1969-03-11

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, March 11, 1969
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Hon. J. R. Cartwright, P.C., M.C., Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 11th March, at 5.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant, Louis-Fremont Trudeau Brigadier General
Assistant Secretary, to the Governor General.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received from the Hon. Mr. Justice A. Bruce Robertson, a judge of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia and the Hon. Mr. Justice Victor L. Dryer, a judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, the two judges appointed for the trial of a petition pursuant to the Dominion Controverted Elections Act, a certificate of judgment in the matter of an election in the electoral district of Yukon.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT ALLEGED DETERIORATION IN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS-MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER STANDING ORDER 26

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), to move the adjournment of the house under Standing Order 26, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent public consideration, namely the serious deterioration in employer-employee relations in the Post Office Department, and the need for the immediate appointment of a new Postmaster General-
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Orlikow: -who will establish good relations with the employees of the Post Office and restore the service of the department to levels commensurate with the needs of the Canadian people.


Mr. Speaker:: As hon. members know, the rules of the house require that a notice of motion proposed under Standing Order 26 should be filed at least two hours prior to the opening of a sitting. I regret to say that the hon. member has not complied with this requirement. I suggest to hon. members that there is no discretion, under the rules, which would allow the Speaker to overlook this very specific requirement. In any event-and this may be some consolation to the hon. member-I think that the considerations outlined by the Chair yesterday in connection with the proposed motion of the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) would apply also today in connection with this proposed motion.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Postmaster General. I ask him whether, in the light of the possibility of a further walkout in Winnipeg and the probability of a walkout in Montreal on Thursday, he will take the initiative to have a third party mediate the root causes of the dissatisfaction in his department with regard to these disputes, rather than depending upon
March 11, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry the time-consuming settlement ol individual grievances, as is now his policy.


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to inform the house that whereas there were more than 1,500 letter carriers off duty yesterday, there are less than 700-in fact, 649-who have not reported for work today.
To reply directly to the question of the Leader of the Opposition, I should like to say that the Post Office has waived all preliminary steps in the grievance procedure. The relevant documents are now in the hands of the union for approval, and as soon as this approval is given we can immediately proceed to name an adjudicator to rule on the outstanding grievances. This is something we have wanted for some considerable time. I am delighted that the discussions have finally reached this stage. I would hope that the people who are striking today will return to work tomorrow, so that the adjudication procedure can proceed in an atmosphere of serenity.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. We are all, of course, interested in seeing things returned to normality. I assume from what the minister said that the procedure adopted relates to individual grievances. The question I asked was whether the minister would not moderate his policy so as to refer the root causes of dissatisfaction to third party mediation, rather than resort to the time-consuming procedure he is now following, which may settle individual grivances but may not actually restore peace to the operations of his department.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, the individual grievances we have selected are those that bear on the root causes or the root differences between the unions and ourselves. Therefore when the adjudicator pronounces on one of these representative cases he will undoubtedly be giving a decision that will be binding in the more general case on both sides.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have one further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Postmaster General whether it is his intention to proceed with prosecutions, as he has indicated, or whether he is going to seek a settlement.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons why I am extremely hopeful that the strikers will return to work tomorrow is that the continuance of illegal strikes would obviously make prosecution inevitable. It would
[Mr. Stanfield.)
not be inevitable, given the decision of the national executive of the letter carriers union on Sunday night ordering all their workers back to work, which is what Mr. Decarie did. Under those circumstances I think that my colleagues and I will review the situation.
In the meantime, what I said on Friday stands, that is, first that we were applying to the staff relations board for a ruling that this strike is illegal and is against the people and the government of Canada, and second that if they did declare the strike to be illegal we could have the consent of the board to prosecute. That was the position on Friday night.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Postmaster General. In view of the fact that the Postmaster General has stated that he has been trying for three weeks to get the postal workers to submit this dispute to a third party for adjudication, may I ask him whom he advised of his willingness to take this step, whether it was done orally or in writing, and when it was done. If it was by means of correspondence, would the minister be prepared to table the correspondence in the house?


Eric William Kierans: I advised a number of local unions during my trip out west that if they did not agree with the idea of eliminating the additional sorting period at one o'clock in the afternoon they should adopt the legal procedure of filing a grievance. I also repeated it before a joint meeting of the two national executives held at the Beacon Arms Hotel about a month ago-I cannot give the exact date-at the time when we discussed the implementation of the new system, and I told both national executives in the presence of both presidents that the proper way of attempting to upset this was not in a test of force, one side attempting to blackmail the other, but to proceed through the legal means that this government gave them when they gave them the right to strike.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that initial proceedings have been taken toward taking action against certain postal employee representatives, with a view to prosecution and in view of the harmful effect this will have upon employer-employee relations between the Postal Department and its employees, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he would intervene to ensure that
March 11, 1969	COMMONS
these prosecutions or any initial steps leading toward prosecution will not be proceeded with?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: To what prosecution is the hon. member alluding?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I understand that already the Staff Relations Board has notified certain representatives of the postal workers that they are to appear on March 17 with a view to preliminary discussions before prosecution.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: These are not prosecutions; they are subpoenas in order to permit the board to establish whether or not the strike is illegal. They have nothing to do with prosecutions.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Prime Minister a further question? Are these discussions which are to be held with the Staff Relations Board taking place with a view to deciding whether or not prosecutions should be proceeded with, and would the Prime Minister withhold these discussions?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member is really distorting the role of this board, Mr. Speaker. The purpose of the hearing is to establish whether the strike is illegal or not, and in order to do this the board will subpoena witnesses to get the facts. That is all the witnesses are being subpoenaed for.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In order to blackmail them-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Do you want the board to have the truth or not?


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasi-ings):: Has the Postmaster General yet been able to consider the suggestion that he hand over the conduct of this dispute to the Minister of Labour, who could substitute some knowledge of industrial relations for the minister's bull-in-the-china-shop methods?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: A supplementary question to the Postmaster General. Is the minister in a position to advise the house whether a decision has been reached in relation to representations made to the Deputy Postmaster General in mid-February on behalf of the postmasters of Canada?
DEBATES	6451
Inquiries of the Ministry


Eric William Kierans: I will look into that, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: As a supplementary question, may I ask the Postmaster General how he squares his statement how, to the effect that the government has been trying for three weeks to arrange for third party adjudication, with his statement in the house on March 4 that there was no necessity for third party adjudication.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that the question as asked is argumentative in nature.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then may I ask a different supplementary question? May I ask the Postmaster General whether, in view of his desire to conduct these discussions in an atmosphere of serenity, he will hold in abeyance the cause of offence, namely the single sortation schedule.


Eric William Kierans: We believe that it is an improvement, Mr. Speaker and that it will increase the productivity of the people who work for the Post Office. As long ago as October 2 the Deputy Minister, then Assistant Deputy Minister, advised both unions verbally, and by letter on October 3, that the department was considering introducing a single mail processing system, together with the five-day week. Since that time and during all that time we have been discussing it with them. We have given ample notice of our intention. We have not in any way disturbed the security of the people involved; their jobs have been guaranteed, although we have pointed out that this could require some reworking of existing methods.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that there are very few institutions in Canada the employees of which are doing exactly the same kind of work as their grandfathers did.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether the minister is not now making a statement.


George Harris Hees: Six days work for five days pay.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps I might allow one more supplementary.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My
supplementary question relates to the single sortation system. Since this does seem to be the bone of contention would it not make sense to suspend it while the discussions are under way?


Eric William Kierans: I do not believe so, Mr. Speaker.
6452	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


Mr. Henry Laiulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question, to the Postmaster General.
Would he and the government consider the possibility of submitting workers in the public sector to compulsory arbitration since union members reject and break agreements?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, I did not understand the question. Is the hon. member referring to Rod Service Limited?


Henry P. Latulippe: No, Mr. Speaker. I would like to know whether Post Office Department or the government is considering the possibility of establishing compulsory arbitration in the public sector?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, that question could be directed to the Minister of Labour.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: My question arises out of the question I asked yesterday in regard to the Queen's Printer. Is the Prime Minister aware that the government, or a department of government, put a sign on the billboard of the printing office in Hull in December, 1968 advising that the position of Queen's Printer was being abolished, following which Mr. Duhamel found himself in general circulation? Since it appears that the Queen's Printer is going to be a speculative possibility, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he intends to appoint a Queen's Printer, so designated?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the reorganization act the position now held by the Queen's Printer will be put under another department, that of supply and services, with specific provision in the bill for the post of Queen's Printer. There will be an official, or an office so designated.
The gentleman who until December held the title and post of Queen's Printer has been assigned to other duties within the government. This means that there is no one at this point in time exercising that function. This is because the bill itself has not been adopted by this house. Under the new reorganization act we have to have authority to appoint this

DEBATES	March 11. 1969
gentleman under another department, rather than the department where he is now.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, so that there is no mistake, is the Prime Minister's answer this: that as soon as the power is received from parliament there will be a Queen's Printer designated?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is the intention of the government. Had the intention been otherwise we would certainly not have brought in a bill with the post of the Queen's Printer specified therein.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. As inflation has increased considerably in each of the six months since the Prime Minister said in this house that the government's main thrust against the growth of poverty would be control of inflation, is the government planning to initiate new moves to stop poverty from increasing at its present steady rate in this country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is obviously asking the Prime Minister, or a minister, to make a very general statement. It seems to me that it is the kind of statement that ought to be made on motions.


George Harris Hees: Then may I rephrase the question and simply ask the Prime Minister whether he is planning to initiate any new policies in the future-yes or no-to stop poverty from increasing rapidly in this country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the opposition wanted to refrain a little bit from asking for new expenditures every time it has the chance, perhaps inflation would not be rising so fast.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question. Does the Prime Minister not consider that perhaps this negative type of response is responsible for the fact that the majority of the Canadian people now consider the government is doing an unsatisfactory job-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Harris Hees: -as expressed by the latest Gallup poll?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
March 11, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry WATER RESOURCES	TAXATION



SURVEY OF REQUIREMENTS

Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the recent study released by the United States interior department regarding the possible importation of water from Canada, I would ask the Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether the federal government has undertaken a survey of our water resources and our water needs and, if so, when will a report to the house on these studies be made?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, both the department and the government are continually looking at the state and nature of our water resources. I am not sure that we have a study that specifically meets the suggestion included in the report to which the hon. member refers, but I will look at that question.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask the minister, if he does not know the circumstances at the moment, whether he would also inquire if two engineering firms have actually been engaged by the government to undertake such a survey?



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Vicloria):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.

In view of the extremely poor marketing conditions this year, especially in the maritime provinces, will the Minister of Agriculture announce to this house soon a program or programs to come to the aid of potato shippers and growers and the potato industry in general.


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the question of possible actions that might be taken to stabilize the returns to potato producers in the maritime provinces has been referred to the Agricultural Stabilization Board for consideration and recommendation. Discussions are also going on now between my department, producer groups and provincial representatives in those provinces.



WHITE PAPER FOR CONSIDERATION OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Does the government intend to publish a white paper on taxation early in June so that finance committee members may study it before the summer adjournment?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I hope to publish it some time in June but I cannot say exactly when.



FISHERIES


Mr. James A. McGrath (Si. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Has the minister seen a report by a senior official of his department, submitted to his predecessor last February, concerning the film made by Artek Film Limited. It shows conclusively that the film fraudulently misrepresents seal killing methods in Canada. The film in question has been circulated in Europe, causing great damage to Canada's reputation and to Canada's seal hunt.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I have heard reference to this film. I will look into the matter further and answer the hon. member in due course.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. My question was about the report made by a senior official of the minister's department to the minister's predecessor last February. Has the minister read the document? Because there is great interest in this matter and because the film affects Canada's reputation abroad, will he be good enough to table the document?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have not read the document. I will read it first and then consider whether it ought to be tabled.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I will let the minister have a copy of the document, if he would like to read it. Perhaps then he will agree to having it tabled.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. At an appropriate time would the minister make a statement on motions in the house on this
March 11, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry matter, to clarify the entire question and restore the reputation of our Atlantic sealers. Canada's reputation abroad has suffered because of fraudulent misrepresentation of our sealing methods.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will consider the hon. member's representation.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When can we expect to see implementation of Canada's Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones legislation, enacted in 1964, in order to give us legal control over all fishing operations in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, as well as over those who film the seal hunt in the area and distribute the film?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, that question ought to have been addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


James Aloysius McGrath: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the matter of the seal hunt is most important, will the minister not agree to make a statement on motions tomorrow, or as soon as possible, and accept my suggestion to table the document I have referred to?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I prefer first to read the document.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Barry Maiher (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Have the representations of the woodworkers of British Columbia been considered? They have asked the federal government to intervene in the question of alleged inordinate price increases with respect to plywood and lumber used in British Columbia in the construction of houses.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am discussing this matter with my seatmate, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.



PILOTAGE


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport a question.
[Mr. Lundrigan.l
Is he in a position to tell us whether a committee will be established to consider the possibility of implementing the numerous recommendations contained in the report of the Royal Commission on Pilotage? If the answer is negative, in what precise way will the government or the Department of Transport apply the measures proposed by this Commission?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend knows, interim legislation was presented to the house to cover the immediate situation. It is proposed that more permanent legislation will follow that and be presented to parliament either in a year or two, or as soon as possible, to cover all matters reported on by the Royal Commission on Pilotage.



SHIPPING


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question relating to the curtailment of shipping services resulting from the withdrawal of government assistance.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that is not a proper supplementary question.


John Howard Lundrigan: May I rephrase the question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member will look around he will see other hon. members waiting to ask questions. However if he has a legitimate supplementary question to ask I will allow it.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, before terminating the government's involvement in shipping firms will the minister consult with the minister responsible for regional and economic development in order that he may take an over-all view of the situation?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If the hon. member will write to me and give the specifics of the aid he is referring to I will undertake to discuss it with the minister responsible for regional development.


An hon. Member:: You will never get the letter.
March 11. 1969


John Howard Lundrigan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The supplementary question Your Honour previously did not allow had to do with a withdrawal of assistance which resulted in 90 families of a certain area being without employment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport, of which I gave him notice. Can he report on the status of the suggestion that the present freeze under the Maritime Freight Rates Act should be extended beyond March 23. I should add that this is to be an interim measure until the transport committee has had a chance to make recommendations.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I hope it will be possible to make an announcement on this matter well in advance of March 23.



NEWFOUNDLAND-IMPLEMENTATION OF ORDER TO REDUCE PASSENGER SERVICE

James Aloysius McGrath: Would the minister also consider delaying implementation of the Canadian Transport Commission proposal to curtail passenger service in Newfoundland on April 15 until the transport committee has had a chance to report to this house and make recommendations?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have power to do that, unless appeal procedures are followed. So far as I am aware, there has been no appeal. There may be one to the Governor in Council, but I have not seen any. In the event that an appeal is forthcoming, the Governor in Council will look at it quickly..


James Aloysius McGrath: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister must be aware that the Newfoundland legislature passed an unanimous resolution on the matter. Surely that can be considered an appeal.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended asklnquiries of the Ministry ing a question supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I have changed my mind and will now direct it to the Prime Minister. Now that the Postmaster General has denied he has been using Gestapo methods-


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame.


Donald MacInnis: A bunch of idiots.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I ask the hon. member to put his question,


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, surely a member of the opposition ought to be allowed to quote the minister who made the original statement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald MacInnis: Since the Postmaster General has denied using Gestapo methods and since a member of his own party last evening called him to task, will the Prime Minister consider replacing him as soon as possible?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt very much whether that question is in order.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, that was a fair question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please.


Donald MacInnis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of order and ethics, since a member of his own party called the Postmaster General to task, the Prime Minister ought to consider the matter serious enough to warrant looking into, with a view possibly to replacing the Postmaster General.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is making a representation which he must assume will be taken into consideration.



STUDENT UNREST


John George Diefenbaker: I have a question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, and it is not a provocative one. It is one in which I am sure he has a personal and a long time professional interest, namely the difficulties and dissension taking place in various universities across Canada. It is so widespread it cannot be met by provincial action. Would the Prime
March 11, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry Minister consider setting up a royal commission to study student dissension, to the end that, as a result of hearing the views of the students and staffs, a new sense of understanding will be established-something which apparently is getting more and more remote with the passing days?
Righl Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):
I doubt very much, Mr. Speaker, whether we would be justified in setting up a royal commission to inquire into an area of provincial administration. Of course if the provinces were to indicate to us that the area got out of hand, was no longer a problem of education and asked us to intervene in that field, I would consider it; but not otherwise.


John George Diefenbaker: Might I suggest to the Prime Minister that this is a matter of national importance? The government pays many, many millions of dollars to the universities and this expenditure is increasing each year. It is for that reason, not the question of provincial jurisdiction, that I make the suggestion. It is a national challenge.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I realize, Mr. Speaker, that many questions of national importance are under provincial jurisdiction, by virtue of our constitution. It is not because we use the spending power that we are entitled to investigate, legislate or inquire into an area which is not under our jurisdiction.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the very bleak and serious outlook for students wishing to secure jobs this summer, is it the intention of the minister and his department to continue the airlift of European students to Canada this summer?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: I would like to have more detail on this, Mr. Speaker, before making a definitive answer. There is an exchange of students between Canada and other countries. The Canadian students also benefit from this exchange.


Alfred Dryden Hales: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
I did not have in mind the exchange. It was a straight direct airlift to Canada. Would the

minister ensure every opportunity is given to Canadian students before such airlifts take place?


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. The question has been raised regarding summer employment for students. Would the minister be willing to make a statement on motions within the next few days with regard to what he is doing to eliminate the possible unemployment situation for students in the summertime?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am sure the hon. member will have noticed in the past period that we have been undertaking a very extensive publicity campaign to acquaint employers with the needs which will occur this summer, and to encourage them to employ students where possible. We have increased our expenditures on this program. I wish to assure my hon. friend that if there are any other steps which can be taken, I will announce them to the house as soon as possible.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I would ask the minister whether his department has investigated the problem, or whether he has informed himself of its dimensions and as to the number of students who will be seeking employment and who, in view of the situation experienced last summer, will likely have difficulty in finding employment. Has the minister informed himself as to the size of the problem which exists, and can he inform the house as to the gaps that seem to exist between the number of students who will be seeking summer employment and the number who would hope to find employment under the conditions he anticipates?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I can assure my hon. friend the whole question of student employment has been under consideration and study, not only within the department but interdepartmentally. It is a serious problem for various reasons well known to my friend. The exact size of the problem is not absolutely clear, except we do know it is a major one. We are exploring every possible method to supply jobs. It will depend to a great extent upon the willingness of employers and others to consider this as a serious problem, and to assist students this summer in finding employment.
March 11, 1969	COMMONS



TEMPORARY CURTAILMENT OF LOG SHIPMENTS TO JAPAN

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and ask him if he has received a telegram from the British Columbia section of the International Woodworkers claiming that plants and sawmills are being closed down for the lack of logs at the same time that an increasingly large number of logs are being exported to Japan? Have they asked the government to restrict the export of logs until such time as domestic requirements have been met? If the minister has received this request, could I ask him what reply he has given, and what stepsi he intends to take to deal with the matter?


John (Jack) Davis: have received a telegram, Mr. Speaker, of the nature described by the hon. member, and I had discussions with the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources for the province of British Columbia. Together we have received an undertaking from the principal log exporting companies that they will not export logs until the supply improves, or until September 1 of this year.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Unless the supplementary question is urgent, I am rather anxious to give an opportunity to other members.



FARM IMPROVEMENT LOANS ACT


Mr. R. R. Souiham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In light of recent reports that farmers are unable to receive loans under provisions of the recently amended Farm Improvement Loans Act, due to tardiness in establishing appropriate regulations, can the minister say what action if any is being taken to relieve this serious situation?


Edgar John Benson: believe this is under the jurisdiction of my department, Mr. Speaker. I will look into the question immediately.


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Grey):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact this legislation was passed October 15, and the
DEBATES	6457
Inquiries of the Ministry farmers are in the process of arranging their spring programs, will the minister see this is looked into immediately?


Edgar John Benson: I already said that.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General.
He recently announced the cancellation of contracts with Rod Service Limited. In those circumstances, could he indicate how many employees of Rod Service Limited have since been hired by his department?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking for statistical information and I do not think his question is in order.



AIR CANADA


Mr. Roberi C. Coates (Cumberland-Col-chester North):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the answer provided me yesterday to written question No. 1526 that Air Canada is unwilling to provide information as to the salaries of the Chairman of the Board and the President of Air Canada, will the minister look into this matter and give consideration to making this information public?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The criteria applied in this regard has been that salaries set by order in council were public and those not set by order in council were not divulged. This has been the dividing line. This is a precedent which has been in effect for many years in the House of Commons. Whether it was a correct one, I would not wish to debate at the moment. We are just following a precedent of long standing.


Robert Carman Coates: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that the salary of the President of Canadian National Railways is made available to the public, although they are in competition with Canadian Pacific Railway, and in view of the fact the salary of the President of the C.B.C. is available to the public, although they are in competition-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's supplementary question is argumentative.
March 11, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL PARKS



BONNE BAY, NFLD-REQUEST FOR REVIVAL OF SURVEY

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-Si. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, on March 4 as recorded at page 6175 of Hansard I asked the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development a question with regard to the restart survey-work on the proposed national park at Bonne Bay, Newfoundland, as requested by the Newfoundland government. The minister replied that they are considering the matter. I wonder whether he can advise me if a decision has been made.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We reached an agreement last week with the Premier of Newfoundland and we shall go ahead with the establishment of a park at Bonne Bay. Provincial authorities have given us a piece of land for the one they took over for the development of a mine, and they have committed themselves to build a road which will contribute to enhance the beauties of the national park.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Will the various veterans organizations be given an opportunity to present briefs to the Committee on Veterans Affairs before the government or the minister declare what action if any is to be taken on the recommendations contained in the Woods report?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is up to the
members of the committee to decide what witnesses they will hear and what briefs they will receive. I hope and trust they will hear all associations which are interested in presenting briefs to the committee.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, possibly the minister did not hear the last part of my question. Will you give an opportunity to these government agents to present their briefs to the committee before you make your

decision on what action will be taken on the recommendations.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should direct the question to the Chair.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the minister, through you.


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, no decision will be made until the committee has reported. Before that time the committee will have heard all interested associations.



INDUSTRY


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whii-by):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct this question to the President of the Treasury Board. Ini view of the very slow rates of growth in industrial research and development expenditures over the last few years as reported yesterday by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics will the minister undertake now to tell the house when the task force review of government programs in respect of industrial research and development will be completed?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I would hope the review would be completed in the not too distant future. The particular programs to which the hon. gentleman has referred are now being looked at intensely by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, would the minister indicate to the house whether or not he will table the report.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, there will be a report made to the house on behalf of the government.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


John Howard Lundrigan: 


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Speaker@: Are both hon. members rising on a point of order?


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence and with the indulgence of the house, I wonder whether I could put my supplementary question which is very urgent.


Some hon. Members:: No.
March 11, 1969


Mr. Speaker:: I bring to the attention of the hon. member that we have already gone a few minutes beyond the allotted time. There does not seem to be agreement that the hon. member should be allowed to pursue the matter further. The question has been stated by the hon. member and if there is urgency perhaps it might be discussed at the time of adjournment.


John Howard Lundrigan: The only reason I mention it is that we do not get these ministers in the house very often.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



FISHERIES


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order because of the urgency and seriousness of the matter I raised today. The Minister of Fisheries has now seen a copy of the report to which I referred. I have a signed copy in my hand. I wonder whether the house would agree to give unanimous consent to having this report tabled. It might clear up some of the misinformation that has been given abroad about the killing of seals in Canadian waters.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The request would have to be made by the minister. If the minister requested the concurrence of the house there would be no objection.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I do have a photostat copy of the report which was sent to me by the hon. member. Perhaps it is a document which was prepared internally in the Department of Fisheries. I notice the date is February 29, 1968. I should like to be sure of the general nature of the document and the circumstances under which it was prepared and submitted to my predecessor before I authorize its tabling.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, now that the minister has referred to the document in the house, under the rules-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I cannot agree with the hon. member's interpretation of the rules.
Government Organization



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, March 10, consideration in committee of Bill C-173, respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters relating or incidental thereto-Mr. Trudeau-Mr. Faulkner in the chair.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose yesterday clause 7 of the bill was under consideration.
On clause 7-Department established.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, for two or three days the majority of the questions in the house have concerned the Post Office Department. I have listened very carefully and have been very interested in the development that is taking place there. Frankly I am very shocked by the minister's attitude in this regard. When the changes of automation and technical development in new areas took place we were all well aware there would be considerable difficulty experienced, and that this probably would be most apparent in the private sector of our economy.
Developments over a period of several years have indicated that this was not necessarily so. In the private sector in my opinion the technical change has been handled in a much better manner than it has been handled by the federal government. As we are well aware, the circumstances which surrounded the difficulty between the Canadian National Railways employees and their employer resulted in the Freedman report, which simply stated that where a technical change affecting the industry and a number of employees was to be undertaken, the employees would have an opportunity to discuss with representatives of the company their specific difficulties in respect of the technical change before such change was undertaken, and that they would be given an opportunity to participate with management in arriving at the most equitable solution to a particular problem.
Most members of the government agreed that the Freedman recommendation, as it affected technical change and the need for
6460	COMMONS
Government Organization co-operation between employer and employee, was a good thing. Ministers, particularly the Minister of Labour of the day, decided this did not need to be written into legislation, because there was no disagreement in respect of the particular proposition.
Going back to the family history of the Postmaster General, I know that particular family has been quite eloquent in developing new philosophies and new ideas. I am thinking of the Grand Canal project, which involves the diversion of the water system of a whole continent. These things have been thought out and developed almost entirely by one person.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
I am surprised to see the Postmaster General doing exactly the same thing so far as the Post Office is concerned. He has sat down in his ivory tower with his background as an economist of some repute and has come up with a number of solutions to postal problems which have probably had a great degree of success. Certainly he is an economist in the academic sense, but his solutions would indicate a total detachment from the realities of practical politics and technology.
I suggest that the minister must consider the application of these solutions and changes in relation to the needs of people. It is very easy to develop a machine that will run eight hours a day because it only requires to be oiled once every eight hours. The human refueling cycle usually requires a break for dinner. The Postmaster General said that the employees could have a break at dinnertime but they could not go back to the Post Office and if they wanted to go back they had to do so on their own time.
This matter has been referred to the Public Service Staff Relations Board in order to arrive at a decision. In arriving at a decision consideration should be given to the people involved in the discussion. I have in mind the Postmaster General, his senior staff and the unions involved. The minister has not allowed this. He has arbitrarily decided that these changes shall be made come hell or high water.
It was very interesting to listen to the president of the Montreal postal employees on television. When he was asked whether a walkout would be legal or illegal he said there was no question but that it would be illegal. Such a walkout would be illegal in a technical sense. These employees have followed the only procedure open to them to

DEBATES	March 11. 1969
arrive at a settlement of the dispute or a conclusion to the negotiations. They have followed their only course by referring the matter to the staff relations board. They have done so in respect of the wash-up question which was decided in favour of the employees. The department was instructed to undertake certain changes. What did the department do? It created another problem and neglected to implement the changes. What alternative is there left to the employees but to go on strike?
The minister made a number of increases in the cost of postage. This is a fundamental matter. It is interesting to note that there has been very little outcry about the increases in postal rates except from those who have been getting a bargain from the postal department. Whether the minister is right in his statement that if private non-profit organizations wish to put out a publication for the benefit of their members then the members should pay for it, I am not prepared to say. In order to do so I would have to know the total value of those publications to the national welfare, and I am not in a position to know this. But I am in a position to know that something is rotten in Denmark if we continue to make exceptions in respect of two United States publications at the expense of the Canadian public. I have had occasion to read both those publications and they contain United States propaganda first, last and always. They do have a small section for the Canadian reader but it is pretty limited so far as Canadian development is concerned.
What will defeat the government and the minister is not the increases in postal rates but the deterioration in the service being provided. There is something wrong with a system that now takes up to five days to move a letter from point A to point B when before the changes were made it took only 12 hours. I am not prepared to say this is the result of the stoppage of Saturday delivery, or because sorting should be done at two o'clock in the morning instead of at four o'clock. I know nothing about the Post Office operations, but I am inclined to think that the minister knows less.
I have had occasion to talk with experts in this field. The more they told me about what takes place in the Post Office the more confused I became. They tried in a few minutes to explain to me the sorting system and why an employee must pay for the cards he uses for sorting purposes. I find this a very complicated business which is not exactly the same in one place as it is in another.
March 11, 1969

It is my belief that the Postmaster General sat down with a number of people to draft ways of putting the postal operation in the black. The blueprint they devised is now being superimposed on every aspect of the Post Office operation. If people were sheep perhaps he would be successful, but they are not sheep. They have been trained in a certain way over a long period of time and now find it difficult to change, particularly when they realize that the change is not advantageous to the Post Office Department or to themselves. They are opposed to a general making decisions for soldiers in the field he has never seen. I suggest that the minister should concern himself with this type of criticism. The Prime Minister and other members of the cabinet should also be concerned with this problem.
When the postal rates were increased I was surprised there was not more complaint. When Ontario brought in a 5 per cent sales tax I thought it would mean the defeat of the provincial government but that was not the case. Money does not mean everything. The price of things has gone up so fast and so often in this country that no one seems to be concerned.
A viewpoint was presented on television last night in the form of a letter to the Postmaster General to the effect that this country could stand a 10 cent charge for first class mail. I certainly think we could raise the rate, but I suggest to the minister that he cannot do this while at the same time allowing the service to deteriorate. There is absolutely no excuse for having less efficient mail services in northern Ontario than were provided 40 years ago. Mail service has deteriorated tremendously in the last five years, and I think every member of the house has received complaints in this regard.
Let me give an example of the kind of complaint we receive. I had a conversation recently in an elevator. I asked the operator how the mail service was in Carp. He said he did not live in Carp but that he had recently experienced some difficulty with mail services. He informed me that he received rent in respect of a house he owned. About the third or fourth day of each month he would complain to the man paying the rent because he had not received the cheque. He said that the individual would then tell him he had sent the cheque on the 26th or 27th of the previous month. This mail would travel from Eastview to Cyrville. On one such occasion 29180-409a
Government Organization the letter was dated on the 27th of the preceding month and was delivered on the 9th of the month for which the rent was due. Had the individual given the letter to the carrier it probably would have been delivered the same afternoon. The most recent example he gave related to a cheque mailed on January 27 and delivered on March 9. The distance involved was no more than five miles. I am sure every member of the house is aware of the fact that the postal service has deteriorated at a time when we are paying more for the service.
We are entitled to know why postal employees are upset and why there should be strikes. The department is providing these employees with more money than ever before. We are not providing them with more money with the expectation that they should go on strike for some other reason. Surely these things can be settled.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
The Post Office Department has always stunk to high heaven, and we have always hoped this would be corrected. The department used to be the source of the greatest patronage in the government. Political rather than competent people were appointed. Despite this, the movement of mail from point A to point B was carried out in the most economic and speedy way possible. That is not happening now. In my area the postmaster allows the transportation of air mail, yet only one municipality has air mail service. The air mail service is much slower than that provided by train or truck if it were handled in the proper manner. This used to be the situation. I am not suggesting that the minister should go backward in this respect. However, I think we made a very bad mistake when in many areas we took the sorting cars off the trains. In the case of some railways, the money paid for the sorting cars constituted the difference between making and not making a profit. The service provided in this fairly elementary way meant that a letter sent from point A to point B was delivered in the most economic and speedy manner. We have never been able to duplicate that service.
The people in my area say there is no point in sending by mail cheques for an operation if they have to establish in the area a sum of money that has to be related in a general way to their computer system or if they have to supply two cheques, one of which is issued from a local bank account and finally brought back, attached to another cheque and run through a computer system. They say they cannot send money from Toronto to northern
March 11, 1969

Government Organization Ontario fast enough for it to get into the hands of people on Thursday or Friday, although in the past they could do this if it was sent from Toronto on Tuesday. Therefore there is something wrong with the system. I have brought this problem to the attention of the department.
I am surprised also at the lack of initiative the Postmaster General is allowing to the district officers. They are not exercising the discretion they had before. I have never asked them to do anything in a political sense. I have always felt that they were qualified to make decisions in their jurisdictions. I now find they are not making decisions and have not attempted to do so because they do not know what the Postmaster General has decided. Anything they do may be thrown out. Obviously, morale is very low at this level of the department.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, I shall make only some brief remarks on clause 7 concerning the future Department of Communications.
First I would like to say outright that the future Minister of Communications is able to defend himself. He gave strong evidence of it in the past, yet some situations appear so illogical that we should try and correct them. As other hon. members I often hear in this house that the government is spending a lot, that budgets are increasing tremendously and that taxes are going up. However, as soon as a responsible minister dares to introduce reforms to save money and to modernize some services, the very same ones who were blaming the government for being extravagant complain that taxes are increasing.
Yet it should be agreed that two and two are four. One cannot blame the government for spending too much and increasing taxes today and at the same time ask it to spend even more tomorrow. That does not make any sense, Mr. Chairman. As a matter of fact, almost every day those who are complaining about the fact that the government wants to cut expenditures are the first to suggest that it should invest millions of dollars in some cases. In my opinion, that sounds somewhat illogical.
It is obvious that everyone is affected by reforms and savings, Mr. Chairman, and no one thinks that they can be approved willingly. In my opinion such reforms should be

possible in the difficult situation in which we now find ourselves, when all governments in the world are faced with austerity measures made necessary by the economic situation. Hon. members should help all Canadians to understand why they have to tighten their belts even if it hurts. In fact, it must be done to avoid a worsening situation due to more serious financial and economic problems and perhaps even devaluation of our dollar.
I think that the validity of this argument should be obvious to those who want to consider the situation objectively. It is so simple in fact that there should not be any need to stress the point.
I think that the future Minister of Communications must have some gumption to impose measures as drastic as these while facing the opposition's big guns.
He certainly does not do it because he invented all those reforms as the new Postmaster General. He is surely doing it, and we know it, because for years the experts in his department have been considering these reforms and trying to develop them. In fact the minister has finally decided, in view precisely of the circumstances I mentioned earlier, to introduce them to the Canadian people. However, this discussion shall probably not be wasted. Some aspects of the matter should perhaps be changed a little. The minister understands this, because he made some changes to the legislation he wanted to implement.
But, Mr. Chairman, this is not what I want most to point out. I heard yesterday or the day before on the radio a speech by an official of one of the Postal Unions-I understand his name is Decarie-who said that the postal workers would go on strike, whether it was legal or not. I hear hon. members approving those people and telling us that, even though it is illegal, it must be done.
Mr. Chairman, I think that it should not be done. If hon. members are willing to approve Canadians who challenge the government by taking illegal action, I feel that we are heading for anarchy.
That reminds me of an opinion I expressed when the house granted the employees of the civil service the right to strike, at which time I was sitting in the limbo of opposition. I voted against the passing of the legislation and warned the president of the Treasury Board at that time that he would be faced with certain problems before the year was over. The minister answered then: No, I have enough confidence in the public employees'
March 11, 1969

sense of duty to know that they will not abuse the right to strike which we are going to grant them. Today we have the proof that they are abusing it, even when they recognize that they are doing so illegally, and there are hon. members who stand behind them.
Mr. Chairman, I feel that is intolerable. It opens the door to chaos and anarchy, and it is high time we put an end to that.
I would even say that union members are beginning to be fed up with strikes called for any or no reason. The Canadian public in general, the taxpayers who are always asked to foot the bill for the settlement of these problems, are fed up also and they protext strongly. In fact, a certain number of union members have had their fill of being involved in costly strikes which, in many cases, are called for trivial reasons.
Mr. Chairman, I feel that when union leaders loudly proclaim on radio, on television or in public, that a strike, illegal or not, will take place, not only should they be taken to task but they should also be punished, if order is to be maintained in this country.
Mr. Chairman, the time is nearing when the majority of Canadians will fustigate these trade-unions, which were once justified, which have rendered and are still in a position to render services to the working class which constitutes a useful pressure group. Because of some irresponsible leaders and agitators, trade-unions are acting in such a way that the disorder, the chaos and the anarchy which are prevailing in our Canadian society will go against the workers, the wage-earners, who are always the most seriously affected.
I wish to protest against such an attitude. It should be enough, I think, to encourage the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) to stand firm against such blackmail as that to which he is being subjected in some circles.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


William Marvin Howe: Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity presented by this government reorganization bill, particularly that part of the bill having to do with communications, to bring to the attention of the minister some of the things about which other hon. members have been speaking in the house and about which a great many of us have received voluminous correspondence. I do not know whether the cause was the increase in letter postal rates or the increase in the cost of postage for periodicals, but I have never had
Government Organization as much correspondence on any subject during my period in the House of Commons as I have had lately in connection with Post Office matters. The reason may be that the new minister is seeking to sweep everything clean and make many changes as well as cause disruption among many people.
At any rate, I want to add my voice to all the people who have complained about the fact that so many post offices are being closed. This is going to happen or has happened to a great many post offices in my area, and it has caused a great deal of disruption to people who have depended on their local post offices not only for their mail but for sending postal money orders and doing a great deal of their postal business. The elimination of these local post offices will make a difference in their way of life, and in the case of some older people it will create real hardships. Therefore I think there are quite a few cases which the minister should look into.
Let us consider what happens when a small railway station is going to be closed. In such cases the people in the area are notified and if they want to present their case, which they used to do to the board of transport commissioners, they have an opportunity to voice their opposition to the action that is going to be taken. Sometimes I think this might be a good idea in connection with local post offices. I suggest to the Postmaster General that in some of these cases a hearing in the area might be informative to the people and might stop some of the complaints that are made to members of parliament, although it is only through the medium of correspondence of this kind that we can really find out everything that is going on in our ridings.
I have also had a great deal of correspondence, as have other members, in regard to increased postage on periodicals such as farm papers and church publications. As we know, many of these periodicals are non-profit publications and are issued by organizations which make a study in a specialized field. Whether the periodical deals with agriculture or business, this specialized information is of great value to the people who receive these papers. For instance, in the field of agriculture so much change is taking place these days that it is only through reading such periodicals and farm papers that our farmers can keep up to date. So I think that another look at the increases in postal rates might be worthwhile, and I am sure it would be of great value to the publishers of these periodicals. Many of them may have to fold up their
March 11, 1S69

Government Organization businesses because they will not have the financial means to continue in operation.
I am not sure that the money supposed to be saved by the Post Office Department through increases in the rates will be of the great value that the Postmaster General and some members of the government think it will because I feel that the pressure on our economy has increased as a result. Much of the legislation that has been brought into the house by the government has had a similar [DOT]effect. It is rather interesting to note also that in spite of the increase in postage I have never had so many complaints about the type of service being given by the Post Office Department. In fact, I have heard complaints that it takes three or four days for a letter to travel a distance of 10 or 12 miles. Such a situation is intolerable. One of the greatest problems is that the weekly newspapers are having great difficulty in getting their papers to their patrons who do not live in the area.
The main reason that I rose to speak this afternoon has to do with a situation that has developed in my own riding. It concerns a community where the government has decided a new post office should be built and the people in that community are complaining bitterly that they do not want it. I am referring to the village of Elora. Perhaps not everybody understands that the people in some villages are very happy living with their traditions and with certain buildings in their community. To bear this out I would like to read an editorial that was sent to me by one of my constituents. It has to do with the closing of the post office in Elora and appeared in the Elora Express shortly after Christmas. It is headed "Quite Unnecessary", and reads:
Rumours persist that Elora is to have a new post office. There are a number of things that Elora needs but a new post office is the least of its needs. We have a post office which is suitable to one of the oldest villages in the district and is a good solid structure. All we can get is one of the modern shoe boxes which are dotting the land, and, by the time we get a new bank-if we ever do-one more landmark will be gone. A few more and Elora will be as sterile of atmosphere as Guelph.
We feel that there should be some protest before we find that the present office is demolished. It undoubtedly needs more space but there is plenty of land available for an addition without ruining the character of the main street. Moreover, if the present minister responsible for post offices is so all-fired anxious to effect economies he might take this into consideration. It will take a lot of penny postage to knock a building down and build a new one.

The next paragraph indicates that a protest to their member of parliament might be considered and that some thought should be given to the matter. I have certainly had protests from a number of individuals who have written me in connection with the action that is being taken in this case. The editorial continues:
As near as we can find out nobody wants a new post office. One is not necessary and it is downright wasteful to eliminate good buildings when so much thought is being given to their preservation.
This editorial is one of the reasons I am speaking in the debate this afternoon. I made a protest to the Minister of Public Works. May I say by way of interpolation that I sometimes wonder whether the regional desks are not already working in some parts of Canada because, in the case of Elora, the member of parliament representing that area was not consulted or even told that a new post office was going to be built in that village. It was not until somebody stumbled upon it when they saw people looking for a new site for the post office that the people in the community were made aware of the plans, and immediately they were up in arms. I do not blame them. This community has a population of between 1,200 and 1,500 of whom over 400 people signed a petition saying they do not want a new post office.
Another editorial appeared in the Elora Express following a meeting, which should have been held in the first place of officials of the Department of Public Works and the planning board of this community. It reads in part:
Members of the planning board present were J. Andrews, P. Buchanan, R. Marston and H. Waind.
Mr. Blackwell opened the discussion by stating that the department's only function was to find the most economical method of providing the facilities that the post office requires. From their investigations it would be more costly to renovate the old building with an addition, than to build a new post office.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
As to that, Mr. Chairman, I do not know. Many of us live in old houses, but I imagine we could put them up against the houses being built today any time. After 80 or 90 years our houses will still be standing when many of the new buildings put up today will no longer exist.
Mr. John Andrews, an architect in that area, asked whether it was not important to
March 11, 1969

consider Elora's special needs as a village whose main industry is tourism. He said:
Elora's history Is manifested by its buildings, and the present post office is the most significant in the city square, as well as being a symbol of the village.
He suggested a parallel to Toronto's old City Hall. I should point out that this little community has always been greatly appreciated by visitors and vacationists. People from all over the province go to see the well-known Elora rocks on the Grand River. Since a conservation program was undertaken by the Grand River Conservation Commission a beautiful park and terrace have been laid out along the river and in the summer thousands of tourists and campers take advantage of the facilities provided. In discussing this matter I think all these things should be taken into consideration.
Perhaps I should summarize the reply by Mr. Webb, a member of the staff of the Department of Public Works who appeared at that meeting. He said that from the political point of view it might be best to renovate but his department, representing the federal government, was only interested in the dollars and cents aspect. I ask the committee to note the emphasis placed on dollars and cents. Mr. Webb explained that union contracts with the Post Office demanded direct lighting, air conditioning, lunch rooms and, in a village the size of Elora, 14,000 square feet of working space. He told the meeting that in his opinion it would economically be impossible to renovate the present building though on some further questioning-and this is the point- he agreed a detailed study had not been undertaken. In other words, the decision was made to build a new post office although the department had not even gone into the question how much it would cost to renovate the old one.
In these circumstances I believe I have a perfect grievance to bring before the minister. Before any action is taken a thorough examination of the situation ought to be made so that, if at all possible, the old building can be retained, with the facilities which the Post Office says it requires being provided in a renovated structure. This, in my view, would be far better than destroying the old building completely. As the writer of the editorial on this subject observed, we all know how beautiful the new post office would be. Most of these new buildings are like shoeboxes. They may be functional but they certainly do not commend themselves architecturally to those who travel round our country.
Government Organization
I maintain that the post office now in use in Elora should be preserved. Buildings of this type add to the attractiveness of the community. Before any definite action is taken by the department I feel that the people of Elora should be consulted. Better public relations would certainly exist if this course of action were followed.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to say a few words on the bill before us and on the present situation which is not very hopeful and which needs to be corrected.
I heard earlier the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) say that someone had to take his responsibilities. In my opinion, it is up to the government and the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) to assume them.
As the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres pointed out earlier, some trade-unionists are ambitious and unscrupulous when it comes to abiding by the rules and the law.
Then, if honesty is a thing of the past, if it is no longer possible to control anything, let the State take its responsibilities. Earlier, I asked a question to the Postmaster General who told me that it was not his responsibility but that of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mack-asey). I think the Minister of Labour and the Postmaster General should co-operate; and it is high time they did.
Mr. Chairman, it is the government's responsibility to establish compulsory arbitration within the public sector, because with our inaction and our casualness we are paralysing the whole economy and admitting that those who are wrong are in the right.
As to us, of the Ralliement Creditiste, we are prepared to assume our responsibilities. If compulsory arbitration is necessary, it should be imposed. The government should take its responsibilities, because it is more than ever time that it did, and we shall see if it is capable of doing it. If nothing else can be done, the government must act. I think that the majority of the Canadian people would be satisfied if such a step were taken. I think there is a limit to everything. When ambitious people go too far, it is imperative to promulgate regulations, in order to curb their ambitions. However we must also set stopping points as well as landmarks.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the Postmaster General and the officials of his department have the responsibility to make decisions. The Postmaster General has taken a few decisions
March 11, 1969

Government Organization already, and he should not be afraid of taking this one. In fact, as far as the increase in postal rates is concerned, he was not afraid to assume his responsibilities, even though he knew it would increase the cost of living, decrease the buying power of the citizens and deteriorate the economic situation for everyone in Canada.
At that time, he believed it was a good step to take and he was not afraid to take it. Therefore he should not be afraid to impose compulsory arbitration now, as the great moral law which would start the economic system running and would maintain it in a state of balance. Then, the government must at all costs take its responsibilities.
I have not looked fully into the situation, but it seems to me it is time to establish rules which will ensure a certain degree of balance in the economy. As long as there are soulless, ambitious men, prepared to do wilful damage and to break everything, we will have to enact laws to bring them back to reason. Instead of destroying, we should build. Therefore, let us stop those who destroy Mr. Chairman.
I should like to speak briefly about my riding. I never had the opportunity to tell the minister what is going on in my riding and what is needed there.
Some things have been done in the past, but the minister did not hesitate to make cutbacks. In my hometown, for instance, we had been promised home delivery service three years go, and the municipality was made to spend money under the pretext that the government would start the service. But this Postmaster General applied the axe to the project, and told us that it was no longer time to think about letter carrier service. He told us the plan had been postponed. Now, municipal authorities are asking for a home delivery service, since they have spent several thousand dollars to install street signs and to number houses and buildings.
In addition, three years ago, the government said that the Department of Public Works would build five post offices in the Compton riding. Two have been built and the construction of the other three was postponed by the Postmaster General under the pretext of saving. Since the situation has changed and winter works have been cancelled, he finds it impossible to build those small post offices.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
The government bought some lots on which it intended to build post offices; however, it

decided later on not to proceed with the construction. Needless to say that the citizens living in the parishes where the post offices were to be built are quite disappointed.
Since the government had promised to have the buildings erected three years ago and the project, involving three small post offices only, has been postponed for three years, I feel that the government should at least make an effort to fulfil some of the minor promises it made in my area. I receive lots of correspondence from these municipal authorities; they keep asking me why construction is being delayed, why I do not urge the government to introduce legislation that would benefit my constituency. Since I am criticized for allegedly doing nothing to correct the situation, I wish to call the minister's attention to it. If the minister can correct it-I do not ask him the impossible-we would appreciate it, for in our constituency we pay taxes as in all the others, and the federal government has never done much for us. In fact, we have asked for all kinds of assistance, in order to improve the tourist trade; but nothing was done and all those projects fell through.
I would therefore ask the minister to consider the situation and, if possible, to build those two small post offices which would render a great service to the population.
Mr. Chairman, I would have lots of things to say in connection with that bill, but I do not wish to extend the debate. Once again, before concluding, I would ask the government and the opposition to assume their responsibilities, and to put some order in our mail service, since it is the most important of all. Once there was no better organized department than the Post Office Department but now it is far from operating satisfactorily.
In my opinion, that unbalance should not exist and the only way to settle the situation would be to resort to compulsory arbitration. We are here to represent the people of Canada and to take our responsibilities. As the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres said earlier, if there is someone who should take responsibilities and do something to cope with this situation, it is the government.
A while ago, the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres stated that the economic situation is critical not only in Canada but throughout the world, that all the countries are faced with the same insuperable economic conditions, that we are facing a terrible economic crisis and that we must absolutely tighten our belt.
March 11. 1969

I would say however to the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres that while it is well and good to tighten our belt, but we must not allow others not to wear any. Many have none at all. They benefit nevertheless from the whole economy, from the increase in interest rates and capital of all kinds, with the more or less tacit consent of the present government.
So these people or institutions must assume their responsibilities. If they fail to do so, the government will have to do its duty and intervene.


Mr. Rose:: Mr. Chairman, in rising to
speak in this debate today I should like to bring to the attention of the minister a few matters that affect the people of my constituency of Fraser Valley West. I should also like to examine briefly the philosophy behind some of the recent moves that have been made in the Post Office Department. Like the hon. member for Timiskaming who spoke earlier, I am not an expert in Post Office procedure and do not pretend to be. However, I am the perfect recipient, the punching bag, if you like, for some of the complaints that have been made by people in my riding, and as the member for the constituency it is my duty to bring them to the attention of the minister.
I believe that the Postmaster General is attempting to run the Post Office Department like a stock exchange. I think he would agree with me that people are not stock, not even livestock. They are people and they resent any kind of fiat or orders from on high on matters that affect them especially when they are not given a proper opportunity to make their representations or adequate time in which to do so. This sort of thing is resented by the people generally, no matter what department or government agency is concerned, and by me also.
I am sorry to say this because the minister made a profound impression upon me during the height of the recent Liberal leadership campaign. I felt that he would have been the best man for the future of Canada to lead the government party. I do not feel this way any longer, however, because he has departed from the role of an articulate visionary of Canada's future to one of petulant arrogance. All of his defence mechanisms are working overtime, as one who is insecure in the decisions he has reached. He adopts a kind of rigidity or inflexibility that indicates to me a contempt for the people with whom he deals.
Government Organization
In my constituency two historic post offices have been marked for the axe. The one at Port Hammond has been given a partial reprieve but only at the expense of denying the people there a postal walk service in the area. The people have been told, in essence, that they can have a postal walk service or a post office but they cannot have both, and as the matter stands now they can take it or leave it. I ask the minister, why not a postal walk service originating in Haney that is also co-ordinated with the post office in Hammond? The post office in Hammond is particularly useful to the business community there. Surely anybody who is able to grapple with the problems of communications and the various technical problems connected with satellites ought to be able to solve a simple problem like this. Therefore I bring it to the minister's attention and I hope he can see his way clear to do something about it.
The other post office that is slated for extinction is in Langley in the community of Walnut Grove. I have received a huge petition from the people in that area which indicates, to me at least, that the residents there need the post office. This post office is right on the edge or fringe of suburbia, and the whole area will certainly be one of rapid growth during the next few years.
But what I protest most vehemently is the manner in which I have learned about these problems. I learned about these premeditated moves affecting postal services in my constituency not from the minister's office but from people who live there. They have written to me about them, but I do not think that is good enough. As the member who represents these people in this house, surely I should not be the last to know. Surely the minister's sense of public relations and common courtesy ought to indicate that the member representing the constituency should be the first to be advised if such moves are contemplated.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I am certain other hon. members have received this kind of information. I have not. Such information may go to the various regional desks, and I suppose my people could learn there what is going on. But I was kept completely in the dark, and I think that is a poor way to operate. I am certain that members supporting the government have always been given the chance to break to their constituents news of pork barrel measures, which sometimes include post offices. Similar courtesy ought to be extended to
March 11, 1969

Government Organization other hon. members, who should be given information even when the news to be conveyed is bad. When a member does not receive the kind of information I have been speaking of he should raise hell. That is exactly what I am trying to do.
There is an alarming trend in this parliament toward emasculating the backbencher. May I remind the minister that I was elected exactly as he was elected. Rules or no rules, I will bring forward whatever concerns my constituency. I was sent here to do that. I hope to represent my constituents as well as anyone can, or even better.
I do not intend to dwell on the labour troubles within the Post Office. Major and wildcat strikes have occurred since the minister put his hand on the helm, demonstrating that everything is not well in the Post Office. Since other speakers have discussed Post Office troubles at great length I will not be repetitious. I simply say to tne minister that on the third strike he will probably be out because he has hit many foul balls already this session.
The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres referred to certain union officials and their responsibility to the public. I suggest to the hon. member that certainly there are irresponsible union officials, but there are also irresponsible members of parliament and cabinet ministers.


David Orlikow: Union officials do not change sides.


Mark Willson Rose: No, they do not. I remind hon. members that neither cabinet ministers nor union members like to be pushed around. If union officials feel they must act in a certain way to receive the kind of justice they consider they deserve, they at least take those steps they feel are necessary whether or not there is legislative support for them. We have seen that sort of thing happen throughout history. Such activities are carried on not only by unions but by all groups with aggrieved members.
In justifying his new satellite program the minister said to members of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications on December 9, 1968, as reported at page 163 of Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence No. 9:


Eric William Kierans: Our purpose in going into this satellite is social objectives; they may be political too, but let us say, social objectives as the way of unifying the country, that that one satellite as far as we are concerned just blankets the whole of Canada-

That satellite would be devoted to Canadian aims and objectives and will be programmed, I would imagine, in a way that is acceptable by the Canadian people and their cultural requirements or needs.
I do not object to that kind of outlook. I think the minister will agree that Canada has a long history of undertaking costly programs for social objectives. Some examples are protective tariffs for central Canadian manufacturers, the Canadian National Railways, equalization grants, the seaway, the maritime freight rates legislation and, finally, the C.B.C. Expenditures in these areas were undertaken for social objectives. Why, then, must the minister feel that Post Office operations must function on a ruthless balance sheet? Surely there are good social reasons for considering the Post Office as primarily a service to meet the social and cultural aspirations of the Canadian people and not just as a business. Do non-profit cultural, religious, union and scholarly papers and journals not rate higher in bringing about Canadian unity and identity than Time and Life magazines? To that argument advanced by other hon. members the minister replied in the typically flippant way we have come to expect, and I paraphrase his remarks: "Certain publications want to continue and have the public of Canada pay the shot." What is so unusual about this? How can we have discourse on a political, cultural, religious or social level in this country if non-profit publications in these fields cannot be supported for the public's good or for social reasons? Why does the government pick on the Post Office particularly when attempting to balance its books?
I must protest against the way in which the Post Office has treated box holders, especially those living in rural areas. This year they face double the charges they paid last year. When postal rates went up we knew that rates for Post Office boxes would also rise. But increasing those rates by 100 per cent is far beyond the increase contemplated by many. After all, those who buy stamps have not had to pay double for their stamps. Box holders also buy stamsps, but they do not have the privilege of rural route services, nor do they have a householder service. These large rate increases discriminate against those who do not have any alternative postal service available to them.
Finally, I submit that the minister is moving too rapidly and is not consulting sufficiently those who will be affected by government policies in this field. He does not seem
March 11, 1969

to know what will be the long-term ramifications of his proposals. The public good cannot be measured in terms of balance sheets. In short, the greatest failure of the minister responsible for communications lies in the fact that he has failed to communicate.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to miss this opportunity to voice the remarks I have heard in my constituency about the postal service offered in various municipalities. My sole purpose is to help the minister and to advise him of the present conditions arising from his instructions since he took over this department. I would like to be as objective as possible, and I would like him to pay attention to my brief remarks.
Many merchants, industrialists, stock brokers and insurance brokers have complained to me about the slowness of the mail service recently. I agree with them that they now pay more for less service. I do not want to blame the staff of the local post office in Saint-Hya-cinthe, nor the rural carriers in my riding, but I want to point out that they have to do in five days the work they did before in six. This does not apply to rural carriers.
In his first speech in the house, the Prime Minister said at least four times that he was most eager to establish a just society across the country. It is amazing to see that the establishment of a just society requires the minister to have recourse to injustice. Surely, it is not just to ask employees to do in five days what previously took them six days, nor is it just to charge Canadian publishers more than foreign publishers for the postal service.
In my opinion, the minister means well but he has not considered long enough the consequences of his actions; however, perhaps it is not too late to remedy a situation which is truly unfair to every Canadian, since we are now discussing the reorganization of the various departments.
I should also like to draw the minister's attention to one point that could be improved in the householders' list. At the present time, users at the various post offices or on the various rural routes are identified by one initial only. It often happens that on the same rural route, two, three or even four Christian names have the same initial. The same thing also occurs on other rural routes of the same locality, and the people who deliver the mail are puzzled. They make mistakes, and although they do their best, they give poor
Government Organization service to the users of the postal service. As, this work is done by independent companies,
I think the minister should insist, when those lists are drawn up, that the first names appear in full thereon. It would then be much easier, when the addressee's name is, for instance, Mr. Armand So and So, to speed up delivery by writing down the addressee's Christian names rather than his initials only. A letter intended for Mr. Armand So and So could as well end up at Mr. Alfred So and So's place. I believe the minister will want to correct such an anomaly.
Now, as far as my constituency is concerned, I have noted that in several areas neither the number of users nor their names appear in the householders' list. To obtain such information, one must, first of all, pay $2 for this publication; then one must pay an additional sum if one wishes to obtain a list that is not included and one must get in touch with the companies that have compiled those lists.
I believe the minister would help his employees, as well as those who need such information, if he made the required corrections.
Those are the comments I wanted to make, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Bigg:: There are several matters, Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss in this debate. I hope that by having a new minister something will be done about an old complaint of mine concerning the Post Office. I was laughed at when I mentioned it before in the house, but apparently it is only members of parliament belonging to the party in power who are consulted regarding local problems. This is a cynical attitude. If the minister requires information concerning the district of Pembina in northern Alberta, he does not have to go to defeated candidates, would-be candidates or would-be senators. I will give him up to date and detailed information on anything connected with my district. I have lived there for 15 years and am acquainted with these people. I have their interests at heart more than my own best interests. I hope that the 11 years I have been in this house have proved that. I hope a new minister is appointed to this department. Some of the troubles are no doubt passing troubles. With a new minister we should be able to look forward to the formation of new policies by the department.
Members of parliament were not consulted about the redistribution of ridines. One need
'	. I
March 11, 1969

Government Organization only look at a map of Canada and the redistribution of seats to see what a cynical waste of local talent it was not to consult the members of the House of Commons. The people of Canada have respect for us or we would not be here. Many of our constituents feel we are overpaid. I do not happen to think so. I think a good member of parliament is underpaid. A member of parliament who is not conscientious should not be paid at all. If we are going to be respected in our ridings, we must adopt this attitude and give the people service. If all members of parliament and members of the provincial legislatures in this country would do their work there would be very little need for an ombudsman. In my opinion there would be no need whatever for regional desks, more bureaucracy and more expense for the already overburdened taxpayer. There is no need for us to do our homework and keep in touch with our constituents if the government of the day cynically disregards the well-intentioned and detailed information which we are willing and able to give them.
I intend to write the Postmaster General in connection with the proposal to build a new post office in a village where the population is shrinking by the day. There are quite adequate postal facilities in that village. I personally canvassed at least half of the people of the village and most of those with whom I spoke were of the opinion that no local improvement whatsoever was required. A first class, up to date post office will probably be built even though it is not required.
Many post offices are being closed down. The over-all reason is economy. I plead with the Postmaster General that before any more post offices are closed a careful survey be made to ensure that veterans do not lose their means of earning a living. I know they do not make a very good living from these post offices but in a great many cases they also own little stores. Without the post office attached to it the store alone might be a very small drawing card. The revenue from the post office may be quite small and may represent only 20 per cent of the total revenue. Nevertheless the post office is a drawing card and sometimes the additional revenue keeps the person from going broke and having to move to a city only to become yet another statistic on the relief rolls of our ever-burgeoning cities.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
These are examples of the just society about which the people on the hustings think. This is not an election year and I do not

suppose next year will be either. But these people do not forget; they are looking for the just society not only from members of the Liberal party but from all politicians at all levels. I say, for goodness sake let us not be cynical about this. The Liberal party is a great party, but if its members reach the point where they think they are the only people who have an interest in the future of Canada the nation will suffer and we will all go down the drain together. There are a great many people who, although they do not happen to be associated with the Liberal party, have the welfare of Canada at heart. It would be a great mistake for anyone to think that any party in Canada has a monopoly on these sentiments.
I should not have to say this but I believe it is necessary because of the way I am treated. I have not had even one letter in six years in which my opinion regarding the Post Office has been requested. I represent a big district with 58,000 people. During the 15 years I have been there I have visited almost every home in the area. Because of this I have detailed information which is at the disposal of every minister of the Crown. If they do not use it, it is they who are delinquent, not I nor the people whom I represent. If that has been the standard in the past and is the standard now, then new trails should be blazed; we cannot start too soon.
Far too much cynicism is contained in press reports and in other media. It is pouring in over the borders from other countries. Democracy has strong enemies at home and abroad. Unless we -stick together and close our ranks I think they will get us one at a time. In the world today those people with really democratic ideas are hopelessly outnumbered. We will have to work very hard during the next 25 years if there is to be any democracy at all in the 21st century.
If the regional desks which are being set up are to work and not be negative they should contain research facilities which would be available to hon. members as well. I do not pretend to know all the answers in respect of my district. If there is to be a federal government agency in Alberta to keep the Prime Minister's office properly informed in respect of information which I do not have and which I perhaps cannot obtain, such as specialized information in respect of soils or social conditions, there might be occasions when I would be very happy to use these facilities. I do not think these regional desks should deteriorate into a means by which the government could
March 11. 1969

oversee through the back door those people whom the electors of Canada have already chosen to be their representatives here, as poorly educated or poorly informed as we may be. There should be team work. I know that the present Postmaster General, who is an academician as well as a parliamentarian, can see the practicality involved in putting these things together. There is a need to close ranks and fight this thing together.
The present situation in which the Postmaster General finds himself with regard to strikes is probably due, I believe, to the fact that he has not held his portfolio very long. When the rates of pay are increased in one section of the Post Office this does not necessarily mean that everything is fixed up somewhere else. One can be lulled into a false feeling of security. I believe the minister has probably learned by now that one should never use force to counteract force, and a strike is a form of force, unless one is prepared to carry it through. I found that out from my police work. I never attempted to arrest a man unless I had a warrant in my pocket and the right under the law to do it.
These people are experienced in their line. They have done their homework in respect of labour law. They know how far public opinion is prepared to go; they know how far they have gone before and they know how loath governments are to risk their future. We are all expendable. The minister is as expendable as I am as a private member. It may be a sad experience to find out just how lonesome one can be in a situation like this. One should not bluff. There are a great many of us who understand the responsibility the minister has. When one puts forth his best efforts to provide services there is every excuse for a little haste, but the people are unforgiving; they do not understand. All they know is that the mail is late and sometimes they even become angry when they think it might be late. They do not know the time that has been spent by the minister and others in an effort to thresh out these things.
We too are worried because the unrest appears to be just another outbreak of the unrest that is everywhere. I believe the press and other news media should be tolerant. The seriousness of a situation like this should never be exaggerated. We should all be ready to give positive help if we can and try to consider what we would do if we were in the same situation. I am very aware that the position of the minister is a most unenviable one. By and large the postal system in Canada
Government Organization is one of which we can be proud. I only hope that there will be a satisfactory solution to this matter. I hope that when the minister is thinking of the problems that lie ahead he will make use of the good will there is in this house. If it is necessary to cut new ground, then let us cut new ground even at a time when things do not look too good in the minister's department. This may be one of those times when the darkest hour comes before the dawn.


Mr. Rynard:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks particularly in respect of the Crown corporation which is being mooted for the Post Office Department. Before we get into a kettle of fish such as the Crown corporation that the Postmaster General is thinking of setting up, I believe it would be worth while to know first of all what the cost of this creation will be. When we look into the cost to the Canadian people we find that already it has cost over $250,000 for a preliminary report. I see the minister is not in his seat so I cannot direct my question to him. Perhaps the reason he is having trouble with Post Office employees can be related to the matter of communication. I think the people are entitled to know what control they will have over this corporation. If it turns out to be a monster, what will happen?
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I have heard over and over again ministers suggest in this house under questioning that crown corporations are independent bodies, that we have nothing to do with them and that we must not interfere in their operation. This is the answer we expect to get even though the cost may go up and up. We will have the same control we now have over the C.B.C., whose expenditures have skyrocketed year by year. The representatives of the people will have no control. As someone suggested the other day, perhaps this move is a foxy way of getting rid of the word "royal". I suppose this word will disappear from use in respect of Post Office services. This is just another calculated reorganizational move similar to that which took place in regard to the Queen's Printer, who has now become temporarily in absentia. Instead of making what some people might interpret as sinister moves the Postmaster General should be looking after the periodicals and farm papers which will be going broke and out of business on account of high postal rates. At the same time, United States publications are being subsidized to the tune of $1.5 million.
March 11. 1969

Government Organization
Let me put on record something that has happened to professional magazines. I refer to one in my own profession, but I understand the same situation applies to other professions across the country. I should like to read from an article by Dr. A. D. Kelly, publisher of the Canadian Medical Association Journal, which appeared in the March 8, 1969, issue. In part he says:
We had recently achieved the all-time high of 23,000 per week for the C.M.A.J.
He was referring there to the circulation of the journal. He goes on to state:
For 58 years the C.M.A.J. has enjoyed statutory second class mailing privileges and our postal rates were low. We are not alone in this because I understand that 5,200 other Canadian publications are similarly classified. I have been aware that the Post Office was losing money and I expected that an increase in rates for all classifications would be initiated. I really can't say that I feel it essential that our postal services make money or indeed break even, particularly when I am aware of the very substantial subsidies provided for radio and T.V., industry, agriculture, education and social services.
All right, this is 1969, inflation has caught up with us and the penny post does not operate any more. The lessons of history may have no relevance, but I can't escape the impression that getting the message from A to B is a public service which in a civilized society is worth supporting with public funds.
I knew that postal rates, particularly second class rates, were going up, but I did not appreciate the full extent of the capacity until I read Bill 116.
The article then goes on to state:
Next in this tale was a reply to the president under date of November 8, 1968 in which the Honourable Mr. Kierans delivered himself of these words:
"During the debates, I have also questioned whether subsidies to welfare and other worthwhile organizations should be intermingled with postal rates. If there is cause or merit in providing financial assistance to your or other organizations, as a matter of national policy, then I believe that such subventions should be identified and provided directly through appropriate agencies rather than hidden through the medium of preferential postage rates-"
Farther on in the same article we find the following statement by Dr. Kelly:
There was not much comfort there, and I recalled reading in Hansard the Postmaster General's estimate of the additional costs:	"The
medical journal may have to increase its costs by something in the order of $1.00 per year per member as a result of the rate increase, and I ;am sure the doctors can well afford the difference."
One dollar a year from 20,000 members would provide an amount more than double our current postal costs but that had been what I anticipated. However, it was necessary to prepare a budget
IMr. Rynard.]
for 1969 and I thought it wise to endeavour to get a more accurate forecast. I called the director of the division of postal rates and classification and he very courteously and sympathetically told me that effective April 1, 1969, C.M.A.J. and C.J.S. would lose statutory second class mailing privileges; our publications will be classified as third class mail; the rate will be four cents for the first two ounces and three cents for each subsequent two ounces or part thereof. This ruling may not convey much to you but I am still suffering from shock. Our postal bill for mailing the October 19, 1968 issue of C.M.A.J. in Canada and abroad was $346.71. Disregarding the variation in rates to destinations abroad, 23,016 copies each weighing seven ounces cost us 1.5 cents per copy. At the new rate our cost would be 13 cents per copy.
That is a real shocker. If the Postmaster General could be that far out in the statement he made in the house, I am wondering how competent he is to run this department or to set up a Crown corporation to provide postal services. I say this quite honestly and frankly because I think I asked the original question. The article suggests that at the new rates the cost will be 13 cents per copy. It goes on to state:
I dislike the word escalation and my mathematics are weak, but 1 figure that our postal costs will increase ninefold on April 1, 1969. Instead of the Postmaster General's estimate of ''something in the order of $1.00 per year per member" the increase would be in the order of $5.25 per member. One does not need to be a John Maynard Keynes to discern a certain divergence in these estimated amounts. Instead of an annual postal bill of $18,500 the amount will be In excess of $140,000, a rise which the C.M.A.J. could not sustain without reappraisal, adjustment, change and dislocation.
It is all very well to infer that the wealthy doctors would be able to support increased postage costs, not of $1.00 but of over $5.00 per member. Lacking the taxing powers of Ottawa I apprehend certain difficulties in raising our fees to compensate for what I regard as an Incredible increase. Its effect on the journals of other professional associations and learned societies may well be suspension of publication.
Let me tell the Postmaster General exactly what is going to happen, and I wonder whether this will not happen throughout the country. Effective July 1, with the end of the current volume of the Canadian Medical Association Journal the frequency of publication will be reduced to twice a month or 26 issues per year. All aspects of the publishing operations will remain in Toronto for an unspecified time pending the determination that they may be carried on as effectively in Ottawa.
I want the minister to know what he is doing so far as this publication is concerned. This publication serves all the people in that
March 11, 1969

it serves doctors. At this time there is a bill before the house in respect of drug prices which will necessitate another publication. This will be in the form of a booklet on drugs issued every month at a tremendous cost to the taxpayer. And mailed to whom? Why, the doctors. One need only look back over the records to see the thousands of dollars it costs to publish such a booklet. The minister is penalizing one publication to the same people on the one hand and subsidizing another on the other hand. The people will have to pay the cost of publishing these drug booklets to be sent out once a month by the Department of National Health and Welfare. This is a great way to run a country.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I want to dwell for a minute on the question of mail that has been slowed up across the country. I have mentioned medical publications because they are a striking example of what has happened in other fields. If these people cut down and down on their publications, in the long run it will defeat the purpose of the minister of obtaining more revenue. We would like to know how this mistake could have been made. Was there any fiscal investigation of what would happen in this area that would justify the minister being mistaken to the extent of the difference between $1 and $5?
Businesses in my area have been adversely affected by the new postal policy. I have received complaint after complaint and letter after letter, even from the city of Toronto, saying that businesses have had to use telephones and telephone attachments, thereby adding more and more to their costs. In the long run this takes revenue from the Post Office and in itself defeats the objective of the department.
Saturday's mail comes in on Monday and office staffs have two days' mail with which to cope. It is not all dealt with on Monday, Tuesday or even Wednesday and is finally distributed on Thursday or Friday. Then the vicious circle starts all over again. This policy of a slow mail service means that because only so much can be done on any given day, businesses suffer. They must add to their staffs in order to cope with this problem, thereby adding to the cost of doing business. I repeat that this is a defeating movement. It results in a backlog in the post offices. The backlog commences with Saturday's mail, which has to be delivered with Monday's mail; then Tuesday's mail is heavy and there is a backlog. The point is, how does the
Government Organization minister intend to cope with this situation? This is the reason mail delivery is being delayed across the country. This is why business is being slowed down. This must be the result if businesses do not employ extra staff. This all adds to the expense of doing business.
No wonder the Postmaster General has a rebellion on his hands. I sympathize with him. I have a great deal of appreciation for the postal workers because on the whole they are a pretty dedicated group of people. I believe that the minister's superiority complex has got him into trouble. A more conciliatory attitude to the public and to the workers in general, and a little fairer treatment of the postal workers, might have avoided this situation. But the minister is smart, and he probably knows it. As far as I know, Canada is the only country in the world where a week's mail is delivered in five days.
I have received letter after letter from men who have to work on Saturday to keep their businesses going, and in many cities across Canada they cannot even buy a postage stamp on Saturday. Many of these people are on the road during the week and come home on Saturday to clear up a great deal of their work; then they start out again on Monday.
I ask the minister to consider the harm he is doing to the publishing companies and small newspapers with large rural circulation because of this policy. I have here a letter, part of which I should like to read to the committee. This is a typical case. The letter was written to the minister on February 6 and reads in part as follows:
A typical case in point concerns the newspapers for Mr. N. R. Atkinson, 154-175th Avenue, Reding-ton Shores, Florida 33708.
Mr. Atkinson wrote to us on February 3 noting that he had not received any papers since January 23, at which time he received a copy dated January 16. This means that 14 consecutive copies of the newspaper, all of which were definitely wrapped and dispatched from our mailing room and posted from the Orillia post office, have not been delivered. Mr. Atkinson was told at his Florida post office that none of these papers had arrived there. I do not understand why the arrangements that have served Mr. Atkinson and so many others for so long in the past should suddenly founder so completely.
What can be happening to all these papers, and where are they going? I can assure you that Post Office regulations as to the addressing, wrapping and dispatching of newspapers are being strictly adhered to now, as in the past.
I would be most grateful for your comments or suggestions.
March 11. 1969

Government Organization
I do not know whether the Postmaster General has answered that letter. I tried to check with the writer of the letter but was unable to do so. He belongs to a big publishing company and newspaper and was not available. Perhaps the Postmaster General should make a fresh start. Like many of us who have made mistakes, perhaps he should have a second chance, the opportunity to make a fresh start. Let him start all over again and correct his mistakes, provided he recognizes that he has made mistakes. I hope the minister is humble enough to recognize that he has.
Perhaps then the people who have to pay an additional 20 per cent in postal rates will forgive the minister. Perhaps the farmer who depends so much on agricultural papers for advice, education and tips will forgive him. The minister should be a little more humble in his discussions with the workers and should try to get out of the mess into which he got himself. I say with all sincerity that I hope the Postmaster General will be able to overcome these difficulties. He will have to be tough on himself and not regard himself as No. 1 in all knowledge. He will have to bring forward something far more appropriate than he has been able to do so far.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Chairman, I shall be brief. I have only a few questions to direct to the minister with regard to the closing down of some post offices.
In my district, some post offices have already been closed. They were small post offices which, according to the minister, were uneconomic. Some were in that category but not all of them. The minister should probably have ordered a more serious inquiry into the matter. He has decided otherwise; the government of which he is a member will bear the responsibility.
I want to ask him if he has ordered that those post offices be closed because there was a decrease in population in a parish or along a country road. I believe that is what happens in most cases. In fact, those post offices used to serve from 80 to 100 families, and in the villages there are now barely 13, 14 or 15 families. In such cases, I ask the minister if, instead of installing outside mail boxes such as can be found in a few localities in my district, he intends to have the mail delivered daily by the employee who covers the country roads, the one who has the contract. I do not see why this same person could not deliver the mail daily to the 12, 13 or 15 families of those small villages.
[Mr. Rynard.l
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I have a feeling that the minister is going to order-as was the case in St. Felicien, in the village of Bellevue-that metal boxes be installed outside. This is disastrous in our regions and I have said so in the house before. As a matter of fact, these boxes are put up on the side of the road and every time the snowplow comes along it piles up snowbanks which are 10, 15 or 20 feet high where the people have to look for their mail boxes.
In those villages where it has been decided to close up post offices, it would be much cheaper and much easier to have the small quantity of mail delivered to families living there by means of a few changes in the contract held by the present mail carrier. Since the present mail contractors are now passing through those villages that would not create any problem for them. It might take them a little more time, but with a little extra money they could deliver the mail instead of leaving it in outside mail boxes in all kinds of weather conditions. I would suggest that the minister compel the present mail contractors to have the village residents provided with this service.
In my opinion, this is the best way to provide mail delivery service to those who are deprived of it at the present time, for the good reason that they used to have this service. In fact, I agree with the minister that these post offices were not showing a profit. However, with a little extra money, a small pay increase to those responsible for the rural mail delivery the minister could satisfy most of the residents of those small villages who are criticising the closing of their post offices. For instance, I think that if the local merchants were permitted to sell postage stamps, the daily mail delivery would be improved to the extent of satisfying everybody.
As I was saying to the minister, I am afraid these unpopular metal boxes are going to be installed outside.
That is the only thing I had to suggest to the minister with whom I exchanged correspondence several times with regard to the four post offices in my riding which were due to close on April 1st. I think that if he really wants to provide an adequte service the rural mail should be delivered at the door.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few short remarks in response to some of the questions that have been raised.
March 11, 1969


Mr. Chairman, I can tell the hon. member for Roberval that in this field our policy is quite flexible. In fact, we have decided to keep open about a third of the 800 post offices involved. We are considering each case in great detail before taking a decision.

I might also make reference to the point made by an hon. member that during the debate on postal rates I had said that the rate for the Canadian Medical Association Journal would involve an increase of approximately $1. This is quite right; I did say that. I was under the impression at the time-I corrected that figure later outside the house-that this journal was a monthly, in which case the increase would have been approximately $1. In fact the increase is slightly over $5 for the doctors who are the subscribers.
With reference to the Department of Communications, as I said in reply to another question put to me in the committee, I do not expect that we will be able to table the McIntosh report. I have discussed this with Dr. McIntosh and with some of my colleagues. When the doctor made his studies and consulted a great many people eminent in the field of communications and corporate activities he obtained a great deal of information on a confidential basis. His report was made on the supposition that all these confidences would be respected and that the report would be made to the President of the Treasury Board for his use and for the use of the government.
I do not wish to defend myself in any way but will simply state that the institution of the Post Office has changed very little in the last 100 years. As I have said repeatedly to hon. members, the Post Office is undergoing a process of rapid change. However, on many occasions we have consulted the unions. For example, we discussed the possibility of introducing single mail processing as early as last October 2, and we confirmed this decision in writing to the presidents of both unions on October 3. Since January 1 there have been almost daily discussions with them.
I do not want to go into all the comments that have been made on the difficulties faced by farm magazines and periodicals put out by non-profit organizations. We dealt with that matter quite thoroughly last week in the committee, although I realize there were only a few members of the house present. However, they can read the proceedings of the committee when they are printed.
Government Organization
The hon. member for Selkirk raised the question of the ownership of the communications system. This has not yet been decided. A bill will be coming before the house within the next few weeks to set up that corporation. At that time all members of the house will have a full opportunity to express their views on what type of ownership the corporation should have, whether it should be fully owned by private investors, by public investors or by the government, or whether it should be some mixture in between
Our present intention in the field of the development of satellites is that the research and development of the satellite system should be done as much as possible here in Canada. I say this in response to a question put to me by the hon. member for Selkirk. We have not set aside any options, including buying off the shelf. However, as will be made clear when the bill comes down and following further discussions that we will have, our policy will be to develop the system entirely in Canada.
Again in response to the hon. member's question, I will say that the first satellite that will be going up will be beaming directly to the present common carriers and to the C.B.C. There is no possibility for some seven to ten years of satellites beaming directly to homes. Technically this may be possible well before that time but economically it will not be possible. I can simply suggest the reason why it will not be possible by saying that the strength of the signals emitted by present satellites and by our first satellite will not be strong enough to be picked up by a simple home antenna. As a matter of fact, it would require an earth station or an earth antenna which would cost in the order of $100,000.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
A great deal has been said about the current situation in the Post Office. I deplore one word that was used during the debate when an hon. member said he considered the system to be offensive. I do not think it is offensive. Is it offensive that Post Office workers can now operate, for example, in walks near their own homes? This is a new change. Until now, in accordance with a decision made by the Post Office, a letter carrier could not operate either near or on the route where his home was located. I do not think it is offensive to eliminate archaic customs of this kind. Is it offensive that the Post Office should now have a five-day week for which the unions themselves have been asking for years? Is it
647G
March 11. 1969

Government Organization offensive that letter carriers should now have a choice where to eat at noon? We are not telling them that they must come back to the post office. They can eat at home if they want to do so, they can eat at a restaurant on their route, or they can come back to the post office if that is what they prefer. Is it offensive that they should be required to punch a time clock only once a day, in the morning, instead of four times a day as some of their leaders have suggested?
The hon. member for Calgary North brought up the question of a Crown corporation. I should like to say that no decision has been taken on this matter. Obviously there would have to be a full-scale debate on such a question if it were to come before the house. I feel that the Post Office could perhaps operate more economically under that kind of structure, but that is for parliament to decide. In the meantime, we are using such a structure as a model and we are comparing ancient ways of doing things in the Post Office with the more modern ways which that structure would suggest.
The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra put forward a suggestion that the title of the department should be Communications and Postal Services. I appreciate the reasons he had in mind, but we consider the Post Office to be part of the over-all Department of Communications. The terms "Postmaster General" and "Post Office" will be retained and will of course continue to be used in telephone books and in international dealings with foreign post offices.
We have no intention of taking over the operation of airports, marine navigation and so on any more than we have of operating the telecommunication services of the Department of National Defence or of the R.C.M.P. We are not an operating department in this sense. We are a functional department.
The department will devote itself largely to research and development in the whole field of telecommunications in order that Canada may remain in the forefront. As an operating department, for example, we shall have only such specialized areas as our own research laboratories. But even our satellites will not be operated by the department; they will be operated, after we have promoted and developed them, by the new communications satellite authority, whatever it may be called.
There is little more I can say. Allusion has been made to the philosophy of the Freedman Report and the need to implement this

philosophy. The Minister of Labour has my support when he brings forth recommendations based on those observations and on the report of the Woods task force. But in no case have the changes being made in the Post Office given rise to the kind of problems which faced Mr. Justice Freedman when he examined the situation on the railways in connection with dieselization and run-throughs. In the case of the postal employees, no technological changes are being introduced; there is no automation leading to fewer jobs or making certain jobs redundant. In all the organizational changes we are putting through, the object in mind is to improve service. We are not placing the job of a single person in jeopardy.
We have some 2,084 surplus employees. Their working conditions will be improved because already they have the opportunity to complete their daily task more quickly. Not one of them will risk losing his job. There has been a change in the working patterns of postal employees and some of them have taken exception to this change, but under the Public Service Staff Relations Act a method has been provided by which disagreements of this sort may be resolved. The workers and their unions are free to use this method and I was delighted to be able to say in the house today that we are now well on this road. We in the Post Office will, of course, abide by whatever decisions are taken.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to hear the minister say that he approves the principles of the Freedman commission report. Of course he does. He did so yesterday. He approves of them as long as they do not affect his own department. Obviously the basic principle of that report was that where substantial changes are made in the working conditions of employees the employees have a right to be consulted.
The minister can scoff, but the fact is that until now, rightly or wrongly, letter carriers were permitted to take a lunch break, to return from their postal walk to the post office to eat lunch and to go back. I know that in many cases this meant spending an hour on a public transport system but that time was paid for by the Post Office Department.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. In order that the house may proceed with the consideration of private members' business I do now leave the chair.
March 11, 1969



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-177, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1969.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It is my
duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the house that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Public Service-Committee studying increases in pensions of retired civil servants; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: -Pensions-Consideration of universal principle of escalation; the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe)-Economic Regional Development-Request for Sherbrooke area to be considered as a special area.
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, private bills, notices of motions.



PUBLIC BILLS


[Stage Direction]
MEASURE TO ASSIST IN ABATEMENT Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale) moved that Bill C-22, to control air pollution, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the affluent society of this half of the 20th century is increasingly becoming an effluent society. Technological changes and advances in our industrial age have been achieved at the cost of the deterioration of our environment resulting in the
Air Pollution
pollution of air and water, the congestion of our environment and the destruction of wild nature. Increased population and unchecked exploitation of our natural resources have threatened the quality of life on this planet earth. Life on earth exists in a thin layer of soil, water and atmosphere near the surface of the planet. This layer and the life it contains form the biosphere, which is the sphere of life upon earth.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Man and his environment form an ecological system in which tolerance, adaptation and interdependence are factors which are responsible for the success of this system. However, many scientists and people concerned with life on this planet are now worried that a deterioration in the quality of the air that man breathes will have a grave effect on man's ability to adapt in a polluted environment. Most of the contaminants in our non-biological system are air pollutants. Air pollution has been caused to a great degree by man's own activity. Our skills and technology have resulted in new waste products with which man must interrelate successfully in order to survive.
Today man has noticed that he is discharging more into the environment than can be handled by nature or tolerated by his own ecology. Air pollution is today one of the most urgent problems confronting industrialized society. In Canada, air pollution is also a vital and urgent national problem. Pollutants in the air are causing injury to people, animals, vegetation and property.
The progressive complexity of air pollution brought about by increasing urbanization, industrialization and by fuel-driven vehicles calls for intensified national leadership and effective means to ensure clean air, a most precious natural resource.
In the past few years scientists, engineers and medical specialists have repeatedly and clearly brought to our attention the incidence of air pollution and the resultant health hazards. Last year at a public meeting in Toronto organized by a group of citizens called "Group Action To Stop Air Pollution", Dr. Alfred Bemhart, associate professor of civil engineering at the University of Toronto, described how much air pollution there is in the city of Toronto and the extent of damage that it produces. He estimated that in one year Torontonians, by burning 8.8 million tons of coal, oil, heating gas, garbage and also three million tons of gasoline and diesel oil, emit 5.2 trillion cubic feet of polluted exhaust
[Stage Direction]
March 11. 1969
Air Pollution
gases into our air. In addition, 65,300 tons of dust are blown into Toronto every year. He also stated that 47 per cent of the pollution of the air is caused by automobiles, buses, and trucks, 20 per cent by power plants, 20 per cent by heating appliances, 10 per cent by manufacturing plants, and 3 per cent by garbage incinerators. This pollution, he said, causes material and health damage amounting to approximately $120 million annually in Toronto alone.
In Toronto Alderman Anthony O'Donohue, one of our air pollution experts, has stated that every day the average human being inhales approximately 14,000 quarts of air. One cubic foot of air in our cities, he stated, contains approximately three million dust particles. An urban dweller inhales with each breath 40,000 to 70,000 of these dust particles. It has been estimated that a person living in a large industrial centre inhales about one pound and seven ounces of dust per year.
Other scientists have also stated that since 1890 the carbon dioxide level of the atmosphere has risen from 290 parts per million to 315 parts per million, an increase of approximately 8J per cent. Each year we are told that six million tons of carbon dioxide are added to the 23 billion tons already in the atmosphere. We produce carbon dioxide through the combustion of fossil fuels and many other activities that promote oxidation. Therefore, we should ask ourselves how soon are we going to reach the danger point in the oxygen-carbon dioxide balance of the atmosphere? At what point does the accumulation of atmospheric carbon dioxide bring about potentially disastrous changes in the earth's climate?
Carbon monoxide is another air pollutant which fluctuates at various levels in our urban communities. This gas exerts its biological effect through the inactivation of hemoglobin and by raising the visual threshold. At a concentration of 100 parts per million, carbon monoxide will produce about 15 per cent inactivation of hemoglobin to carboxy-hemo-globin. While this level does not appear to be associated with severe symptoms, an air pollution specialist, Mr. Schulte, has reported that judgment and skills can be impaired at this level.
It has been reported that concentrations below 50 parts per million are the amounts that are inhaled when subjects drive along, for example, the Los Angeles freeways. Toronto, with a few exceptions, is a city like any other in North America troubled with air

pollution. It has one of the fastest rates of growth on this continent. It also has an automobile population of approximately 800,000, the third largest density per square mile following Washington and Philadelphia. There are more than twice as many cars in Toronto as in Los Angeles.
There are figures available which state that the metropolitan area of Toronto has the following annual output of air pollutants: 925,000 tons of carbon monoxide, 420,000 tons of hydro-carbons, 198,000 tons of organic pollutants such as aldehydes and others, 130,000 tons of sulphur dioxide, 65,000 tons of oxides of nitrogen, 40,000 tons of solid particles and 23,000 tons of inorganic pollutants such as fluorides, chlorides, sulphur trioxide, and hydrogen sulphides. Comparing metropolitan Toronto to a rural area, we would probably have 20 times more carbon monoxide, ten times more carbon dioxide, ten times more dust particles, and five times more sulphur dioxide. When you drive to work that car in front of you, Mr. Speaker, is pouring out approximately 375 parts per million of carbon monoxide. If you are driving that car in a city like Toronto and you smoke cigarettes at the same time, it has been estimated that between 3 per cent and 7.9 per cent of the hemoglobin in your blood will be ineffective.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
As I have stated previously, the first of the five main causes of man-made air pollution by far is the motor vehicle. It has been estimated that motor vehicles contribute from 47 to 51 per cent of the air pollution in our great Canadian cities. Motor vehicle exhausts not only emit large quantities of carbon monoxide but are also the source of benzopyrene, a hydro-carbon that, as has been found in laboratories, is one of the most potent cancer-producing agents. In the United States it has been estimated that on an average day approximately 260,000 tons of carbon monoxide, 27,000 tons of hydro-carbons and 9,000 tons of oxides of nitrogen are spewed into the atmosphere by 85 million exhaust pipes burning more than 77 million gallons of fuel. That is why in the United States of America governments have taken action to make mandatory special exhaust controls on new models of automobiles. At present automobiles in the United States must not discharge or exhaust more than 1J per cent of carbon monoxide and 275 parts per million of hydro-carbons. In 1970 United States law will require motor vehicles to emit from their exhausts one-third
March 11, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Air Pollution
less of pollutants than present standards permit.
Many other factors contribute to air pollution, Mr. Speaker, but during my study of this problem I have learned that the main pollutants come in two major forms, namely, a reducing form which consists largely of soot and sulphur dioxide and an oxidizing form which consists of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and the photo chemical decomposition products such as oxides of nitrogen, ozone, and many others. Air pollution is also influenced by the topography of the area and by weather conditions such as humidity, brilliant sunshine, air stagnation, and atmospheric inversion.
Many reports have also appeared stating that asthmatic attack rates triple on days of significant air pollution and quadruple in periods of high barometric pressure. Also, some medical researchers have reported asbestos in lungs of city dwellers. Apparently asbestos from such things as automobile brake linings, air filters, and floor tile has lodged in the lungs of between one-third and one-half of all city-dwelling adults in the United States. This effect of asbestos-containing products was reported by a Canadian-born scientist, Dr. W. A. D. Anderson. He also stated that asbestos, mined heavily in Quebec, is known to be a cancer-causing agent if present in a large quantity over long periods. Asbestos workers and miners traditionally have a much higher incidence of lung cancer than the general population.
We have also read a lot recently about the $95,729 compensation that Ontario farmers in the Port Maitland area received for cattle which had to be destroyed because of an air pollutant called fluoride. Compounds of fluoride of varying levels of solubility have affected vegetation in the vicinity of metallurgical plants and artificial fertilizer plants. Some air pollution experts have stated that aircraft, especially commercial jets, are a source of significant air pollution in our cities. Apparently a commercial jet airliner under full load emits pollutants, especially hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide, at a rate equivalent to about 10,000 passenger vehicles. This, therefore, can be a major problem to the people living in the vicinities of airports.
On January 24, 1967, Ontario Hydro Electric Power Commission researchers stated that air pollution, which is already a contributory factor in respiratory ailments, can also contribute to radio and television interference. An
engineer from the electrical research department of the Ontario Hydro research laboratories stated that during rainy or foggy weather a phenomenon known as corona discharge sometimes occurs across insulators that house high voltage hydro wires. He says that the more grime and dust settle on the insulators the worse is the interference across a wide band of radio and television frequencies.
Air pollution is also a hazard contributing to greater vehicular accidents. Any reduction in visibility can represent a serious hazard to land, water and air transportation. It has been reported in several studies that during severe urban pollution mortality from airplane, automobile, and train crashes is increased significantly. Unfortunately, such catastrophies constitute a definite effect of air pollution. Dr. Donald O. Anderson of Vancouver stated in one of his papers that one estimation from civil aeronautics board statistics for 1962 attributed between 15 and 20 airplane crashes that year to obstructions of vision by smoke, haze, sand and dust. He has also stated that the effect of air pollution may be augmented by the simple act of cigarette smoking or inhaling carbon monoxide in congested traffic. Also, radio-isotopes from atomic explosions in the Pacific and in Asia can appear in alarming concentrations in caribou of Alaska and our northern territories.
Both as a physician in a dense urban and highly industrialized centre and as member of parliament for Parkdale, an area with many manufacturing plants, I am very concerned about the hazards and ill effects of air pollution. It has been reported that there is an increase in the number of cases of emphysema, bronchitis, and lung cancer occurring in our urban centres. Health authorities have stated that the intensity of urbanization and industrialization producing air pollution may have a residual influence on lung cancer mortality as well as on the morbidity and mortality of people with a chronic lung disease. Some medical specialists are of the opinion that lung cancer deaths among cigarette smokers are more frequent in large industrialized cities than in rural areas.
All of the air pollution facts available today are alarming. They have made known to us the increasing hazards of air pollution to humans, animals, vegetation, and physical property. These facts also illustrate the inadequate research as well as the ineffective measures that have been taken to date to control air pollution in Canada. There is a lack of
[Stage Direction]
March 11, 1963
Air Pollution
ambient air quality standards, effective regulations and adequate enforcement agencies. To date I know of no authority in Canada which deals with interprovincial air pollution problems. That is why there is a wide variation in air pollution legislation and enforcement across this country. To date, Ontario has the most comprehensive air pollution program, as contained in the air pollution control act of 1967. The other provinces are said by experts to have inadequate air pollution control measures and legislation. The United States has a federal clean air act.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but his time has expired.


Mr. Baldwin:: Carry on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't talk it out.


Mr. Haidasz:: 
Gerald William Baldwin: I will not take any more time, Mr. Speaker, than it will take the clock to reach half past five. We in
March 11. 1S69

this party would be quite prepared to give consent at the appropriate time to a motion to refer this bill and the others alluded to by the hon. member for consideration by the standing committee. If such a motion is moved, we will support it.
I am not in any sense taking credit away from the hon. member for raising this matter, and I do give him due allowance, but I would hope that when matters of equal importance are raised by members of this or the other opposition parties there will be equal willingness on the part of the government to refer them to the appropriate standing committees for consideration. I recognize that this cannot be done with all public bills, but I believe it is a practice to be desired. I hope the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) and his colleagues will read my words so that at the appropriate time when bills are introduced from this side of the house this practice will be followed.
I wish to comment on the constitutional difficulty which prevails in connection with the very serious problem of air and water pollution. They are both in the same category. We are approaching the time when they will be the most serious environmental problems we will have to face. While the provinces obviously have jurisdiction to deal with this problem under the heading of property and civil rights, because there is an interprovincial and international aspect and because finances are involved it is not possible for the provinces to do so.
Bearing in mind what happened at the recent constitutional conference, I cannot see the provincial or the federal governments abandoning their particular jurisdiction and handing it over to the other government. This is a situation where there will have to be co-operation. Constitutionally, a corporation could be established to which each of the two government levels could delegate authority. One government cannot delegate authority to another government. The province of Ontario could not delegate authority to the federal government on a matter over which it has complete jurisdiction, and vice-versa, but authority could be delegated to a Crown corporation.
We in this party have pointed out the necessity of establishing a parliamentary committee to deal with problems of this nature. A parliamentary committee is a forum where the wishes of the people, through the liaison of members of parliament, could be brought forward and pressure exerted not only on the
Air Pollution
federal government but on the provincial governments. Responsibility for the serious problem of air and water pollution could be allocated to one agency which would not only punish infractions of law but would regulate. The problem is that the federal government simply cannot regulate. It can only provide financial incentives and make proposals.
Clause 3 of Bill C-22 reads in part:
It shall be the duty of the minister to consider the expediency of:
(a) promoting co-operative activities of municipal, provincial, interprovincial, federal, and international governments-
That is not good enough. When we look at federal-provincial conferences and see how little progress is made, it becomes essential that some other forum must be established. The wishes of the people must be expressed forcibly to the members of that forum, in this case a parliamentary committee in order to demand that they be enforced. The hon. member's bill will give the committee an opportunity to study its merits and to look for ways and means to accomplish what he proposes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Hai-dasz) for his foresight and imagination in presenting this bill. I extend the same congratulations to other members of the house who have placed notice of similar bills on the order paper. I hope the house will agree to refer the subject matter of all these bills at the end of this hour to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I may say to the hon. member for Parkdale that I wish him good luck in his effort. I speak as one who has had the experience of having to introduce bills eight, ten or 12 times before the principle of them has been finally accepted. There is an urgency about this matter which makes me hope the hon. member will not have to wait so long. I am sorry, as a matter of fact, to note the dilatory way in which the government is dealing with this matter. Despite the fact that many references have been made to the need for legislation respecting clean air, clean water and clean cities, we have not had anything yet from the federal government on this subject except the promise that a clean water bill or Canada water bill will be exposed at this session. In other words, this bill will receive first reading but it is not intended that we go any further during this session.

March 11, 1969
Air Pollution
I think the hon. member for Parkdale deserves special commendation for the facts and figures he gave us to underline the urgency of this situation. It is easy to assume that the air is here for us to breathe and is here for all time; but mankind can spoil his future by not doing something to protect the purity of the air. I should like to say that if I have any criticism of the hon. member's bill it is that it seems to say in the words of a sage and historic document "Thou shalt not pollute the air". I agree, and I agree with all the other commandments too; but sometimes it is necessary to go a little further than just laying down the law that such and such shall not be done.
If we are to solve this problem, is it not a fact that we must cope with the causes of it? The hon. member made it quite clear that most of our pollution comes from gasoline and other fuel-driven vehicles. I know it would take a tremendous revolution, a lot of thinking and a tremendous economic upheaval for us to talk about replacing the gasoline-driven motor vehicle with something else, but it may well be that if we are to maintain life on this planet this is precisely what we will have to do. Obviously, I am not against automobiles, but we may well have to develop and manufacture a different kind from those we have today.
I should like to see the hon. member and others in this house who are concerned about the problem of pollution put pressure on the government, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer), the minister responsible for the National Research Council and others so that if necessary money in large quantities might be made available for the discovery and development of other ways to provide transportation. When I was a child there were electric automobiles around. They went out of style because they were not fast enough. Surely, however, with all the inventive capacity of mankind today we could produce a storage battery of some kind that would provide the necessary speed and power so that we could have transportation without the pollution of air which comes from gasoline-driven vehicles. Perhaps with a little imagination or encouragement our scientists could produce some sort of a central broadcasting station which would send out power which vehicles could get by tuning in; in other words, they could get their power by remote control.
When one thinks of what is going on up in the heavens or out in the heavens, wherever

the Appollo IX astronauts are today, in terms of space travel which is controlled hundreds of miles away from Houston and other places on this continent, surely it is not a wild dream or just science fiction to think of a day when the vehicles that we get around in will be driven in some such way as this. There may be still other ways. Someone may have more imagination than I; but surely one of these two courses is open to us, either the development of some kind of storage battery that will provide the power we need or the development of remote control power that would be available to vehicles. There probably are other ways to deal with this. The Minister of Transport said that when he has solved the housing problems of the country, he will be concerned about our urban and transportation problems.
These problems are very real and very urgent. I hope that not only will the committee study them but that the government itself will realize that this is an area which calls for leadership, research and responsibility. Again, I congratulate the hon. member for bringing in this bill and for trying to impress upon the house the urgency of the situation. It is terribly urgent. We do not have a great deal of time in which to deal with it. I hope we will realize it is not good enough just to say "thou shalt not pollute the air" but that we must develop other means of transportation than we rely on today if we are to obey that commandment.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I shall be brief because I do not want to be accused of talking out the bill. In fact, I am sorry that similar legislative proposals are often talked out.
I congratulate the hon. member who introduced this measure for which we have long been waiting. I feel sure that the Canadian people want this bill to be considered. And, in order to make our work more efficient, I suggest that we unanimously recommend that the bill be referred to the committee on health, welfare and social affairs, so that we may one day be adequately protected against air pollution.
The sponsor of this bill said enough earlier to convince us of the necessity of such a measure and it is useless for me to add anything else. Besides, I am under the impression that another hon. member has something to say and I would not want to prevent him from doing so. I should simply like to say how glad we are that this bill has been introduced, and we strongly hope, as the hon.
March 11. 1969



member who moved it, that it will be referred as soon as possible to the committee on health, welfare and social affairs.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull):: Mr. Chairman, I should like first to congratulate my hon. friend from Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) who introduced this bill. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said he has tried himself on a few occasions to have some of these bills passed, and I wish to tell him that the hon. member for Parkdale did too last year, when I had an opportunity of saying a few words in this connection.
This bill is extremely important, and to me, the funds that should be appropriated to research on air pollution would certainly amount to several billion dollars.
In any event, the problem is extremely serious. As the member for Parkdale has mentioned, it causes lung diseases, particularly lung cancer. In some large cities, specially the more densely populated, autopsies have revealed that after smoking, air pollution was one of the main causes of lung cancer.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Today, on account of the increasing number of motorcars, the air is getting more and more polluted. It is even said that in a city like Montreal, the concentration of polluted air varies between 45 and 545 tons of dust per square mile. Therefore, we should recognize the importance of the bill before us.
Last year, a test was made in Montreal with a view to showing the damage caused by pollution. The test was conducted by Mr. Jean Marier, director of the Air Pollution Division of the Montreal Health Department, who stated the following:
One of their inspectors spent several days cruising around the downtown section of Montreal as a passenger in a car.
The ventilation system of the car was working perfectly and the windows were down. Here are the results of these tests:
The tests have shown a proportion of 12 per cent of carbon monoxide, originating from the exhaust system of various vehicles, in the blood stream of the inspector. This means that 12 per cent of the red corpuscles could not function and absorb the oxygen.
When there is more than 10 per cent carbon monoxide, there are slight poisoning symptoms, nausea, general discomfort.
-torpor.
Between 15 and 20 per cent, there is dizziness and the judgment and faculties become unbalanced. Between 50 and 60 per cent, death strikes rapidly.
I would now like to quote remarks I once made about a similar bill.
The world has already witnessed similar tragedies and no one can deny that a large city,
Air Pollution
where such conditions prevail, suffers similar consequences.
In the last few years, we have noticed a considerable decrease in the sunlight and a progressive increase in the fog in industrial areas. The reputation of the notorious "smog" (smoke and fog together), which affects London is universally recognized.
Among the cities which have suffered the most from air pollution, one can single out the city of London, England, where it caused a great number of deaths and disabilities-
-during the famous winter of 1952 when England was, for some time, isolated from the rest of the world.
As a result of that epidemic-if one can call it that-
-4,000 persons died and hospitals were filled with the victims of that scourge.
It will also be recalled that as the smog-a combination of smoke and fog-increased, hospitals and other medical centres had to admit only the more severely affected patients.
However, humans were not the only ones to be affected.
-some animals, taking part in a show at that time, died or had to be destroyed, due to acute respiratory trouble. All animals were affected, and those who survived required intensive care.
This is the worst disaster of its kind, although London has registered losses from this scourge before and since 1952. The death registers show that already in 1874 there was a number of deaths due to air pollution. The same happened in other parts of the world.
I would not want to delay this debate any further, but I want to say that closer to us, in the state of Pennsylvania, in 1958, 20 people died of diseases probably due to air pollution. More recently, in New York, the fatal effects of pollution have been recorded. I said also in 1968:
In London, for instance, the day fog appeared, visibility was good in the morning but at a certain time, when the velocity of the wind came to nearly nothing, pollution started to cover the city. The next day, smog became so dense that some transportation companies had to stop all activities. Traffic practically stopped.
-if you know London-
-and many drivers left their cars in the streets.
In fact, the city of London was practically paralyzed for four days. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I strongly support this bill to which special consideration should be given since something will have to be done to curb pollution.


Mr. Mark Smerchanski (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate my colleague on his excellent presentation on pollution, and I support his bill. However, I

March 11, 1969
Air Pollution
should like to bring to the attention of hon. members the fact that we must not leave the impression nothing has been done in respect of industrial pollution in this country.
In the last five years every provincial government has taken some very definite forward steps in controlling the pollution of the air, by sulphur dioxide nitrites and hydrogen sulphides. You will notice that many of our refineries located in the larger cities in Canada are today recovering elemental sulphur from the pollutent gases that were originally allowed to escape into the atmosphere. I make this statement because I feel we have to support industrial development, and to leave the house today with the impression that nothing is being done in connection with air and water pollution under the industrial development program undertaken in Canada would not be accurate. It is not accurate to say that nothing is being done in this regard or in respect of proper sewage disposal.
Every province is making great efforts to control pollution. Millions of dollars are being spent in the Dominion of Canada today in this regard. It might be interesting to note that in the United States in 1968 over $450 million was spent on research in respect of control of air pollution, particularly with reference to solutions-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1969.
Mr. Speaker:: The house will now resume the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-173, respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters relating or incidental thereto-Mr. Trudeau-Mr. Bechard in the Chair.
Albert Béchard: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At 6.07 p.m. the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The Committee resumed at 8 p.m.
David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, in the short time during which I spoke before the committee rose at five o'clock I recalled the statement by the Postmaster General that he agreed with his colleague the Minister of Labour in accepting the basic principles expounded by Mr. Justice Freedman. I said the Postmaster General probably agrees with every word of what was said in the Freedman Report as long as it is not applied to the Post Office.
If the Freedman Commission made any recommendation, it was that no employer should make major changes in working conditions affecting employees in the absence of consultation and agreement. I submit that the new proposals put forward by the Post Office, headed by this great minister, amount to such a major change. For a long time postal workers were able to return from their postal walks to the post office for their lunch and then go back to their walks. The time they spent travelling was counted as part of their work day. In many cases I suggested the time thus spent amounted to as much as an hour each day. In deciding that this practice should cease the department is making a major change in working conditions.
When the Post Office Department decides that letter carriers who have had this right to eat their lunch each day in the post office, in a section of the building set aside for that purpose, should have to eat their lunch somewhere outside, in a restaurant or somewhere else-
March 11. 1969


Eric William Kierans: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. This is misinformation. I have never said they do not have the right to eat in the post office. They do have the right to eat in the post office. But they now have the option of doing something else. They can eat in a restaurant or anywhere else they choose. But they may still go back to the post office if they wish. Nothing has been taken away from them.


David Orlikow: Of course, they can eat at the post office. The only difficulty is that if they work the eight hours for which they are paid, and still eat at the post office, they will finish an hour later every day. It is true they can go back to the post office on their own time and eat there. That is the way the letter carriers interpret this change, and I am sure they are correct. I would be glad to hear the Postmaster General demonstrate to me that what I have said is not true. Much more important, let him demonstrate to the letter carriers that it is not true.
I agree with the minister that the letter carriers still have the right to go back to the post office to eat their lunch, which would take an hour of their own time. And I realize that they will have the right to eat in a restaurant and pay commercial rates for their lunch, or else eat cold sandwiches. I invite the minister to join the letter carriers in Winnipeg in January or February of any year, in doing so.
The minister told us during the question period today that he expected the walk-outs which have taken place in the last couple of days would taper off, and I hope he is right. I wish to say this to the minister, however: if he persists in the hearings which his department has initiated before the public service staff relations board, if he persists in trying to get that board to give him permission to prosecute those employees who walked off the job in the last couple of days, or if he proceeds to initiate prosecutions, he will find a work stoppage on his hands which will make past work stoppages look like tea parties. I have fairly good connections with the employees and I believe I know what they are thinking.
I hope the minister will pay attention to this suggestion of mine and not proceed with what I consider to be a most retrograde step, a step such as no private industry has taken to my knowledge.
Government Organization [DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Mr. Francis:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
whether the hon. member would permit a question. The hon. member said that if the government did not do something we would have a strike on our hands the like of which we had never seen before. Is he threatening the government? On what authority does he put it in those terms?


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I am not a letter carrier or a member of that union and I have no say in the decisions that they make any more than the hon. member for Ottawa West, who asked the question at the suggestion of the minister. What I am saying is obvious, that if the government goes ahead with its provocation, as my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre called it, and declares its intention of prosecuting, it will bedevil the issue of good relations between the employees and the employer, in this case the government.
I suggest to the minister that he take a look at a recent labour case in his own province, the strike at Domtar by members of the C.N.T.U. The settlement of that strike was held up for several weeks because the company insisted on proceeding with prosecutions that had been initiated during the strike. It was not until the company withdrew from its tough position that the employees agreed to go back to work. This is all I am suggesting here. If the hon. member for Ottawa West takes that as a threat, then he is even more stupid and foolish than I thought he was before today.
I want to turn for a few moments to what I consider to be a very important matter in connection with which the minister made a mistake in policy that he insists on perpetuating. It is a subject that I know the minister resents our talking about and considers we are wasting time; nevertheless, it is a matter that has been universally condemned. I am referring to the very sharp, indeed astronomical increase in postal rates that the minister and his department have imposed on publications, newspapers and weekly and monthly periodicals.
I am not holding any brief today for the commercial press and for magazines, but this country has always had to contend with pressures from our large neighbour to the south. Every day we are inundated with television and radio programs emanating from the United States, as well as newspapers and magazines. I do not have to go into this subject.
March 11, 1969

Government Organization Every commission that has studied the question-and I need only refer members to the O'Leary commission of a few years ago-has talked about the importance, if this country is to survive as a viable entity, of maintaining a press and magazine industry of its own. In spite of this, what the minister has done has led to the situation where dining the next few years we will see the disappearance of publications in every sphere of life in this country.
I want very briefly to put on the record some of the appeals and complaints that have been made to the minister. I am not speaking of political complaints; certainly, they cannot be called, by any stretch of the imagination, partisan. According to a report that appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of January 30, 1969 the Canadian church press, which is an association of church periodicals, submitted a plea to the Postmaster General in September in view of the new rates that are applicable to their publications.
According to the report, the distribution costs of the United Church Observer, which is the publication of the United Church of Canada, have gone up by 500 per cent under the new rates. Their mailing costs have gone from $30,000 to $145,000 per year. Two Anglican diocesan papers have been discontinued. I am sure the same is true in connection with publications of Roman Catholic, Baptist and other religious groups.
Professional journals are also having an extremely difficult time. The minister spoke today in a not very complimentary fashion about the Canadian Medical Association's journal. I am not regarded as a defender of the Canadian Medical Association, but their journal does play a very important role in keeping the medical profession informed on professional and technical subjects. The mailing costs of the journal of the Canadian Medical Association have gone up by 900 per cent. Some of the specialty journals, such as the journal of the Canadian Psychiatric Association and the Canadian Nurse, whose mailing costs have gone up by 1,500 per cent, are likely to go out of business.
I suppose that no group has been more persistent in its representations to the minister than the group concerned with periodicals emanating from the co-ops and credit unions, journals and magazines that in the main are directed at the agricultural communities of this country. Rural people are passing through a period of revolutionary change, and they need all the technical assistance they can 
get. They have been accustomed to getting it from agricultural periodicals.
In the past 20 years there has been an alarming decimation of these periodicals. The Canadian Countryman, Farmers Magazine, Farmers Advocate, Farm and Ranch Review, Saskatchewan Farmer and Family Herald have all gone out of business in recent years. It is true that they ceased publication before the minister increased the rates, but the effect of the minister's action can be seen if one looks at the position of publications that are still in business.
The mailing costs of Country Guide have gone up by 260 per cent. The costs of the Canadian Cattleman have gone up by 300 per cent. These costs are related to postage and mailing. The Manitoba Co-operator costs have gone up by 250 per cent. The Western Producer costs have gone up by 250 per cent. These, in the main, are publications that are not sold entirely by way of individual subscriptions but are distributed to members of co-ops, the Manitoba Pool Elevator Company and other such organizations. It is not easy for these organizations to increase their rates, and as a result I suggest to the members of this committee many of these publications will have to go out of business. This will very seriously affect the farmers of this country.
What is the position of the ethnic press? I want to speak briefly about the ethnic press because many such newspapers are printed and published in the city of Winnipeg. Members of the ethnic press, the Canadian Ethnic Press Federation, submitted a brief to the Postmaster General, and I should like to put on record a few of the facts that they brought forward for his attention.


Stanley Haidasz: Hear, hear.


David Orlikow: I see that I have some support from the hon. member for Parkdale. It is nice to know, Mr. Chairman, that somebody on the other side takes an interest in these matters. I should like to refer to pages 10 and
11	of their submission. The publication Nove Domov-meaning "New Homeland"-a Czechoslovak weekly, has 16 copies to the pound. The present per pound rate is 1.5 cents, but the new rate will be 16 x 2 cents per copy or 32 cents per pound. This represents an approximate increase of 2,000 per cent. Log-berg-Heimskringla, an Icelandic weekly, has
12	copies to the pound. The present rate per pound is 1.5 cents. The increase is from 1.5 cent per pound to 12 x 2 cents per copy which is 24 cents per pound, an increase of
March 11, 1969

approximately 1,400 per cent. Progress, a Ukrainian weekly, has 10 copies per pound. The present rate is 1.5 cents per pound. The increase from 1.5 cents per pound to 10 x 2 cents per copy or 20 cents per pound, represents an increase of 1,200 per cent.
e (8:20 p.m.)
Anyone familiar with the ethnic press knows that it is dying. As children of immigrants grow up, attend Canadian schools and become fully Canadian in all ways, they read ethnic newspapers less and less and other papers more. Consequently, the ethnic press is facing great difficulties, no matter what group it serves. I doubt whether it can survive more than a generation or two. Instead of concentrating on the well being of one or two leading ethnic groups in this country, I think the government ought to show concern for all ethnic groups and for the survival of the ethnic press. The minister's action means that soon the ethnic press will be no more. I think we will all regret its passing and miss the contribution it has made over the years to the Canadian mosaic.
May I now deal with how postal increases will affect the labour press. I wish to refer to a paper and an organization with which I have had little personal contact. I know hon. members opposite think I am partisan, and I suppose I am. Be that as it may, in my opinion one of the best labour publications in this country is Labour, put out by the C.N.T.U., an almost exclusively Quebec based organization led for many years in a fine manner by our present Minister of Forestry and Rural Development. Being faced with increased postal costs of about $70,000 a year, the leaders of that publication did something that I hope will not be permanent; they suspended publishing that monthly magazine. If any one person is responsible for the demise of that publication, that person is the Postmaster General. In the last election our party garnered a very small percentage of votes in Quebec, so I do not think anyone can accuse us of partisan political motives in bringing this matter to the attention of members of this committee and the Postmaster General.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


David Orlikow: I had almost finished, Mr. Chairman.
Government Organization


James Hugh Faulkner: Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Orlikow: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Postage costs for the machinists magazine put out by the International Association of Machinists have risen from $154 per week to $921 per week. Costs of mailing Canadian Labour have risen by more than 300 per cent. The same thing may be said about publications put out by steel workers and auto workers. Labour unions faced with such increased costs can do one or two things. After all, they cannot increase dues without going before a convention and persuading union members of the need for increases. They can suspend publication, as the C.N.T.U. have with their magazine; they can cut back on their publication, as many Canadian unions will; or they can do what I suggest steel, auto and railway workers unions will do, namely, arrange to have their publications printed exclusively in the United States and mailed from the United States. The Canadian Post Office will deliver all those publications, will bear the entire cost of handling them and will not receive a penny for doing the job. The blame for this will rest on the minister. To say the least, the minister has done a great disservice to our hopes of fostering Canadian unity and nationalism.


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few remarks on Bill C-173 respecting the organization of the Government of Canada, and I shall refer specifically to part II which establishes a Department of Communications. I feel compelled to make a few general remarks about a matter which is of importance to the city of Toronto and to my constituency, Parkdale. The people of Toronto are anxiously awaiting the decision of the Postmaster General with regard to the main Post Office in downtown Toronto, an urgent matter because the metropolitan planning board wishes to redevelop the downtown core and that section especially fronting on Lake Ontario. It would help us greatly if the Postmaster General and his officials would say whether we are to have a post office terminal downtown and other subterminals in the surrounding burroughs.
I sympathize with my fellow citizens who have experienced a delay connected with the mailing of their letters and periodicals. Now, it takes approximately four or five days to receive a letter in Ottawa mailed in Toronto. I hope the Postmaster General will give this
6488	COMMONS DEBATES	March 11. 1969
Government Organization matter his urgent attention, since I know that many hon. members of the house have made similar complaints.


George Harris Hees: Eric, aren't you glad you have so many little helpers?


Stanley Haidasz: I hope the minister will help us. The third point I wish to raise, Mr. Chairman, is that in my constituency of Parkdale the population has increased greatly in the last couple of years. Instead of being given more sub-post offices we have been deprived of three or four existing ones. I have received many complaints from my constituents, especially from those in the southern portion of my riding. They want additional sub-post offices.
Another point I wish to raise was that brought to the attention of the house by the hon. member for Winnipeg North and has to do with the submission the Canada Ethnic Press Federation made to the minister in January of this year. I point out to the minister that a delegation from the Canada Ethnic Press Federation arrived in Ottawa this afternoon and is seeking an appointment with him. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North said, the federation is worried about the economic implications of increased postage rates on second class mail.
In the brief it is said that after April 1 the Czechoslovak weekly, Nove Domov, or New Homeland will face rate increases of up to 2,000 per cent. The brief shows how much other ethnic weeklies will incur increased costs. In Canada 75 publications are put out in languages other than in English and French, something pointed out by the Canada Ethnic Press Federation. The brief deals with the service the ethnic press has rendered to Canada in the past 60 years. I feel, Mr. Chairman, that the federal government should reconsider its postal rate increase policy and take into account the effect that this will have on certain publications of the Canada Ethnic Press Federation. I hope the minister if not tonight, then tomorrow when he meets the Ethnic Press editors, will be able to inform them what hope there is that they may continue to publish their very worth while publications.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


Randolph Harding: I would like to say a few words, Mr. Chairman, about the particular clause of Bill C-173 headed "Communications". I have drawn a number of problems to the attention of the Postmaster General. Of

all the ministers in the cabinet, I receive better and faster replies from the Postmaster General than from any other minister. I think this is something-


An hon. Member:: That's because they are delivered by hand.


Randolph Harding: They might be delivered by hand, but this is something we in the opposition appreciate.
There are several questions I would like to raise in connection with the reorganization which took place in the Post Office Department a couple of months ago. There was a sharp increase in postal rates, Mr. Chairman, and along with it a drastic reduction in the service which the Canadian people receive. There is no use telling Canadians generally that the over-all service has been improved, because it has not. I can frankly tell the minister and the members of this house that it takes a longer period of time for letters to reach their destination. In the case of second and third class mail, newspapers and other printed matter, the period of time which it takes for delivery of them is nothing short of scandalous.
I think the Canadian people would gladly go along with an increase in some categories. Certainly, some increases were warranted and I would be the last to say that they were not. However, when you have a sharp increase in mailing costs and a sharp reduction in service, then people have every right to complain. If this is the type of reorganization that this Liberal government believes will give a better deal to the Canadian people, then the sooner we scrap this government the better it is going to be.
I want to say a few words about the effect this reorganization is having on small post offices. The majority of members in this house come from the larger centres.. They have not the foggiest notion of the trouble which people in small communities have in every field of communications, whether it is mail, radio or television. The larger cities have the pick. They get coloured television before many of the rural areas can get even a black and white signal. Some of the small centres in my area have had a communication from regional directors of the Post Office Department to the effect that a number of small post offices will be closed because they are not paying their way. This is going to affect thousands of small communities. I want
March 11, 1369

to make very clear that these little communities have pioneered in Canada for generations. These are the people who have gone into the wilderness and have established small industries. They have worked mining and logging camps and have started farms in remote areas. This Liberal government in its reorganization program wants to deny them the right of mail service. I say very clearly and loudly if this government can subsidize Time Magazine and Reader's Digest, two United States magazines, to the extent of $1.5 million in this current year for mailing privileges in this country, then we in the small communities are entitled to some subsidies. I have no hesitation in bringing this to the attention of the government. We are not going to sit idly by and let another service to many of these small communities be discontinued.
It is amazing the government should insist on a certain revenue standard. They are thinking of closing many of the small post offices. If this is the Liberal theory of a just society, the government had better start thinking again because we do not agree with it.
I want to bring another matter to the attention of the minister. I mention again the question of mail delivery. I am opposed to a charge being made to people in small communities for a post office box. People living in Ottawa get their mail delivered to their homes free of charge. Why shouldn't people in the small communities have their mail delivered to a post office box in a central location free of charge? They still have to drive to the post office which is time consuming and costly. Do the people living in the larger centres have a special spot and privilege in Canadian society? I don't think so. I know the purpose is to raise revenue for the Post Office. The department has been losing too much money.
People in small communities who formerly paid $2 for a post office box are now paying $4. In some of the larger centres the former rate of $2 has now been raised to $8. This is absolutely incredible! People who must drive three or four miles into a city to pick up their mail have now had this sharp increase in mail box rentals. I do not blame them a bit for being angry with a government that has such an unjust method of levying another tax on the people living in smaller centres.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
There is just one more thing I am going to say and it concerns the labour problem currently facing the Post Office Department. I,
Government Organization too, am going to plead with the Postmaster General. What could the government expect? There has been a major change and overhaul in the delivery system. In a country as vast as Canada, the government must expect to have some labour unrest when these changes are taking place. Again I plead with this government not to continue the practice of threatening the men working for the Post Office Department with court action. Some of the members in the back benches do not have the foggiest notion of good labour relations. They would have this country in a complete turmoil. I urge the Postmaster General to move slowly and carefully in respect of this problem. It can and will be sorted out, but let us realize that in an adjustment period when there are major upsets it is wise for the person in authority not to barge ahead like a bull in a china shop because this can only result in difficulty. I suggest that the Postmaster General might talk to the Minister of Labour, who at least I believe understands the problems of labour. Possibly he would be in a position to give the Postmaster General some guidance in respect of how he should proceed. There is no one in this house or in Canada who wants to see trouble, particularly so far as the mails are concerned. Again, I urge the government to move very, very cautiously.


James Hugh Faulkner: Shall clause 7 carry?


William Arnold Peters: Before it does, Mr. Chairman, I should like to add a few words to some of the comments which have been made by the rural members. I have been sitting here thinking that there are a number of federal representatives in the Liberal party from the northern part of Ontario and other rural areas. I am wondering why they have not raised some of the problems which I know are current in their areas. For instance, there is the hon. member for Timmins. I do not know why he has not mentioned some of the post offices in his area which are closing, and the disruption that is taking place because of this. I am sure the hon. member for Cochrane is in the same position, as is the hon. member for Algoma and as are other members from northwestern Ontario. In each of these areas, the population has been dropping.
All the rural areas are experiencing difficulty in maintaining any kind of identity because their identity in many instances has boiled down mainly just to a post office address. When that address is gone, there is really nothing left in those communities on which to build. Many of these communities
March 11, 1969

Government Organization have been in existence for 50 or 60 years. They have resources other than the rural economy to support them and therefore, in most cases these communities will have a future; but for the sake of economy many of their addresses have been cut out. Today, I received a notice in respect of the closing of the post office in the village of Charlton. This town was incorporated in the very early days of northern Ontario. It is true there are only 2,000 patrons of the post office. The present suggestion, however, is to get rid of the post office and the postmaster because the expense involved is $2,600. I do not know why he was paid $2,600.


An hon. Member:: He was a Liberal.


William Arnold Peters: Of course he was a Liberal or he would not have had the job. Now, I understand the post office will be located in another store where there will be boxes. This will mean that the people there will have to pay $4 for a box. They not only will lose the service they had but in addition they will not have the privilege of buying money orders. This would seem to be very unfair. I believe the minister should consider the aspect of rural community life that has centred around the post office and what a postal address in effect means to the people in a community.
A similar situation occurred in the past in respect of the railway. When rail lines were abandoned the centres no longer had a station. Many people would like to maintain the communities which are in existence. It is my opinion that many of them will have a future in any event. I do not believe the minister intends to do anything about this. He has already made the decision, and therefore no appeal that any member makes in the back room, in the caucus or any place else, in my opinion, will make any difference.
I think, however, I would be remiss if I did not lament the passing of many of these post offices, especially when the expense involved is not sufficient to warrant the curtailment of the community activity which would be the result of the removal of the post office. I think the elimination of these post offices is another step toward the end of rural communities.
I do not know whether this has been mentioned by the minister, but I should like to refer to the matter of educational television. I believe this is an immense field and one which we should not enter lightly. I am very surprised that in recent months and recent years the federal government has been very

anxious to refer to the limiting influence the constitution has in respect of the federal government becoming involved in any type of education. In view of some of the things which have been said in recent months in the province of Quebec, for instance, which has entered this field, and also the interest of the province of Ontario in educational television, as well as the great emphasis that has been placed upon the educational system for the beatification of a provincial government, it would seem to me there is a great deal of merit in the federal government playing an important role in this field. Through educational television, there would be an opportunity for the retraining and scholastic advancement of people who have dropped out of school. People would be in a position to take advantage of the educational programs to upgrade their education. Therefore, I believe it would be in the interest of the Canadian public to have this programming controlled by the federal government. I realize there are the arguments about the holy cow aspect of the provincial jurisdiction in respect of education.


An hon. Member:: Sacred cow.


William Arnold Peters: This is a powerful media which will probably prove to be more powerful than the classroom, and could be put to great use in the educational field. In this way, we may be able to overcome some of the limitations that exist in the educational field in various provinces, particularly in respect of scholastic advancement in adult education.
When the minister is setting up this department of communications, I hope he will move to accomplish great things in the educational field of adult training. Perhaps he can maintain one or two channels in this field for government use. In this way, he may be able to remedy a difficulty existing in certain provinces in respect of educational communication.
When the minister is considering this matter, I hope he will take into account some recent statements and expressions of the aspirations of provincial educational people. Surely he will agree that there is a beautiful opportunity for the federal government to provide equality in educational television to all national viewers.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak very briefly about something I observed and thought very interesting. A few moments ago the hon. member for Parkdale rose and made an eloquent speech outlining a number of things about which he wanted information from the Postmaster General for the benefit of his constituents. Obviously, these are things he has wanted to know about for a long time. They related to the Post Office and other things under the jurisdiction of the Postmaster General. Obviously, he has not been able to get this information.
The hon. member was trying to obtain this information from an individual who sits beside him in this house. At any time he was speaking he could have reached out and touched that minister. I draw this matter to the attention of the house because during the last election w7e heard a great deal from the Prime Minister about the need for better communication within this country and how he intended to bring about this better communication. He said this was going to be a government of dialogue, that there would be dialogue between the people and the government so, the government and the people would be much closer together because they would understand each other. For the first time, there was to be a tremendous amount of communication.
Ladies and gentlemen, or Mr. Chairman, I should say-
Government Organization


An hon. Member:: What a play to the gallery.


George Harris Hees: If you had looked at the gallery, as I have, and seen the attractive people there you would understand why I spoke that way.
Let me say that what has happened indicates just how valid the election promises of the Prime Minister were. We have two members of the same government, one a minister and the other a parliamentary secretary, who sit side by side in this house but are unable to talk to each other. As the hon. member for Parkdale has said, he has not been able to get any of the information he has asked for regarding this important matter from the Post Office Department.
It seems to me that this is the beginning of a revelation which has occurred recently in respect of the gap in credibility. This credibility gap has plagued government leaders all over the world including Mr. Wilson, Mr. Johnson and General de Gaulle. It now seems to have come home to our Prime Minister. Perhaps this is the reason we read last Saturday with great interest the latest reports of the Gallop poll which showed that the majority of the people in this country have become dissatisfied with the operations of this government. This situation results from the fact that the Prime Minister's election promises have simply not come true.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 12 inclusive agreed to.


James Hugh Faulkner: We shall now proceed to Part III, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
On clause 13-Department established.


Mr. Pepin:: Mr. Chairman, on introducing
the present bill a few days ago, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) explained its rather simple objective: the improvement of the government's administrative organization in order to deal more efficiently with those unavoidable, permanent and new problems which the country must face now and in the future. The same concern had led to reforms to parliamentary procedure and cabinet administration.
Any self-respecting institution updates its methods, from time to time, in a word, modernizes its framework.
March 11, 1969

Government Organization
If, in politics as elsewhere, the subject matter is the most important, the structure is equally important as it shapes, molds and channels action and therefore improves the results. It would be quite wrong to ignore the structure.
The amalgamation of the Departments of Trade and Commerce and of Industry plays a very important role in the present reorganization of the federal government, the third since 1963, if one considers that the Department of Industry was then established. This amalgamation will result in the establishment of policies which will be more worthwhile yet and it will create a wider range of services for businessmen and for Canadians, generally.

I feel honoured and challenged by the mandate given me to bring together the qualities and capabilities of the present Departments of Industry and Trade and Commerce and to forge for the future a strong, forward-looking ministry.
Our capacity to develop in Canada our social programs, provincial or federal, to upgrade our educational, medical, welfare and cultural standards, to afford the investment required to narrow our regional disparities, this capacity, I say, depends in essence on our economic strength as a whole and on our efficient industrial and commercial growth. It is to these essential elements that the efforts of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce will be directed.
I was observing in Montreal recently, rather prosaically, that the just society is easier to achieve in prosperity than in economic mediocrity. I am quite sure that the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings will agree with at least that part of my speech.
The department's objectives are spelled out in detail in the bill and I hope they will command the general support of the house.
In summary, the role is to help to further the growth, productivity, employment opportunities and general prosperity of the Canadian economy through the efficient development of Canada's manufacturing and processing industries and the expansion of our trade and tourism.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)

(a)	to retain our Canadian domestic markets and our existing foreign markets and to gain new ones, we must produce at competitive prices goods which are in demand:
(b)	to produce such goods competitively, we must win as many domestic and foreign markets as possible, so as to make economies of scales and of specialization.
In other words, to sell mining, logging, school and medical equipment on the Canadian market, we must also be able to sell it on the foreign market, so as to achieve competitive prices.
The integration in one department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is a way of recognizing administratively, if I may be allowed to use the expression, the vital relationship between industrial development and trade expansion. The rest of the reorganization will be in accordance with this basic principle.
Each of the assistant deputy ministers shall have both domestic and external responsibilities. Thus, the first assistant deputy minister, Mr. Kniewasser, whom many hon. members know well, will be responsible for management and coordination, both in Canada and abroad, in the field of industrial and business development. The assistant deputy minister responsible for operations, Mr. Head, will be in charge of administration and coordination of the nine operation "branches" of the department which, incidentally, include clothing and textile products. I imagine that this brings back memories to the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees). The nine branches are the following:
Clothing and Textiles; Chemical Products; Electricity and Electronics; Machinery and Materials; Agriculture, Fish and Food Products; Wood Products; Space, Marine and Rail Industries; and, finally, Motor Transport. They will be responsible mainly for promotion and consultation services with manufacturers, whether or not they are exporters. They will have to draw up and implement assistance programs for the area to which they have been assigned, in the light of studies they will make about the problems and possibilities of selling the products in question, in Canada as well as abroad.
The assistant deputy minister for external services, Mr. Mundy-who will also report to the first assistant deputy minister-will be responsible for the trade commissioners' service and also for the international defence programs branch. The experience of Mr. 29180-411i
6493'
Government Organization Mundy's group, in matters of marketing abroad, will be made available to the industrial development pattern service in this country.
The assistant deputy minister of the commercial and industrial policy branch, Mr. Schwarzmann, will also have a domestic and external jurisdiction. He will be directly responsible to Mr. Warren, the well-known deputy minister, for the commercial policy especially for the negotiation of international agreements. But the direction of the advisory council on industrial policy will on the whole be under his jurisdiction.
Mr. Chairman, I could go on enumerating the domestic and external, industrial and commercial responsibilities of every senior official, but I will refrain from it.

These examples serve to illustrate the integrated approach, as I have just illustrated, which the new department intends to adopt in implementing the expanded mandate now being sought from parliament.
I should like to say a few words on tourism, for which the new department will also be responsible and which earns $1 billion a year for our balance of payments. The intended departmental approach to the development of our tourist industries and the expansion of Canadian income from tourism also reflects an integrated approach, although these activities are to be identified as a separate program within the new department.
The Office of Tourism will comprise, first, the Canadian Government Travel Bureau, the promotional arm with particular responsibilities for attracting visitors to Canada. It has 24 offices abroad. The Office of Tourism will also comprise a branch devoted to the study of our domestic travel industry and its needs for growth and development to meet the requirements of the highly competitive international travel market; all this, of course, in the closest possible co-operation with the industry, the provinces and other federal departments whose activities are relevant to the development of the tourist attractions and facilities of Canada. Here again, the international and the domestic will be closely matched, closely linked. The supply will meet the demand.
May I now comment briefly on the need for industrial innovation and how the department is and will be helping it. A key responsibility of the new department will be to assist manufacturing and processing industries to adapt
March 11, 1969

Government Organization to changes in technology and to changing conditions in domestic and export markets, to help them rationalize and restructure their facilities and cope with exceptional problems of adjustment.
Already the Department of Industry has responsibility for a variety of programs to this end; for example, the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act, known as IRDIA, the Program for the Advancement of Industrial Technology, known as PAIT, Defence Industry Productivity, known as DIP, the General Adjustment Assistance Program, known as GAAP, the Automotive Assistance Program, and so on.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
When my estimates go before the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs we will have a chance to review the implementation of these programs. These programs will be developed and modified as needs and priorities dictate. Our assistance programs and services will be oriented to product and process development, to the greater use of industrial research, and the application of advanced technology and modern management techniques. Actually we have studies leading to the improvement of some of these programs and to the possibility of establishing new ones. We shall continue to encourage and promote the utilization of improved industrial design and the application of sound industrial standards, design and standards being another responsibility of the department.
Through these various means, such as research, development, modernization, industrial design and industrial standards, it is hoped to stimulate greater productivity and a major expansion of innovative activity in Canadian industry and thereby to enhance our productive capacity and our ability to compete in domestic and in foreign markets.
It will not be enough simply to stimulate research and development. The process, if it is to yield results, must be carried through to the point where the benefit is gained in terms of profitable marketing of new products, and all that that means for employment and growth. Here again, the international services of the department will advise the domestic services.
I would have liked to say more about exports and something about wheat and the relationship between the department and the Wheat Board, but time will not permit me to

do so. Up to now, I have emphasized the fundamental and compelling economic rationale for a combined approach to the related problems of industrial development and trade at this juncture of Canada's growth and evolution toward a balanced and mature economic society.
The case for the now merged department would stand on that ground alone, but there are other advantages to a single department that may be mentioned.
First, the business community will be able to reduce the number of points of contact it must maintain with government and so increase the efficiency of its liaison. This central point of contact will also facilitate a more complete and rounded appreciation of business problems and business needs within government. Already an advisory council has been established, has met once, and will be concerned with both industrial development and trade.
Integration of the two departments will also contribute to the avoidance of possible duplication of activities and will permit financial and personnel savings to result from the reduction in common services and overheads. I might mention at this point that there will be a saving of 184 positions.
Integration will also bring improvements in the interflow of information as between the elements which made up the predecessor departments and between users in Ottawa and in the field, both as regards marketing and industrial development and commercial and industrial intelligence generally.

Mr. Chairman, if this is all true, the question will surely be raised pretty soon: why a single department in 1969 and two in 1963? I imagine that question will likely be put to me.
At the outset of my comments, I mentioned that industry, trade and tourism must keep face with, and even foresee, the evolution of the economic environment and of technology.
This line of reasoning is as good for the government as for private entreprise.
A formula can prove expedient at one time and inadequate later, when circumstances have evolved.
That is naturally a theme which the Prime Minister often brings up when urging us to review the situation. Some seem to wonder at the number of reviews in which we are involved at this time, but I, for one, often say
March 11, 1969

that the process of reviewing policies is quite normal, and when one is completed, it would be only logical and reasonable to start another one on the same topic the day after because things are changing very quickly.
It was with this in mind that the Department of Industry was set up apart from the Department of Trade and Commerce in 1963, and it will be for the same reason that the two departments will be merged soon into a single Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Therefore, there is no contradiction.
In 1963, on the eve of the Kennedy Round, it was generally acknowledged that industrial expansion should be more aggressive in Canada, more able to withstand world competition, capable of promoting the development of manufacturing industries and of increasing the number of jobs available to our labour force. It was thought, in some well-informed circles, that the federal government should help the industry to meet these new conditions. In view of the circumstances prevailing then, ia new start had to be made, new fields had to be explored, new priorities had to be established, etc. Those were the factors which brought about, in 1963, the establishment of the Department of Industry, and those objectives have been attained.
May I also point out the particular circumstances? In 1963, the Minister of Industry was at the same time Minister of Defence Production, therefore, a very busy man with two departments to head. Today, the expanded Department of Defence Production, now the Department of Supply and Services, has its own head.
We must also recall that in 1963 the Department of Industry looked after regional development. This sector has become the responsibility of a separate department.
Therefore, before accusing us of sometimes being illogical, consideration must be given- that is what I am trying to prove-to particular circumstances which prevailed in 1963, and to changes which happened since then, in the conjunction of circumstances inherent to every situation.
Anyway, the transmission of the new function to a new and separate organization, in 1963, helped it-I am referring to the Department of Industry, of course-to gain influence, prestige and the necessary instruments to work in re-orienting our economy. All those things remain in the new structure.
Government Organization
I have already mentioned a certain number of important programs operated by the Department of Industry. But there are several others which I would like to mention, especially that famous automotive agreement entered into by Canada and the United States, which has proved very successful, as well as the agreement on machinery which enables us to import industrial equipment duty-free.
Through that Department of Industry, there is now a better co-operation between the business world and the government.
We are therefore facing a new combination of circumstances which compels us to amalgamate those two departments and once again it seems to me that there is nothing inconsistent in that.
Anyhow, the opposition said in 1963 that the Department of Trade and Commerce should also be a Department of Industry. The least we can expect from members of the opposition tonight is that they approve the merging of the two departments. Personally, I hope that the debate will be shorter than the one on the establishment of the Department of Communications.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I think we have all listened with a great deal of interest to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I must congratulate him on his presentation because in it he proved that he has the primary quality of a Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, namely that of a salesman because he came very close to selling parliament the idea that the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is something new. In fact, what he said tonight was proof that industry, trade and commerce should never have been split up by the government six years ago. As I listened to the minister speak tonight I said to myself, as one often does on hearing something familiar, "I recognize some of my own speeches, there." If hon. members would look back through the Hansard of those days they would find the minister was saying exactly what I said in the House of Commons about the function of the then Department of Trade and Commerce. I want to congratulate the minister on taking an old product, a successful product, one which was made successful by others than himself, and introducing it to the world as something brand new, something exciting, something which will bring results which were never achieved before. I congratulate him. He is undoubtedly
March 11, 1969

Government Organization a salesman. If I had not been here in the house I am sure many hon. members would have believed this was a brand new department and that the hon. gentleman was leading a brand new crusade.
However, as all who have had some connection with this department know, until 1963 the Department of Industry was in fact the industry section of the Department of Trade and Commerce. As any businessman in Canada will tell you, this industry section did an excellent job by helping industry to lower costs and improve design and quality. It helped industry greatly to make sales not only in Canada but in the export market. As we know very well, and as the minister stated tonight, the sections of industry in Canada which produce for the export market and those which produce for the domestic market are substantially the same. Industry produces primarily for sales in Canada. Then, it discovers there are possibilities for selling a product abroad, and it sells in the export market as well.
Prior to 1963 when the government saw fit to create a new department and split industry apart from trade and commerce, businessmen who came to Ottawa seeking assistance in developing production methods or in selling their products abroad went only to the one department. This was very convenient, and the department was laid out in such a way that they could find their way round easily and get the answers to their questions in a very short space of time.
Then, Mr. Chairman, as you and I know very well, the Liberal government was elected in 1963. It had been out of office for six years and it had a great many political debts to pay. It was looking for some way in which to provide good jobs at high salaries for people who had been helpful in the past. So, the Liberal government of that day decided to obey Parkinson's law by creating two departments to take the place of one department which had up to that moment been doing an excellent job. Ask any producer in Canada about the kind of job the Department of Trade and Commerce had been doing for producers and sellers, and the unanimous opinion, I am sure, would be that it had been doing first class work.
Let us try to figure out what this bold venture dreamed up, I believe, by Walter Gordon and acceded to by his colleagues has cost this country in the meantime. In 1963- and I am familiar with these costs because I

submitted them to the Treasury Board myself in that year-the outlay for the industrial section of the Department of Trade and Commerce was $1,500,000. It is difficult with the figures presented by the government in the meantime to sort out exactly how this total increased, but it is obvious that even taking into account expanded operations, and the fact that salaries do increase year by year in this and every other country, the cost of doing the same job today by the Department of Industry in the same fields as those previously covered by the industrial section of the Department of Trade and Commerce has risen astronomically year by year.
I have gone over the figures and I am confident that this experiment by the Liberal government in 1963 in splitting two departments which should obviously have remained together has cost the Canadian taxpayer at least $50 million which should never have been spent. Indeed, the cost could easily be a lot closer to $100 million. The increase in staff was fantastic, and any businessman in Canada would tell you that this increase only served to make his communications with the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Department of Industry from then on about the most complicated process that a human being could imagine.
After the separation of these two departments which, as the minister eloquently pointed out tonight, belong together and always will, businessmen spent hours and days going from one department to the other trying to find out from various civil servants who looked after what. I have been told that going into these two departments was far worse than entering any maze. This is why the government has finally decided to correct the colossal error it made six years ago by bringing industry, trade and commerce back together once more. It is taking this action because the producers of this country have demanded that the government cease this nonsense they have had to put up with for the past six years, and straighten out the maze through which they have been trying to find their way. They have demanded that the government bring industry, trade and commerce under one roof again, working together under one minister, not at cross purposes, not spread out all over Hell's half-acre, but constituting again one comprehensive department. The minister knows this very well, as does every businessman in Canada.
The operation I have described is typical of the kind of foolishness which has cost the
March 11. 1969

taxpayers of this country millions and millions of wasted dollars during the life of the Liberal government. It is a process exemplified by the figures produced recently in connection with the Bonaventure, the hydrofoil project and other things of that kind. People have been wondering for some time why this government has not been able to balance its budget, despite the fact that the Minister of Finance has told us many times that this is his intention. It is because the government is overspending; it is because things of this kind have been getting out of control. I rise simply to call attention to a few of these facts; I do not intend to take up any more of the committee's time.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
I end by urging the government to get on with the job it was elected to do, the job of running this country efficiently. I am glad to see that the government has seen the error of its ways in 1963 when it split industry, trade and commerce. This the government should never have done, and it has cost a great deal in the form of wasted taxes and wasted time and energy on the part of the business community of Canada. I urge the government to cease any further effort it might have in mind with regard to similar empire building and to stop wasting taxpayers' money, as was done in this case. The government should start paying attention to the needs of the country and manage the economy of the country in a sane, economic and practical manner.
The minister has my very best wishes. He has the best department in government. Now that these departments are together again, the merged department can do a great job for this country. Certainly, it did a great job in the past. The department was largely made what it was by the late C. D. Howe, a great Canadian. It has great personnel of great ability. I am glad to see both industry and trade and commerce together again. They should never have been parted. Let the department now go ahead full steam. I think the minister can do a good job-I hope he can

and he has not only my best wishes but I feel sure the best wishes of the members of this house.


Mr. Salisman:: Mr. Speaker, we have been gathered together tonight to join together or, rather, to effect a reconciliation between industry and trade and commerce. I feel somewhat like the unwelcome guest when the minister says "Whosoever has reason". I have reason. I think it is a mistake to put industry and trade and commerce together. While the
Government Organization new minister is making like the father of the bride, I should like to bring some matters to his attention.
To begin with, I assure the minister of my most sincere hopes that some of the fears I have about the new union will not materialize. However, real problems are involved in putting the two departments together. In order to understand those problems I think we have to go back to 1963 and try to understand why the government established a new Department of Industry.
It may be easy enough to dismiss the creation of a new department as a repository for people to whom some political obligations were owed. However, I should like to feel there were sounder reasons for the establishment of this department. The Prime Minister of that day expressed it in these words:
-we have to accept the fact that manufacturing industry, secondary industry, is the source from which the new wealth and the new employment must largely come.
Further on, in introducing the new department, he said:
Our aim today cannot be simply to build up industry, any kind of industry in a general way, by general action. Canada's need is for industries that will thrive in the modern world, industries that will fit into the new patterns of international trade which are now emerging and to which we will have to adapt ourselves.
There was a recognition at that time that the future of Canada lay in the development of its secondary industry. Perhaps people sensed there was a conflict between secondary industry, primary industry and the Department of Trade and Commerce. Traditionally, the Department of Trade and Commerce had a fish or fowl attitude. In other words, "Let us export raw materials as rapidly as we can". The very fact that only $1.5 million were allocated in the department to the service of secondary industry is an indication of the downgrading of manufacturing in this country within the department.
It is very difficult to serve two masters, and I suggest that exporters of raw materials and manufacturers of finished goods have somewhat different terms of reference and different outlooks when it comes to what should be done to develop their industries. For example, let us take a look at our tax system. It is obvious that our tax system was designed for the exporters of raw material in this country. Secondary industry has largely been ignored. As the Carter commission pointed out, almost all of the incentives have been given to those
6498	COMMONS
Government Organization people who produce in the raw form-oil, mining companies and such like. In such a tax system there is no tax avoidance, as Mr. Carter pointed out in one of his speeches. What is tax avoidance for some becomes a tax penalty for others.
The gains that were accorded primary industry, the mining and oil industries in particular, were the costs that were imposed upon secondary industry in this country. This may not have been absolutely understood at the time this separation took place, but I think the feeling developed that if manufacturing were to come into its own in this country it needed its own minister, its own impetus. I like to think that this was the reason the department was created.
Our manufacturing industry in Canada has been sick for a long time, and I say that with very great regret. As long ago as 1957 it was pointed out in a report called "Canadian Secondary Manufacturing Industry, Royal Commission on Canada's Economic Prospects", not only that manufacturing industry was sick, but also the symptoms of the sickness. Some suggestions for its correction were also indicated.
I should like to read a short paragraph from page 160 of that report which was put out by D. H. Fullerton and H. A. Hampson;
-the problem of unspecialized production in Canadian secondary industry is due to many causes, including the excessive fragmentation of the Canadian market stemming from our importation of the American structure of industry. It is in part also due to the reluctance of domestic producers to specialize to the same extent as in the United States, and in some instances, to the less competitive nature of certain Canadian industries.
This report, as I say, was published in 1957. When the Third Annual Review of the Economic Council was published, the Canadian Trade Committee commented on the report. They said that the striking thing was that the increase of income per capita in Canada was the lowest of all the industrialized countries, and that the Economic Council did not expect this rank for Canada to alter in the period that is to come. Then, the Committee went on to say that Canada has a per capita income markedly lower than the United States, and also has benefited from a relatively greater shift of population from agriculture to other sections of the economy than the United States during the past ten years. Yet her experience, they point out, does not match what the simple inverse relationship between income and growth of

DEBATES	March II, 1969
income per capita, mentioned above, would seem to promise.
There have been all sorts of reports published pointing out that we have the highest level of capital investment per worker in the world; higher even than that of the United States. It is almost 30 per cent greater per worker in Canada than in the United States. Yet our productivity is some 20 to 30 per cent lower than that of the United States, an incredibly bad performance. This is not the result of the inability of Canadian workers or the reluctance of Canadian workers to work. In industries where rationalization has taken place we have not only matched the productivity of the United States but have exceeded that productivity. The combination governing the factors through which resources are brought together in this country is playing havoc with our ability to develop our manufacturing industries. The Fourth Annual Review of the Economic Council of Canada took up this matter on page 165 to the following effect:
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
There is accumulating evidence from various sources, including the special survey undertaken in this field on behalf of the Economic Council, that short production runs and a relatively large degree of product diversification is an important and pervasive phenomenon in Canadian manufacturing plants. The importance of this phenomenon stems from the fact that it tends to keep prices and costs relatively high and to hold down productivity.
The Watkins report pointed this out again. I read from page 404 of the report, where the following appears:
Without an appropriate set of industrial policies which create an efficient structure of industry in Canada, the benefits of foreign direct investment tend to be emasculated.
We have imported vast quantities of capital which has been virtually wasted because it has not been used properly. This factor must have influenced the government in 1963 in setting up the Department of Industry. They wanted to bring about greater productivity in our industry and greater rationalization in the Canadian economy. One instance of rationalization which is bad is the Canada-United States Automboile Agreement, a rationalization of the wrong kind because it tied us completely in with the United States market. Avenues of rationalization other than those leading to the surrender of our sovereignty are open to us. It is true that as the result of the Canada-United States Automobile Agreement, productivity in certain of our factories
March 11, 1969

has increased and parity pay tor our workers had been made possible. Those are the benefits. The disadvantages lie in the fact that by losing the power to make decisions on an economic level we may lose our political freedom. All decisions affecting the automobile industry are made in the United States and not in Canada. There is a growing danger that activities needing skill in the manufacture of automobiles, such as designing and so on, will take place in the United States. We may not become hewers of wood and drawers of water, but we may become fender fitters and people who tighten nuts and bolts.
Despite what some hon. members opposite think, I am greatly impressed with the people in the Department of Industry. Several times I have called on that department for assistance for some of my constituents. I think that in no other department will be found civil servants as knowledgeable and capable as in this department. The problem has not been with the people of the department; it has been with how the department has been directed. It was a good idea to set up a department dealing with secondary manufacturing industries in Canada, and it was worth spending $1.5 million on it. The department has failed us, not because of any intrinsic defect in its organization, but because there was lack of direction from the top, because the government lacked vision and because the people in the department had no terms of reference to guide them. They were frustrated no matter where they turned. Instead of trying to correct faults in its previous policy the government has thrown up its hands in despair saying, "Let us go back to our old ways.". They have even trotted out the old speech writer to write the same old speech. This is an abdication of responsibility and I cannot see that any useful purpose will be served by combining the two departments.
I watched carefully as the minister announced rather shyly that he was lopping off 184 people from departmental strength. He was not looking to our corner of the house when he said that but at the Conservative benches, because he knew he would find approval there. I submit we are being penny wise and pound foolish. Obviously, if reducing the personnel of a department mattered that much more people would have been lopped off its strength. We must consider the relation between benefits to be gained and the number of people employed. What good will it do to lop off 184 people from departmental 29180-412
Government Organization strength? It might be worth our while adding another 184 people to the department if secondary manufacturers of this country could thereby be assisted in being more productive. It is more important to determine the relationship between costs and achievements. We should not go around with an abacus counting the members of the department.
I began by saying there is conflict within the department on the question of capital use. In any society capital is a scarce commodity. How are we to allocate capital? Is it to go to secondary industry or will the old and inefficient inducements in the field of mining and oil be continued? A spokesman for secondary industry was needed in the cabinet. We recognize that the various regions and industries of this country need representation in the cabinet. A minister speaking for a particular region or industry in cabinet persuades his colleagues to his point of view, and the cabinet as a whole makes the decision. In this way, conflicts are resolved. Yet the spokesman vital for secondary industry did nothing and said nothing because he was immobilized. I do not know whether the blame for that lies with the government. Did it not allow the minister to exercise his responsibilities? This party recognizes that consumers of this country need representation in cabinet and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is their spokesman. Surely, it is a mistake to have the muted voice representing industry in cabinet combined with the voice speaking for trade and commerce. I submit the two voices ought to be completely separate.
Recognizing clearly the problems facing this country in the field of secondary industry, the Deputy Minister of Industry, S. S. Reis-man, made the following comments in a speech, as reported in the Toronto Star of February 2, 1968:
The proliferation of firms and products, combined with the relatively small size of the Canadian market, has tended to make us less efficient than we otherwise might be, particularly in comparison with the U.S.-
I wish to comment on that statement. It is not the size of the Canadian market that inhibits our developing efficient industry. The Canadian market is probably the second most affluent market in the world. A population of 21 millions is not inconsiderable. The difficulty stems from the fact we have inherited the United States pattern of marketing and production, and we have forgotten that Canada
March 11, 1969

Government Organization is not the United States. What might make sense in the United States, a country with a population 10 or 11 times the size of ours, does not make sense in this country. I am not one who sees a bogeyman in United States investment. I do not believe that United States investment cannot be controlled or directed to the best purposes of this nation, if we want it that way. The danger is not so much from the investment or the fact that they are Americans, Germans or anyone else, but from the fact that they bring with them their pattern of doing business which is inappropriate to our society. It just does not make sense. We have one of two choices. Either we break through this pattern and find some way of developing different methods of production in this country, or we succumb to that great continental market.
e (9:50 p.m.)
Continental integration of our economy would be a disaster of the greatest magnitude for us. Continental integration does not give you a political say. However, I do not want to discuss that aspect of the political problem. I would rather go on with the technical details. I would like the opportunity of going further into this matter with the minister. I want to conclude my remarks because it is getting rather late in the evening. I would like to make a few more remarks at this time and perhaps avail myself of the opportunity of making some additional comments later on.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. I might point out to the hon. member that his time has expired. Perhaps the committee would be disposed to grant him leave to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr.   Bailsman@: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the courtesy of the house and you, Mr. Chairman.
The minister has undertaken very heavy responsibilities. He enumerated all the various responsibilities which he inherited, such as tourism and wheat. With regard to wheat, some people question whether the minister has been able to handle that adequately. He also has the responsibility for resources and manufacturing.
How much attention can the minister be expected to devote to this great problem of rationalization? I am not saying the minister will not try. I am sure he will. I know he is a man who works hard and wants to do a good job. It is not on lack of intent or intelligence

that my fears for this department are founded. It is just that he cannot do it. A man is being asked to do the impossible, Mr. Chairman, when he has this many obligations. Surely, this is an impossible task for anyone who wishes to innovate and make departures from the ordinary, as he must do.
The minister will have no alternative but to take the easy way out, call in the businessmen and say, "How would this suit you fellows? How would you like this organized?" The minister may not want it that way but he will have no choice except to behave in this way. It may not be the minister who will run the department, but the department and the international corporations that will run the minister.
I will conclude, Mr. Chairman, in deference to the courtesy extended to me. I am quite worried about this marriage. I want to point out the little flaws of the bride, and the groom may not be all he is supposed to be. I do not like sounding this sour note, but it is a policy. It is an amalgamation that is rooted in a failure, not the failure of an idea but a policy. If that policy failed before, what assurance have we now that it will not fail when the minister has so many other responsibilities in addition to the new one being added?


James Hugh Faulkner: It being ten o'clock, shall I rise, report progress and request leave to set again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: I would just like to confirm, Mr. Speaker, that tomorrow we will continue with the government reorganization bill. As agreed, when we make progress on this item we will not deal with the next part of the bill in successive order, Part IV, with regard to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. Rather we will go on to Part V and the subsequent parts and return to Part IV for completion after we have dealt with the rest of the bill.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: In accordance with Standing Order 40, a motion to adjourn the house is deemed to have been made and seconded at this time. Therefore, the question is that this house do now adjourn.
March 11. 1969	COMMONS



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, February 11, as recorded in Hansard at page 5372, I asked the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) this question:
In view of the assurance the minister gave on January 8 to representatives of retired civil servants that the question of increasing their pensions would be studied by a committee with the hope that a report would be forthcoming in three or four weeks, can the hon. gentleman say whether such a report is yet ready?
The reply of the President of the Treasury Board was:
Not yet, Mr. Speaker.
In the next brief exchange I was of course given the usual assurance that the matter is still under serious study. Another month has gone by and apparently the report of that committee is not yet available. The story of disappointments on the part of retired civil servants is a long one. Time and time again their hopes have been raised by announcements or statements of this kind. It is too bad that we have yet another one.
I have been informed by a good many retired civil servants, particularly by a number of those who met with the President of the Treasury Board, that it was their clear understanding on January 8 that something would be reported to them within three or four weeks. Two months have now gone by and nothing has been indicated.
We have now had it made known to us that there will be debate on Friday of this week on second reading of Bill C-178 which proposes to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act and three or four other corresponding acts. We, of course, have copies of that bill, first reading having been given to it Friday, March 7. But any hope that it might have contained pension increases is of course destroyed by the fact that they are not in that bill. This is very disappointing.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
On another occasion, February 4 to be exact, I drew the attention of the President of
29180-412J
DEBATES	6501)
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion the Treasury Board to the fact that recently in the United Kingdom, for the seventh time: since the end of world war II, a pensions increase bill was brought in which increased the pensions of retired civil servants of that country. I have before me a schedule of those increases. This bill is to be effective on April 1, 1969. The schedule shows that when this new bill is in effect the increases in the pensions of retired civil servants will vary from 2 per cent of the total pension for those retired very recently up as high as 18 per cent for those retired back in 1955. I mention this just to make the point again that it can be done. It is not some pipe dream which some of us have; it is not some fanciful notion. It has been done in a good many other jurisdictions. Many of us in this house in all parties believe it can and ought to be done here.
I regret very much that after these two months there is still no forthright announcement as promised on January 8, but perhaps I should still live in hope and dare believe that on Friday of this week when the President of the Treasury Board moves the second reading of Bill C-178 he will make an announcement at that time concerning what will be done, and also when it will be done, to increase the pensions of these very deserving people, the retired federal civil servants of this country.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I wish to compliment the hon. member upon his persistence in advocating this particular good cause. There is of course available to him a selection of many good causes, some more or less meritorious in comparison to this one. I should just like to assure him that this particular good cause remains under consideration.



PENSIONS-CONSIDERATION OF UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLE OF ESCALATION

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the admission of the minister who answered my last question that there are many good causes for which one might work. He has not been here very long but he has discovered already that with a Liberal government in power there are many things for which we have to fight.
It is a bit of a coincidence that these two questions of mine should both be the subject of the late show this evening. This one arises out of a question I asked on Thursday, February 27, as recorded in Hansard at pages 6006 and 6007. My question was addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare
March 11, 1969

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion (Mr. Munro) and these were the key-sentences:
Can the minister say what progress is being made by the review committee which is studying our welfare and pensions programs? Can he say whether attention is being given to the possibility of increasing the old age security pension in proportion to the increases in wages and salaries?
The reply of the Minister of National Health and Welfare was in these words:
As I indicated, Mr. Speaker, all of the income maintenance programs and social welfare programs are being reviewed in this study. No firm conclusions have been arrived at, so it is impossible to say whether any conclusions will relate to an increase in old age security or to some other solution that may be adopted.
Of course, as an answer that ought to get the minister into the Senate where a certain other former member of this place has gone. I said a moment ago that I find it an interesting coincidence that I am asking these two questions on the late show this evening because this gives me the opportunity to make this point: whether we are talking about the pensions of retired civil servants, whether we are talking about the pensions of retired employees of the railways of this country or the pensions of retired employees of private industries, or whether we are talking about the old age security pension, I feel the most important issue that faces us is to build into all these pension programs automatic provisions for the pensions to increase after the point of retirement.
We know of course, that we have in the old age security program, as well as in the Canada Pension Plan, a kind of provision for increases, but these are tied to the cost of living and there is a 2 per cent ceiling on each year's increase. The fact of the matter is that in our society we have not only increases in the cost of living but increases in the standard of living. That is one of the virtues of our society; things do get better.
The way things are now organized, however, things get better only for those people who are still at work. I do not think it is a just or decent society which says to those who have retired, you must live the rest of your years on fixed incomes and you must see the value of that income go down; you must settle for fewer and fewer opportunities to share in those new things brought about in a progressive and growing society.
So I contend, Mr. Speaker, that we have not done enough by just putting a limited cost of living factor into old age security and the Canada Pension Plan, but that we should

be building into all of our pensions programs an automatic increase tied to the increase in wages and salaries; tied to the increase in our productive capacity; tied to our growing affluence.
I have tried to put this in another way in a notice of motion of mine on the order paper in which I suggest that all pensions should be recalculated each year. We do not ask people on the job to work for ten, 15 or 20 years without any increase in their income. It is a fact of life that they will get their increases. I say it is completely unfair to ask people who are retired not to expect an increase, not just to meet higher costs, but an increase in their living standards.
The point of my question is a plea to the government to include this in its review of our social legislation, and to accept it as important and basic to our program that people who are retired have a right to share in the greater affluence of our society, have a right to have their pensions recalculated upward each year. They have the right to expect that their pensions will keep pace not only with the increase in the cost of living but with the rise in wages and salaries across the years.
I hope, therefore, that we will get the assurance tonight that the government realizes the importance of this issue of keeping pensions in line with the progress that takes place in our society.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think it is certainly true that more pressure is put upon the unprotected segments of our society; the pension income people or the people who do not have the power to control their wages or income. That pressure is put upon them by other segments of our society which have that control and power.
I should like to recommend to the hon. member who has posed this question that he address a part of his plea and his remarks to those groups which so staunchly support his party; those groups which have the power to demand what they think those segments deserve, regardless of the interest of those people who are unprotected and on fixed incomes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They speak for them, don't worry.


Otto Emil Lang: It is, of course, the objective of this government to combat inflation and in this fashion protect the pensioner and the fixed income person against this diminution.
March 11. 1969	COMMONS


An hon. Member:: Keep the wages down.


Otto Emil Lang: I heard an hon. member say that we should keep the wages down. That, ol course, is part of the complicated proposition.
I commend to him that his friends in the labour movement might well direct more of their power, which is considerable, to the demand for decreased prices from their employers instead of increased wages. In that fashion, he and his friends could help to protect those who are on fixed incomes and otherwise unprotected.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You
might as well go to the Senate too.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)



ECONOMIC REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT- REQUEST FOR SHERBROOKE AREA TO BE CONSIDERED AS A SPECIAL AREA

Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, on March 6, I asked the future Minister of Economic Regional Development the following question:
Could he tell the house whether his program intended to abolish regional disparities will be amended in such a way that the Sherbrooke area and some neighbouring areas will be considered as special areas?
Mr. Speaker, I should like to describe, in the few moment at my disposal, the economic situation that prevails in the area where I live.
This region of the province of Quebec, situated in the Eastern Townships, was once rather prosperous. It did not need an economic council nor something else to live, because the inhabitants could manage by themselves.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak this evening about three pilot towns in the area, namely Scotstown, Coaticook and Lac Megan tic.
Scotstown, for example, Mr. Speaker had some 4,000 inhabitants about six years ago. Today, the population of the same municipality has dropped to 2,000. At the beginning, the population was provided with schools, municipal services; a church which cost about $400,000 was even constructed. Today, as a result of the exodus of its taxpayers, the municipality has a huge debt due to the construction of the church, schools and municipal services.
I would like to know what the new Department of Regional Economic Expansion can do to help such a parish or town.
DEBATES	6503
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Let us consider now the town of Coaticook with a population of 8,000 two years ago and which has now dropped to some 7,000. The municipal authorities of Coaticook have incurred heavy expenditures. In fact, they have established numerous services: schools, playgrounds, etc. It is now saddled with a huge debt and its taxpayers are getting fewer. Those who remain must bear alone the burden of debts for schools, municipal services and church.
The city of Lac Megantic, where I live, had in the past a population of over 9,000; it has only 7,000 now. It is in the same predicament. That city provided the people with all kinds of services a few years ago. Today, the population is decreasing and the town still owes large amounts on its schools, its church and its municipal services, including playgrounds and arenas. The social organization is very good in all respects, but people are now leaving, nevertheless.
Around such municipalities, we have rural parishes that were flourishing some years ago. The number of farmers has decreased by more than 70 per cent during the last ten years. The surrounding population, which helped such towns prosper is also today in very disquieting circumstances.
The population is emigrating in great numbers to the United States because we are close to the United States border and Americans have a great many jobs to offer. People are much attracted to the other side of the border. Salaries are higher and therefore our people are emigrating to the United States. Those who do not go there are going to Sherbrooke, to Montreal, to Quebec or to other cities. Those areas remain deserted, underprivileged in every respect. What is worse are the huge debts that those municipalities have accumulated and which small taxpayers who remained there are practically unable to pay.
Therefore, I would like to know whether we intend to tackle the problems of this area, for instance those of the town of Coaticook, which has been annexed to the Sherbrooke area. The town of Scotstown is annexed to Sherbrooke which however is not considered as a city faced with problems of regional disparities but rather as a fairly prosperous city. In spite of the fact that there is a great deal of unemployment and poverty in Sherbrooke, this area is not considered as a have-not area. In fact, a large part of my constituency has been attached to that area. However, all our municipalities-I only named three main towns in this constituency-are poverty
March 11, 1969
6504	COMMONS DEBATES
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion stricken, suffer from a lack of interest and tend to be abandoned.
There are a great many resources that 'could be developed, from a tourist point of View and all other points of view.
'' I would like to know what the new minister is going to do in this area. How does he intend to develop it or to help it, since it mainly lacks financial means. We have almost all the other means required. As for financial means, we do not have them any longer. Taxpayers who have remained there have been overtaxed and now nearly all houses are on sale.
In the town of Scotstown, for instance, even if properties worth about $20,000 are offered at $5,000, nobody wants to buy them. The same situation prevails in the three municipalities I just mentioned.
In Coaticook, for instance, an industry employing 250 people is closing down in June. That is not likely to boost the economy of that town.
Mr. Speaker, almost all the areas in the riding I represent are poverty-stricken. Those are abandoned areas, in urgent need of help. Assistance should not be given only to Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick or Newfoundland. Areas which once were prosperous are now in need of assistance. The situation is worse than in some areas of Newfoundland and other provinces which have become just about incapable of looking after themselves.
So, Mr. Speaker, I should like the minister to tell us if he can undertake immediately the research work necessary to analyse the causes of this decline and to provide the means of coping with it in the near future.
We have reached the point where the people have to move out of those towns and find jobs in the big cities of the United States. Houses are selling at ridiculous prices; business, industry and church revenues are getting lower and lower. From one year to the next, farmers who were successful in the past are getting deeply into debt, and their products must be sold at a loss. The businessman who operates a factory far from any large centre, such as in Lake Megantic for instance, must pay the same salaries as in Montreal, where industries pay high wages. Moreover, means of transportation are inadequate and very costly. Now it has become almost impossible for the industries of thoses regions to compete with the big industries in Montreal, Quebec or elsewhere.
' Well then, Mr. Speaker, if we do not want those cities and those areas to disappear, the 
government should do something and find practical solutions in order to assist them. Every day the situation is deteriorating. Everywhere, at the level of the constituency, people are losing faith.

[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: One can have a great deal of understanding and sympathy for the case outlined by the hon. member who has just spoken. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, since I have only three minutes in which to reply, and in order that I can keep my remarks in perspective, I might refer to the question which the hon. member posed to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Marchand) on March 6'-I am quoting, now, from the Hansard of that date.
Could he tell the house whether his program intended to abolish regional disparities will be amended in such a way that the Sherbrooke area and some neighbouring areas will be considered as special areas?
The hon. member has dealt tonight with the situation in the Sherbrooke area and other areas. As he knows, there is legislation before the house at the present time which among other things will, if passed by parliament, establish a new department of Regional Economic Expansion. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has indicated to parliament and the country his concern that disparities in economic advantages in various regions of Canada should be reduced as far as reasonably possible in order that Canadians throughout the country might enjoy the advantages and amenities which are generally considered appropriate for Canadians in what might be described as the more affluent parts of the nation. When this legislation is passed, if indeed it is, we shall have set up a new department under a new minister, and parliament will have given it the opportunity to do the things which the Prime Minister and other members of the government have indicated should be done to equalize opportunities for Canadians wherever they may live.
To deal more specifically with the particular question raised by the hon. member, may I remind the house that the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development has indicated in this chamber and in other public statements that when the legislation now before
March 11, 1969	COMMONS
the house has been passed, and the new department has been established, he will then propose further legislation-and he has indicated this would be in the present session of parliament-delineating those areas which would be described, I think, under the legislation now before us, as special areas or special incentive areas. The basic purpose of these changes would be to increase the effectiveness of the incentives used to attract new industries in disadvantaged areas and to
DEBATES	6505
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion stimulate the expansion and modernization of existing industries in these areas.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Russell Clayton Honey: So, I can only ask the hon. member to wait until this legislation is approved.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house adjourned at 10.27 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 12, 1969