eric William Kierans: This is probably one of the major problems being presently considered by the task forces, one of which is inside the department and is headed by the former deputy minister whose long experience of 40 years gives him a practical knowledge of the problems, and the other being an outside task force. They will consider how far we should go in decentralizing the services.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On clause 3-Rates on letters.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Mr. Macquarrie:: Of course, Mr. Chairman, this is one of the crunch items in the bill. I doubt if after all the points we have made from this side, without too much avail but with great sincerity, there are many items in this long bill on which we will take a controversial stand. What has irked people about this measure, apart from the differentiation in respect of newspapers, has been this question of increased cost to patrons of the postal service at the very time when there was a decrease in service. This has been the basis of our opposition.
We have never adopted the point of view that there should be no increase in rates. In the light of the dismal figures that have been presented to us, this would be a preposterous attitude to take. We are not satisfied, however, with the combination of the dimunition of service and the rather significant increase in rates.
October 25. 1988

Now we have made our case. We have said that the inadequacy of the committee of the whole for the examination of this measure was clear. A combination of parties in this house representing 53.1 per cent of the voters of Canada has indicated the belief that this very important matter, in the light of the great protests, should have been examined by a committee. This has been denied us. We have to accept the massive vote of those who represent 45.2 per cent of the voters of Canada. We recognize we will have difficulty in dealing in this particular forum with this measure in the way we think it should be dealt with.
I have noticed in recent weeks, since this postal matter has come to the fore, not only a great deal of correspondence but a type of representation which has disturbed me, and which should impress the Postmaster General and concern him. There are suggestions from many parts of the country that the type of service being rendered by the Canadian post office is questionable. The other day I had a letter from a Boston relative-every maritim-er has a relative in Boston-that he had received a postcard mailed from the Cabot trail when he was on a summer visit. This was not too bad: But it was the summer of 1966 that he had been on this visit.
Similarly, some extremely important and attractive material was sent out from a certain political headquarters under second class mail on October 11. It arrived in Vancouver on the 19th, 20th, 21st and 22nd. One thousand of these same attractive and important items were sent under first class mail on October 11 as well, but did not reach Vancouver until the 21st. I would not call that "all up" at all; I would say that was "all down". I hear from the people in various post offices that there is a little anxiety. Then, of course, although the minister was quite unperturbed about it, I have heard from many places that the flood of mail arriving in order to beat the minister's deadline has in fact caused delays.
Unfortunately we have reached the stage, unless someone invites protraction of the debate, where there is no need for protracted discussion of this bill. If an invitation is issued implicitly, then we will be prepared to accept it. I should like to say I am sorry that the government house leader found it necessary last night to use the expression "filibuster". This is not the kind of thing that makes for good parliamentary operations. We have had this matter before us for five days. On one of those days we had only one an hour
Post Office Act
and twenty minutes to discuss it. On another, we had a little over two hours.
This is a very important matter which affects every single Canadian. Some of these people do not know today how much they are going to have to pay. They are working under forced draft. We have a deadline here which, as I said before, is presumptuous. After certain changes were announced, we have had further changes. I do not know that the minister has assured us what kind of service we are going to get from this semi-Saturday business. I represent a constituency that is three quarters urban and one quarter rural. About one quarter of my people will get mail on Saturday, while the other three quarters will not. A great many of these people live in suburban areas but work in the city. They live in a sort of rural area, so I suppose some people will get mail on Saturday while others will not get mail until Monday. At the same time, their place of interest and their place of work is, in fact, an urban area.
We have been upset by the fact that all arguments from the press, and from the learned journals, have been turned aside. We have to face the fact sadly that, while we believe we represent in this instance a majority of the people, because of the realities of the parliamentary system our point of view is not going to prevail. I should like to say, very simply and very briefly, that in the light of the decreased service, the imposition of increased rates at this time is not a good thing. I should like to say that the minister's approach to this problem is highly improper. His lack of sensitivity and concern for the feelings of the people in many areas, as well as his imperturbability, will create a great many problems for the Post Office Department in the months ahead. We have warned him, we have told him of public reaction. It is incumbent upon him to listen or not to listen. If we are not as loquacious in our arguments as we could be, even if we are a minority in this house, this is not to be construed for one moment as any weakening of our opposition to this most unpopular, this unnecessary measure.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 4-Canadian newspapers and periodicals.
Eric William Kierans: In so far as clause 4 is concerned, Mr. Chairman, we have taken account of the many statements made in this house by members on all sides and have accepted also the fact that the changes suggested in the

October 25, 1968
Post Office Act
second class mail rates or the subsidy to the publishing industry have resulted in a tremendous increase. I should like to emphasize, however, that when you recover a relatively small proportion of your costs, a normal increase in rates is obviously not going to keep pace with a normal increase in your costs which would be, in some cases, as much as ten times as high. Therefore, having taken account of these various changes I will ask a colleague of mine to move an amendment with respect to paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subclause (2) on page 4 of the bill.
[DOT] (4:00 p.ra.)


George James McIlraith: In accordance with the remarks of the Postmaster General I desire to move that we strike out subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subclause (2) on page 4 of the bill. Accordingly I move:
That Bill C-116, An Act to amend the Post Office Act, be amended by striking out lines 24 to 34 on page 4 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
(a)	on a daily Canadian newspaper,
(i)	for the portion thereof not devoted to advertising, four cents a pound during the period commencing April 1, 1969 and ending September 30, 1969, four and one-half cents a pound during the period commencing October 1, 1969 and ending March 31, 1970, and five cents a pound thereafter; and
(ii)	for the portion thereof devoted to advertising, nine cents a pound during the period commencing April 1, 1969 and ending September 30, 1969, twelve cents a pound during the period commencing October 1, 1969 and ending March 31, 1970, and fifteen cents a pound thereafter;
(b)	on a weekly Canadian newspaper, four cents
a pound during the period commencing April 1, 1969 and ending September 30,	1969, four and
one-half cents a pound during the period commencing October 1, 1969 and ending March 31, 1970 and five cents a pound thereafter; and
(c)	on all other Canadian newspapers and Canadian periodicals, four cents a pound during the period commencing April 1, 1969 and ending September 30, 1969, four and one-half cents a pound during the period commencing October 1, 1969 and ending March 31, 1970 and five cents a pound thereafter.
The hon. member for Gaspe seconds the motion.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, does this mean that the increase in expenses has been spread over one year?


Eric William Kierans: The bill does not come into effect until February 1. The newspapers knew about the changes. From the beginning of this month they will have 18 months in which to act. I can tell hon. members that some newspapers have written to their subscribers advising them not to take out subscriptions

for more than three years until everything becomes clarified.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In view of the minister's statement last evening about farm newspapers, and particularly in view of his answer to do with the advisability of bringing this matter before a standing committee for further investigation, I think it is proper for me to read the following extract from an editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press:
Publishers of the Free Press Weekly, Canada's leading farm weekly, denied entirely the statement of Postmaster General Kierans that his department is heavily subsidizing their publication.
This has to do with farm papers.
Mr. Kierans' statement is 'Quite irresponsible and utterly misleading'-
That is not my statement. It appears in the Winnipeg Free Press, according to the publishers.
Mr. Kierans does not explain how he arrives at this conclusion-
That is why we are asking that this matter be referred to a committee so that it can be looked into.
-or what arithmetic he employs to substantiate such a ridiculous charge. To say that his department is out of pocket by a million and a half dollars each year by delivering the weekly paper through the government monopoly on mail service is quite inaccurate. If the post office is out of pocket on this account it is nothing like the figure Mr. Kierans claims.
Last year the Free Press Weekly paid the post office $112,000 for postage. If the paper ceased publication as the Family Herald and many other farm papers have been forced to do in recent years, it could only result in a further loss of revenue to the post office.
Mr. Kierans in arriving at his conclusion does not explain what he charges up against these expenses.
We don't know. Nobody knows.
Similarly according to figures released by Mr. Kierans' department he tries to argue that it costs his department more to deliver a farm paper in rural areas than it does to distribute national magazines in city areas, where large organizations of sub post offices and extensive letter carrier staffs are involved.
Mr. Kierans is well aware but failed to state that all remaining farm papers in Canada including the Free Press Weekly operated at a loss last year.
This serious situation in Canada is largely due to the heavy loss of advertising revenue to the broadcast industry in recent years,-
The minister has not taken this aspect into consideration in this bill.
-which this government year after year subsidizes to the tune of well over a hundred million dollars.
When the government talks of the need to hold down prices and wages, it is hard to understand
October 25, 1968

how they can justify such an enormous increase of 300% in their charges and which will have to be borne by farmers all across Canada.
Would the minister mind commenting on the position taken by one of the leading weekly farm newspapers of western Canada? I am sure the other western weekly farm newspapers will go along with the position that has just been outlined. Also, would the minister mind commenting about the Western Producer, a newspaper which has been financed by the Saskatchewan wheat pool for a number of years. How has the minister arrived at his figures? The newspaper people want to know that. They want to come before a committee and hear the facts.


Eric William Kierans: Several weeks ago one of the editors of one of the weeklies came down to see me and I explained in great detail that we did not consider second class mail a marginal operation, as the Free Press Weekly and other newspapers seem to suggest.
The newspapers say that we, the post office, are calling at private homes anyway, and delivering first class mail, so why not deliver the weekly or daily newspaper at the same time. It is not an extra charge, since the postman is going to the home anyway.
That is not the way we made our cost analysis. We have marginal operations in the post office but they do not come under first class, second class, third class or fourth class mail. Marginal operations come under selling postal money orders or running a postal savings bank. These operations are marginal to the business of transporting mail.
The Free Press Weekly and other associated newspapers in the Free Press Weekly publications chain may suggest that it costs us nothing to carry a paper, but I suggest to the hon. member that he take a look inside a postal carrier's bag. The carrier may have 100 first class letters in the comer of the bag, the rest of the bag being taken up with Free Press Weekly publications.
Actually, I think P.S. Ross and Partners, and others who pursued the subject, were too kind to the publishers who used the second class mails. Consider a newspaper like the Toronto Star. We send it to Vancouver for one third of 1 cent, and the Toronto Star may weigh as much as 2 pounds. At the same time it costs 5 cents to send a first class letter the same distance. When hon. members suggest these facts have no bearing on our overhead I say that the entire sorting process inside the post office must be considered. For one thing, there is a difference in the way
Post Office Act
that letters and newspapers must be handled. A great volume of letters can be handled in a relatively confined space; but newspapers you must spread out horizontally. This takes up a great deal of room, and many more people are required to deal with them and to carry them.
In my view the figures which have been quoted are not unjust. They confirm what has been found in studies. I said in the house last night that the Free Press Weekly paid us $112,000 in postage last year. I say again that it cost the post office $1,623,000 to deliver 22 million copies of the Free Press Weekly through heat, snow, slush, rain and what have you. For that we were paid $112,000 from the Free Press Weekly.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Did the minister work out his figures on a pro rata weight basis?


Eric William Kierans: No, it was on a per item basis. We considered a first class letter and a second class newspaper as an item.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In other words, it was not on a weight basis. Then the argument about a letter taking an inch of the bag and a newspaper taking 20 inches does not hold water.


Eric William Kierans: What I wanted to say is that a post office bag with a thousand letters in it is worth $60 to me. A post office bag with 100 newspapers in it would be worth 60 cents.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the minister explain this to me: the government is subsidizing the C.B.C. to the extent of about $145 million a year. In this connection we have heard all the arguments about safeguarding Canadian culture. If it is proper in the one case to provide this bonus, why is there such reluctance to do so in the case of the weekly and daily newspapers? Can the minister put forward any logical argument, because the position he is now taking savours of discrimination?


Eric William Kierans: The hon. member may have provided an excellent argument for reducing the deficit of the C.B.C. but not one for maintaining the deficit of the Post Office Department, which is my responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then I assume that when the estimates of the C.B.C. come forward the Postmaster General will stand up and say: I fought the cabinet in connection with these

October 25, 1968
Post Office Act
estimates, and if I do not get the C.B.C. estimate reduced, as a responsible minister of the Crown, I will resign.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I noticed on reading the minister's comments last night that he did not take too kindly to one of the points I made earlier in this debate. I want to say that I have not changed my position by one iota. The fact that a table is provided for our use is no proof of the truth of what is contained in that table. I maintain that, not only in connection with this department but in connection with other departments, we have a right to examine the criteria upon which estimates of revenue and cost are based. We have a right to question these things because, after all, as I have indicated, the burden is on the minister to prove, not on the opposition to disprove.
I want to hear why small newspapers outside the exempted class should have to carry the full weight of the increase in the cost of transporting them, especially when they ordinarily do not have any important volume of carrier sales or street sales. Take the average newspaper in a city; only a relatively small proportion of its circulation is carried by the post office, and in future these papers can spread their increased postal costs over the whole of their operation.
Newspapers such as the church press are in a different position. They cannot cushion the effect of this proposed increase. The whole of their circulation is handled by the minister's department, and the effect of the increase will be subscription rates out of this world. I do not know what the minister's answer will be. If he tells us that the church press must absorb the total cost of the new rate in the same way as a daily newspaper in one of our major cities, a paper which carries hundreds of thousands of inches of lucrative advertising per month, I can only reply that this represents a great disparity in treatment.
Since we are faced with a time element I shall touch only briefly on one particular question I raised the other night having to do with the reduction of mail service in urban areas, and the effect which can be expected on certain people who seek to meet legal obligations. I refer for example to the immigration regulations, or to the white paper on anti-dumping and the draft bill dealing with that subject-and the minister was one of those who approved it.
If the minister would look at these measures he would see there are provisions by

which the period allowed for appeal to parties interested runs from the date a decision is made. Now comes the question of communications-communication by mail. As the result of the minister's proposals, those who live in cities will lose three or four days as compared with those who live outside. I do not understand how the minister can discriminate in a way which affects legal rights-and these are legal rights. At an appropriate time before the passage of this bill I should like to have the minister's answer on this point.


Eric William Kierans: My department has already been in consultation with other departments, for example with the Department of National Health and Welfare, to make sure that city dwellers are not harmed in any way by, for instance, the late arrival of welfare cheques which might arrive on a Saturday, when there would be no city delivery. We hope they can be mailed a day or two earlier to make sure they arrive on a Wednesday, Thursday or Friday. I am grateful to the hon. member for having brought this aspect to my attention. My officials have already taken note of the point he has made. We shall certainly contact the department of immigration to ascertain just what are the difficulties outlined by the hon. gentleman, and what we can do to offset them.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister will need to get in touch with virtually every department, because there are any number of regulations containing provisions similar to that which I have described, provisions which are "made in Ottawa" with no consideration for the rest of the country. This is a consequence of the bureaucratic mind at work.


Eric William Kierans: We shall do something about it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Let us mitigate the effect and not add to it by the type of action the minister proposes to take.


Eric William Kierans: Agreed.


David Orlikow: I wish to comment briefly on a question I raised yesterday, one which I believe to be important-and I do not intend to blame this minister for mistakes committed by some of his predecessors and colleagues, in days before he came to the house. I refer in particular to the tremendous injustice to the Canadian publishing industry which was done by the fancy footwork which permitted
October 25, 1968


Eric William Kierans: I think it is a very ingenious suggestion, but happily we do not have to reach any decision today.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Before the vote is called on the amendment I wish to say I am impressed by the last remark of the minister. This part of the measure is to go into effect on April 1 next. It therefore seems strange that we are faced with an amendment, the effect of which we cannot sort out, and time is not afforded for careful consideration of it in consultation with the people involved. I do not know what these changes will do to Canadian newspapers both small and large.
I welcome the amendment as an improvement; but I am reminded of the fable of the farmer who would not cut off his dog's tail: He did it a bit at a time because he was a gentle man. This is an amelioration, but I would like to refer it to the people involved, the publishers of newspapers, who will have to decide what this will mean as an increase to their subscribers. I underscore that point again because that is where it will all end. It will not end on the desks of the very well off publishers, whose names have been bandied around today. It will end with the people who read newspapers.
As I say, the amendment is an improvement, but this whole clause is an elaborate one. It requires far more consideration than we are able to give it here, and I am wondering if it has been given all the consideration that the minister should give it. He stands steadfastly by his statistics, but I notice an item in his white paper in the footnote to statement No. 11, which says:
It is not possible to anticipate accurately the real impact of the proposed legislation on second class mail volumes and the profitability of the service.
Of course it is not possible. Now we have some changes that we must consider. I wonder if the minister will tell us whether he has any other amendments to move. Has he reached a different decision with respect to the learned journals, with respect to the Queen's Quarterly, the Dalhousie Review, and the other publications described in clause llClKo)?

October 25, 1968
Post Office Act


Eric William Kierans: We are making no other changes and proposing no further amendments. With respect to some of the learned journals in which my hon. friend, myself and other people are interested, we will simply be prepared, and indeed be proud and pleased to pay an additional small amount for the particular journals in which we are interested. I thank my hon. friend for his kind remarks saying that the amendment is an improvement. I hope it will be adopted.


Randolph Harding: How often does the international postal agreement come up for review?


Eric William Kierans: Every five years.


Randolph Harding: I notice that while the United States sends over 69 million pieces of mail, of various periodicals to this country, Canada exports just over 17 million. There is a deficit of some 52 million pieces, which means a loss to Canada of $3J million. I think this is a field which the department should review. It seems to me that we are subsidizing many American periodicals which are in direct competition with Canadian publications. Again I ask, when do these international postal agreements come up for review?


Eric William Kierans: They come up every five years. The Post Office Department, representing the government of Canada, has made strenuous representations to the executive of the International Postal Union that some relief be given, particularly in the area of second class mail where there is an unfavourable imbalance. The next meeting at which this report will be presented will be in the fall of 1969 in Tokyo, and we hope we can make our views prevail. We hope to try to jecover this $3|- million.
I might say that the total flow is about $6 million, and we recover about $2J million by offering special rates to attract these publications to mail in Toronto rather than in Chicago. Our only recourse if we wanted to add terminal charges, say if we wanted to impose a postage rate of X number of cents on Life magazine, would be to get out of the 137 nation International Postal Union, and of course this would be a disaster for all of us.
9 (4:30 p.m.)


James Hugh Faulkner: The hon. member for
Annapolis Valley.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Earlier in this debate I spoke on second reading and have not participated since. I have listened to all the arguments which have been
IMr. Macquarrie.]
presented, pro and con, and I have listened to the explanations of the minister during the several days we have spent on this bill. I do not intend to speak on the generalities which have been discussed this afternoon. However I wish to mention a point which to me does not seem to have been considered. It might be thought of as being rather parochial, because it has to do with the province of Nova Scotia and the position of the Halifax Herald in Nova Scotia. Before I reach this specific item I should like to congratulate the minister-to use his own words of a few days ago-for either his sober second thoughts or for his second sober thoughts in respect of the Saturday postal service in rural areas, and the matter of strike pay which is now looked after more equitably by the inspectors in the field.
The change in respect of the rural mail delivery on Saturday is certainly an improvement and meets many of the objections from this side of the house and across the country. This afternoon another area about which the minister has acted positively, after suffering a barrage of criticism, is with regard to the immediate impact of these substantial or drastic changes concerning second class mail. After giving the minister all this honey and frosting I hope he will be in a receptive frame of mind when I come to my particular points.
While we have been discussing this bill there is something about which I have been a little perturbed. Allegations have been made about the pressure lobby, the newspaper publishers association, which is not a great friend of those of us on this side of the house. However, I understand that the newspaper publishers association intends to meet on Monday to discuss this bill. I understand further that because of their constitution, it was impossible for them to meet as a body to consider this bill and to make representations as a body.
The minister may very well say that he has heard a great many things and has had many audiences with various newspaper publishers of Canada, individually. Undoubtedly he has spoken to many of them in his office. I believe the other day he met with a group of maritime publishers and spent some time with them. I am sure also that he has spent varying periods of time with other individuals. I believe the publishers association of Canada, even though we do not agree with it too often, is a body which should be listened to. As I understand it, because of their constitution the members of this association are
October 25, 1968

meeting on Monday to consider this bill and to discuss their official representation to the minister.
Even though the newspaper publishers association did not hold a brief for us in the last election, I understand this association has been hamstrung because of its constitution and has been unable to meet as a body until Monday, even though individual members have met with the minister. In view of this and in view of what the hon. member for Hillsborough said earlier concerning the staggering impact of clause 4, perhaps the minister would consider standing this clause. It may be that after their meeting the members of the newspaper publishers association may come back and sing hosannahs to the minister for having preserved the Saturday delivery and for having staggered the impact of the drastic increases. There is not a member of this house on this side who really knows what their reaction will be. This is strictly gratuitous advice, but I believe that if we do not get this bill through before five o'clock we should stand clause 4 and then we could go through the other clauses quickly. This would give the association all the necessary time to look at the impact of these rates and make their official presentation to the minister. That, in general, is all I wish to say about clause 4. I have something more particular which I should like to say with regard to the Halifax Herald.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Chairman, I met with the president and general manager of the Canadian newspaper publishers association one evening and spent a few hours with them. As the hon. member suggests, they explained that they were acting unofficially for their association because of a restrictive clause in their regulations. They wanted me to meet on Monday with as many directors as were interested. The following Monday for another hour and a half I met with 13 of the directors from coast to coast, from Halifax to Vancouver. They reiterated that they were not making a formal presentation but said "Here it is." I think they have presented their views. 1 do not expect them to sing hosannahs to me on Monday. I should like to ask for the adoption of this clause.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: May I thank the minister for that extension of the information I have. I appreciate that perhaps his views would not change, even if he met with these people officially. If he is satisfied that he has their full views, I will not press the matter any
Post Office Act
further. Neither shall I rehash the arguments in respect of the constructive suggestion that this bill be referred to a committee. Because of the fact that these rates will not take effect until April 1, I will not repeat the arguments which already have been made.
I should like to refer now to the subject which really moved me to rise in the first place. I wish to be parochial and refer to a provincial area, the area of Nova Scotia. Since we are on this clause I believe this is the proper time to be parochial. I wonder whether any consideration has been given by the minister and his officials to another rate being struck for newspapers that in effect deliver their own publications. It is only sorted, carried and distributed by the postmaster and the postman in the post office of distribution. I do not know whether this situation applies in many other parts of Canada, other than the maritimes, and particularly Nova Scotia.
There are 33,000 mail subscribers to the Halifax Herald. If we believe the classified ads the total figure is over 40,000. During the recent campaign there was a good deal of talk about economic disparity. As the hon. member for Hillsborough mentioned these rate increases will perhaps be partly absorbed by the newspapers but will at least be partly passed on to the subscribers. If these rates should be passed along completely to the subscribers, then the economic disparity in an area already cut off may be worse. This applies certainly to the Atlantic area and to the Halifax Herald which delivers its paper from Halifax to Sydney, and then the Sydney post office perhaps distributes them to the rural mail contractors.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I should like to know what justification there is for charging the same rate to newspaper publishers that deliver their own mail to the point of distribution, and those newspaper publishers which drop the newspapers off at the Ottawa post office, for example, for distribution in Montreal. Perhaps this is true of the Toronto Globe and Mail which comes from Toronto to Ottawa. I am wondering if this situation has been considered and whether the establishment of a special rate would help to alleviate the burden on newspapers in Nova Scotia which depend on mail subscriptions, but which, because of the small size of the province, have set up their own trucking services to deliver the mail from Halifax to various points of distribution where the local postman delivers it to the door.

October 25, 1968
Post Office Act
I am not standing here today to hold up this measure. Without making any criticism about the just society, or any other remark of a provocative nature, I should like to ask the minister what his response has been to these logical complaints and positions which have been stated? What has been the response?


Eric William Kierans: This has been considered. Every newspaper in Canada delivers its newspapers to us under the terms and conditions we have worked out. This has never at any time been charged against the cost we actually assess against the newspaper company. I may say in respect of the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, a subscription now costs $14. A subscription delivered by mail costs $32. Our cost of $9.50 is passed on to the subscriber. This amounts to $23.50 which is well below the $32. I appreciate the hon. member's point, but this is a practice which prevails across the country.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I did not
understand the minister's reply. Did I understand him to say that a newspaper I dropped into a mailbox in Halifax which is carried by the Royal Mail, or the Postmaster General's department-perhaps I should use that term so as not to be provocative and upset any tender hearts across the way-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Don't get me upset, because time is running out. Is the same price charged in respect of newspapers dropped in the mail at Halifax for delivery to Sydney and in respect of newspapers which are delivered by the publisher to one distribution point? I cannot understand why this should be so, in view of the fact that in one case the mail is transferred by department vehicles and employees and is sorted and delivered, just as is the case in respect of first class mail? Is that same price charged in respect of newspapers delivered from, say, Halifax to Sydney by the publisher for distribution by the Post Office Department to the rural areas?


Eric William Kierans: We do not work out the cost of delivering newspapers on the basis of one newspaper dropped in a mail box. We work out a cost of delivering newspapers across the country on the basis of 6.81 cents and we are asking by this bill to increase this amount by 2 cents.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The minister is a reasonable and a logical man. Will he not agree with me that my proposition is sound? It is cheaper

for the post office department to receive the Halifax Herald in Sydney for distribution in that area than to receive it in Halifax and have to deliver it to Sydney for distribution? This is the situation in Nova Scotia because of the size of the province. Many newspaper publishers deliver these newspapers to a main distribution point.


Eric William Kierans: I agree with the point made by the hon. member.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Perhaps I will not receive much response to this question, because of the lateness of the hour, but does the Postmaster General not think it would be a good idea to strike a special rate for newspapers when there is a bulk delivery to the point of distribution?


Eric William Kierans: The majority of newspaper companies across Canada do this and they have been given full credit for the costs they have incurred.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Do I understand that the minister would not entertain an amendment to strike a special rate to cover this situation?


Eric William Kierans: No, Mr. Chairman.


James Hugh Faulkner: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Gerald William Baldwin: No.


James Hugh Faulkner: Shall clause 4 as amended
carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Gerald William Baldwin: No, we want a standing vote.


James Hugh Faulkner: Shall clause 5 carry?


Gerald William Baldwin: No, we are not-


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. Does the hon. member for Peace River have something to say?


Gerald William Baldwin: We are not disposed to accepting clause 4 or the amendment. I gather we are still on the amendment, are we not?


An hon. Member:: It was passed.


James Hugh Faulkner: I did not detect that the hon. member had said anything from his seat. Is there some objection to the amendment?


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes.
Amendment (Mr. Mcllraith) agreed to: Yeas, 53; nays, 12.
October 25, 1968


James Hugh Faulkner: Shall clause 4 as amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.
Clause 4 as amended agreed to: Yeas, 47; nays, 24.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
On clause 5-Invitations to tender where amount over $1,000.


James Hugh Faulkner: Shall clause 5 carry?


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Chairman, I asked the other day whether the Post Office Department terminated rail mail contracts, or whether the railways themselves terminated their own contracts and served notice that they wanted to get out of the mail handling business. I think the question should be answered at this time because it falls under the clause with which we are dealing.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Chairman, the answer is no. Nobody wants to get out of the mail handling business; everybody wants to get into it.


John Leroy Skoberg: Then I would respectfully suggest that this is where the over-all problem of the unity of Canada comes into the question. Hon. members know that if the postal department decides it is going to cancel a mail rail contract, immediately following this the rail line which is affected applies for the abandonment of that particular service. I respectfully suggest to the Postmaster General that he give serious consideration to this factor, because it is the start of a chain of events and carries on down the line.


Eric William Kierans: I will, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 11 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 12-Coming into force.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, clause 12 determines the coming into force dates of certain clauses of this bill. It is noted that the increases for newspapers and periodicals and mail of that kind do not come into effect until April 1, 1969, but that the minister would have the new 6 cent first class rate come into effect on November 1, 1968.
As the minister knows, some of us have tried to persuade him not to go to this 6 cent rate. It has even been suggested from
Post Office Act
this corner that he might have settled for a 5 cent rate across the board. The decision, of course, has been made by the action of the committee in adopting clause 3, to which I was opposed. I wonder whether the minister would relent at least to the point of not having the increase for ordinary people, in respect of first class letters, come into effect until the same day as the increases for mail of other classes, namely April 1, April Fool's Day, 1969.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Chairman, I would dearly love to have those rates that are coming into effect on April 1 come into effect on November 1. I would prefer to do it the other way around. However, this is impossible. In the clauses of the bill which have been passed thus far there is a wholesale regrouping of the second class mail structure. A number of publications which at the present time enjoy statutory privileges will no longer enjoy them; others move into third class, and so on. This entire restructuring of the second class mail will take my officers several months to sort out, and of course a great deal of information will have to be given to the publishing associations and people affected. I regret very much that I cannot accept the suggestion of my hon. friend.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, believing that the minister still has a heart somewhere inside him, I wonder if I can try another request.


An hon. Member:: It is not a heart; it is a water-pump.


Gerald William Baldwin: He is awaiting a heart
transplant.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They are doing that in Montreal these days. Nowhere in this bill can we reach a parliamentary decision on the question of the suspension of the Saturday delivery service. The minister does that under his authority as Postmaster General, with all the rights and privileges pertaining to that authority. There has been a fair amount of discussion of the matter, however, and the minister has relented so far as rural areas are concerned. He knows that some of us still feel he might reconsider the position of people in urban residential areas. I recognize that he has taken certain steps to try to make sure there will not be inconvenience caused by nondelivery of the mail on Saturday to residential areas. Even so, there are bound to be many cases of privation.

October 25, 1968
Post Office Act
It may be possible for the government to make sure that pension cheques go out early in the week and are not held in the post office over the week end, but there will be all sorts of other cheques from private sources, and so on, which are bound to be received on Monday instead of Friday, and in many cases this will result in privation. The date the Postmaster General has set for the inauguration of the five-day delivery service is February 1. There does not seem to be any way in which we can decide this question by vote. It seems strange to some people that one man can decide this question, and not parliament as a whole. But, hoping the minister is still in a frame of mind to consider various aspects of this question, will he reconsider between now and February 1 the question of continuing the six day delivery service in residential, urban areas?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Chairman, this question does not strictly come under this bill, of course. I will discuss it further with my hon. friend opposite. I believe that on balance- and I will certainly try to convince him of this-the demand for this service is not commensurate with the amount of savings that can be made by restricting delivery to five days a week in urban areas and the alternative uses to which we could put those savings. In other words, we feel the savings of about $13 million from this service would be much more profitably used, whether this will be in the field of the arts or an additional initiative in the fields of health or education; but all these choices would then be open to the government and the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, if the minister is interested in ways in which some of this money could be used, may I remind him that when I stand, as I do quite frequently, and ask that something be done for retired civil servants, many of these retired civil servants are retired postal employees. Perhaps he will as a cabinet member become interested in this subject and try to get his fellow ministers to deal with this important issue. We hear all the time about what can be done with money that we save, but we have a very difficult job getting any of that money used for some of these purposes.
The minister is counting upon the support of the postal workers in connection with the whole new regime he is establishing. I would remind him that some of the most disappointed people in this country are retired postal

workers, and I ask him to become interested in this ancillary but very important question.


Eric William Kierans: I certainly will, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to an opportunity next week or the week after to have lunch with my hon. friend, at which time he can fill me in and tell me exactly the arguments I will need to support the cause he has just put forward.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I express my thanks to the Postmaster General for the invitation. I hope I do not sound ungracious when I say that I must still call "on division" on this clause because I do not like what it does.


Gérard Laprise: I should like to put a question to the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans).
We are now studying clause 12 which stipulates that clause 3 on postage rates for letters will come into force on November 1 next.
We know that quite often when there is insufficient postage, the addressee of the letter has to pay a fee, and when the letter is refused, the addressor of the letter is fined. I do not believe this occurs very often, but with the new postage rates, it may occur more often.
I should therefore like to ask the minister whether he intends to provide for an adjustment period, perhaps two weeks or a month, to avoid misunderstandings and inconveniences in cases where a five-cent stamp may be used inadvertently-we have done it for so long-and thus avoid penalties for a certain length of time after the act goes into force. What does the hon. minister intend to do in this regard-


Eric William Kierans: It is stipulated that the act will come into force on November 1.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


James Hugh Faulkner: Shall the clause carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
James Hugh Faulkner: Shall the title carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
division.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
James Hugh Faulkner: Shall I report the bill?
October 25, 1968


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
division.
Bill reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time; at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, may I ask for an indication from the house leader of the program for next week?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is our intention to call first on Monday the third reading of the bill which we have just passed amending the Post Office Act, and then call for the completion of the committee stage of the farm credit bill and the third reading of that bill, followed by the consideration of the prairie grain advance payments bill.


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



CRIMINAL CODE


John Edward Broadbent: the second reading of Bill No. C-3, to amend the Criminal Code (modernization of law of picketing).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is proposed as an amendment to subsection (2) of section 366 of the Criminal Code of Canada. The purpose of the bill is to permit the peaceful picketing by any number of people for the purpose not only of communicating information but also of persuading other employees and people having business dealings with a struck company to support the cause of pick-eters, particularly in the case of a lawful strike.
At present section 366 of the Criminal Code prohibits intimidation by means of violence, threats, disorderly conduct and by watching or besetting.
Subsection (2) of section 366 provides an exception in applying the concepts of watching or besetting. It asserts that a person does not watch or beset within the meaning of section 366 if he "attends at or near or approaches a dwelling house or place, for the
Criminal Code
purpose only of obtaining or communicating information".
As the law now reads there are two major flaws in it. The first is that a judge may reasonably decide that in the case of an otherwise legally conducted strike any number of pickets exceeding one is a form of intimidation. This is so because subsection (2) begins with the words "A person who attends at or near". My proposed amendment would remove the possibility of such a decision. By replacing the singular "person" with the plural "persons" no ambiguity on the question of numbers permitted in a strike is possible.
The second flaw in subsection (2) as it now reads is that it asserts that one does not watch or beset if one's purpose is only to obtain or communicate information. The legal force of this reading is that if men on strike, in addition to imparting information, seek actively to persuade others to follow their example, they can be charged with watching or besetting.
My proposed revision of subsection (2) would make it a legitimate purpose of picketing to persuade or to attempt to persuade, without violence or attempts at violence, others to do or not to do something.
I would like to speak briefly on the justification for the proposed changes. In suggesting that the law make clear the right of any number of men to join a picket line, I do so primarily because a number of people acting jointly for a common cause do affect the thinking of others. To see one man demonstrating may arouse little interest and even less concern. But to see 50, 100, 1,000 or several thousand will, in the thinking of most men, provoke a much more serious response. When confronted with a large gathering, all but the most hardened are moved to ask themselves: Why do these men assemble? What is their purpose? Is their cause a just one? Shall I support them? Should I join them?
You will note, Mr. Speaker, that my point here is not that numbers alone provide a reason for concluding that the purpose of any particular assembly of men or any specific picket line is a just one, but rather that such gatherings do suggest that many men think they are acting for a good and just purpose and that others, especially those directly affected, are much more likely to give serious thought to the question at issue.
Peaceful demonstrators in the past and at present, both in liberal and non-liberal societies, have always recognized this truth. The

October 25, 1968
Criminal Code
early Christian martyrs, seventeenth century reformers, nineteenth century democrats and twentieth century workers-each of these groups sought to evoke a positive moral response among others by peacefully gathering in large numbers and thus provoking consciousness of a serious problem, a just cause, or a way of life. I submit that the law of Canada should recognize this important human fact and clearly establish its legal propriety.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
The second major effect of my proposed amendment can be defended even more briefly than the first. By giving to strikers the right to persuade others to act in a legal manner, we will simply be doing what ought to have been done long ago. One of the defining characteristics of a free society is the right to influence others' actions by means of reasonable arguments. Those who seek to persuade men of the rightness of their cause should not be restricted to the right to communicate information; they should also have the right to argue for its moral propriety. Facts alone are insufficient grounds for moral choice. Facts must be linked by supporting reasons. A free society, therefore, must make it a legal right for workers as well as others to persuade as many as they can that their cause merits support. To deny this right to these workers is to deny them a fundamental freedom. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge support of my bill.


Mr. Charles Turner (London East):: As a
new member rising for the first time in this house, Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate you sincerely upon your appointment to this office. I certainly agree with other hon. members that Your Honour is particularly well qualified for such a position. I should like also to congratulate Mr. Deputy Speaker on his appointment, as well as upon the fine manner in which he is carrying out his duties. I am very pleased also to extend to the deputy chairman of the committee of the whole my sincere congratulations.
The bill before the house today presents many problems. In my opinion, the effect of its passage would be to eliminate many of the serious problems trade unions face today. The right of workers to join a union has been spelled out in the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act and in various provincial labour acts. I should like to quote

section 3, part I of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act:
Every employee has the right to be a member of a trade union and to participate in the activities thereof.
The number of workers in private industry and government enterprise who belong to a trade union in this latter part of 1968 totals almost two million. Relationships between labour and management on the whole, in my opinion, are quite good. Certainly in some industries we have labour problems. There have been many reasons for these problems. There has been the introduction of technological change, which has been badly needed to increase efficiency and to place industry in a competitive position in world markets. There has been a desire on the part of employees for better working conditions. Perhaps worst of all, there has been virtually no valid communication between employees and employers. These problems did not develop overnight but have been accumulating over the years. They lead to long and costly strikes or at least threaten to lead to strikes. I suggest that management and the unions may find the government settling, once and for all, these day to day problems.
It is true there will always be areas of conflict. It is for this reason we have collective bargaining. However, there is no sense conducting bargaining in an atmosphere of hostility. Management and labour must learn to live together and to communicate. It is time that management and labour realized their responsibilities, or governments will have little alternative but to be more forceful in introducing the solutions to keep industry alive. It is true that on occasion there are strikes. It is true also that many people think there are too many strikes. If management and labour bargained in good faith we could eliminate strikes which, in turn, would eliminate picket lines. It has been said often that nobody wins a strike. What is the working man or woman supposed to do when companies force them into a strike position? Many companies work employees long hours of overtime before the strike date. The products made during this working period are taken and stored in other parts of the city, so that when the strike is called the company can still operate because it can still fill all its orders from this supply of goods.
The collective bargaining process is now about 70 years old. I am told that the process was invented in England some time before the turn of this century. The procedure is highly sophisticated, highly developed, and I
October 25, 1968

might add works exceedingly well. However, there is room for improvement. In my 25 years of experience with the collective bargaining process, I have found that union members turn to the picket line only as a last resort, and after the majority of the members have voted in favour of strike action in a democratic manner by secret ballot. Usually by this time the companies and the unions have exhausted all ideas for a settlement and all legal channels have been explored by the parties to the disagreement.
I urge the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mack-asey) to discuss with his colleagues, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith), the possibility of amending section 366, part II, in order to provide that pickets will be allowed to be as numerous as the union desires, so long as they behave peacefully and within the law. There is no law in this land that prohibits peaceful demonstrations. The picket is there to protect his or her job. These people try to persuade others, whether they be employees, customers or clients of the employer, not to cross the picket line. In so doing, they hope to secure a settlement from their employer. All the picketer is requesting is his share of the economic pie, which he helped to create, so he can give his family a decent standard of living and an education.
In the riding of London East, Mr. Speaker, there are thousands of union members, many of whom I know personally. They are all good, responsible and peaceful citizens. They work hard and try to buy a home, educate their children, pay their bills and are always ready to stand up and be counted when any community project is undertaken. When their union contract expires, they look forward to management negotiating in good faith, through the process of collective bargaining, to reach a just settlement. They hit the picket lines only as a last resort, because they have no other choice. They expect the picket lines to be honoured; but when trucks try to run the picket lines, violence is caused.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Our society expects a man to marry, rent or buy a home, bring children into this world and clothe and educate them; he is also expected to buy all the things that are displayed in stores and supermarkets, buy a car, take a yearly vactation-even on a buy now and play later basis-contribute to the church and community efforts, as well as pay federal, provincial and municipal taxes. All this 29180-131
Criminal Code
adds up to one thing, Mr. Speaker: money, or the weekly pay cheque.
The worker is expected to be able to pay his way in our society; but when his contract expires and his union negotiates in good faith for a just settlement, when he is not offered a raise in pay to take care of his expenses and the rising cost of living, he has no alternative but to go on strike and face days of walking back and forth on the picket line. This is not the only thing that faces the striker; he has to face falling behind in his payments on his home, his car, his furniture, and so on. And, if a strike lasts long enough, there is the possibility of losing his home, his car, his furniture, etc.
The working people of this country, Mr. Speaker, take great pride in being good Canadians, and we must not forget that unions and picket lines have helped immensely in the creation and building of this great nation, so that all Canadians may enjoy a better way of life. They spend hours on the picket lines, and the result of their walking eventually is a settlement which affects all the business people of the community in which they live.
As a member of two railroad brotherhoods that have been in existence since before this great Canadian nation was created, I maintain that we are constantly confronted with making decisions at picket lines. We resent having to be faced with investigations, discipline and threats of loss of pension because we will not cross picket lines.
If parliament were to make this change in the Criminal Code, it would be the first important step toward encouraging management and labour to bargain in good faith and create just settlements. Strikes are unfortunate, Mr. Speaker; each time one occurs, every one of us regrets it, including the strikers. But when strikes do occur the strikers should have the right to be given the opportunity to picket in a proper way. They should not be threatened by injunction orders that only help to create bitterness-a bitterness that has resulted in unfortunate arrests and prison sentences during the past few years.
If this law were to be changed, pickets would be limited to perhaps two or three at each gate, because this is all the unions would need. The trouble begins when the companies try to move goods or scabs in or out of the plants and word gets around; then we have mass picketing and consequent violence when the pickets move to protect their jobs. The

October 25, 1968
Criminal Code
police are called and this usually depletes the number of available policemen for other duties; so the police department has to call in policemen who are off duty or working other shifts. This all adds to the city tax bill, as the police have to be paid for working extra time.
During the post office strike in London there were never more than six or eight pickets on duty, working a three or four hour shift; consequently there was no trouble.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we must all remember that the workingman or woman of this nation pays over 60 per cent of the income tax received by governments. He has no loopholes to avoid taxes, because it is all taken from his cheque before he receives it. Workingmen and women of this nation buy the products of their labours, and pay the full retail price. They are quite willing to pay their way, but they must have some guarantee that they will receive their fair share of the economic pie, so that they can live and play with dignity in the new just society.


Mr. Guy LeBlanc (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, the legal results of such an amendment seem to me, at first glance, to be very clear. At the present time, picketers are, I think, free to give information to other people, who are in turn free to decide whether their relations with the picketers could in any way affect their contractual and working relations with the employer.
The proposed amendment would give picketers the right to try to persuade persons who have signed a contract with an employer to violate their contractual obligations. I wonder whether there is not some way other than picketing to persuade our fellow-Canadians.
According to the act, picketing is used to communicate information, to receive or give information. That is where the provision of the act is obsolete because in this day and age it is possible to use many other means of information without having to meet in groups in the street. There is television, the telephone, the newspapers which can be received in every home in Canada every day, and many other means of communication.
Now, this is an attempt to include the right of persuasion which is a real right and I think that the workers should have that right. On the other hand, I wonder if striking workers who want to persuade their fellow-workers or some of their fellow-citizens could not, as is done in other circumstances in other fields, simply ask them to a public hall to

inform them, influence them or even visit them at home if they agree.
In many cases, such a permission would be granted to them. I know very well that if workers in my area were going through that ordeal-and being on strike and having to picket to seek justice, in the case of a legal strike, is an ordeal-and asked me and friends of mine permission to meet me in my home, as an ordinary citizen, and explain their problems so that I can understand them, so that I can take sides with them, to help them defend their cause, I, as the majority of responsible citizens, would accept to receive in my office or in my private home those workers with problems to be settled.
In my opinion, the decision on the advisability of such an amendment would rest with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) rather than with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner). The Minister of Labour and the Minister of Justice could ggt together as they have probably had occasion to in such cases, in order to update our legislation.
e (5:30 p.m.)
Furthermore, since this amendment could affect public order in general as well as the ownership and civil rights in the provinces, a change such as that proposed in this bill would require consultation with provincial representatives in order to determine the border-line between provincial and federal jurisdiction with regard to those ever so complex labour relation problems.
The legal implications of this bill could lead to further complications. The sponsor of the bill (Mr. Broadbent) and its supporters in general have often taken this opportunity in this house or elsewhere to express their viewpoint in this respect. Generally speaking, this problem is a matter for the provincial rather than the federal government.
However, in their opinion, the federal government could look after it by changing subsection 2 of section 366 of our Criminal Code. Thus, the matter of watching or besetting, which is allowed under this section, could be defined so that our courts could no longer limit the number of people involved in picketing and punish the picketers and the labour unions, if they attempted to get the support of others.
That is why the Minister of Labour has often been asked to discuss with the Minister of Justice and Solicitor General (Mr. Mcll-raith) the possibility of amending subsection 2 of section 366. Then, when a strike is legal,
October 25. 1968

there could be as many pickets as the workers choose or deem necessary, provided civil rights and public order are respected and demonstrations are peaceful. As it stands, the law provides only for the communication of information and, in this regard especially, it is archaic.
Not only should this article be changed-if I refer to the debates in this house-so that pickets can get or give information, but it should also clearly stipulate that the pickets have the right to persuade or take the means to persuade the employees or any other person to adopt or to refrain from adopting such and such an attitude, provided the means of persuasion conform with the law and the general good of society. Besides, it must be admitted that this is the purpose of picketing.
As someone said a while ago, strikes-how true-are always unfortunate. They upset the economy of the area in which they take place. They, at times, upset the economy of the whole country and, in addition, they create difficulties for the worker himself, through loss of income and other benefits.
It is obvious that we must constantly try to modernize our legislation, not to make things more difficult for those labour unions which are asking for justice, but to simplify the solution of conflicts between management and labour, in order that it may not be too prejudicial for our economy and that the lot of workers will increasingly be improved.
Finally, it is clear that, in a democracy such as ours, any citizen who wishes to indicate that he supports strikers should also be entitled to do some picketing.
Some time ago, the Ontario government established a royal commission of inquiry on labour relations. As most members know, the report of the royal commission, of which hon. Yvan Rand was chairman, dealt at length with picketing during strikes. This is how the members of the commission summarized their views on the subject at the end of the chapter on picketing.
Except in cases where otherwise provided, lawful picketing becomes a direct and important measure connected with a legal strike and necessary to support it; it should be limited to the plant, the workshop the head office or the headquarters of the strikers; it should never take place anywhere else. Any other kind of picketing should be forbidden.
The primary objective of this bill, as can be inferred from its subtitle, is the modernization of the law of picketing.
It is true that our labout legislation is derived from the English law, which goes 29180-131J
Criminal Code
back a hundred years and more. It is obvious that such laws have to be updated quite often as the years go by.
Nevertheless, we all know that, on the whole, in federated countries such as ours, the principle of the distribution of powers between federal, provincial and local governments is respected.
In practice, jurisdictional problems are unavoidable. The United States and their capital cities cannot escape this rule, no more than Ottawa and the provinces.
The text of our constitution seems clear. Nevertheless, legislative power in the labour field has been subject to quite a number of disagreements between the Canadian parliament and the provinces.
I believe we can refer here to subsection 13 of section 92 of The British North America Act, which reads as follows:
Property and civil rights;
On the other hand, subsection 16 says:
Generally all matters of a merely local or private nature in the province.
Therefore, the power to legislate in the labour field comes under provincial jurisdiction.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
It is obvious that the parliament of Canada can legislate on that matter when federal employees, industrial and commercial undertakings, shipping, the navy, railways, canals, telegraphs linking the provinces, air traffic and broadcasting are concerned.
Those undertakings come under the jurisdiction of the federal government according to section 91 of our constitution; that explains the adoption of our national labour code a few years ago. However, even if it is sometimes difficult to take into account the theory of the unoccupied field and that of the unexercised power, it is always good to think of entering into a dialogue with the provinces.
The first legislative measures passed in Canada were, as I said earlier, adopted from the British law for Canada. In the provisions of our Criminal Code regarding violence, threats and assault, section 366 defines illegal picketing and allows peaceful picketing following the many requests made by the Canadian Labour Congress. This section completes, so to speak, section 410 which recognizes the right to strike.
The background of sections 366 and 410 illustrate, in my opinion, the evolution in the

October 25, 1968
Criminal Code
federal government, political parties, management and our main labour unions, as well as their tendencies with regard to collective bargaining. Up to now, in my opinion their work has, at least in part, been successful and I think that the government continues to work in that direction, so that our legislation in this field will always be up to date and really modern.
We all know about the specialized team or teams in labour relations which consider this problem regularly. In 1967, we received a preliminary or progress report by a specialized team coming under the office of the privy council. Those who considered the report-all the members have probably done so as well as our colleagues of the New Democratic party-find that it is already an important step, because it gives us all the elements of the problem in the field of labour relations.
We note also that in December 1967-and this makes us believe that it was carrying on its work, in advising the government on progress to be made in that field-the task force looked into all the aspects of the problem. Its members developed a serious program of research. They met the representatives of workers and employers, as well as senior officials of the government. They even studied foreign systems, to get inspiration from them and develop that best system existing in that field.
The whole results are presented in matters concerning labour relations and divergent economic and social objectives. As for the rights and responsibilities of the parties concerned, when the matter concerns legal structures-if one refers to page 19 of the report- we note that this task force looked very seriously into legal structures relating to labour relations in Canada.
In my opinion, under the present circumstances, it would be advisable to leave that problem to our government, to our Minister of Labour who is one of the most dynamic ministers devoted to their task that we have known up to now, in short, a minister who does not forget the workers and has shown his mettle. We could let the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Labour help the government to modernize our labour legislation.
In my opinion, our colleagues of the New Democratic party to which the mover belongs has a tendency to forget sometimes as I mentioned earlier that we are-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: I regret to advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I wish to talk for a few moments on this bill because I represent an area that has a mixed economy, an area where the preponderance of people are engaged in the agricultural industry.
I wish to point out that people in agriculture have never been able to strike whenever they felt an injustice was done to their industry. Considering present levels of income, and conditions generally that exist in the west, I think that today they would have every right to strike, picket, and withhold their products from the market. However, I have never been one to advocate that type of thing because I feel that when food is necessary it must be distributed. I think 99 per cent of the farmers subscribe to that approach.
However, farmers are sometimes placed at the mercy of some other segment of the economy. They must pay the price, regardless of whether they are able to defend themselves. Sometimes they lose their entire holdings. Sometimes they have to stand by and watch a lifetime's work go by the board, because they have to accept the decision of other bodies.
As I say, I represent a mixed economy. Some of my constituents work in mines and in lumber mills, and I can safely say that there are occasions when it is necessary for workers to strike and picket. Recently a strike was settled in my area following negotiations over a period of time. But sometimes negotiations break down. The public resents the fact that on occasion a great deal of pressure is placed on other segments of the economy that indirectly must pay the price of a settlement.
I also know that members of unions on strike have often expressed the opinion that they wished they did not have to strike. This is no revelation; the public generally is aware of it. I cite the example of the longshoremen's strike, where a handful of people tied up a whole economy, with the result that the country's balance of payments may be adversely affected. When such a situation occurs the government of the day is in a very awkward position because it cannot come out and definitely take the side of management, nor can it oppose the position taken by the workers. The
Ociober 25, 1968

government finds itself on the horns of a dilemma.
Even today if you mention that strike to farmers in western Canada their blood boils. They are the people who will eventually have to pay the price for settling it, and the rest of the economy will also suffer. There must come a time when we will have to decide whether the public interest is more sacred than the interests of a few people who, perhaps not of their own volition, become involved in arguments that cannot be satisfactorily negotiated.
Management must accept its share of responsibility. It has not done so on many occasions, but I think that generally speaking the public now realizes that after every round of strikes inflation sets in and all of us are involved in the problem. We will be resuming the budget debate in a few days time; and one of the big arguments in it will concern inflation, a problem for which governments over the last 20 years could be condemned. When inflation rises we can always attack the government.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I believe one reason that we sometimes find ourselves in this difficulty is that quite often a little group is left out of the merry-go-round, and as a result there is a power play. It seems that everyone wants a little bigger slice of the economy. No one seems to be able to strike a balance. I believe the Rand report provides us with a good reason for thinking. It would seem to me that in this country we should have now reached a point where we can face up to our responsibilities, whether we be part of management or part of labour, and whether we belong to the white collar group, the blue collar group or some other group. I think we should all be prepared generally to accept more responsibility. If we are ever to stop needing strikes and picketing we must recognize that there is a dispute involved in respect of which there must be a decision.
If I should become involved in an accident and there should be a lawsuit I know that I have a right to appeal the decision to the highest court of the land. Finally when a decision has been reached, whether or not I as an individual believe it is a proper decision, I know that that is the decision and that there is nothing I can do about it, even if I grudgingly feel an injustice has been done. I think both management and unions must some day accept this fact. Whether we call it
Criminal Code
compulsory arbitration or something else, the fact is that there will have to be a judicial body set up to make a decision when a large segment of our society is involved in a dispute. We must have such a body which can sit down and resolve the situation, so that the other people who are involved in our economy will not suffer. It is ridiculous that 20 million people should have been involved in the longshoreman strike.
On one occasion when I visited Poland the officials in one of the departments were asked "What about strikes" and they replied "What are they." Yet every worker in that area had complaints. We have our freedom and we must be careful that we do not abuse it by employing methods that are available to us because of our better standard of living. Generally speaking, I believe there have been hundreds of strikes that would never have materialized if there had been proper negotiations.
It is interesting to note that this bill was introduced by a member of the New Democratic party. I wonder what position that party would take in the type of situation I have described. How can one be on both sides; how can one stand and say he is for this and that and everybody? We certainly do not wish to tie the hands of any worker. I have done my share of work in my lifetime, and I do not want to be put in the position where I would not be able to speak for myself or have someone else speak on my behalf.
I certainly believe, however, the time has come in this country when it is important that we look at the other side of the coin in relation to the effect these things have on the economy. If we run the economy ragged, there will not be any need for picketing. We must realize that sooner or later someone will have to stand up in this house and say the things that perhaps government is not willing to say. Someone, if not a whole party, must be willing to stand up here and say some of the things which many of the people of this country are thinking.


John Leroy Skoberg: I should like very briefly to say to the hon. member who preceded me that the agriculture economy has its destiny in its own hands. In the constituency I represent we have a 50-50 split between the farming section and the urban section. We experience absolutely no problem in getting the two groups, the farmer and the urban dweller, to work together. Their problems are alike.

October 25, 1968
Criminal Code
We know that this public bill, as it actually says, is intended to give a right of persuasion. We know also that in the last year we had the Declaration of Human Rights which gives to human beings the free right of expression. I suggest that the whole purpose of this bill is to give to individuals the right of free expression.
I would like to ask that we have the question put.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the last two speakers. This bill, introduced by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), I believe involves an amendment to the Criminal Code.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
labour code.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: There is no question in my mind but that this is a federal responsibility. It is equally clear that the bill as introduced in its original form by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) in a previous parliament dealt with the restrictions placed upon picketing. I find myself in a good deal of sympathy with the amendment. The present exemption in the Criminal Code deals with a single person. It is obvious that this is much too restrictive in a number of circumstances. It is obvious that this is not the type of amendment which can be made singly in the general context of labour relations.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hour provided for the consideration of private members business has now expired.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. and Mrs. Pearson, Mr. Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker Deschatelets, Mr. Lewis and Mr. Laprise, hon. Senators, hon. members, distinguished colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the members of the House of Commons, and if Mr. Speaker Deschatelets will authorize me to do so, may I say on behalf of the members of the Senate, I welcome you to this truly significant and historic occasion. It is a particular pleasure to extend very warm greetings to our guest of honour, the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, and to Mrs. Pearson.
The presence here of so many of your former colleagues, Mr. Pearson, is evidence of the high regard and esteem in which you are held by those who served Canada with you in parliament.

Ladies and gentlemen, this ceremony gives the parliament of Canada the opportunity to recall the high points of an illustrious career dedicated to the service of Canada. It gives us the opportunity of expressing to you, Mr. and Mrs. Pearson, our respect, our admiration and our affection.

I will now call on the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, Mr. Stanfield, to come to the rostrum.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. and Mrs. Pearson, ladies and gentlemen, I have a long speech here, as Mr. Pearson himself noticed. I am going to read it with great care because I do not feel it is really safe to praise Mr. Pearson fully and without restriction. Since he is still alive and since I cannot be sure that he will not come back to politics, I have had to prepare my remarks for today with unusual care.
This is an appropriate occasion to honour Mr. Pearson. Twenty years ago tomorrow he was elected first to the house. This is United Nations day, and the flags that are flying remind us of Mr. Pearson's role in the field of foreign affairs, of his work aimed at international peace and development, of his activities as President of the General Assembly of the United Nations and as Secretary of State
for External Affairs for Canada. At present he heads the committee on international development policies, which is affiliated with the World Bank. Today we pay our respects to Mr. Pearson for the part he played in these many roles. Certainly, his contribution in the field of diplomacy and international affairs is well acknowledged. So able was he in any area of negotiation, that any who have dealt with him have had to be most careful, for fear of losing their shirts without even being aware of it.
It is no light task to praise a former Liberal prime minister while he still lives, yet we must all recognize that he was prime minister of Canada when this country faced difficult times. During his day as prime minister his task was not as nice and easy as it is for the present one. Mr. Pearson made it his special purpose to encourage unity and understanding in Canada, something that most other countries never achieve in full measure. Under his leadership we went a long way in Canada toward achieving unity and understanding.
In a very real sense his career coincides with the growth and maturing of Canada. Having been born in a manse, which is in a village that has since become a metropolis, he decided, after floundering around in an academic and athletic career, that it was easier in the public service. He began in a relatively minor role and became during the years a respected and creative mediator acknowledged around the word, as well as being a man greatly respected in his own country.
We are not, of course, on the same side of the House of Commons, but I feel honoured that I have been invited to attend here and express, on behalf of my party, and above all personally, to Mr. and Mrs. Pearson my own gratitude for his services to Canada to date, and my congratulations, as well as those of countless other Canadians who have always admired Mr. Lester Pearson. (Applause).


Mr. Speaker:: Thank you, Mr. Stanfield. I wish at this time to welcome Mr. Diefenbak-er, whose delay for just a few moments was caused, I understand, by his studying the roster for tomorrow.

October 25, 1968
I should now like to call on the Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Pierre-Elliott Trudeau.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Pearson and Mrs. Pearson, fellow parliamentarians, ladies and gentlemen. As some of you who were here a fortnight ago realize, I am not really making my debut as a portrait unveiler. I did so on another occasion, and I might say in passing that if the right hon. gentleman is in trouble with the roster I would be pleased to explain its intricacies. But in more senses than one, this is a first for me. It is the first time I have unveiled a portrait of a former President of the General Assembly of the United Nations, it is the first time I have unveiled a portrait of a Nobel Peace prize winner.
The world has benefited from Mr. Pearson's endeavours in international affairs. As Canadians we all share in the pride which Canada feels because of the work Mr. Pearson has done in the international field. If Canada is well known in the world today, if it is known as a country which has striven for peace and justice and which has given a great deal of effort and courage to the finding of ways in which peace and prosperity can be shared in a better division across the world, it is in large measure due to Mr. Pearson.
I think it is characteristic of the man that, having shared the burdens and cares which bedevil the prime minister of one country, he should have decided to go on in international affairs to use his retirement as an opportunity to work on a global scale for the betterment of the condition of man everywhere. I think it characteristic that he should have agreed to head a task force for the World Bank in the area of international development-an area which is extremely important for the peace of the world and one in which we are sure Mr. Pearson will make a great contribution. As leader of the government of this country, bedevilled to some extent by the difficulties which the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, I can say that I hope Mr. Pearson and I will remain friends for a long time, because it is pretty important in this day and age of international difficulties to have a friend with good contacts in the World Bank.

I should like to say that I am deeply moved to be called upon today to pay tribute to Mr. Pearson because, as you know, I entered politics under his wing, under his guidance, and to a large extent I owe to his wisdom and
his advice a better understanding of politics. And if you will allow me to say, I think I am in a position to know also that his school was a good school.
I should like to add that Mr. Pearson made an extraordinary contribution, not only to the world of international affairs, but to our own national affairs. He came at a turning point in our history. I would say that he gave a new dimension to Canadian politics, a dimension which is singularly appropriate at the beginning of the second century of confederation.
Because of his great understanding and deep respect for his fellow men, which leads him to put the individual above institutions, he came to realize that at this turning point in our history we could build a great deal upon people, our country's greatest asset.
In a sense, our first century was a century of development, during which we harnessed our natural resources, invented new media of communication. I think that he felt that our second century would be built largely upon the men and women who make up this country.

Mr. Pearson understood, and still understands that our second century will be another mission of the people who inhabit our country. I think he has shown us, better than any other prime minister before him, the important values which are attached to the individual.

He came at a time when it was extremely important to grasp that great wealth which was ours on account of our bilingual make-up and our various cultures. He knew how to give this country leadership based on that reality.

For these things, Mr. Pearson, we want to express to you our gratitude; for having shown us that with your skill as a diplomat, and as a statesman, with your great feeling as a humanist, you have been able to lead us, able to lead this country, in the right direction for its second century. You have shown us that this country is built on respect for all these values which Canadians share. I want to say it is a great honour for me today to unveil this portrait of such a distinguished Canadian.


Mr. Speaker:: On behalf of the parliament of Canada I accept with gratitude this gift of
October 25, 1968

the government of Canada. This fine painting by an excellent Canadian artist will forever honour and grace the walls of this august building.
I would like now to call on our guest of honour, the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, former prime minister.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson:: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. Stanfield, Mr. Diefenbak-er and ladies and gentlemen, I must begin by thanking the Prime Minister for his very kind and generous words, and for unveiling me. I thank him also for being here with us this evening. I think of him, however, not always as a prime minister but as a man who used to be my parliamentary secretary when I was prime minister, and whom I had on duty three days a week. Those were the days when the rosters were informal and unofficial.
I should also like to thank Mr. Stanfield for his courteous and friendly observations, which were balanced eloquently by caution and generosity. But I should have told him in advance that he really had nothing to worry about; that is, it is possible for him to praise me if he so desires, because I have forever left politics, at least Canadian politics. Indeed one commentator was unkind enough some time ago to say that nothing became my political life like the leaving of it.
It it a great and rather intimidating pleasure to be on this platform with my successor and predecessor. But I am delighted and honoured to have on this platform my predecessor, Mr. Diefenbaker, with whom I have been associated a long time. Our association seems to become friendlier and more intimate now as the days go by. I have not yet come across him walking in Rockcliffe park, because I probably get up a little earlier than he does. I want to tell him how sorry I was not to have been able to be present two weeks ago, for reasons about which he knows, when a similar ceremony was held to honour him as a prime minister. It would have been rather nice, as I believe he indicated himself, if we had been able to hang together. I think perhaps we ought both to congratulate ourselves that, if we have not done so yet, at least we have not hanged separately.
This of course is my first hanging. I have been at other ceremonies of this kind here, but this is the first time I have been hanged myself. I should like you to know that the condemned man enjoyed a hearty breakfast this morning. My sense of pleasure and honour in being here is increased by the fact
that I see around me so many of my old parliamentary colleagues and friends.
I do not know whether I should comment on the picture. I am of course a well known art critic. I might say that as you go around the halls and look at the other pictures of prime ministers you might say that this is sort of half way between the sober and sedate of the past and the swinger of the present. Between the sober and the swinger you have the sloucher. But I assure you, this is the way I wanted it done and this is the way the artist-and I should like to pay my tribute to him-insisted it should be done. He wanted to paint me not as Cromwell was painted, not warped, but wrinkled and old. He caught me in that easy pose where I am preparing to do what comes naturally-perhaps going out and rake the leaves, which is much better than being raked over the coals.
In referring to the costume and the picture generally, I might say that this was done by design on my part, as well as on the part of the artist. This reminds me of an American lady journalist-and when I tell you what she said you will agree that she was no lady- who once wrote a column about me. After giving space to my intelligence, achievement and character she ended up by saying, "As for his clothes, they look as if he speaks to them each morning before he goes to the office, and says 'if you want to come with me, hang on' ". This is the reason I was very careful to wear a short black coat and striped trousers this evening.

As the French say: C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas bon.

And I like it this way. It is customary on occasions like this also to say that the artist did wonderfully well considering the material he had to work on. I should like to put it this way: The artist had magnificent material and made the most of it. Anyway, if I do not perhaps in that picture look like a prime minister should, there are those who will say today that perhaps I was only a prime minister by accident. Mr. Diefenbaker would say, happily, I became the prime minister by accident.
Let me say that I like this picture and I want to add my thanks to the artist. I wish he could have been here with us today.
I am going to conclude my remarks by doing something which I think is right on an occasion like this. I am going to quote some

October 25, 1968
poetry. This was written in 1727 by a very well known man of his day who has had a revival in recent years. His name was John Gay, and he wrote the "Beggar's Opera". If Mr. Benson were here I could safely say that he is well acquainted with him.
John Gay in 1727 wrote a little jingle, about the artist who was asked to paint a picture of some lord. This is what he has the artist say, in poetic form, to the lord before he showed him the picture:
Those eyes, my lord, the spirit there,
Might well a Raphael's hand require,
To give them all the native fire.
The features, fraught with sense and wit, You'll grant are very hard to hit,
But yet with patience you shall view,
As much as paint and art can do.
Then after the painting was shown to the lord John Gay wrote this about the artist: "Observe the work", my lord replied,
"Till now I thought my mouth was wide, Besides, my nose is somewhat long;
Good man, for me, it seems all wrong". "Oh! pardon me (the artist cried)
In this we painters must decide.
The piece ev'n common eyes must strike, And warrant it's extremely like."
My lord examined it anew,
No mirror now seemed half so true.
When thus happily he wrought.
Each found the likeness in his thought.
In my thoughts the likeness is admirable, and the honour of having it hung in the halls of parliament, as well as the honour of being with so many great Canadians in these sacred parliament buildings, is a very great one indeed. It makes me feel both humble and very proud. Thank you.


Mr. Speaker:: On behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Pearson, the Pearson family, who are here today, I thank you for your presence here, ladies and gentlemen. On your behalf I offer again our warmest congratulations to Mr. and Mrs. Pearson, our warmest and sincere wishes for health, happiness and long life.

Monday, October 28, 1968