1970-02-18

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate do unite with the House of Commons in the appointment of a special joint committee to examine and report upon proposals, made public, on a number of subjects related to the constitution of Canada, and that certain honourable Senators have been appointed to act on the said committee.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I should like, Mr. Speaker, to report on the federal-provincial conference which took place here in Ottawa on Monday and Tuesday of this week. If I may have the consent of the House I would propose to table a copy of the communique issued at the conclusion of that conference.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the Prime Minister the consent of the House to table the document he has just mentioned?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: While there have been a great many meetings at the ministerial and officials level in recent months, the conference provided the first opportunity for some time for the heads of the federal and provincial governments to discuss a number of matters of common concern not relating to the constitutional review. The first item, and the one to which most time was devoted, concerned the economic situation. Under this head we discussed in some detail the problem of inflation, to which I shall return in a moment, as well as a number of more specific problems.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
Among these latter, particular attention was devoted to the serious difficulties facing the western grain farmers. Emphasizing the adverse effects of the current difficulties in exporting wheat, the prairie premiers put forward a number of suggestions to which the federal government will give careful consideration in the course of its continuing efforts to devise the most effective means for dealing with this problem. In recent months the government has introduced a number of measures designed to alleviate the difficulties facing the grain farmer, and we may have some further measures to propose in this area before long. However, no one at the conference was under any illusion that there is a simple or obvious solution. All agreed that the position in the west is extremely difficult and that the consequences affect every area of Canada. The decline in the export market for wheat, and the lack of alternatives of adequate economic return, constitute a most serious national problem.
As our second item we discussed the problem of pollution, which is rapidly becoming a threat to human welfare, not only in Canada but indeed throughout the world. While current pollution problems are most acute in highly populated and industrialized areas, the rapid growth in pollution-causing activities of every kind poses a major threat in all parts of the country. There was general agreement that the effective handling of this problem both to clean up the consequences of past neglect and to prevent a progressively more rapid degradation of the environment, will require a major effort and close co-operation on the part of all levels of government as well as the private sector. It was also recognized that important aspects of this problem lie outside national jurisdiction and call for effective action on an international scale. Against this general background there was special urgency attached to problems of water pollution. Although some provinces indicated difficulties with particular aspects of the proposed Canada Water Act, there was general acceptance of the requirements underlying that bill for vigorous federal leadership in this area.
3728	COMMONS
Federal-Provincial Conference [Translation]
The third agenda item concerned the report of the federal-provincial Tax Structure Committee. This report reviews fiscal trends and projections for all governments in Canada up to the year 1971-72, and analyses a range of problems having to do with the major federal-provincial joint programs in health, welfare and education. The report assembles a good deal of important material relating to both of these questions, and I am very pleased that the Conference agreed that it should be made available to the public. Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the report in both languages.
According to the report, the revenue-expenditure projections indicate a continuing surplus for the federal government but an increasing deficit at the provincial-municipal level. Much of this deficit problem can be traced to the very rapid rates of increase in the costs of the point programs. However, it is emphasized that there are statistical projections based upon certain assumptions about budget policy.
They should not be interpreted as forecasts of government budgets. Indeed, several provinces have made clear that they intend to make every effort to balance their budgets, or to reduce the deficits projected, in line with the overall objective of containing inflationary pressures.
There was, of course, a strong suggestion that the federal government should transfer fiscal resources to the provinces to help them with their financial problems. But I think it was realistically accepted that the federal government cannot reduce its taxes in favour of the provinces, spend more to meet many worthy needs, and achieve an anti-inflationary budget surplus all at one and the same time. The provinces have responsible administrations and recognize the realities which all government must face.
Nevertheless, conditions do change, and I indicated that when we are successful in getting inflation under control, secure their co-operation in holding down the costs of joint programs, and complete the reform of the income tax, we will be able to look carefully at the problem of adjusting fiscal resources between levels of government. The ministers of finance and provincial treasurers will keep this question under continuing review.

The outcome of the recent Price Stability Conference organized by the Prices and Incomes Commission was reviewed, and I am

DEBATES	February 18, 1970
happy to say that all participating governments endorsed the voluntary system of price restraints drawn up by that conference and the basic principle designed to limit any increases in prices by private business to something clearly less than their increases in costs. May I make clear at this point that the federal government for its part supports that price restraint scheme as a valuable contribution to the national effort to control inflation, and will be prepared as the program goes forward to do what it can to ensure that it is successful. In addition to the result of the conference with business leaders, there has also been made public the list of "Tentative Proposals" which the Prices and Incomes Commission has put to governments. Broadly speaking, we agree with those suggestions, although I should point out that some of them are of limited application within the federal jurisdiction. While it is of course for the provincial governments individually to declare their own positions on specific aspects of these proposals, and the action they plan to take in relation to them, the consensus of the conference as contained in the communique makes clear the very general support which they have received.
I need not enlarge now on our determination to restrain federal expenditure, on which our intentions were put to the House when the estimates were tabled last week. Nor would it be appropriate for me at this time to discuss the government's taxing plans, which will be made known shortly. I should, however, add something about our intentions with regard to goods and services supplied to the public by the government itself or by agencies under its direct control. Some of these activities are essentially commercial in nature-the operations of Air Canada and Polymer Corporation are examples-and for these we propose that they should be subject to the guidelines established for private business. In other words, any price increases by these enterprises during the coming year should meet the criterion that they are clearly less than what would be required to cover unavoidable cost increases.
There is in addition a wide range of federal services, not of a direct commercial nature, for which fees or charges are applied. Here I should explain that we had earlier accepted the principle, and continue to hold to it, that the charges levied for such services should be designed to recover from the users the cost of providing them. In accordance with this principle we had planned to introduce a number
February 18. 1970	COMMONS DEBATES	3729
of increases, substantial ones in the case of those services for which relatively nominal fees had hitherto been charged, as well as a number of new charges. While we continue to regard this approach as sound, we have concluded that the introduction at this time of such increases and new charges could be interpreted as inflationary behaviour, despite the fact that to make a direct charge on users rather than to have costs recovered out of general revenue might in economic terms be regarded as anti-inflationary. Accordingly we shall forgo the introduction of such new and increased fees at this time, on the understanding that this decision is taken in the context of the general price restraint program to which I have referred and may be subject to review in the light of developments relating to that program.
To make clear the significance of this decision I should explain that we had planned an extensive list of new or increased charges over a wide range of services, from which the expected increase in revenue was estimated at some $45 million for 1970-71. Prominent among these were the air transportation tax, on which the House was informed on Monday of our decision not to proceed at this time and on which anticipated revenue was estimated at $20 million. Another major item was an increase in certain postal rates, from which $17 million had been expected. Lesser but still important items included a variety of fees for inspection of weighing devices, gas and electricity meters and so on at $2.9 million, fees for testing cattle, plants, meat and similar items at about $1.3 million, and national park and historic site fees and land rentals at about $1.5 million.
In summary, therefore, we have decided as part of our response to the general call for restraint to forgo economically justifiable increases in fees and charges on non-commercial services to the public, at a loss of some $45 million in expected revenue, and to subject the commercial operations under our direct control to the guidelines established for private business. These measures, together with the spending restraints already indicated and such tax measures as may soon be made known, will demonstrate, I think, that we take with the utmost seriousness the problem of inflation and the need for restraint. I am confident in the light of the very useful discussion of these matters at the recent conference that the provinces likewise will respond to the situation and fulfil their responsibilities in the same manner.
21701-26^
Federal-Provincial Conference
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
Finally, the actions of governments, important though they are in relation to this problem, cannot succeed without the active support of the public at large and a willingness on the part of various private sectors of the economy to play their part. It is surely now apparent to all that inflation must be controlled and that the widest participation in this effort will be needed; hence I am confident that the lead established by the senior levels of government at this week's conference will command a broadly based support. Through such a general effort we can hope, without undue delay and with a minimum of dislocation, to bring inflation under control and to move toward an acceleration of soundly based growth and expansion.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, we have listened with great interest to what the right hon. gentleman has had to say. We thank him, of course, for his courtesy in making available to us the heavy documentation upon which the statement is based.
Turning to some of the matters which the right hon. gentleman raised, as far as agriculture is concerned I need only say that we on this side of the House have been endeavouring to the best of our ability for a long time to provide suggestions to the government as to ways and means of dealing with the situation. The conclusion at which the government seems to have arrived, as indicated by the Prime Minister, is that the position in the west is very difficult and that the consequences affect every area of Canada. This is the essence of what we have been saying for a long time. I am sure that no matter what the provincial premiers from the west may have suggested, their proposals will come within the ambit of those which have been made time and time again on this side of the House in the form of amendments, questions and statements. It is safe to say that no matter what solutions the premiers may have put forward-you name it, and we have already proposed it from this side of the House-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: -with a lamentable lack of response from the government side. My hope, now, is that the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister without Portfolio who speaks for the Wheat Board will be impressed by what the premiers have had to say and will now pay a little more attention to our views on this issue.
February 18. 1970

Federal-Provincial Conference
As to pollution, I need only say that this issue is before the House at the present time. It is being considered by a committee of the House and in due course the House will again have the opportunity to discuss it. We have made our views known, and at the appropriate time amendments may be moved on behalf of this party.
As to the extremely important problem of inflation, the questions to be dealt with here are of such fundamental importance as to make it essential that we place a moratorium as far as possible on any partisan or political approach. I am sure all of us-and I speak for everyone in our party and, I believe, for all the people of Canada-hope and pray that an effective solution may be found for dealing with the two grim spectres of rising unemployment and rising prices which threaten us today. It is not good enough simply to say that the rise in prices and unemployment is not as sharp now as it has been in the past. I think of the old household saw that you feed a cold and starve a fever. One might apply this to the body politic in Canada which today is suffering from the two very serious problems I have just mentioned. The government is now engaged in a highly dangerous and delicate manoeuvre-it is trying to starve one and feed the other at the same time.
The Prime Minister spoke at a press conference about the totality of all the governing powers of Canada being concentrated at the meetings which were held in the last two days. It seems to me that this hinted at the fact that with these powers gathered together there should be the capacity and ability to deal with these problems.
Just a word of warning here. The governing power, in reality, is the people of Canada. It is in the highly volatile expression of their social habits, their spending attitudes and the state of mind of the 21 million people in Canada, to say nothing of the millions more outside Canada with whom we deal, that there is to be found the real factors which Will provide the essential help in the difficulties that we face. Jawboning, no matter how high the level, will not by itself bring down either unemployment or the cost of living.
In any event, the Canadian people are also represented in their totality as consumers and as taxpayers by the members of this House and also by the members of the ten provincial legislatures. I think-I say this in a non-partisan way-we must feel free to challenge and to scrutinize the various proposals that are

brought in from time to time, supporting those that are wise and good and rejecting those that are faulty.
Here, as in the recent meeting of industrial leaders of Canada called to deal with the problem of price stability, it would seem that the proposals and suggestions are vague, are conditional, and are couched, in many instances in the most fuzzy generalizations. Those who looked east for wise men to produce decisive and meaningful leadership looked in vain on all these counts.
Then we must consider the impact and the serious consequences which may result in doing damage to the very useful work that is being performed by the Tax Structure Committee. This committee at the current meeting produced figures showing that a very substantial increase in government spending was projected for the next two or three years. This included particularly, as the Prime Minister said, joint programs dealing with education and health and welfare items. We must bear in mind that some of these were initiated and foisted upon provincial governments by Ottawa, and from the viewpoint of equity this surely has to be taken into calculation by the federal government.
When the Prime Minister says no to suggestions by the provincial governments that Ottawa should assist here and should make available additional revenues, is it not likely that he is endangering the usefulness of this committee that is charged with working out arrangements as to priorities, to say nothing of the very abrasive situation which is bound to be created with those provincial governments that are so vitally concerned? When the Prime Minister says no and suggests that the provincial governments must either tax or reduce their own expenditures, he fails to mention that the provinces have not available to them the far wider and more useful tax sources, such as the hidden, indirect taxes which can be exercised only from Ottawa. When the Prime Minister talks to provincial leaders of curbing inflation by cutting down expenditures and/or increasing taxes, and in almost the same breath talks of implementing the proposals contained in the white paper on taxation, some of which are of a very iniquitous nature and certainly contain a very dangerous element of increased taxation and inflation, he is guilty either of colossal ignorance of the effect of these proposals or of consummate hypocrisy-and he can take his choice.
February 18, 1970	COMMONS
Many other questions may be asked and I am sure will be asked in the future, questions that are essential and must properly be asked in the discharge of our duties in this House and in the country. For example, where does the question of labour come in? The Prime Minister talked of reducing certain user fees, which I believe amount to an infinitesimal fraction of one per cent of spending. He should bear in mind that on the same day the Minister of Transport announced the reorganization of his department. This announcement included the statement by the minister that there would be increased user charges to pay for certain costs incurred in connection with departmental services.
We are also interested in knowing something about the type of sanctions that are being mentioned. Are they sanctions which can be applied in an equitable way? What form will they take? How effective and efficient will they be?
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
I conclude with one solemn note of warning to the government. The unemployment that is being created by the application of certain types of government policy is of the crudest and most uncivilized type because it involves to a large extent those who are at the bottom of the economic totem pole. The hard core of the poor and the disadvantaged, the dispossessed people, those who almost permanently inhabit the land of poverty, the suffering, the deprivation and the social breakdown which will accompany this method of dealing with inflation will have repercussions which will be experienced for many years to come.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's statement demonstrates that the government is playing out to its final conclusion the fiasco of its anti-inflationary policies. Members of this party have warned the government repeatedly that they were confusing symptoms with the disease and that in attempting to deal with inflation on a shotgun basis they were going to create even more problems than the one they were seeking to solve. We have contended repeatedly that it was an over-simplification to suggest that the economic difficulties in this country were due to too much money chasing too few goods. We pointed out repeatedly to the government that this country suffered from a maldistribution of income and from a misallocation of its human, material and financial resources. We have pointed out that a blunt axe approach to
DEBATES	3731
Federal-Provincial Conference the problem would only create unemployment and economic slowdown. Instead, the government has proceeded with its over-all program of fiscal and monetary restraint.
In spite of the warning of the Economic Council of Canada as to what might result, we now find that without having any appreciable effect on the rising cost of living this country is facing a slowdown in the rate of economic growth, is facing increased unemployment, and in western Canada an economic condition which is worse than anything we have seen since the 1930's. It is all right for the Prime Minister to say that he is prepared to put up with 6 per cent unemployment in this farcical fight against inflation, but that is not much consolation for the man who is unemployed. The Prime Minister should get a slogan which should be: "Help fight inflation by losing your job."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You did it twice.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am glad to see that the Prime Minister at least has been convinced that there are very serious economic conditions in western Canada. I am glad that he did not try to tell the premiers of the provinces that the farmers were well off because some of them were riding on tractors that cost $20,000.
The Prime Minister's statement today indicates, as the government has done in the past, that the entire burden of fighting inflation is to be placed upon the public sector of our economy. It is the governments which are to cut expenditures. It is the governments which are to reduce their services. It is the governments which are to curtail projects. But no word is mentioned about any curtailment of investment in the private sector, in promotion and advertising, in luxury accommodation and in other projects than can be postponed.
The Prime Minister's statement gives us no information as to what this conference decided with respect to trying to stop rising prices. We have been told repeatedly in the last few weeks when we asked questions that this matter would be dealt with at the federal-provincial conference. But it is perfectly apparent from the statement made today that the government does not intend to deal effectively with price increases. We understand that the consumer credit question has been set aside, and that the provinces have agreed to use what persuasion they can to prevent rent increases.
February 18, 1970

Federal-Provincial Conference
With reference to price increases, we have no indication whether or not there will be sanctions, whether the Prices and Incomes Commission is to have any teeth to prevent price increases. As a matter of fact, the guidelines that were issued by the Prices and Incomes Commission at the Price Stability Conference indicated that industries and corporations were to inform the commission with respect to price increases but not necessarily in advance of the price increases being put into effect. What does that mean? It means that what we are really witnessing is an attempt at profit maintenance. Many of these industries have raised their prices several times in the last few months. Many of these prices had already resulted in exorbitant profiteering. Now some of the industries are saying that they are prepared to hold the line. It is rather like the old lion who has eaten his fill of meat and who says to the young lions, "Let us go on a vegetarian diet". It is perfectly clear that the government has no intention of having the Prices and Incomes Commission review prices publicly so that the public will know who has been pilfering the consumers' pockets; they have no intention of giving the commission the necessary teeth not only to stop price increases but to roll back those price increases that are unjustified.
Finally, may I say that the Prime Minister's statement and the report of the Tax Structure Committee make it perfectly clear that the policies being pursued by this government are rapidly destroying national unity. The Tax Structure Committee has shown that the federal government will have continuing surpluses and that the provinces and the municipalities will have continuing deficits. Yet the Prime Minister says in his statement that the provinces have made it clear that they intend to make every effort to balance their budgets. If they are going to balance their budgets, the only way they can do it is to curtail services and to cut back on necessary projects such as hospitals, schools and old people's homes. Some of the provinces have already indicated their intention of opting out of joint federal-provincial programs, particularly in the fields of health and welfare. Some of them may have no choice. If they have to cut their expenditures, they may not be able to pay their share of the joint programs, and the Prime Minister's statement today offers them no consolation whatsoever.
National unity in this country does not depend only on linguistic equality. National unity also requires equality of opportunity to enjoy basic social welfare, health and

educational services. The course which this government is pursuing is going to make it increasingly difficult for the provinces that are less well off to provide these services for their people. It is ironic that if the Prime Minister, who was elected on a one-Canada program, continues his present policy he will go down in history as having contributed more than any other Prime Minister to the disintegration of Confederation.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to point out that I deplore not having received a copy in French of the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). This might be because of the gov-erment's anti-inflation program.
According to the Prime Minister, the conference just ended was a real success. It was with interest that I listened to him on the CBC television network yesterday, giving a lecture on the distribution of tax fields between the federal and the provincial governments, which he concluded by saying that his attitude was indeed logical and that this was a truly efficient anti-inflation policy.
Let us ask ourselves the following question: To what success was the Prime Minister referring?
In reading the two and a half pages of French in the statement handed to us a minute before this sitting began, I note what sort of success the Prime Minister may have had in mind. Here it is:
According to the report, the revenue-expenditure projections indicate a continuing surplus for the federal government, but an increasing deficit at the provincial-municipal level.
In the opinion of the Prime Minister this is success. In any case, if there is a budget surplus at the expense of the provinces and municipalities, it does not matter to him. The essential thing is to achieve some success. This is, therefore, the kind of success that is looked for. But how can this budget surplus be explained? The Prime Minister shows us on the third page of his statement.
But I think it was realistically accepted-
According to the Prime Minister, success is on a par with realistic acceptance.
-it was realistically accepted-
He is referring to the provinces.
__that we cannot reduce our taxes in favour of
the provinces, spend more to meet many worthy needs and achieve an anfl-inflationary budget surplus all at one and the same time.
February 18, 1970	COMMONS
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
This is the second part of the Prime Minister's argument to explain the success of the conference. He concludes by proving that he is right, that he is the eternal light, the eternal truth and that provinces come to Ottawa only to hear a course in economics given unilaterally, there is no need to say. And he says in conclusion:
Nevertheless, conditions do change, and I indicated that when we are successful in getting inflation under control, secure the co-operation of the provinces in holding down the costs of joint programs, and complete the reform of the income tax, we will be able to look carefully at the problem of adjusting fiscal resources between levels of government.
In my opinion, that conference may have been a success for the Prime Minister, because he fell for no compromise and he kept the same approach from the be. inning to the end, neither yielding nor listening.
However, the conference was surely a source of dissatisfaction and frustration for the provinces. After all, the situation will only deteriorate because the three conditions laid down by the federal government for its co-opera ion with the provinces are unacceptable in view of the present monetary and economic situation.
When the Prime Minister states that the first condition for that co-operation is to strangle infla ion, he knows quite well that these steps are not able to check inflation, and that besides increasing it, they will bring about a serious recession.
Secondly, when he says that he will get the co-operation of the provinces, the Prime Minister should recognize ihat co-operation mast be a two-way proposition, and that the Canadian confederation is only viable to the extent that there is co-operation and a dialogue in which both parties are in earnest.
Thirdly, a review of the tax system is inconceivable unless we first review our monetary system. To talk plain common sense, as the Prime Minister says, he will agree with me that if there was no money there would be no taxation. So, instead of dealing with taxation, bickering for control, why should the Prime Minister and his cabinet not call a responsible federal-provincial conference lo discuss a comprehensive monetary reform in Canada, to harness money to the service of the human person, to restore control of money and credit to the Canadian government?
Mr. Speaker, we, in the Ralliement credi-tiste, insist that the monetary policy is the main reason of the present economical crisis
DEBATES	3733
Main Estimates 1970-71 since it directly unbalances the production capabilities and consumption. The anti-inflation measures of the government will have the effect-and the Prime Minister is now quite aware of it even if he finds it very funny-of reducing the buying power of the taxpayers and of increasing unemployment and, consequently, of making richer the richest and poorer the poorest. Here is then the government's just society, here the success the government brags about.
Before completing my remarks, I want to state clearly the position of the Ralliement creditiste. We dissociate ourselves from the policy advocated by the New Democratic Party, to wit, that we should take away from the rich to give to the poor. For our part, we submit that our monetary system should serve the country, and to this aim, the value of our currency should be based on real production, on the real value of our goods, and that our monetary policy should set a constant balance between the production forces and those of consumption, so that production may actually reach its goal, which is consumption. Otherwise, we produce for the sake of production, we only flounder while under the system, and in such a way that the federal government, with its great common sense, will remain omnipotent, in the pay of high financial circles, and the provincial governments will continue to be considered as municipal governments by the federal administration.
Mr. Speaker, all problems are connected and so long as we have not come to grips with the real source of the most serious of them all, that is, the monetary problem, we shall find no solution whatsoever. This is the reason why we state that while we go from the Grits to the Tories and from the Tories to the Grits, the situation remains the same.



MAIN ESTIMATES 1970-71 REFERENCE OF VOTES TO STANDING COMMITTEES

Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the main estimates 1970-71 and pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 59 I move, seconded by Mr. Laing:
That the estimates of sums required for the service of Canada for the year ending March 31, 1971 be referred to the several Standing Committees of 'the House as follows:


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Dispense.

February 18, 1970
Main Estimates 1970-71 Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale): Perhaps, since copies of this document have been given to representatives of the parties, I might have consent to have it printed as though it had been read.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the document referred to by the President of the Privy Council be taken as read?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The balance of the motion follows:]
To the Standing Committee on Agriculture: Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 relating to the Department of Agriculture
Vote 30 relating to the Canadian Dairy Commission
Votes 35 and 40 relating to the Canadian Livestock Feed Board
Vote 45 relating to the Farm Credit Corporation To the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts:
Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40 relating to the Department of the Secretary of State Vote 45 relating to the Canada Council Votes 50 and L55 relating to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Vote 60 relating to the Canadian Radio-Television Commission
Vote 70 relating to the Company of Young Canadians
Vote 75 relating to the National Arts Centre Corporation
Vote 80 relating to the National Film Board Vote 85 relating to the National Library Vote 90 relating to the National Museum of Canada
Vote 95 relating to the Public Archives Vote 20 relating to the Official Languages Commission
To the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence:
Votes 1, 5 and 10 relating to the Department of External Affairs
Votes 15, 20 and L25 relating to the Canadian International Development Agency
Vote 30 relating to the International Joint Commission
Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 relating to the Department of National Defence
Vote 35 relating to Defence Construction (1951) Limited
To the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs:
Votes 1, 5 and 10 relating to the Department of Finance
Votes 1, 5, L10, L15, 20 and 25 relating to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce
Votes 1 and 5 relating to the Department of National Revenue
Vote 10 relating to the Tax Appeal Board 
Vote 25 relating to the Economic Council of Canada
Vote 25 relating to the Tariff Board To the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry :
Votes 1, 5, 10 and 15 relating to the Department of Fisheries and Forestry To the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs:
Votes 10 and L15 relating to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 relating to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40 relating to the Department of National Health and Welfare Votes 45 and 50 relating to the Prices and Incomes Commission
To the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development:
Votes 1, 5, 10, L15, L20, 25, 30, 35, L40, L45, L50, L55, L60, 65, 70 and 75 relating to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Vote L80 relating to Northern Canada Power Commission
Vote L85 relating to Northern Transportation Company Limited
To the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs
Vote 1 relating to the Department of Justice Vote 1 relating to the Department of the Solicitor General
Votes 5, 10 and 15 relating to the Correctional Services
Votes 20 and 25 relating to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
To the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration:
Vote 1 relating to the Department of Labour Vote 5 relating to the Unemployment Insurance Commission
Votes 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20 relating to the Department of Manpower and Immigration Vote 25 relating to the Immigration Appeal Board To the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates:
Vote 15 relating to the Auditor General
Vote 1 relating to the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors
Votes 1 and 5 relating to the Privy Council Vote 35 relating to the Science Council of Canada
Vote 30 relating to the Public Service Staff Relations Board
Vote 100 relating to the Public Service Commission
Votes 1, 5 and 10 relating to the Department of Supply and Services
Vote 15 relating to Canadian Arsenals Limited Vote 20 relating to the Canadian Commercial Corporation
Votes 1, 5 and 10 relating to the Treasury Board Votes 15, 20 and 25 relating to the National Research Council
Vote 20 relating to the Department of Insurance
February 18, 1970	COMMONS
Vote 30 relating to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics
Vote 25 relating to Information Canada
To the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works
Votes 1, 5, L10, 15, 20 and 25 relating to the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources
Votes 30 and 35 relating to the Atomic Energy Control Board
Votes 40, 45, L50, L55, L60 and L65 relating to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
Vote 70 relating to the Dominion Coal Board
Vote 80 relating to the National Energy Board
Votes 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 relating to the Department of Public Works
Vote L75 relating to Eldorado Nuclear Limited
To the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections:
Vote 65 relating to the Chief Electoral Officer
To the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization:
Vote 1 relating to the Senate
Vote 5 relating to the House of Commons
Vote 10 relating to the Library of Parliament
To the Standing Committee on Regional Development:
Votes 1, 5, 10, L15, L20, L25 and L30 relating to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion
Votes 40, 45 and L50 relating to the National Capital Commission
Vote 35 relating to the Cape Breton Development Corporation
To the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications:
Votes 1, 5, 10, L15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40 and L45 relating to the Department of Transport
Vote 50 relating to the Canadian National Railways
Votes 55 and 60 relating to the Canadian Transportation Commission
Votes 65, 70, 75 and L80 relating to the National Harbours Board
Votes 85, L90 and 95 relating to the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority
Votes 1 and 5 relating to the Department of Communications
Votes 10 and 15 relating to the Post Office
To the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs:
Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, L25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50 and L55 relating to the Department of Veterans Affairs


Mr. Speaker:: It has been moved that the estimates to which the minister has referred be referred to certain committees. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
DEBATES	3735
Main Estimates 1970-71
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the applause was for the farmers, not only for the member for Bellechasse.
As member for Bellechasse and member of the Catholic Farmers' Union and the union of industrial milk producers, it is my duty to present the petition of the 25,000 industrial milk producers of Quebec asking for an emergency debate in the House concerning the government's dairy policy. Therefore, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and in conformity with Standing Order 67 (2), I file the said petition.


Mr. Speaker:: I should remind the hon. member that under the provisions of Standing Order 67 he is not allowed to start a debate at this stage. He may only file the petition in question, as he just did in accordance with Standing Orders.



SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ANIMALS PROTECTION BILL


[Stage Direction]
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway. moved for leave to introduce Bill C-189, foi the protection and humane treatment of animals used in scientific research.
Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mrs. Maclnnis:: Mr. Speaker, this bill is intended to support and emphasize the purposes of Bill C-94, standing in the name of the hon. member for Victoria. Its purpose is to provide legislative machinery to assure humane treatment for live animals used in scientific research for which grants are provided by the government of Canada. It is the intent of this bill to cover all phases of protection for animals used in such research, including general policy, the conditions in which animals are kept while on the premises, and the sources of supply where such animals are purchased.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
February 18. 1970
Questions

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

Mr. Skoberg: 1. For the fiscal years 1968-69 and 1969-70, what specific research studies have been undertaken by the Research Division of the Canadian Transport Commission?
2.	Who are the individuals involved in these studies, and when is it anticipated that these studies will be completed?


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. During the fiscal years 1968/69 and 1969/70, the following studies were undertaken by the Research Division of the Canadian Transport Commission in consultation with o.her federal government departments, where appropriate.
Fiscal year	Study	Estimated comple.ion date1969/70	1. A survey of the travel pattern and the significant demands and characteristics of the travelling public on certain important interci.y routes.	Completed1968/69 1969/70	2. The impact of new transport technology on these intercity routes.	April 1970 (First phase)1969/70 1970/71	3. To determine the role of Containerization in Canada and the needs for facili.ies.	Spring 19711969/70	4. A survey of air transport facilities in the North.	April 19701969/70	5. The most economical means of resupplying Arc'ic bases.	February 19701969/70	6. An examination of the transportation needs of the Gaspe and adjacent areas in light of the FRED/ARDA agreement for development of the Gaspe, Lower St. Lawrence, and Magdalen Islands.	March 19701969/70	7. Computer programmes to facilitate the development of an optimal investment pattern for transportation.	Completed1969/70	8. Feasibility of a deep water Atlantic port.	April 19701969/70 1970/71	9. A research programme into the transportation of grain in support of the Grains Policy Group.	First project will be completed April 19701969/70 1970/71 and beyond	10. Design of a transportation information data bank in conjunction with the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and other departments.	Development over several years1969/70 1970/71	11. A case for establishing a Canadian Merchant Marine.	April 19701969/70	12. A review of the long-term research needs in guided ground transport.	Spring 19701969/70	13. The development of technological forecasting techniques.	Completed1969/70	14. A preliminary investigation of the technological impedances affecting the introduction of STOL.	Completed1969/70	15. The potential use of capsule pipelining in Canada.	June 1970

February 18, 1970



In addition to these specific research studies, a large amount of research work of a more general nature has been undertaken to provide a background for the more extensive work program now being planned.
2.	The foregoing studies were undertaken either by consultants or by staff of the Research Division of the Canadian Transport Commission, under the direction of the VicePresident (Research).
The following is a list of the consultants used in the research program:
Study No. 2
Part of this study was conducted by Deleuw, Cather and Associates.
Study No. 3
This study is being undertaken by the Matson Research Corporation, heading a consortium of Canadian consultants composed of Hedlin, Menzies and Associates Ltd., Swan Wooster Engineering Co. Ltd., and Stikeman, Elliott, Yamaki, Mercier & Robb.
Study No. 6
Parts of the study were contracted to La Societe Lalonde, Valois, Lamarre, Valois & Associes.
Study No. 11
This study was contracted to Hedlin, Menzies and Associates Ltd., George G. Sharp, Inc., and Gibson Transportation, Ltd.


YARMOUTH, N.S.-AIR CANADA FACILITIES
Mr. Comeau: 1.	Does the Department of Transport have plans for the removal of Air Canada facilities at Yarmouth, N.S. and, if so, on what date will they be implemented?
2.	Will a similar service be provided by some other airline?
3.	Have moneys budgeted over the past two years, for the construction of new terminal facilities been cancelled and, if so, what amounts, and for what purpose have they been designated?
4.	Has business declined or increased at Yarmouth Airport over the past five years and what statistics prove this?
5.	Is the government considering the removal of Air Canada services at other airports and, if so, which ones wiU be affected?


Gérard Loiselle: 1 and 2. The
question of transfer of any domestic point currently served by Air Canada to any other
Questions
carrier was covered by a statement made on August 15, 1969, on Regional Air Carrier Policy. That statement indicated that the Canadian Transport Commission and its Air Transport Committee would determine which routes are suitable for the Regional Carriers. As also pointed out in that statement, the application of the policy by the Canadian Transport Commission will be conducted in consultation with Mainline and Regional Carriers.
3.	Moneys were budgeted in 1968-69 in the amount of $200,000 for a new Air Terminal Building at Yarmouth. Construction of the Air Terminal at Yarmouth was delayed until an assessment of the future of Yarmouth could be made by the Canadian Transport Commission.
The $200,000 budgeted in 1968-69 was used to construct an Operations Building at Yarmouth at a cost of $141,000. Additional funds were provided for runway repairs at Yarmouth amounting to $125,000.
4.	Statistics indicating the total of enplaned and deplaned passengers at Yarmouth Airport over the past five years is as follows: 1963, 17,000; 1964, 16,700; 1965, 18,800; 1968, 20,700; 1967, 23,400; 1968, 26,900.
5.	It will be appreciated that a number of complex problems have to be resolved. Until this is done no announcement can be made regarding the future of any of the points that may be transferred.


RADIO ENGINEERING PRODUCTS, CAMPBELLTON. N.B.
Mr. Burton: 1.	What was the amount of financial assistance given to Radio Engineering Products, Campbellton, New Brunswick, by the Departments of Defence Production, Industry, Regional Economic Expansion and Industry, Trade and Commerce for each year since assistance was first granted?
2.	What was the amount of assistance given through the Defence Industry Productivity Program known as DIP for each year since assistance was first granted and in what form and on what basis was assistance given?
3.	What does Radio Engineering Products manufacture, where are their products sold and what is the value of sales for each year it has received a federal subsidy?
4.	What was the minimum wage paid to its female employees in 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969?
5.	What was the minimum wage paid to its male employees in 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969?

February 18, 1970
Questions


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary formed by the Departments of Industry, Trade to President of the Privy Council):: I am in- and Commerce and Labour as follows:
1.	Department	YearFormer Dept,	of Defence	Production 1961Former Dept,	of Industry	1966Former Dept,	of Industry	1967Industry, Trade and Commerce	1968
*Responsibility transferred to former Department of Industry in 1964.
2.	Assistance provided through the Defence Industry Productivity Program was $521,270 for the year 1968. The assistance was provided under the terms and conditions of the program to sustain technological capability in Canadian industry by supporting selected defence development programs on terms and conditions approved by the Treasury Board.
3.	Radio Engineering Products Ltd. is engaged in the manufacture of multiplex communication equipment designed to permit multi-telephone and teleprinter channels to be carried simultaneously over a single radio path.
The bulk of company sales have been to allied countries and include: Mobile NATO communication centres in Europe; communications for military forces of U.S.A., Sweden, Australia and New Zealand; installation of an early NASA missile tracking system at Cape Kennedy.
The value of sales made by Radio Engineering Products Ltd. for the years during which financial assistance by the Crown has been provided is as follows:
Year	Value of Sales
1961	$11,270,000
1966	2,480,000
1967	3,230,000
1968	16,560,000
4 and 5. We are informed that the same minimum rates apply to both male and female employees: 1966-90 cents per hour, increasing to 98 cents after five months. 1967-$1 per hour, increasing to $1.09 after five months. 1968-$1.08 per hour, increasing to $1.18 after five months. 1969-$1.17 per hour, increasing to $1.27 after five months.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS AND PAYMENTS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What has been the total contributions received by the Unemployment Insurance Commission from the Employer-Employee Contributions since the inception of the scheme until December 31, 1968? 
Amount	Program
$450,000 Defence Development Sharing* 330,868 Defence Development Sharing 191,863 Defence Development Sharing 521,270 Defence Industry Productivity
2.	What has been the total payment made from the plan since its inception until December 31, 1968, for those who normally qualify?
3.	What has been the total paid out for those who qualified under the special provision for supplementary payments, during the same period from the commencement of the plan until December 31, 1963?
4.	What has been the total net payment from the federal government to the plan since the commencement until December 31, 1968?
5.	What is the breakdown of the government payments?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: 1.	$5,144,285,426.20.
2.	Total regular benefit payments, $5,015,481,848.56.
3.	Seasonal benefit, $1,051,785,622.59.
4.	$1,027,165,679.18.
5.	An amount equal to & of the employees' and employers' contributions.


FRENCH VERSION OF BILLS-REPLACEMENT OF WORD &quot;BILL&quot;
Mr. Fortin: Does the government intend to replace the word "bill'' by the expressions "projet de loi" or "proposition de loi" in the French version of bills presented by the government or by Private Members?


Yves Forest: In the
Standing Orders of the House of Commons the French wording of "bill" is "bill". It would be necessary to change the Standing Orders of the House of Commons in order to adopt the wording "projet de loi".


DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND FORESTRY EMPLOYEE DISMISSALS
Mr. Dumont: 1.	How many employees in the Department of Fisheries and Forestry have been dismissed because of the austerity programme?
2.	Of this number, how many were bilingual?
3.	How many spoke only English?
4.	How many spoke only French?
February 18, 1970


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: 1.
None. However, 137 employees have been advised that they are surplus and that they have been reported to the Public Service Commission for reassignment. Of this number, four are bilingual, 120 speak English only and 13 speak French only.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	Not applicable.


BEDFORD BASIN POLLUTION STUDY
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Was a study, carried out within the Department of Fisheries and Forestry concerning pollution in the Bedford Basin, made available to the City of Halifax?
2.	Was the study made available to the Government of Nova Scotia or any department thereof?
3.	Who carried out the study and who decided on the distribution of it?
4.	To whom was the study distributed?


Eugene Whelan: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Fisheries Research Board, Marine Ecology Laboratory, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia.
4.	The studies were part of a continuing program to describe physical and biological oceanographic changes in Bedford Basin. Two reports were issued, the first being FRB Technical Report No. 120 which was distributed to a rather wide and standard mailing list; the second was distributed to the Regional Director of the Fisheries Service and on request to consultants for the City of Halifax and to the Nova Scotia Water Resources Commission.


DEATH OF CREW MEMBERS, HMCS &quot;BONAVENTURE''
Mr. McCleave: 1.	What was the cause of death of four crew members of HMCS Bonaventure late in 1969?
2.	Were the victims cleaning out an aviation fuel tank at the time?
3.	Did they have special equipment at hand in the event of accident, and specifically, was any harness and was any gas mask at hand?
4.	What was the rank of the senior man at the scene and what orders did he give when the accident began to develop?
5.	What instructions are given to personnel with regard to (a) going into such tanks for cleaning
Questions
operations (b) coping with accidents in which people are apparently overcome by fumes in the tanks?
6.	If instructions were given in accordance with Part 5 (b), were they disregarded and, if so, for what reason?
7.	(a) Has an inquiry been held into the cause of the fatalities and what were the conclusions and findings (b) what action will follow as a result of such inquiry?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: 1. Asphyxiation resulting from the inhalation of aviation gasoline fumes.
2.	Two of the victims had been involved in the cleaning of an aviation gasoline tank. The other two victims had entered the tank in a rescue attempt.
3.	Due to the internal configuration of the saddle tank there are no clear passageways where lifelines and harnesses may safely be employed. The standard breathing apparatus normally available during the tank cleaning process was being used by another party in the after tanks where it was considered there was an aviation gasoline fume hazard. As a result there was no special equipment on hand in the saddle tank at the time of the incident.
4.	The rank of the senior man at the scene when the first man became affected by the gas fumes was a Master Seaman. When he became aware that one of the two men working in the tank below him was in difficulty he made his way down into the tank and through a series of bays to reach the affected man. With the assistance of the other man who had been working in the tank, he attempted to move the affected man from the immediate area by pulling him through a hole to an adjoining bay and toward an exit ladder. Because of the confined space and the fact that the affected man was nearly unconscious the rescue attempt was ineffective. During the rescue attempt, the Master Seaman had himself become affected by the fumes and realizing that help was required, left the tank to obtain aid.
5.	Basic safety regulations for the venting and cleaning of aviation gasoline tanks are prescribed in service regulations. Copies are available in the Air Engineering Office and in the Avgas Party Ready Room aboard the carrier. These are required to be read and understood by personnel dealing with aviation gasoline. These regulations include instructions regarding the testing of the atmosphere prior to entry, the wearing of breathing apparatus until the atmosphere is

February 18, 1970
Questions
proven safe, the wearing of protective clothing, procedure to be followed and equipment on hand to cope with the rescue of personnel who get into difficulties in the tank.
6.	On this occasion no briefings were given prior to the personnel entering the tanks concerning the toxic effect of aviation gasoline fumes or on procedures for dealing with the rescue of personnel who might be overcome by fumes.
7.	(a) Yes, a Service Board Inquiry has been held. It was the opinion of the Board that the personnel in question died on duty and that they were not to blame for their own deaths. Among the Board's recommendations were that all personnel concerned with the aviation fuels be given a special course in the Fleet School as a prerequisite for such employment. The Board considered that more emphasis must be placed upon the training of personnel employed in the handling of aviation gasoline on the dangerous nature of the product with which they are dealing, and the extremely serious consequences which are likely to occur if the regulations are not adhered to; and that in future, gas freeing of high octaine aviation fuel storages be carried out using other available, safer and more effective venting and cleaning procedures; (b) Action is being taken to implement the recommendations of the Board of Inquiry.


OTTAWA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT-TAXI CONTRACT
Mr. Dumont: 1.	For how many years has the contract been awarded to Red Line Taxi Company for limousine service at the Ottawa International Airport?
2.	What was the amount of this contract?


Gérard Loiselle: 1. In 1947 Red Line Taxi entered into an agreement with the Department for ground transportation at Uplands Airport. Prior to this they operated by an arrangement with Air Canada (TCA).
The original agreement was superseded by a contract in 1952. In 1964 a new five year contract was negotiated. This contract terminated in December 1968 and was renewed on a year to year basis.
2.	1947-1964 at 10 per cent of the gross revenue. 1964-1968 at 10 per cent of the gross revenue from the limousine service plus 20

cents per occupied taxi departure from the Air Terminal Building. 1969- 5 per cent of the gross revenue from the limousine service plus 15 cents per occupied taxi departure from the Air Terminal Building.


BRITISH COLUMBIA-INDIAN AFFAIRS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT EMPLOYEES
Mr. Nesbitf: 1.	How many community development officers or community development workers were on the staff of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in British Columbia as of November 30, 1969?
2.	How many community development officers or community development workers were on the staff of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in British Columbia as of November 30, 1968?
3.	Is it the policy of the Department to reduce the number of community development officers or community development workers employed by the Department in British Columbia and, if so, is that for reasons of austerity or if for other reasons, what are they?
4.	Has the Department received communications from spokesmen of the Indian people in British Columbia to the effect that there is a need for more community development workers in British Columbia and, if so, from whom have these complaints come and what was the response in each case?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. Twelve.
2.	Fourteen.
3.	No.
4.	Yes, from Mr. Simon J. Reece, Chairman, North Coast District Council. The reply stated that there were no cutbacks in community development services in British Columbia although reassignment to different communities based on need did occur. Mr. Reece was assured in the letter that any community's request for the services of a community development worker would be given every consideration.


LAC SAINT-JEAN, QUE.-PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS
Mr. Lessard (Lac-Saint-: Jean):
1.	What projects have been carried out by the Department of Public Works in the constituency of Lac Saint-Jean during 1968-69 and 1969-70 to date, and what was the cost of each?
2.	How many projects will be completed or begun between now and the end of the current fiscal year in the constituency of Lac Saint-Jean?
February 18, 1970

Questions

Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public
1.	Fiscal Year Location
1968- 69	Alma
Alma
Boulanger
Desbiens
Dalmas
Delisle
Hebertville
Hebertville Station
Lac Sainte Croix
Langlais
Milot
Metabetchouan Peribonca Saint Ambroise Saint Gedeon Saint Gedeon Belle Riviere Saint Leon Sainte Monique Saint Nazaire Taillon
1969- 70	Alma
Bale Moise
Boulanger
Dalmas
Delisle
Desbiens
Hebertville
Hebertville
Hebertville Station
Lac Sainte Croix
Lac Sainte Croix
Langlais
Metabetchouan
Milot
Milot
Peribonca
Peribonca
Peribonca
St. Ambroise
St. Gedeon Belle Riviere
St. Gedeon
St. Gedeon des lies
St. Leon
Ste. Monique
St. Nazaire
Taillon
Works):
Cost
Project	$
Federal Building-Maintenance	28,001.
Canada Manpower Centre-
Maintenance	10,738.
Post Office-Maintenance	1,221.
Post Office-Maintenance	1,550.
Post Office-Maintenance	842.
Post Office-Maintenance	1,779.
Post Office-Maintenance	2,361.
Post Office-Maintenance	2,107.
Post Office-Maintenance	574.
Post Office-Maintenance	1,465.
Post Office-Maintenance	853.
Post Office-Maintenance	2,388.
Post Office-Maintenance	1,266.
Post Office-Maintenance	1,611.
Post Office-Maintenance	747.
Wharf reconstruction Post Office-Maintenance Post Office-Maintenance Post Office-Maintenance Post Office-Maintenance
Federal Building-Maintenance
Improvements to wharf approach
Post Office-Maintenance
Post Office-Maintenance
Post Office-Ground improvements
Post Office-Maintenance
Post Office-Maintenance
Post Office-Ground improvements
Post Office-Maintenance
Post Office-Ground improvements
Post Office-Maintenance
Post Office-Maintenance
Post Office-Maintenance
Post Office-Maintenance
Post Office-Ground improvements
Post Office-Maintenance
Post Office-Ground improvements
Wharf repairs
Post Office-Maintenance
Slip repairs
Post Office-Maintenance Access road to wharf Post Office-Maintenance Post Office-Maintenance Post Office-Maintenance Post Office-Maintenance
5,352.
1,092.
811.
1,452.
921.
13,268.
5,002.
1,826.
686.
3,015.
2,553.
2,008.
4,773.97
1,094.
1,320.
1,125.
1,534.
2,239.
498.
1,600.
992.
1,608.
350.
1,845.
2,375.
1,038.
4,243.
1,666.
995.
1,270.
492.
2.	Works to be completed before March 31, Location Delisle Desbiens Ste. Monique
1970.
Project
Slip and wharf repairs Slip repairs Slip repairs
Cost
1,012.
2,000.
1,400.
Questions

February 18, 1970


PARRSBORO, N.S.-CONSTRUCTION OF NEW POST OFFICE
Mr. Coales: 1.	On what date will tenders be called for the construction of a new post office at Parrsboro, N.S.?
2.	Where will the temporary post office be located at Parrsboro during the period of construction of the new post office?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1. March 1970.
2. Parrsboro Elementary School Auditorium.


RESTORATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCES BUILDING
Mr. Rondeau: 1.	How many tenders were received for the restoration of the Constitutional Conferences Building?
2.	What were the amounts?
3.	Who was given the job?
4.	What was the amount of the successful tender?
5.	On what date were tenders called?


Arthur Laing: 1. Five selected contractors were invited to submit tenders quoting a lump sum fee for carrying out the work on a management basis. This type of contract was used as it was the only way in which the work could be completed in the time available.
3.	(a) Post Office
Mosher Island Round Bay
Glen Haven French Village Rockland Voglers Cove Glen Margaret Hacketts Cove Indian Harbour Pleasantfield
Molega Martins Point Northfield
2.	Tender on
Contractor	Management	Fee
The Foundation Company of
Canada Ltd.	$20,000.
Thomas Fuller Construction
Co. (1958) Ltd.	23,750.
L'Abbe Construction Ltd.	33,333.
Richard and B. A. Ryan Ltd.	35,777.
C. A. Johannsen & Sons Ltd.	43,500.
3.	The contract was awarded to the Foundation Company of Canada Limited.
4.	The Foundation Company of Canada will be paid a management fee of $20,000. plus the actual cost of completing the work. This firm's accounts are being audited at present and the final cost has not been established. The final contract amount including fee will be about $659,000.
5.	Tenders were called on August 12, 1969. [English]


SOUTH SHORE CONSTITUENCY-CLOSURE OF POST OFFICES
Mr. Crouse: 1.	How many post offices have been closed in the constituency of South Shore since June 25, 1968?
2.	How many additional offices does the Post Office Department intend to close?
3.	What are the names of the localities where post offices have already been closed and what are the names of the localities where future closures will take place?
4.	What alternative service was provided to these patrons of the Post Office Department?
5.	How many localities have had their mail deliveries cut from six to three days per week?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: 3. (b) Birchtown, Broad Cove, Cherry Hill, East Port Medway, East Side Port-Hebert, Gunning Cove, Indian Point, Kempt, North East Harbour, Port Clyde, Port Saxon, Robinsons Corner, Roseway, Carleton Village, New Grafton, St. Catherines River, and West La Have.
Questions


EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS TO PROVINCES
Mr. Forest: How much has each province received annually in equalization payments since their inauguration following agreements between the federal and provincial governments?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: The
equalization payments to the provinces since their inauguration in fiscal year 1957-58 are set out in the following table.
5. None.

THE EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS TO THE PROVINCES (in thousand of dollars)
Fiscal Year	Nfld.	P.E.I.	N.S.	N.B.	Que.	Ont.	Man.	Sask.	Alta.	B.C.	Total1. 1957-58	*	11,579	2,955	17,375	8,645	43,060	-	13,932	19,197	14,744	4,491	135,9782. 1958-59	$	12,155	3,074	15,575	8,651	55,004	-	12,889	19,862	7,991	8,237	143,4383. 1959-60	?	14,292	3,005	20,665	16,864	68,631	-	12,981	20,180	15,109	11,258	182,9854. 1960-61	$	15,391	3,454	21,019	17,416	70,365	-	14,104	23,723	17,511	5,926	188,9095. 1961-62	S	11,194	2,811	18,172	16,006	62,632	-	11,933	21,222	14,862	5,902	164,7346. 1962-63	$	13,517	3,073	19,529	15,514	77,755	-	15,212	27,646	8,107	-3,710	176,6437. 1963-64	$	14,985	3,821	19,051	16,479	70,216	-	13,625	22,404	6,837	-	167,4188. 1964-65	
$	18,373	5,464	26,200	22,925	103,142	-	21,578	24,055	4,818	-	226,5559. 1965-66	
$	22,163	6,033	35,519	35,696	125,192	-	25,342	26,676	492	-2,102	275,01110. 1966-67	$	29,007	7,243	41,561	35,141	155,529	-	32,648	34,289	293	-196	335,51511, 1967-68	
$	65,169	13,602	70,562	62,188	229,411	-	41,040	21,885	1,551	-	505,40812. 1968-69	
$	72,745	14,247	83,577	74,904	284,004	-	40,413	18,829	-	-	588,71913. 1969-70 estimated	
$	85,920	16,734	91,279	83,347	361,469	-	41,922	10,495	184	-	691,350
u*
3744	COMMONS DEBATES	February 18,
Questions
February 18. 1970


NOVA SCOTIA-WHARF REPAIRS
Mr. Muir (Cape Brefon-: The Sydneys):
1.	What repairs are to be carried out by the Department of Public Works to the wharf at (a) Point Edward (b) Sydney, Nova Scotia?
2.	When will such repairs be completed and what is the estimated cost of same?


Arthur Laing: 1. (a) Point Edward, Nova Scotia, repairs to Main Jetty, (b) Sydney, Nova Scotia, repairs of two overhead doors at warehouse, repair leads in roof of warehouse, repairs to floor of warehouse, paving.
2. The paving and repairs to warehouse floor should be completed by August 1970. All other repairs should be completed by February 1970. The estimated cost of repairs is $28,550.


SIMULTANEOUS TRANSLATION
Mr. Coates: 1.	Were changes effected in the Exchequer Court and Supreme Court of Canada that would allow for a simultaneous translation in either the English or French language and, if so, what was the cost of carrying out the changes in question?
2.	How many additional translators have been employed by the federal government since the passage of the Official Languages Bill for employment with the Exchequer Court and Supreme Court of Canada?
3.	What will be the cost to the federal treasury In a full year for the additional translators who will be employed by the two courts?


Yves Forest: 1. Yes. Interpretation booths, wiring, etc., were installed in the four court rooms at a total cost of $29,160.
2.	Pending approval by Treasury Board of a Legal and Judicial Branch within the Translation Bureau, seven translators with legal training (as distinct from interpreters) have been detached from the Bureau's other programs to the Supreme Court and the Exchequer Court.
3.	Assuming that the Bureau's program is approved and the positions involved classified and filled, the initial cost to the Federal Treasury of the 10 additional translator positions and the four support staff positions which are recommended for the two courts, will be between $143,938 (minimum salaries) and $165,224 (maximum salaries) plus an estimated $10,000 for equipment, supplies, etc.
Questions


EXTENSION OF AIRSTRIP, GREENFIELD, N.S.
Mr. Crouse: Is it the intention of the federal government to assist in financing the extension of an air strip being developed at Greenfield, Queens County, Nova Scotia, from the planned 3,000 feet to 4,000 feet and, if so, (a) what amount of funds will be set aside for this extension (b) when will these funds be made available?


Gérard Loiselle: No.


FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO ROYAL SOCIETY
Mr. Broadbent: Does the Royal Society of Canada receive financial assistance from the Canada Council and the National Research Council and, if so, for each of the last ten fiscal years, what are the amounts of this financial assistance?


Yves Forest: National Research Council of Canada
	$
1960-61	17,000
1961-62	17,000
1962-63	17,000
1963-64	17,000
1964-65	17,000
1965-66	17,000
1966-67	17,000
1967-68	17,000
1968-69	17,000
1969-70	17,000
Canada Council
1960-61 $10,000 per year for activities in the to social sciences and humanities
1968-	69
1969-	70 $15,000 for activities in the social
sciences and humanities, and $2,700 for the publication of volumes II and III of La Civilisation au Canada frangais, a series of studies edited by Professor Leopold Lamontagne.


&quot;BONAVENTURE&quot; ACCIDENT INQUIRY
Mr. MacLean: Has the board of inquiry into the case of the accident on board of aircraft carrier Bonaventure on December 3, 1969, completed its investigation and, if so, what were the findings of the board of inquiry?


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Attention is directed to reply given this day to Question No. 824 by Mr. McCleave (Halifax-East Hants).

February 18, 1970
Questions


UNREDEEMED PERPETUAL BONDS ISSUED IN 1936
Mr. Crouse: What is the amount of outstanding unredeemed Perpetual Bonds as issued by the federal government at a 3 percent interest rate in 1936?


Edgar John Benson: See question No. 960 which was answered on February 9, 1970.


CASH DEPOSITS IN CHARTERED BANKS
Mr. Mather: What is the approximate total amount of cash deposits in current and other non-interest bearing accounts in the chartered banks?


Edgar John Benson: Current deposits of the public payable on demand in Canadian currency at chartered banks on December 31, 1969 were $7,036,909,000. There were also deposits by Canada, provincial governments and other banks, payable in Canadian currency, an unknown part of which would be non-interest bearing.


HURON CONSTITUENCY-CONSTRUCTION OF FEDERAL BUILDINGS
Mr. McKinley: Is the government planning for the construction of any new federal buildings in the constituency of Huron during the period January 1, 1970 to March 31, 1971 and. if so, what will be the purpose of the new buildings and where will they be located?


Arthur Laing: No.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Borrie: 1.	Has the government undertaken or will it undertake meetings with the Government of British Columbia and the Government of the United States to ascertain (a) respective participation in preparing the Alaska Highway for paving (b) the respective participation in paving the Alaska Highway?
2.	What was the traffic count on the Alaska Highway in the years 1960 to 1969 inclusive for the following sections (a) Dawson Creek-Fort St. John, B.C. (b) Fort St. John-Fort Nelson, B.C. (c) Fort Nelson, B.C.-Watson Lake, Yukon Territory (d) Watson Lake-Whitehorse, Yukon Territory (e) Whitehorse-Yukon, Alaska Border?
3.	What was the cost of maintaining the Alaska Highway from Dawson Creek, B.C., to the Yukon, Alaska Border in the years 1950 to 1969 inclusive?

4.	In what year was maintenance of the Alaska Highway put to public tender?
Return tabled.


EXPENDITURES FOR OVERTIME WORK
Mr. Barneli: 1.	For each month, from January 1, 1969 to September 30, 1969, what have been the expenditures for regular civil servants working on an overtime basis for each federal government department?
2.	Is it anticipated that there will be significant federal government expenditures for overtime work this fiscal year due to the current freeze on civil service hirings?
Return tabled.


UNIONS IN CANADA
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many unions are there in Canada, what are their names and how many people belong to each union?
2.	How many unions in Canada are affiliated with American unions and how many people belong to each union so affiliated?
3.	How many international unions are represented in Canada, what are their names, where is the head office of each and how many Canadians belong to such unions?
4.	How much money is paid by Canadians to international unions, where does the money go, how is it used and what benefits are derived by Canadians as a result of such payment?
Return tabled.


AVERAGE ANNUAL SALARY
Mr. Fortin: 1.	What is the average annual salary in Canada?
2.	How many people in Canada earn less than $3,000?
3.	What measures will the government take to fight poverty in Canada?
Return tabled.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 POST OFFICE MONTREAL POSTAL DISPUTE

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the
February 18, 1970


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has given the Chair the required notice under Standing Order 26. I must inform hon. members of the concern and uncertainty which I feel about the motion brought in by the hon. member.
On the other hand, I do not think that I can leave out of consideration the virtual commitment I gave the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and hon. members, when I suggested that before that question could be examined by the House, it would be advisable to wait for the results of talks between the minister and the labour representatives. It seems that those talks were not successful or fruitful as it could have been expected. Under the circumstances, and in view, as I said, of the position which I ventured to take yesterday, when the motion was brought in by the Leader of the Opposition, I think, even with my misgivings and concern about that matter, that I should put the motion to the House.
And having come to this decision, I am asking the House if the hon. member for Peace River has leave to introduce the motion in order that the matter mentioned by him earlier may be discussed.

Has the hon. member for Peace River leave to move the motion for the purpose of discussing the matter stated by him? Agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The proposed motion shall stand over until 8 p.m. this day.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 183, 184, 185, 222, 224, 227, 235, 287, 295, 298, 321, 326 and 341 are acceptable to the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Notices of Motions Nos. 183, 184, 185,
Motions for Papers
222, 224, 227, 235, 287, 295, 297, 298, 321, 326 and 341 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PUBLIC ATTITUDES TOWARD HOUSING

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 183-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report prepared for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in 1966, regarding a survey of public attitudes towards housing, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the past Session.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 184-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report undertaken for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in 1967 regarding the development of an advertising policy for CMHC, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the past Session.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 185-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study prepared for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in 1968 to explore the best ways in which television could be used by CMHC as an advertising medium, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the past Session.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 222-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report on the development of policy and programs for dairy industry undertaken for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in the fiscal year 1967-68, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the past Session.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 224-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study of Barriers to Manpower Mobility undertaken for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in the fiscal year 1967-68, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the past Session.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
February 18, 1970
Motions for Papers

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 227-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report on evaluation criteria, ARDA and FRED and computer programs undertaken for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in the fiscal year 1968-69, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the past Session.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 235-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by Woods, Gordon and Company undertaken for the Department of Fisheries and Forestry on organizational study related to the administrative service requirements in the Forestry branch, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the past Session.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 287-Mr. Rose:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence between the Department of Communications and Mr. Finlay MacDonald, President of CJCH Limited of Halifax regarding Maritime Telephone and Telegraph Company and financial costs related to microwave transmission.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 295-Mr. Burion:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Government of Canada and the governments of the provinces concerning the agenda of the Constitutional Conference commenced in Ottawa on December 8, 1969, and a further list of any other proposals made by any of the provinces for inclusion on the agenda which are not contained in the exchange of correspondence.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 297-Mr. Gleave:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence between the Department of Agriculture and organizations receiving financial grants from the Department for the fiscal year 1969-70.
Motion agreed to.

Motion No. 298-Mr. McQuaid:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence since January 1, 1967 between the Government of Canada or any department thereof and the Government of Prince Edward Island or any department thereof regarding the improvement of jail facilities within the Province of Prince Edward Island.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 321-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report undertaken for the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs by Operations Research Incorporated as mentioned in answer to Question Number 2,452 of the past Session.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 326-Mr. McCleave:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the report prepared within the Department of Fisheries and Forestry concerning pollution of the Bedford Basin.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 341-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of a list of (a) each post office in Saskatchewan which has been closed since January 1, 1967 and, in each case (i) the date on which the post office was closed	(ii)	the number of patrons	listed	forthe post office	at the date of closing	(iii)	therevenue for the post office in the last calendar year prior to closure (iv) the total expenses incurred by the Post Office Department in operating the post office	for	the last calendar year	prior toclosure (v)	the	alternate service provided for	the
patrons of the post office closed and the cost of providing alternate service (vi) whether there were objections from local residents to the closure and what form these objections took (b) 71 post offices recently reported to have been slated for closure since February 1967, but where a decision has been made to continue operation (c) 47 post offices which are reportedly going to be closed in the next few months (d) 197 post offices reportedly under study for closure (e) the 10 marginal operations reported to be under further review.
Motion agreed to.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions Nos. 329, 333, 359, 363, 364 and 366 are acceptable to the government subject to the usual
February 18, 1970

conditions as regards confidential documents and to the approval of the government authorities concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that notices of motions Nos. 329, 333, 359, 363, 364 and 366 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



OIL EXPLORATION INCENTIVES AND CHARGES

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 329-Mr. Sallsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study undertaken in the oil and gas section of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development regarding the incentives and charges for oil exploration and development rights in Northern Canada.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 333-Mr. Carter:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Government of Canada or any of its representatives and the Government of the Province of Newfoundland, relating to the establishment of the Electric Reduction Company's Plant in Long Harbour, Newfoundland.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 359-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government or any agency or department thereof and the Government of the Province of British Columbia since January 1, 1964 relating to the matter of a road connection between Port Simpson B.C. and Prince Rupert, B.C.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 363-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government or any agency or department
Motions for Papers
thereof and any other person, government (including the Stoney Creek Indian people in British Columbia) since January 1, 1964 relating to a water system for the said Indian people.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 364-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government or any agency or department thereof and any other person, government (including the Stoney Creek Indian people in British Columbia) since January 1, 1964 relating to a community hall for the said Indian people.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 366-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government or any agency or department thereof and any other person, government (including the Stoney Creek Indian people in British Columbia) since January 1, 1964 relating to the sale of gravel of the said Indian people.
Motion agreed to.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, would you kindly call notices of motions Nos. 134, 135, 197, 217, 219, 223, 225, 226, 234, 265, 272, 296, 300, 302, 316 and 317?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the other notices of motions be allowed to stand.



MONTREAL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT- MURRAY HILL FRANCHISE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 134-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence received by the Government of Canada regarding Murray Hill Company and its franchise at the Montreal International Airport.
Gérard Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, this motion is acceptable to the government provided the hon. member accepts the correspondence exchanged between October 1968 and October 1969.


Mr. Howard (Skeena):: Agreed.

February 18, 1970
Motions for Papers


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary, is it the pleasure of the house that notice of motion No. 134 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 135-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do Issue for copies of all agreements or arrangements and correspondence between the Government of Canada and Air Terminal Transport Limited regarding transportation from the Toronto International Airport.
Gérard Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, the reservations and conditions that I have just expressed with regard to notice of motion No. 134 also apply to notice of motion No. 135.


Frank Howard: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary, is it the pleasure of this House that notice Of motion No. 135 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 197-Mr. Rose:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence between the Department of Fisheries and Forestry and pulp mills in British Columbia regarding the pollution of B.C. waters and the pollution guidelines of the Department.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



CANADIAN TEXTILE INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 217-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by Gherzi Textile Organization on the Canadian textile industry undertaken for the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce in the fiscal year 1966-67, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the past Session.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce wishes to inform the member that this study is of a confidential nature, the release of which would be detrimental to the future relationship between the department, the consultant and the industry concerned. In view of this, the minister would ask the member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Skoberg:: I call for a vote, Mr. Speaker.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



COMPARATIVE CONSTRUCTION COSTS OF CHEMICAL PLANTS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 219-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by Chemical Construction Corporation on comparative construction costs of chemical plants undertaken for the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce in the fiscal year 1967-68, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the past Session.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce wishes to inform the hon. member that this study is based largely on information which was received in confidence by the consultant from Canadian industry and, moreover, that there is an agreement between the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce not to disclose this information. In view of this, the minister would ask the member to withdraw his motion.


John Leroy Skoberg: I call for a vote.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre'
Information Canada!



NORTHEAST NEW BRUNSWICK

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 223-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the research consultant's report on Northeast New Brunswick, undertaken for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in the fiscal year 196768, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the past Session.
Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the study referred
February 18. 1970

to was commissioned as a working document, intended only for internal use. As such, it is considered confidential and not for publication. I wonder if the hon. member would agree to withdrawing his motion.


John Leroy Skoberg: I agree, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: What?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Information Canada!


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservation expressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, this motion is withdrawn.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



MARGINAL DAIRY FARMING

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 225-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the feasibility study on marginal dairy farming undertaken for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in the fiscal year 1967-68, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the past Session.
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, the study referred to was commissioned as a working document, intended only for internal use. As such, it is considered confidential and not for publication. I wonder if the hon. member would agree to withdrawing his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Information Canada!


John Leroy Skoberg: I will accept that.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



INDIAN SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 226-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study on Indian social development undertaken for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in the fiscal year 1968-69, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the past Session.
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, the study referred to was commissioned as a working document, intended only for internal use. As such, it is considered confidential and not for publication. I wonder if the hon. member would agree to withdrawing his motion.
Motions for Papers


John Leroy Skoberg: Not on this one, Mr. Speaker. I call for a vote.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



ADMINISTRATION OF FRED PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 234-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report on the administration of the FRED program undertaken for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in the fiscal year 1967-68, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the past Session.
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, there is no specific study which relates to this particular contract; the services of Mr. Pearson were retained for general advice on FRED administration problems. I would therefore request that the hon. member withdraw his motion.


An hon. Member:: Which Pearson?


John Leroy Skoberg: If there is no study then I cannot obtain any information, Mr. Speaker.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



INCOMES AND PRICES CONTROLS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 265-Mr. Salisman:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence between the Government of Canada and the provincial governments regarding incomes or prices controls as referred to by the Prime Minister and reported in Hansard on page 1001, November 19, 1969.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, to the date that this notice of motion was received, there had not been any exchange of correspondence between the government of Canada and the provincial governments on the matter of incomes or prices controls.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


Yves Forest: In view of this, I therefore ask the member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Saltsman:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.

February 18, 1970
Motions for Papers



GULF OF GEORGIA OIL DRILLING COST-BENEFIT STUDY

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 272-Mr. Rose:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the cost-benefit study undertaken in the Department of Fisheries and Forestry regarding drilling for oil in the Gulf of Georgia as mentioned by the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



SHIPMENT OF POTASH TO U.S.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 296-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Government of Canada and potash companies or their representatives concerning trade and prices of potash shipped from Saskatchewan to the United States.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the departments concerned that the correspondence in question deals largely with the anti-dumping investigation conducted by the United States Tariff Commission. This correspondence contains information on the prices and quantities of potash shipments, that was supplied by the producers, and accepted by the government on a confidential basis. Therefore, it would not be in the public interest to dislcose this correspondence and it is hoped that the member would withdraw his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Information Canada!


Mr. Burton:: I cannot agree with that, Mr. Speaker, and I would ask that the vote be taken.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



REPORT ON ATTITUDES OF INDIAN PEOPLE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 300-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do Issue for a copy of the report on attitudes of Indian people based mainly on a visit to the Six Nations Reserve on July 16, 1969, submitted to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development by Berger, Tis-dal, Clark and Lesley Ltd., as referred to on page 6 of the quarterly report on public relations activity, June, July, August, 1969 by the said Berger, Tisdall, Clark and Lesley Ltd.
Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. 
member from Skeena is asking for a report which in fact is a 500-word personal letter written by a contact employee to a departmental employee. The writer specifically requested that the confidentiality of the letter be respected. Under the circumstances I would ask that the hon. member withdraw this motion.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, there is a lot more than that behind this particular item. This report was referred to in a quarterly report by a public relations firm which the taxpayer paid for and I think it should be produced.


Mr. Speaker:: I assume the hon. member wants it transferred for debate.


Frank Howard: No, I do not want it transferred for debate, Mr. Speaker.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


Gerald William Baldwin: You should have a minister of concealment over there.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We have not named him yet.



EFFECTS ON CANADA OF BRITISH ENTRY INTO ECM

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 302-Mr. Saltsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the information provided by the Government of Canada to the Government of Great Britain regarding the effects on Canadian interests as a result of the British entry into the Common Market as mentioned by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in Hansard of December 9, 1969 on page 1738.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce wishes to inform the hon. member that the government is in a continuing process of communication with the United Kingdom about the possible effects on Canadian trade if the United Kingdom were to become a member of the EEC. In the context of negotiations which have yet to commence, the hon. member will appreciate that it would be contrary to the Canadian interest to make public the information which has been provided in confidence to the British authorities. Accordingly, the minister would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.
February 18. 1970	COMMONS DEBATES	3753


Max Saltsman: Agreed, to be pursued in committee when the estimates appear.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



REPORT FOR DEPT. OF FISHERIES AND FORESTRY BY AIC-WINSPEAR DOANE LIMITED

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 316-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by AlC-Winspear Doane Limited, undertaken for the Department of Fisheries and Forestry as mentioned in answer to Question number 2,452 of the past Session.
Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the subject matter covered by this motion has been discussed with the hon. member and that he is prepared to withdraw the motion, in view of the fact that the information he requests will be provided in response to motion 317.


John Leroy Skoberg: In view of the co-operative manner of this department, Mr. Speaker, I agree.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



REPORT FOR DEPT. OF FISHERIES AND FORESTRY BY INBUCON SERVICES LIMITED

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 317-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by Inbucon Services Limited undertaken for the Department of Fisheries and Forestry as mentioned in answer to Question Number 2,452 of the past Session.
Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, this study project was financed jointly by the governent of Canada and the government of Newfoundland. It contained detailed analyses of vessel and plant costs and of the financial position of firms engaged in the frozen groundfish industry in Newfoundland. This aspect of the report could not be tabled since it includes detailed information on the financial posi ion of individual companies. However, the consultants did prepare a separate, more general report in which references to individual firms and their operations were eliminated. The government is prepared to table this part of the report subject to receiving consent from the government of Newfoundland.


John Leroy Skoberg: I agree, until I see the rest of the report.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by Parliamentary Secretary the motion is adopted.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Stanley Howard Knowles: Information Canada!


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motion stand? The hon. member for Skeena.


Frank Howard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there is a misuse and abuse of the rules on the part of the government members seeking to prevent effectively a vote in most cases and even a discussion of the subject matter of these various motions for papers. Already on the Order Paper for debate under the item which comes up on alternate Thursdays there are 50 such notices of motions listed, and to them will be added the ones transferred today. In fact, the first three set down for consideration during the hour available on Thursday were transferred on November 19, almost three months ago to the day; tomorrow it will be three months. I think the misuse of this particular section of the rules which prevents information being given by the government to the public should be looked at. I submit the rules are being abused. Some alternative method must be discovered. Perhaps there ought to be a short debate about the need for providing the information. These matters ought not to be permitted to be swept under the rug in the current fashion.


Mr. Speaker:: The point raised by the hon. member has been raised in the past. Following a brief discussion in the House, it was agreed by representatives of the parties that the whole matter of private members' motions, resolutions and private bills might be considered in due course, and perhaps at an early date, by the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. I believe there is a move afoot among representatives of the parties to have the matter considered. I assume that the representations which have been made by the hon. member for Skeena will be taken into account.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-lings):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Now that the government has completed its meetings with the premiers
February 18, 1970


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we have frequent meetings with important economic groups, to use the hon. member's expression. We have them throughout the year.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I will make my question a little clearer. Does the government take the attitude that any anti-inflation program can be successful without the active co-operation of the organized labour movement?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Do members of the government, and the Prime Minister in particular, plan to have meetings with the leaders of organized labour and make a personal appeal to them for that active co-operation which is vitally important to the success of the government's anti-inflation program?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the first part of the question, Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. We do not take that position. On the contrary, we think that the fight against inflation cannot be won without the active support of all sections of the community, and particularly the working sector of the community known as organized labour. Replying to the second part of the question, I may say that the whole cabinet will be meeting with the two main labour organizations in the country in some weeks to come. They have asked to meet cabinet, to present their views on the economic situation and other matters.


George Harris Hees: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the statement yesterday by the executive vice-president of the Canadian Labour Congress that the government's proposals are far too vague to be taken seriously, does the Prime Minister consider that waiting for a number of weeks before having a general meeting, which governments have each year with our labour bodies, is satisfactory? Would he also advise the House-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps before the hon. member asks a further supplementary question I might suggest to him that the

supplementary question he has just addressed to the Prime Minister is argumentative. I recognize that he has a further supplementary to ask and he will be allowed to ask it.


George Harris Hees: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, Your Honour knows I try never to be argumentative. May I direct another supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Was the possible application of sanctions against those who do not comply with the guidelines that were agreed to at the meeting with management a week ago discussed at the meetings that took place during the past two days? If so, is any action planned in this regard by the federal and provincial governments?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would consult the communique which was tabled earlier, he would see what recommendations made by the Prices and Incomes Commission to governments were considered and generally agreed to by the members present at the federal-provincial conference. One of the subjects referred to at the conference was sanctions.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Prime Minister if the government plans to take any action in this regard?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As a result of the conference held between the Prime Minister and provincial premiers, did the Prime Minister ask provincial governments to join with the federal government in concurrent action in order to give the Prices and Incomes Commission the necessary power to impose sanctions? If so, what was the nature of those sanctions and what reply did the Prime Minister receive from the provincial premiers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there was no indication at any time to my knowledge that the Prices and Incomes Commission should be empowered to impose sanctions. Sanctions, if they come, will come from the governments which represent the people. They will come from either the federal or provincial governments.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister to what sanctions he asked the provincial governments to commit their respective jurisdictions. What response has he received from the provincial premiers in this regard?
February 18. 1970	COMMONS


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the members of the commission discussed with the provinces, as they did with the federal government, the kinds of sanctions which could be applied. In looking into our arsenal, we have found that there are lots of sanctions available and we agreed to use whatever sanctions would be needed in cases where they had to be called into play. But as far as the provinces are concerned, I have no knowledge of the promises they might have made to the commission. They did agree that they would use the sanctions which were required in particular cases.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What sanctions has the federal government committed itself to applying in the event that prices rise by a greater amount than costs during the year?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, we do not say in advance what gun we shall shoot at what target until we know what the target is that must be shot at. The Minister of Finance and I have given various examples in the past as to the kinds of sanctions which could be used: the use of the government's procurement policy; the use of the tariff; the use of governmental discretion in allocating funds to industries which are embarked upon research with federal help, and so on. All these sanctions are available to us. We cannot say, in answer to a theoretical smile, what sanctions will be called into play until we know the problem which has to be solved.



INFLATION-EFFECT OF QUEBEC BORROWING IN LONDON AND EUROPE

Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
As far as the control of inflation is concerned, does the Prime Minister think that loans being negotiated by Quebec in London and on the European markets will result in Canada in huge amounts of money being put in circulation, as if this money were created by the Canadian banks, thus contributing to higher inflationary pressures?


Mr. Speaker:: I feel the hon. member is inviting the Prime Minister to express an opinion. The question as asked is out of order.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
DEBATES	3755
Inquiries of the Ministry
Has the Prime Minister offered to the provinces an alternative scheme enabling them to borrow money on the world market, as they are doing now, but at an interest rate lower than the prevailing one which is a serious cause of inflation?
Did the Prime Minister suggest a solution to the provinces about loans?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, because we are creating budget surpluses and not putting ourselves into the position of having to negotiate loans, we have given provinces and municipalities a solution, leaving them an open field when they want to borrow money.



CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and has to do with observations he made yesterday in connection with the Manhattan to the effect that it is free to go in and through the northern waters of the Arctic archipelago and that if it needs the assistance of the Canadian government that assistance will be freely given. Can the minister say whether Russian ships, no matter whether they are engaged in business of any kind or trade or are warships or ships undertaking obviously peaceful purposes, will be permitted to go through our northern waters without the permission of the government of Canada?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this is the most hypothetical question I have ever been asked in my career.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing hypothetical about the dangers to this country if northern Canada is opened in the way it is now being opened.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



FINANCE


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Will the minister explain to the
February 18, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry House whether the provinces requested the services of the President of the Treasury Board to assist them in trimming costs of various shared-cost programs, and whether his job will be that of an adviser or will he carry stronger and more persuasive powers?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, there is general agreement between the provinces and federal government that one should do what one can in order to have these programs operate as efficiently as possible. We pay half the cost and they pay half the cost. What the President of the Treasury Board will be doing is consulting with the provinces and looking at methods for controlling costs in these programs, in the same way as there have been consultations, for example, between our Minister of National Health and Welfare and the various provincial ministers of health and welfare.


William Gordon Ritchie: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of Premier Robarts' statement that Ontario might have to consider dropping some shared-cost programs, will the President of the Treasury Board be authorized to give advice on the best way this could be done?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether this question is in order.



SUGGESTED REMOVAL OF SALES TAX ON MARGARINE

Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. A few days ago during questions on Orders of the Day the Minister of Finance indicated that consideration was being given by his department to the request of consumer groups which are urging that the 12 per cent federal sales tax be removed from margarine. Would the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs confer with his colleague on this anti-inflationary move?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether the question as asked is in order. The hon. member is simply suggesting that one minister communicate with another. In this sense, it is a representation and the hon. member must assume it has been noted.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Following the latest federal-provincial conference, does the government still intend to intervene directly in fields within provincial jurisdiction should the provinces fail to adapt their legislation to that of the federal government with regard to the preservation of water, for instance?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it would be impossible to intervene within fields out of our jurisdiction since the constitution prohibits it.



TRANSPORT


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to direct my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, but in view of his prolonged absence from the House I will direct it to the Minister of Transport. In view of the anticipated second journey of the supertanker Manhattan through the Northwest Passage, how many estimated tons of fuel oil will she be required to carry to safely ensure her passage on this long, dangerous, slow-moving and time-consuming voyage?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, after a few days with my sliderule I will let the hon. member know.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: In view of the minister's answer, I suggest that he inquire how much it took the last time. I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister require the Manhattan to fly the Canadian flag while travelling through our waters, unlike the last time?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
February 18, 1970



DRAFTING OF REGULATIONS COVERING INNOCENT PASSAGE THROUGH TERRITORIAL WATERS

Gerald William Baldwin: I wish to ask the Minister of Transport if he is now engaged in considering the drafting of regulations to cover innocent passage through what are Canadian territorial waters, as Canada is entitled to do, under the international conventions?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I think the question might more properly be directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs as I believe it involves-


Gerald William Baldwin: We can't get anywhere with him.



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: My
question is for the Secretary of State. In view of the five major appointments at the director level or higher already this year in his department, will the minister please advise whether the recent appointment of Mr. Bernard Ostry as Under-Secretary of State has finally filled all the blanks in his department?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I think the minister was about to rise. I have a supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: I thought I saw a blank look on the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: thought it was a blank question, Mr. Speaker. The answer is no.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: If the minister thinks it is a blank question he may not think the supplementary is so blank. He may think it more blunt. Is there any relationship between the new responsibilities of the Under-Secretary of State within the minister's department and his past part authorship of the brief to set up Information Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is a blunt question.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: You look very blank.

Inquiries of the Ministry BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE



SUPPLEMENTARY PENSIONS BENEFITS BILL

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as Government House Leader. On February 6, in response to a question of mine, the minister indicated that the supplementary pensions benefits bill would be available for first reading in the week of February 16, and that is this week. In view of the fact that no notice of that bill is yet on the Order Paper and that notice must be given today if it is to be given first reading this week, can the minister inform us if that will be done?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Certain drafting problems have been encountered with regard to the bill. I am afraid there will not be a notice given this week.


Stanley Howard Knowles: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister now assure us that it will be before the House next week?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I hate to create any expectations I could not meet next week.



AIR CANADA


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
In view of the intention of the government to turn Air Canada into a Crown corporation entirely independent from the Canadian National Railways, can the minister tell us whether this gesture means that, in the near future, individuals or private interest groups will be able to purchase Air Canada shares and to control this corporation?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, Mr. Speaker, there is no such intention.



TRANSPORT


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Grey):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the tremendous increase in the sale
3758	COMMONS DEBATES	February 18, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
and use of snowmobiles in Canada, and the Mr. Honey: I am not prepared to answer tremendous increase in accidents that are that question, Mr. Speaker. I shall have to caused by these machines, is the minister or take it as notice and give a definite answer his department preparing regulations with tomorrow, regard to safety features that could be incorporated in these machines?	CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. A number of features are being studied at the moment to see whether, under the proposed bill now before the House, we can introduce these safety measures at the manufacturing stage.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. A. C. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. He is not here very often and the Parliamentary Secretary has been carrying on. Possibly he might answer this question. In the light of a recent statement by a Saskatchewan agricultural expert that there could be twice as many acres of Saskatchewan Indian reserves under cultivation as there are at present, has the minister or any member of his department taken steps to speed up the development of farm management training programs for Indians?


Russell Clayton Honey: Mr. Speaker, the minister has been here every day. Today, he is in Quebec city speaking with his counterpart there with reference to national parks in that province. To answer the hon. member's question, Mr. Speaker, this is part of the economic upgrading program for the Indian people.


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister asked for any guarantees that this type of program will be continued, if and when the new Indian policy he proposes comes into effect?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the question is much too general in terms and slightly hypothetical.


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: Mr. Speaker, I think it should be answered at this time. It is very important and urgent. What further plans are being made by the government for reduction of the acreage put into wheat this crop year on land that has been under cultivation in former years?



SALE OF GASOLINE BY OCTANE RATING

Max Saltsman: I should like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to a proposal by the United States federal trade commission that gasoline be sold by octane ratings clearly listed at filling station pumps? If so, is it his intention to consider similar action in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know how urgent this question may be. I would think it could easily be placed on the Order Paper.



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: My
question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that fishing off Greenland by Danish fishermen is resulting in the wholesale destruction of Atlantic salmon spawned in North America, will the minister consider making representations to the Danish government urging that controls be placed on the Danish fleet before Atlantic salmon stocks are completely destroyed?


Mitchell William Sharp: I understand the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry has been particularly concerned about this matter and has been making representations in various places. I am sure that if this is a problem he will be doing so.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A supplementary question to the Minister of Fisheries, then. Since Norway and Britain have also accused Denmark of sabotaging international fishing conventions drawn up to protect the Atlantic salmon, will the minister take up this matter at the international level and request that a maximum quota be placed on salmon taken off Greenland?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: We have taken up this question at the international level and all but two countries have agreed on abstention, as the hon.
February 18, 1970

member probably knows. I am not aware that the British and the Norwegian governments have made public protests as yet, but perhaps they may be driven to it-as we may be as well.



POLLUTION


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: have a question for the Prime Minister arising from the discussion on pollution which took place at the federal-provincial conference. Would the Prime Minister advise the House in what manner the government intends to place before the parliamentary committee the various opinions which were expressed at the conference so that the committee might be up to date?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Perhaps I should deal with that inquiry. There is a motion on the Order Paper in the name of my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The conference having been held, it might be appropriate to arrange, after discussion with the opposition House leaders, that the question be put some time next week or shortly after so that action could be taken.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I was referring particularly to the discussions on pollution and the Canada Water bill. The President of the Privy Council did not refer to this aspect. We are vitally concerned because the committee is considering this very bill, which was the subject of discussion at the conference.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As far as the government is concerned, the minister pledged to meet with the premiers who wanted to have further discussions on this subject, either personally or through his officials, and to consider further proposals for changes or amendments which had been made. He will consider which would be the best way of bringing such amendments before the committee, or before the House, if necessary. As far as the provincial positions are concerned-I have no authority over the committee, of course-the committee might wish to seize itself, if it thinks fit, of copies of the provincial briefs, which have been made public.
3759
Inquiries of the Ministry TRANSPORT



MARITIMES-EFFECT ON SAFETY OF REDUCTION OF RAILWAY MAINTENANCE-OF-WAY EMPLOYEES

Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: May I direct this question to the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker? He may wish to take it as notice. Has the hon. gentleman received communications from the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, division 586, and the United Transportation Union, Local 500, asking that he investigate the effect on the safety factor which could result from cutting the number of maintenance-of-way employees in the maritime area by 50 per cent? If so, will he look into this serious situation?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I do not recall having received these communications, but I will look into it and reply later.



DEPARTMENTAL REORGANIZATION-ASSURANCE RESPECTING STAFF LAY-OFFS

Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancas-ter):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport relating to his staff and his reorganization plans. Will he give an assurance to the House that, as a result of these changes to be made in the department, there will be no staff reductions, or, at least that he will not take the opportunity to bring about serious lay-offs among the staff of the National Harbours Board, Air Canada and the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority? Will he give this definite assurance here and now in view of the apprehension-


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


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I think it is anticipated that there will be some personnel changes of a minor nature but I believe I can provide the assurance for which the hon. member is looking.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Can
the minister allay the fears of certain employees, such as the employees on the seaway, who believe they will become civil servants and lose some of their collective bargaining rights together with some of their present status as employees of a Crown corporation as a result of the contemplated reorganization?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I indicated yesterday that the status of the seaway will remain virtually
February 18, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry as it is. Consequently, I see no reason why the changes to which the hon. member has alluded should take place.



DEPARTMENTAL REORGANIZATION-POSSIBLE EFFECT ON GRANTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: My question to the Minister of Transport arising out of his plans for reorganization is: will he ensure that the municipalities do not receive smaller federal tax payments as a result of the reoganization when, for example, the National Harbours Board, a Crown corporation, becomes something else?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I would ask the hon. member to be more specific. I cannot give such an assurance at the moment. If he would give me some specific examples, I will try to deal with them.


Robert Jardine McCleave: My question concerns grants in lieu of taxation which might be smaller if a Crown corporation, such as the National Harbours Board, were to become simply part of a government department.


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



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE DISCUSSION OF URBANIZATION

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilion West):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. Was the serious question of growing urbanization discussed at the last federal-provincial meeting together with the prospect of establishing a three-tier-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is not supplementary to the one we were considering a moment ago. However, the hon. member has asked it and perhaps the Prime Minister might reply.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This question was not on the agenda nor does a specific reference to it appear in the communique. There was some mention among delegations of this important subject but it was not specifically tackled as an item of business.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Frank Howard: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister in
[Mr. Jamieson.!

connection with the presentation which was made to him by the McGill University Intertribal Council and the Native Association of Quebec. In order to provide us all with a degree of understanding of the esteem in which he is held by the native people, would he be prepared to table that presentation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It was not a serious presentation, but if the hon. member wants to table it himself I am sure we will see the level of his thinking.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frank Howard: Apropos of that reply, I indicated-and I apologize for it-the level of my thinking by addressing the question in the first place to such an ass.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Lost your cool?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that the language he is using is utterly and completely unparliamentary. It may not be in his understanding, but it is in mine.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, considering what the Prime Minister said a while ago, does he intend to ask the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications to table that document?



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Winona Grace MacInnis: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Mr. Speaker. On December 3, 1969, in answer to a question I had asked him, the minister informed me he was in the process of reviewing the role and structure of the Consumer Council. May I ask him, now, whether his review is complete and, if so, when we may expect a report?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: I hope to announce some appointments very shortly.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the
February 18. 1970	COMMONS
Minister of Transport and has reference to one I asked a few days ago. Is the minister in a position today to shed further light on the question whether he or the government have received any indication from United States authorities that they will abandon their meteorological services in the Arctic?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have looked into this matter and can report that to date we have not received any official notification from the United States. Like the hon. member, I expect, I have seen news reports to this effect, but there has been no official communication or notification.



HISTORIC SITES


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Secretary of State as custodian pro tem of our historic heritage. Can the Secretary of State advise whether anything is being done to acquire the long-time residence of Prime Minister Sir Robert Borden for the people of Canada so as to forestall its imminent destruction by commercial interests?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that the hon. member is mistaken about the person responsible for historic sites. If that was the object of his question, responsibility for historic sites belongs to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, not to the Secretary of State.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I referred not to historic sites but asked about our heritage, in the minister's capacity as minister of culture.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. I am sure he listened, as we did, to the Prime Minister's statement on motions about forgoing the imposition of user charges. Is it, therefore, planned that the National Film Board's new fee schedule will be included in this sensible policy decision?
21701-28^
DEBATES	3761
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


Gérard Pelletier: No, Mr. Speaker, nothing has happened to change the decision I referred to in my previous answers.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is on the same point. The Secretary of State indicated on February
11	that a decision about the National Film Board had already been made. This was reconfirmed today. I should like to ask the Secretary of State, inasmuch as on February
12	he followed up by writing a letter to me which included the sentence, "Please be assured"-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is not the time for the hon. member to read his correspondence. He should ask his question.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, if you will allow me to finish the sentence, I think you will realize-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member knows that when asking a question it is not in order to read correspondence. The hon. member should put his question directly.


Stanley James Korchinski: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, this is part of my question, which is simply this. The minister says: "I sincerely hope that a solution will be found". On the previous day he stated in the House that a decision had been made. I want to know what is the truth. When is he telling the truth, and when not?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think there will have to be further correspondence between the minister and the hon. member.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a further point of order. I do not know whether he writes the truth or speaks the truth-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has asked a question and I have made a ruling. I suggest to him that the question as asked is not in order. It might perhaps be redrafted in some other way, but I think he will agree with me, on reflection, that the question as asked is not in accordance with the rules of the House.


Stanley James Korchinski: A further supplementary question. How shall I reply to those people who have made inquiries?


John Stratford Burton: A supplementary question to the Secretary of State. In
3762	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry view of the fact that the reference in the report on National Film Board affairs commissioned earlier by the minister made only passing reference to the question of user charges on films, will the minister undertake to make a more complete study of this question, one satisfactory to the people concerned with the matter?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, as 1 said to hon. members, to all those who asked me questions, and as I wrote to them, I think there is a problem. I personally never despair of finding a solution to a problem when I feel there is a problem; I spend all my time searching for solutions. I believe that is precisely what a minister should do. It is also the only answer I can give to that last question.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of his recognition in his statement of the difficult economic situation in western Canada, and in view of the fact that the government must have been aware of this for some time, can the Prime Minister inform the House in a general way of some of the programs the government has in mind to deal with this situation?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that the information he is now seeking should normally be given to the House by way of a statement on motions.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: A supplementary question. May I ask the Prime Minister whether the government's declared objective of selling 1.3 billion bushels of wheat over three years is still the government's objective?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants.



TRANSPORT


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my previous question, which is an important one to the municipalities, to the Minister of Finance. Will the grants in lieu of taxation be reduced 
DEBATES	February 18, 1970
for any municipality as the result of the pending reorganization of the Department of Transport?


Edgar John Benson: would think not, Mr. Speaker, but I had better look into the details to which my hon. friend refers, and perhaps I could talk to him about the matter.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture arising from the recent answer given to a question on the Order Paper with regard to the discontinuance of government premiums on quality hog carcasses. Is the minister in a position to indicate to the House when this program will become effective, or when we may expect a formal announcement in this regard?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot give a definite date at the moment.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In light of the fact that this move represents a considerable saving to the Department of Agriculture, can the minister say whether this amount will be reallocated within the department? Could he also indicate whether this amount will be earmarked for a program for the early retirement of farmers?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member now has the blue book containing the estimates for the coming fiscal year, and he can read that just as well as I can quote it to him.



FINANCE


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance, and it has to do with the dominion-provincial conference. In view of the fact that the provinces of British Columbia and Saskatchewan were the only provinces to join medicare on July 1, 1968, would the minister reconsider the answer that he gave yesterday to the other provinces who did not join the medicare plan on that date and refund to those provinces, on a pro rata basis, the money that he collected from the social development tax?
February 18, 1970	COMMONS DEBATES	3763


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker, and I wish that some of the provinces who are receiving the money would make sure that the people who are insured get it.


Alfred Dryden Hales: A supplementary question.
Would the minister advise the House whether the social development tax was imposed for the purpose of paying for medicare?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker.



SHIPPING


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, you will rejoice at the fact that you have not heard this question for about nine months. May I ask the Minister of Public Works whether he can assure the House that the Digby-Saint John ferry project will be completed on the date scheduled?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, we were afraid at one time that the ship would be ahead of us. There is now some suggestion that we will be ahead of the ship.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. In view of the recent and completely unfair representation made by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation "Hourglass" program of the city of Nelson and its Notre Dame University, may I ask the Secretary of State whether he has investigated the many complaints received about this particular production and, if so, whether a report on the investigation is available.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, this is the first complaint I have heard against this program, but I take note of the representations of the hon. member and I shall ask the CBC about it.



GRANT TO QUEBEC AMATEUR HOCKEY ASSOCIATION

Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister
Inquiries of the Ministry of National Health and Welfare, but since we have seen very little of him in the House for quite some time, I will put it to his parliamentary secretary.
Has the Minister received complaints from the Quebec Amateur Hockey Association in connection with the attitude of the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association towards the 8,000 Quebec teams which are receiving a $9,000 grant compared to $27,000 obtained by the 4,000 teams of Ontario?


Mr. Speaker:: I think that this question could be put on the order paper.



TAXATION


Mr. Sian Schumacher (Palliser):: My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Will Premier Thatcher's statement that he would have to reconsider being a member of the Liberal party if the white paper on tax reform is proceeded with persuade the minister that fundamental changes, if not complete withdrawal, of this document are now in order?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question is argumentative.



THE BUDGET


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: My
question is for the Minister of Finance. Would the minister advise the House on what date he hopes to table the budget papers, and has he yet set the precise date for his budget presentation?


Edgar John Benson: hope to table the budget papers next week, but I would not like to be tied down to that. They are presently being prepared, printed and so on. The target date for the budget presentation is March 3, but here again I do not want to be tied down. It might be extended a week or so beyond that date, depending, on circumstances.
February 18. 1970

Company of Young Canadians Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-176, to amend the Company of Young Canadians Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
Mr. Speaker:: Before calling on the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave), may I suggest that the first motion to be proposed by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) bears on the same clause as does the motion in the name of the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants. I would like the House to consider the possibility of combining both motions for the purpose of debate, but that would require a separate vote to be taken on each motion. I have looked at both motions and it seems to me that it would be rather difficult to isolate the debate on each one of them, so that contributions to the debate on the first motion would be relevant to both motions, and, if required, a vote could be taken separately on each one of them.
In a preliminary way, I might suggest at this time that motion No. 3 on the notice paper in the name of the hon. member for Fraser Valley West may be defective. However, I am not making a ruling now. I hope that in the course of the debate hon. members might take a look at it and give advice to the Chair on the point I want to make. That motion proposes the deletion of clause 5 from the bill as reprinted. It seems to me that the purpose of clause 4 of the bill would be to restrict the activities of the Company of Young Canadians to and within Canada. The effect of deleting clause 5 of the reprinted bill would be to restore a provision in the original act which enabled the company to carry out certain activities at home or abroad. What I am suggesting now is that if the motion standing in the name of the hon. member were accepted by the House, obviously there would be a conflict between clauses 4 and 5, and that of course would be very difficult to countenance. We might at that point have to go back to clause 4, and I am not sure how Tthat could be done. This is a technical difficulty which hon. members might like to con-

sider, and when we get to that motion hon. members might like to argue either for or against the procedural point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as Your Honour suggested, perhaps we can postpone consideration of the question about motion No. 3, but I would like to indicate that we are quite happy with your ruling that motions Nos. 1 and 2 should be debated together but be voted on separately, if necessary.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will now put the first motion, and eventually when the debate has been concluded the second motion will also be put.


Robert Jardine McCleave: That Bill C-176, an Act to amend the Company of Young Canadians Act, be amended by adding in section 4(1) in Clause 1, the words ''of whom three shall be elected by volunteer-members and the remainder" after the word ''members" in line 16 and deleting the word "who" in line 17.
He said: I think it would simplify things considerably if the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) could simply nod his acceptance, following which I would be quite pleased to sit down. The Secretary of State not having nodded his acceptance but having shaken his head in rejection, I will carry on.
First of all, let me make it clear on behalf of my associates that we maintan our objections to the bill incorporating the Company of Young Canadians. We feel that as a viable organization it has lost its credibility in the country. The kindest thing to do-and we did suggest this before-would be to kill it, and, with proper studies, start something new which would involve the participation of youth. But that has not been the position the government has taken, and so we are forced to consider what our duties and responsibilities are in studying this legislation. I think that it is the duty of Members of Parliament, whether on the government side or in opposition, to try to improve the legislation that comes before them. Although we do object to the continuance of the Company of Young Canadians, none the less we will try to improve the bill and make the organization as viable as possible.
Under the present law, as set forth on the opposite page of the bill to the clause that is now being considered and my suggested
February 18, 1970

amendment to that clause, hon. members will find that 15 members constitute the Council of the Company of Young Canadians, of whom ten are elected by volunteer members and the other five appointed by the governor in council. What the government proposes to do in the bill that is now before us is to appoint seven or nine members by governor in council and none by volunteer members. I suggest that this is a pretty abrupt change and that government control could have been exercised equally effectively by the governor in council appointing the majority of members of the council but leaving some to be selected by volunteer members. I think that the cure is an over-reaction to the problems that were discovered earlier in this session when the Standing Committee on Broadcasting dealt with the affairs of the Company of Young Canadians. It is to bring the thing into proper focus that I present the amendment which has the support of my colleagues and which, I understand, also has the support of my friends to the left. If my amendment does not pass, I will support with equal ardor their amendment.
Both amendments make substantially the same point, that there is room at the top in the Company of Young Canadians for appointees of volunteer members to have their say in shaping the policies. I think it is important that there be some appointees by volunteer members. These appointees could be from the volunteer members themselves or simply people who they think should be on the board of directors. In this way, at least there would be some say in the management of the affairs of the Company of Young Canadians by people acceptable to the volunteers, who really are the guts of the Company of Young Canadians. Without cheerful and willing volunteers, the Company of Young Canadians is ephemeral and only a dream. I am afraid the desire of the goverment not to have a participatory type of operation at the highest level in the Company of Young Canadians will drive away any support, or at least much of the support, young people would give to the Company of Young Canadians.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I wish I could peel off about 25 or 30 years and be in the position of a volunteer member. I believe I would look at the situation with some suspicion that youth was being condescended to and that father government knows best by simply choosing all the members who run the affairs of the Company of Young Canadians. There is that danger. Certainly,
Company of Young Canadians Act my amendment and the other amendment overcome that objection. It is true the minister could appoint former volunteer members to the board. I presume at some time when taking part in this debate he will announce that this is exactly his intention. But it is not the same thing.
Former volunteer members may run the risk of being called sort of "Uncle Toms" in the Company of Young Canadians set-up. In any event, they would not be as acceptable as people who were chosen in a proper election by the volunteer members who make up the backbone of the operations of the Company of Young Canadians. When this matter was before the broadcasting committee the strongest point made against selections by volunteer members was something called conflict of interest. Conflict of interest carries an ominous sound. I believe there are about six points which can be made to completely demolish this argument.
In the first place, the conflict of interest idea never really bothered anyone when the original measure was passed because, as I noted earlier, 10 of the 15 were to be selected by the volunteer members. Secondly, we had the interesting exercise in respect of the Tele-sat bill which, interestingly enough, went before the same committee. People from among the private carriers in the telecommunications industry form part of the board of Telesat Canada. 1 cannot think of any greater conflict of interest anywhere than in Telesat, yet this did not cause anybody that much concern. Certainly, it did not concern the government.
The third argument to demolish this nonsense about conflict of interest is that the majority of the members on the board would be government appointees. It would be almost impossible to believe that one person appointed by volunteer members could somehow smuggle in something which, although definitely to his own advantage, would be of disadvantage to the Company of Young Canadians. I just cannot conceive of that taking place at all. The fourth point to demolish the argument about conflict of interest has perhaps some validity to those interested in the conflict of interest idea. I refer to the danger that a volunteer member would not see the whole forest for his own trees; that is, he would be so busy promoting something he wanted to see done that he would not be truly representing the interests of the whole group of volunteer members. I suppose this is a possibility whenever any group of
February 18, 1970

Company of Young Canadians Act men and women meet together to make decisions. Yet such a person obviously would find himself operating on his own without support from those around him. In any event, I think the volunteer members could settle his hash by an election at a subsequent time.
The fifth point in respect of this conflict of interest theory is that the volunteer members could choose non-volunteer members. Perhaps they would choose someone who had graduated from the ranks of volunteer members. But they would not be limited by my amendment to choosing from among the volunteers. The sixth argument against this so-called conflict of interest theory, I think, is perhaps as germane as any. I draw a parallel to the directors of corporations because shareholders become directors; in fact, they are required to hold shares before they can become directors. I suppose in that sense one could say there is a certain conflict of interest and that their decisions could affect their own personal fortunes. Yet, this is a very acceptable mode of doing business. No one questions this at all. To continue the parallel, I do not see any reason why, if volunteer members should become members of the board of the Company of Young Canadians, their personal interest and desire to take part in the activities of the Company of Young Canadians should disqualify them.
It is important that there be more objective control of the Company of Young Canadians than there was in the past. I do not intend to go over the history. It is well known, and if I were to do so it would involve a reference to some persons who have been allowed to retreat from the Company of Young Canadians. It was pretty obvious from our studies and discussions that one weakness was the failure to properly research the projects undertaken by the Company of Young Canadians. Volunteer members would rush in to try to correct a situation which probably was not capable of correction. They would leave the community they were trying to serve in a complete state of frustration and would find themselves completely frustrated. Some of these young men and women actually required psychiatric treatment after their service in the Company of Young Canadians. I think this was simply due to the fact that they thought some unpleasant situation, which may have been incapable of correction, required correction or a cure. The result was that they immersed themselves in a frustrating situation and became frustrated themselves.

I can buy the principle of government direction to the point that the overriding authority is there if the government appointees wish to exercise it. But I would hope that if it came down to a real tug-of-war between authority and responsibility in respect of whether some silly project should be approved, common sense and the majority would carry the day.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
But I cannot see asking young people to be involved in the donkey work, which again is the guts of the work of the Company of Young Canadians, and not giving them the feeling they have a say in the operations and direction of the Company. It is pretty obvious that the type of youth attracted to the Company of Young Canadians wants the chance to tilt at the establishment, to provide voices for those in need. Their argument is put rather well in a brief submitted to the broadcasting committee on February 3 by the Great Slave Lake Project of the Company of Young Canadians, operating out of Yellowknife. Page 2 of that brief reads in part:
What we are saying is that you cannot seek answers to the problems of groups disenfranchised by a particular system from within that system.
I do not accept that point of view, Mr. Speaker, because later on in the same brief they make the point that many people are disenfranchised because their Members of Parliament are not totally representative of them. But nonetheless, Sir, there is some validity in what they say, and it is useful to have shrill voices of protest to remind us of the places in which we must, as a Parliament, take more action to help those who now live in a permanent shadow-world of despair.
In brief then, Mr. Speaker, I submit that we don't knock over, we don't put the whole thing out of kilter by giving young people some voice in the operations of the Company of Young Canadians. I suggest, Sir, that the over-reaction of government, turning the Company of Young Canadians into a company of bureaucratically run Canadians, is simply too drastic a cure for the problems we discovered when we dealt with the Company of Young Canadians before. I say to the minister that if his desire is to revive and turn the Company of Young Canadians into the useful force that we all hoped it would be when the legislation was originally passed with the blessings of everybody in this House, this approach now will alienate youth and will stultify the desire of youth to provide useful community service.
February 18, 1970


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking in favour of the two amending motions which we are discussing at the same time today I would first like to say that I am struck, perhaps even perplexed, by what the minister said in his speech on January 28 on second reading stage, and the contradiction I find between his enlightened, philosophical exposition at that time and what we find in clause 4 of the bill before us. I read from Hansard the minister's words printed on page 2941:
Our youth are active participants in our society, and although we wish to encourage their participation they are in many ways independent enough, aloof enough, to undertake a critical analysis that is impossible for our generation. I do not wish to set up youth as an independent alter ego screaming in the darkness. Rather, I wish to argue for a legitimate voice for youth in our structures just as I would argue, and have argued, for a legitimate voice for all people in our society.
Youth in particular have a point of view; youth in particular have an analysis. The fact is that what we do today determines the society in which they must live tomorrow. The mistakes we make today, they must undo tomorrow. Surely, this is reason enough to grant them full and equal participation in our society. The worst possible thing that could happen, in my opinion, would be a return to the dull fifties, the period of navel contemplations by youth.
I would like to emphasize the words of the minister which I read earlier, Mr. Speaker:
Rather, I wish to argue for a legitimate voice for youth in our structures-
Now, I find in reading the clause we are discussing, clause 4 in the bill, that:
There shall be a Council of the Company consisting of not less than seven and not more than nine members, who shall be appointed by the Governor in Council-
That is a very interesting juxtaposition of two viewpoints. Anyone can see at a glance that if there is no contradiction between the minister's views and what we find in the bill, then we have before us at the very least a dramatic excursion, and this causes me to wonder whether the minister really believes his own words. If he does, then he must have been subjected to some extreme pressures which caused him to support this particular clause.
How does he say, "I wish to argue for a legitimate voice for youth in our structures" on the one hand, and then go to the length he has in denying that very voice in the councils of an organization designed to attract youth to help overcome some of society's ills? It seems incredible to me and to my party that, in the age of alienation and struggle for par-
Company of Young Canadians Act ticipation, the minister would consider such a reactionary move. I believe he should reject it out of hand.
This is an era in which there exists a great push towards shared decision making. We have emerged from the Apollonian era of apathy and acceptance into one which seeks to extend democracy far beyond the simple one man-one vote concept, and perhaps into a new age where the governed and those governing them are continuously in dialogue.
I think a glance at our daily newspapers will confirm to us the fact that the students, the labour unions, the Indians, the blacks, the tenants, the poor, and the anti-pollution groups are all hammering on the doors of whatever establishment is at the moment constraining them, depriving them and frustrating them. They are knocking on these doors because above all else they want to be able to participate in those decisions-the rules of the game, if you like-that are likely to affect their lives, and they want to do it more than once every four years. In fact, they are demanding that this voice will not diminish. I do not think there will be a return to a former period of navel contemplation, to use the minister's words. On the contrary, society must adjust to this hunger for a voice or I believe the only alternative is for society to arm itself for some violent reactions. I realize the minister knows all of these things and probably agrees with me on most of them. That is why I find it impossible to understand the reason for returning to a totally appointed council concept, as if this were going to be some magic solution to all of the problems associated with the CYC.
Let us review CYC history for a moment. First of all, we had two and a half years of the CYC with a completely appointed council. Included on that council, I might add, were some of the men who are today very important in government circles behind the scenes. The CYC was constantly in hot water then because of the failure of these men, and of others, to do the job adequately. Then, after these two and a half years, we had three or four months last fall of an elected council. Ten of the 15 members were to be elected by or from the volunteers, and five were appointed. But the same story prevailed. There was lots of controversy and the CYC was in for more than its share of hot water. Then, just before Christmas we heard the powerful voice of Mr. Saulnier of Montreal, and a tremor was felt throughout the land.
February 18, 1970

Company of Young Canadians Act [DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
This tremor quickly produced a parliamentary committee to consider the problem further and make certain recommendations. Following the committee report, we had imposed upon the CYC a one man trusteeship under which all facets of the CYC were frozen on the spot, projects were cancelled and much work ground to a halt. Today, we are considering this enlightened document, Bill C-176, which I believe is disloyal to almost everything the Committee report and the CYC orginally stood for. Now, some four years and $7 million later we have completed the circle and are back to the appointed council. I oppose this idea in the strongest possible terms.
I realize fully, Mr. Speaker, that my motion and the previous one will be regarded by some of the flaming revolutionaries as mere tokenism. They may well say that unless they can have a majority on the council, they do not want to play. These amendments also may be regarded as mere tinkering with an organization so totally defanged as to be meaningless in terms of the job to be done. Be that as it may, I genuinely believe that the voice of the "doers" should be heard strongly on the council, not just that of the "planners."
An amendment calling for three of seven or eight and four of nine to be elected by volunteers would achieve this kind of voice and give those close to the projects a pipeline to those council members further removed. That kind of liaison would be beneficial to everyone concerned. It would not be a majority voice so the criticism of project backscratch-ing could not prevail. It would not be a case of "you back my project and I will back yours". This whole problem and the criticism levelled previously could be avoided.
Another criticism raised to volunteers electing council members is that it puts the executive director in an impossible position. As part of management he has, so to speak, to work with people who may be concurrently his superiors and his subordinates. I do not believe this is a strong argument, because if the council operates effectively and within the rule that the council is supposed to address itself to, that is one of policy and legislation, it would not interfere with the executive or administrative function. I think as long as the executive and legislative roles are completely isolated from one another, this management criticism could well be avoided. I believe the council could set its policy and the administrative director could administer the same. I

do not believe the council should be concerning itself with administration; neither do I believe that the executive director should be concerning himself with policy.
I urge the House and the minister to accept this amendment. I think it is in keeping with the minister's own views of participation and will indicate to those volunteers who do remain that this firsthand "in the field" experience will be readily transferred to the body charged with framing the policy under which the volunteers must function and work.
Before I close, I think I should protest the fact that neither during the committee hearings of last fall, nor those of last month at which this bill was considered, did we hear from the volunteers. They did not appear before us in spite of repeated requests from them. I tried, to no avail, to have them before us again this month and I think if they had expressed, some of their concerns and fears for the new order of things, their views might have been exposed and discussed.
I also wanted to learn a great deal more personally about the activities of Mr. Mendelsohn, the comptroller, and the executive director during the time they remained firmly in the saddle. Since their tenure is to end on March 31, I wanted to know how many projects were cancelled; how were volunteers replaced, if they were replaced; what criteria were used in shaping those decisions. These were things that concerned the volunteers in the field, but we were denied the information in committee so hon. members are again being called upon to render a decision on a complex and emotional subject without the complete story. I think also it would have been useful to hear how the people served in the various areas felt about the CYC. I think that was an oversight; we did not have a chance to explore that side of it. Most of our time was taken up by a continuous parade of high level administrators and seldom did the committee get down to "where it's at".
Over the last two months we have had little chance to look at Mr. Mendelsohn's reign and to look at the function of local projects from the top down, which is a reversal from the previous method of operation. Doubtless the comptroller was merely fulfilling his mandate, which was to freeze everything in sight. I would not suggest that there was no reason for this. Members of our party have said before that we felt there should be financial responsibility and accountability. Certainly, there have been severe restrictions placed on some of the remaining projects.
February 18, 1970	COMMONS
Telephone and travel costs were restricted. This does not mean much in an urban centre but in an area such as the north coast it is essential to be able to contact people by telephone or travel. The Vancouver office, serving three projects, was limited to $25 per month for office costs. They could not even run their duplicator, which could have been a good thing for some projects. However, I do not think we experienced irresponsibility in the Vancouver project. In spite of people resigning and leaving the various projects, no vacancies have been filled; therefore some projects are necessarily understaffed. Efficiency is great. Like planning, like preparation and like motherhood, everybody approves of it. But what is the good of streamlining procedures and inviting budget control if, in the process, you choke off active work at the community level? I realize it will not persist forever but in a situation like this do we not want to run the risk of being left with a streamlined top-level management team in a non-functioning series of field projects.
To close, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that if this bill is passed unamended we will have a strictly conventional organization with the standard, staff line arrangement. There will be nothing to distinguish it from other Crown corporations, in spite of the CYC's unique role and the job for which it had been established. It is my opinion that the reason it was established was to respond positively to the failure of conventional organizations in other areas of our society. It seems, however, that we are creating another very conventional and inflexible organization and if such structures could not meet the needs of society four years ago, there is little possibility they can now.
I hope the minister will consider the words of the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) and myself and re-examine this particular clause, because we put forward our views with sincerity. Perhaps we do not have the high level of indignation that would make for an emotional speech but we have thought about it a good deal, as I am sure the minister has, and I would like him to consider it.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Mr. Horner:: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member sits down, will he permit a question? I have listened to him and looked at the evidence taken before the committee with regard to this whole question. Having listened to the hon. member, examined remarks made before the committee and looked at his
DEBATES	3769
Company of Young Canadians Act amendment, I am not certain whether he is in favour of a majority of the council being volunteer members or appointees. I believe the minutes of the committee suggest that he wants the majority of the council to be volunteer members; yet his amendment really suggests that three council members out of seven or eight ought to be volunteers, which is somewhat less than a majority. It seems to me that the hon. member, in his amendment, takes a position slightly different from the one he adopted in committee. Perhaps he could explain this discrepancy before he sits down.


An hon. Member:: That is a good question.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Crowfoot for his question. The amendment speaks for itself. I am not aware of any discrepancy in my position; nor did the hon. member bring to my attention any part of the committee minutes which suggest that I may have changed my mind.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: But it appears that the hon. member has changed his mind.


Mark Willson Rose: I will say that the committee did not recommend a completely appointed council. It recommended that the minister should look at the structure of the council, and I think the minister did. Nowhere in the committee report is it indicated that the committee is in favour of a completely appointed council.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, nothing would please me more than to agree with the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) and the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose). Unfortunately, I do not share their views and I would like to give briefly the reasons why the bill before the House was introduced in its present form.
First, the argument of the member for Halifax-East Hants has surprised me somewhat. It could be summarized as follows: the Company of Young Canadians is a very sick child; it therefore should be killed. It is an awkward solution in the treatment of a sick child. But what followed is even more astonishing as the member stated implicitely: "If we don't kill it, let's see to it that it remains alive but not well."
I confess again that this kind of reasoning is beyond me. The hon. member concludes his remarks by accusing us of over reaction, that
February 18. 1970

Company of Young Canadians Act is to say that we have reacted too quickly to the misfortunes which befell the Company of Young Canadians, misfortunes which, besides, would justify in his view that it be killed.
He then continued by disproving arguments already put forward before the parliamentary committee. I would like here to simply repeat in its most elementary form, in case the remarks of the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants blurred it a little, the line of thought behind the amendments moved in connection with this legislation and which are under consideration at the moment.
We said at the committee-and I should like to repeat it this afternoon-that the volunteers, should they be appointed or elected to the Council of the Company, would be placed in a situation that would inevitably create a conflict of interests for them on two levels.
When the member for Halifax-East Hants says that at the time when the original bill setting up the Company of Young Canadians was being studied no one objected to the appointment and even the election of volunteers to the council, he speaks the truth.
There are many things, Mr. Speaker, to which no one objected at that time. The member for Halifax-East Hants himself recognized, at least implicitly, that it might have been better to object to it at the start, when the original bill was introduced in the House; this might have spared the Company of Young Canadians unpleasant adventures with which the parliamentary committee became acquainted before the Christmas recess.
As I was saying, the election or the presence of volunteers on the Council of the Company of Young Canadians creates a conflict of interests on two levels: first of all, on the personal level, because they are called upon to participate in decisions that affect them personally and determine their fate, that determine the allowances paid to them, for instance, and even determine the policy that will guide the authority that governs them, that is the executive director of the Company.
There is also a collective conflict of interests, so to speak, because, as members of the executive or the council, they are called upon to decide upon the various CYC projects, including those in which they will participate themselves.
They are called upon to reach decisions, for instance, on the allotment of funds to the various projects, those in which they are par-

ticipating, as well as those to which the other volunteers devote themselves. Obviously, they have a hidden interest to promote the apportionment of greater funds to the projects on which they are working. I am not saying they will all do that but I say that we are placing them where they will be tempted to prefer their personal interest or the collective interest of their small project to the general interest of the company, to the superior interests of the organization as a whole.
Those are not myths, Mr. Speaker, those are not speculations, but facts. At the time volunteers were a part of the company's council, we witnessed stand-up fights as well as schemes whereby individual interests instead of the superior interests of the company prevailed in the end. That is why upon learning that, the parliamentary committee recommended to change the method of appointing the council of the company.
When the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants says he is not much impressed by the objection concerning the executive director, he still does not convince me, for the executive director is also placed in an impossible position if volunteers are appointed to the council. I wonder what could impress the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants. In such a case, the executive director is being placed in the position of having the same people as superiors and as subordinates.


Robert Jardine McCleave: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I think the minister's argument at this time is directed to something my hon. friend said and not to what I said. I think the record ought to be put straight in this regard.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I apologize and I want to correct my mistake right away. In fact, the argument put forth by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose).
In order to end the matter, let me say again that if we are to have volunteers in the council, the executive director will have the same people acting as his superiors on the one hand and as his subordinates on the other. The people defining the policy under which he operates will be the very same to whom he will have to apply it. This would create a very difficult situation.
There are, moreover, other ways of ensuring the direct participation of the young. Indeed, under clause 16(2), the volunteers can set up an advisory committee and I daresay
February 18, 1970

that in western Canada and in Quebec, volunteers are already setting up grievance committees to deal on a formal basis with the management of the Company.
Though the proposed amendments suggest that there should be three or four volunteers on the Council, they will hardly make any difference. In order to reach the objective set up by the two hon. members we would need more than a symbolic number barely representative of minority. We would have to revert to the old system which, unfortunately, has proved disastrous.
Besides, the committee has already removed from the government the right to choose the president and the vice-president. This means that the young people themselves will appoint other young people to these two posts.
I now answer the objections of the hon. member for Fraser Valley West. He said that I was contradicting myself by saying that I wanted, willy-nilly, the Company of Young Canadians to survive. In fact, I said so on first reading because I sincerely assumed that young people had a part to play in our society.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley West maintains that under the new legislation, young people will not be able to play this part because no volunteers will be appointed to the Council. I hope that he does not think, because the government is not going to appoint volunteers, that it will appoint old people. The government will appoint young people. In the speech I made on the motion for second reading of the bill, I said that in September last we had appointed to the Council five members less than 30 years of age on the average and that we were determined to do the same with the new legislation. Would it be the contention of the hon. member for Fraser Valley West that as soon as a young man or a young lady is appointed to the Council by the government, he or she will stop being young? That would seem to me an argument rather difficult to support.
it would have to be assumed then that when the government appoints someone as a CBC director for instance, that individual stops being a free citizen on account of his appointment to the CBC Board of Directors.
Finally, the hon. member for Fraser Valley West maintained that by implementing the proposed amendments, we would alienate the young people, we would keep them away from the Company of Young Canadians. I can alleviate his fears in that respect because

Company of Young Canadians Act something rather strange but at the same time comforting has happened-rather unexpected in any event. In fact, ever since these amendments have been made public, through the press and all the mass media, I am advised that applications to the Company of Young Canadians have come in greater number than ever and that they are even more interesting in terms of years of schooling or equivalent experience of the new applicants.
That is all I have to say, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to express once more the underlying concept of these amendments. Like the hon. member of Fraser Valley West, I did not want to make an emotional speech.
I think that we have to correct the mistakes which we all made when the bill was introduced for the first time. In my opinion, there is nothing shameful or criminal in rectifying the mistakes which we have made, even though we are the representatives of the people.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Will the minister permit a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I see several members rising. I am prepared to recognize the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte), but I understand the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) would like to put a question.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I had not intended to make a speech at this stage. I was very interested in the minister's concise summary of the government's position on the bill. My question is this. I would like to know how the minister reconciles the position about conflict of interest and no volunteer members directly on council because, as he said, of a personal or collective conflict? I can understand some of that reasoning. How does the minister reconcile that reasoning with the whole movement of youth today, especially on the campuses of the country where you have in effect the same type of thing? Does his reasoning also apply to the direct involvement of the campus youth in trying to get representation on the senates or boards of governors of universities? Obviously, they are in a conflict of interest position.
My second question is separate and apart. Am I to understand from the minister's remarks that even though he has the discretion to appoint volunteer or ex-volunteer members to the board or council that, because
February 18, 1970

Company of Young Canadians Act of his reasoning on the conflict of interest question, while there may be young people appointed to the council there will not be any volunteer members appointed to the council?


Gérard Pelletier: As for the first part of the question, Mr. Speaker, I believe there is a great difference between an undertaking like the Company of Young Canadians, that is, a company engaged in pioneer social work among underprivileged people, and the pursuit of studies on a university campus.
If this distinction is not quite clear to the hon. member, I am sorry, because I cannot dwell on that point.
For me, this distinction is quite clear, and I must say that I am not at all opposed to student representation on university senates, in spite of the fact that the students themselves are beginning to find rather relative the influence they can exert from this minority representation.
In reply to the second part of the question of the hon. member, I wish to tell him that it is quite out of the question for the government to refuse to appoint ex-volunteers to the Council. On the contrary, we would be most happy to appoint people with experience in the Company of Young Canadians and who would put their wisdom and the fruit of their experience at the service of the Company. But for the reasons that I tried to explain and in which I firmly believe, I contend that those who are now volunteers in the Company should not be appointed to the executive Council.
[English}


Mark Willson Rose: I rise on a question of privilege, to be followed by a question to the minister. I had difficulty following the minister in the translation, which is my fault, not his. I believe he stated that I either said or implied that young men and women appointed rather than elected to the council would somehow cease to be young men and women. If I heard the minister correctly, I feel this is kind of a strawman argument. I do not believe I implied that at all. Perhaps we can both look at each other's speech tomorrow.
My question with respect to the conflict of interest is, how does the minister justify his position that three members, who may or may not be volunteers but elected by the volunteers, can have a great conflict of interest with perhaps 30 or 40, or hopefully more than that, projects across Canada?


Gérard Pelletier: My answer will be very simple, Mr. Speaker. It is experience that tells me that. Even in meetings of the previous council, where there was only a minority of volunteers, it was enough sometimes-and I do not think I am mistaken in stating this-to disrupt the whole meeting and to make the work of the council totally unproductive. I do not think it is a bogus argument. I regret if my interpretation of the hon. member's words went a little bit too far, but when he said that the fact the government was appointing the members of the council would, in a certain way, be a departure from the principle of participation of the young people, I thought he was suggesting that they ceased to be young people from the moment they were appointed. I say that the directors we will appoint will be young people who will be participating as such. That is what I mean. [DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on a few aspects of the amendment to the Company of Young Canadians Act.
Earlier, I was listening to the minister who was trying to justify some mistakes. Of course, it is difficult to correct a situation when all solutions are eliminated in advance. In fact, the government discarded one of the most logical solutions regarding the Company of Young Canadians: its abolition which should have been seriously considered. When an agency ends up in a failure, its dissolution is one of the solutions to be considered.
But since this magnificent idea came from a former prime minister and was maintained by his spiritual son, they do not want to publicly lose face. That is the real reason why they refuse to consider seriously the possibility of simply abolishing that Company.
An alternative would be to alter it completely and entrust its administration to provincial authorities.
The basic mistake has been to establish an organization of young people who were directly under provincial responsibility. This is so true that if an attempt is made to determine where more difficulties arose it is found to be in Quebec, simply because right from the start, the Company did not impress Quebecers in the least.
So, it was easy to create cells within the Company, with the unfortunate results we heard about in committee.
Mr. Speaker, that is the real problem, and every time that the solutions sought fail to go
February 18, 1970	COMMONS
to the heart of the matter, there is no real change. Such is the case with sections 3 and 4 that are to be amended in order to change the number of directors and to provide a different procedure of their appointment. That will not change anything, because this is a federal agency, composed of young people, who have to deal with problems that are primarily the concern of provincial authorities. However, at numerous federal-provincial conferences, the provinces, Quebec in particular, expressly asked the federal government to give them the means to carry out their responsibilities. And since they lack the means to look after their needs, they are simply told to shift for themselves in the tax jungle in order to solve their problems. And then, the government introduces legislation itself and does not mind its own business.
Knowing the fantastic amounts of money spent by the Company of Young Canadians, we have a right to ask questions. This is why I say that the Company should have been completely overhauled instead of being superficially reformed, simply because such drastic changes would have made possible in the first place a better total decentralization. All the provinces should agree on that, because I feel that such an organization will never be effective in Quebec. We have now the best proof of this in what has happened.
On the other hand, there already exist youth organizations. They must rely on volunteers alone. They receive no subsidy and in spite of that, they do a tremendous job. If the money allowed to the Company of Young Canadians was paid under the form of grants to the existing agencies, which would then be able to perform the duties the CYC was entrusted with, it would be marvellous. Why create agencies there is no need for? Why should we not abolish what was a failure? There are agencies which would be able to do this work and on which we could rely entirely.
That is the reason why I wanted to point out that every time something is done that encroaches upon exclusively provincial fields of jurisdiction, conflicts arise which very often lead to unfortunate situations such as the one we witnessed.
If the government kept strictly to its own business, it would pay the provinces the compensations they need to carry out theirs. The provinces are closest to the individual and are responsible not only for his welfare and his health but more specifically for his education. And everyone knows that control of educa-
DEBATES	3773
Company of Young Canadians Act tion is the apple of Quebec's eye. Therefore, an agency controlled from outside the province, out of step with the true spirit of Quebec can only lead to anarchy and the other perturbations we have witnessed.
That is why in my opinion the Company, which has demonstrated its uselessness, not to say its stupidity, should have been either abolished or thoroughly transformed in order to come, as would have been normal, under control of the relevant provincial governments. Unless this is done, expenses will continue to be incurred for an agency that has practically no effectiveness at all, and once again, Canadian taxpayers will have to foot the bill.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to make a long speech, nor do I intend to recall in any detail the debate which took place when this bill was discussed earlier.
I was a member of the committee which dealt with the problems of the Company of Young Canadians, and it is no secret that I was extremely critical of the way in which the Company of Young Canadians had functioned. I still believe that most of the criticisms made of the Company of Young Canadians, and the way in which it had operated almost from the day it was set up were valid criticisms. Nevertheless, it was the government which set up this organization; it was the government which appointed the board responsible for administering it. The government was warned of what was going on, yet it ignored all the warnings and reports which it received until the City of Montreal experienced riots and disorders and until the chairman of the executive council, Mr. Saul-nier, made extremely serious charges against the company and the way in which it was being operated. The government then belatedly awoke to the problems facing them, and they over-reacted, as they over-reacted again today.
Let me briefly recapitulate some of the things we learned while the committee held hearings into the problems facing the Company of Young Canadians. The Company of Young Canadians was established under a former Liberal government headed by the then Prime Minister, Mr. Pearson. It had the unanimous support of this House. I was a member of the House at the time, and all members thought that the idea was a good one.
February 18. 1970

Company of Young Canadians Act [DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The government then made the proposal- and this proposal was adopted-that the Company of Young Canadians be given virtually unlimited authority to do anything. Its actions would be unchecked by the government or the board of directors of the company. It was the government that made this proposal, as it was the government that also put forward the concept of, as it was then called, participatory democracy.
The government appointed to the board of the company a group of people about whom it knew nothing. On the board almost to the end were at least two people who were very close to the government. Mr. Marc Lalonde, who was then, and still is, one of the principal advisers to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), was on the board from the beginning and almost till the end; and so was Mr. R. J. Phillips, who was then, and is now, in the Privy Council office.
Within months of the establishment of the Company of Young Canadians, reports started to come in of extravagance, of lack of any direction, of seriously thought out objectives and programs, and so on. So much was this the case that one of the maritime members of the board resigned. He wrote a letter to the Prime Minister outlining in detail what had gone wrong and why he was resigning his position on the board.
What action did the government take? It took none. We do not know whether the government received any report from Mr. Lalonde or Mr. Phillips because the inquiries that the committee was conducting were cut off. The majority Liberal members of the committee voted not to call Mr. Lalonde, and as a result we were unable to question him about what had occurred. The government should have known what was happening. Yet, it did nothing. It just let the matter drift.
During this period the Company had two or three acting directors, and all of them encountered difficulties. Again the government did nothing. It was not until Mr. Saulni-er made his charges that members of the Company of Young Canadians, volunteers in Montreal and probably other cities in Quebec, were guilty of the most serious acts and crimes, such as inciting to violence, revolution and so on, that the government agreed to hold an inquiry, as a result of which changes were made. Therefore, I suggest that it is the government that is responsible for the difficulties

encountered by the Company of Young Canadians, and the government is still responsible.
Having finally awakened to the fact that the Company of Young Canadians was not operating in the way it should, the government, as this government so frequently does, over-reacted. Many members pointed out the complete stupidity of having on the board, as was the case at the end, a majority of directors who had been elected by volunteers. Ten out of 15 members were elected and, speaking from memory, five or six of these ten had been elected from among the volunteers who were still working for the company. One or two were ex-volunteers. I was one of the members who realized-as in fact all members of the committee realized-that this was an impossible situation and that there was a conflict of interest.
What was the government's answer to this situation? As usual, it over-reacted. Instead of having the majority of the members of the board elected either by volunteers or from among the volunteers, the government said there would be no volunteers on the board. Anyone who reads the record of the committee proceedings will appreciate that I was a very stern critic of what I thought were the sins of omission and commission of the company and its operations, but surely in the year 1970 there is some room on the board for representation of people who are working for the company.
This is why, despite my reservations about the way the company operated in the past, I see no difficulty in supporting and voting for the amendments which will be proposed. Let there be some volunteers on the board. It would be stupid to let volunteers constitute the majority on the board, but there should be some volunteers on the board so that the Company of Young Canadians and the government know what the volunteers are thinking and what they want.
If the minister is worried about a conflict of interest here, then there is a relatively simple provision that can be written into the bill, namely that no volunteer who is a member of the board should have the right to vote on any project in which he is involved. In other words, he should not vote where a conflict of interest might arise. It seems to me that that would be a very simple answer. The minister is not prepared to do this, and it does not surprise me. If there is one thing that characterizes this government, it is the government's
February 18, 1970

attitude that the people of Canada should do what they say, not what the people think.
The minister has spoken today against the idea of having volunteers on the board. Some months ago he made a speech to the Association of Canadian Universities. I am sorry that I have been unable to find a copy or a summary of his speech, which did appear in the newspapers, as I wanted to put it on the record. It was an interesting speech in light of the attitude of the minister today. It was one of the toughest, sternest criticisms of our universities and the way they are administered that I have read in recent years. Although I cannot quote it word for word, I am sure I can fairly summarize what the minister said.
What did the minister say in his lecture- which is what it was-to the Association of Canadian Universities? He lectured the administrators of our universities very sternly because they had not faced up to their responsibilities in the 1960's and 1970's. They had not realized that times had changed. They had not realized that students at university could no longer be treated as children. They had not realized that students at university could no longer be given orders which must be followed. The minister told the administrators of our universities in no uncertain terms that in these days students at university had to be considered as people. They had to be consulted and given some authority. They should be given representation on the board of governors of a university. They should be given representation on the senates of universities, and I suppose I should also include representation on the faculty committees of universities. That was essentially what the minister said.
I am old-fashioned about our universities. I think the whole idea of student power went much too far. The minister was a great deal more radical in his speech to the Association of Canadian Universities than I have ever been. The minister was not responsible for Canadian universi.ies and so he was prepared to be radical and revolutionary and to lecture the administrators of Canadian universities about their sins, about being stodgy and staid and not accepting the responsibilities of the 1970's.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
What do we find today when we have an agency which is the responsibility of the minister? He has forgotten all those fine phrases which he uttered before the Association of
Company of Young Canadians Act Canadian Universities. He said some authority and responsibility should be given to the students at Canadian universities. Now, we have an agency for which the minister is responsible and for which the minister will have to account to the public. He will have to account to Mr. Saulnier who may have some influence on votes in Montreal. That being the case, all the ideals and principles about participatory democracy and the rights of young people to have a say in decisions concerning their own affairs fly out the window. What we get from the minister is the same old view that the volunteers are employees, that they should know their place, that they should be under the control of the director, the administrator, the government, and the minister, and that there is no room for representatives of the volunteers on the council of the Company of Young Canadians.
I say that the views which the minister expressed today are diametrically opposed, in principle as well as in execution, to the views he expressed in his speech to the Association of Canadian Universities. That the minister is not consistent does not surprise me at all because he and this government, so far as I am concerned, have demonstrated over and over again that what they want this Parliament to do and what they want everyone to do is exactly what they say. So I do not expect the minister-who has not listened to my speech, but that does not surprise me either-to pay attention to the speeches made on this side of the House on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) or the amendment moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose). I think that both are good amendments and warrant the support of the House.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I wish to say a few words on this bill because I feel a real obligation to try at least once more to see whether we could not get the minister to see what he is doing to our young people who have shown their concern and who have demonstrated their abilities through the Company of Young Canadians. The activities of the company all across the country have not been of equal calibre. Admittedly the execution of some of the projects was poor, but on the other hand, in British Columbia for instance-and here I am speaking about something that I know-the young people have used their initiative and
3776	COMMONS
Company of Young Canadians Act have made a real impact on the communities in which they have been doing social pioneering work.
My objection to this bill is that it is trying to keep back the social thinking and development of the young people. Young people today are not going to be kept back. They want the right to express themselves and they want the right to participate in the decisions that affect their lives. When they are stultified, they use less desirable ways of expressing themselves in both words and actions. In my opinion, it is essential that we adopt these amendments which aim at having at least part of the council elected by volunteer members. If this is not allowed, the young people will not be able to demonstrate their initiative, proof of which we have already had in our province.
I do not need to go into detail about the projects that have been undertaken there except to say that the members of the CYC have shown a great capacity for resourcefulness in the low rent housing projects, which has surprised the Vancouver people. They have gone in when they were requested and they have assisted people in the housing projects to take control of their own lives in a way which nobody believed possible. One of the most successful projects that they have undertaken has been work among people who have come out of penitentiaries, people who have been involved with drugs and other young criminals. The fact that the CYC volunteers have given their assistance and leadership has helped the people in the community to regain their self-respect, to get back on the track and to become self-supporting again. The same thing has happened where they have worked among the Indians on the north coast.
If the Company of Young Canadians is made into a housebroken, tame organ of this government, we will lose these young people. They will not be interested in doing everything that they are told to do by Ottawa. If you know anything at all about provinces on both our coasts, you also know that the people there do not want things to be run for them and every detail of their lives worked out here in Ottawa. For one reason it takes far too long for directives to get out there, and for another the people in Ottawa do not see things the way people do in different parts of the country.
We are living at a time when everybody tells the young people that what they must learn to do is to take part in the decisions

DEBATES	February 18, 1970
affecting their lives. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was elected partly on his personality and partly on the slogan "participatory democracy". There is no section of the community that is more determined than the young people are to participate in the decisions affecting their lives. If one tries to dam them up behind the old walls and tries to tell them to do exactly what they are told to do, they will stop being people of initiative and resourcefulness. They will become tame, youthful Uncle Toms; broken in spirit and following along just to keep their jobs. They will be tame cats instead of tomcats. It should be the opposite.
As my colleague said a little earlier, what the government has done is to panic. They made a mistake in not giving proper direction in the first place. The CYC did not receive guidelines or directions in any shape or form. As a result, things went wild and got out of control because certain elements in the company tried to achieve goals which the company was never intended to achieve. In my part of the country, the CYC people were able to hang on to things and keep on with constructive projects, probably because we do not have as big a centre as either Toronto or Montreal.
If you want to keep the faith of the young people and to make the best of their abilities to do social pioneering work where it is most necessary, you have to go along with amendments of the kind we are proposing. These amendments are very necessary. I am referring to the amendment of the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) and of my colleague, the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose). I know that the minister is one of these people who takes pride in making up his mind very early in his life and then saying "no matter what happens in the way of change, here I stand and I will not look at the matter again for fear I might be tempted to change my mind". I wish that the minister did not do that because we are living in a very fast-moving age. I, myself, grew up surrounded by many people who thought it was wonderful to hang on to old ideas because their father, their grandfather and their great-grandfather did the same. But nowadays, people know that this is not the way to do things.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I think the minister would be very capable of taking another look at this if only he could get away from the feeling that he has made up his mind and cannot change it. They
February 18. 1970	COMMONS
say that women's minds are purer than men's because they change them more often. I would not mind the minister developing that quality a little in respect of this bill. I should like him to change the bill so that it is more sensible, whether purer or not. If he does not do this he will lose the fire, energy and drive of the young people in this country who would otherwise take part in the Company of Young Canadians. For this reason, I support both the amendments before us which recommend that the volunteer members be allowed to elect three of the members of council if the council does not consist of more than eight members or four if it consists of nine members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion before the House is motion No. 1 in name of the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75 the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The question now is on motion No. 2 in the name of the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose).


Mark Willson Rose: That Bill C-176, An Act to amend the Company of Young Canadians Act, be amended by deleting in section 4(1) in clause 1, all the words in lines 17 and 18 and substituting the following words:
"of whom three shall be elected by volunteer-members if the Council consists of seven or eight, but of whom four shall be elected by volunteer-members if the Council consists of nine members, the remainder to be appointed by the Governor in Council for such terms not exceeding''.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the Motion?


Some hon. Members:: Yea.
DEBATES	3777
Company of Young Canadians Act


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75 the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Mark Willson Rose: That Bill C-176, to amend the Company of Young Canadians Act, be amended by deleting clause 5 therefrom.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Prior to hearing debate on this motion I might clarify an area about which there has been some confusion. The clause 5 referred to has reference to clause 5 of the original bill. I understand hon. members have before them the bill as reported from the committee. In that case it refers to clause 4 of the reported bill. I hope with that clarification we can proceed.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I will try not to speak at great length on this particular amendment-not more than 35 minutes or so-because my colleagues to the right and across the room are very anxious to have the vote on this particular bill before six o'clock.
In moving this amendment I should like to say that in proposing the deletion of clause 5 in the original bill, C-176, and now I believe clause 4, I am in essence attempting to continue the concept of the Company being permitted to work in countries other than Canada provided a policy decision is made at some future time to have the Company do this. As every member knows the Company, at least up until this point, has not seen fit to work abroad. By restoring this clause to its form in the original legislation, we would be permitting the Company of Young Canadians to move into the overseas field at some future date. So, really what I am suggesting is not particularly startling. I believe one of the most attractive aspects of the original Company of Young Canadians legislation was the possibility of members of the Company serving their country, not only at home but
37?8	COMMONS DEBATES	February 18, 1970
Company of Young Canadians Act abroad, as volunteers working in some of the have-not nations of the world.
Certainly, one needs little imagination to realize that two-thirds of the world's people are in a shocking state of development. Certain developed countries do very little about this and the gap grows wider as the years go by. I believe some hon. members have read Robert Theobald's book, "The Rich and the Poor" in which this problem has been examined in great detail. People are becoming hungrier in the world. Illiteracy is growing. People are living longer because we have lowered the death rate. People are becoming more numerous because we have not lessened the birth rate, resulting in more and more marginal land being farmed and lower yields. It does not take any great genius to understand that with the use of that window on the world, television, becoming more widespread, hungry people will not forever stand looking in that window at we fat and sassy North Americans with our sleek autos and healthy children while starvation, disease and ignorance form so much a part of their own lives. They will want a piece of the action too, and in my opinion they will take it by force if there is no other alternative.
I should like to read from a speech by Mr. Romeo Maione given recently in Vancouver. This speech was prompted by the Pearson report entitled "Partners in Development". In this speech he states:
It is becoming clear with each passing day that the challenge that faces the rich countries is to use their afHuency to win the war against poverty. Yet when we face the immensity of this war, there is a tendency towards despair and away from life. The magnitude of the problem tends to develop a paralysis of the will.
He goes on to say:
Yet hope can only grow in the measure that we face facts. Let me list a few facts. Population in the world will double in the next twenty to twenty-five years. Urban city population in many regions of Latin America will double in the next fifteen to twenty years. Rural stagnation stimulates a flow of migrants from the land and urban death rates are often lower than those in the countryside while fertility remains high. If present trends continue, the largest city in India would have over 35 million inhabitants by the year 2000. Even if fertility should be considerably reduced in coming decades, the less developed world will double before the end of this century.
Of one hundred children entering primary school in developing countries, no more than thirty finish. Indeed in most African and Latin American countries, more than 50 per cent of primary school pupils do not return to school after the second grade.
One could go on increasing the shadows to obliterate the sun and so return to our affluent eaves armed in quiet desperation.

The next paragraph is entitled "Hope Unlimited":
This fate is not shared by the authors of the Pearson Report. They outline a whole series of actions that will move the rich countries into the heart of the war against poverty. These lines of action are part of an over-all war based on the valid experience of the 60's. Sketched in and through these lines of action are the abundant hopes of the poor countries. I was asked once "how can you find hope in all that misery?" We must learn to look at poverty through the eyes of the poor. You must feel the spirit of hope that overwhelms the illiterate peasant as he moves away from the fatalism of his rural village.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
When his son even though, he leaves after the second grade, comes home and writes the family name on paper for the first time, the parents are the "victims of hope"-a whole new world develops before them. The rich countries for their own proper development must not only make contact with this hope but above all must develop a spirit of solidarity and communion to find a "raison d'etre" for our afHuency.
It is in this kind of setting that I feel the CYC could perform a useful role abroad. Admittedly, there are many serious problems in Canada. We have poverty here. We have examples of poor education. We have examples of a highly intense birthrate, and at the same time a dwindling death rate. Admittedly some of the past CYC volunteers would have made poor ambassadors for Canada to send abroad. This part of it though has been discussed in great detail previously. Admittedly too, at least one confidential report received by the company on probable activities abroad was written in inflammatory language, and suggested all kinds of interesting and almost frightening things. But I remind the House, those of us who are familiar with that report, especially the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault), realize that this document was for consideration only and never was the policy of the CYC, nor of the government of Canada as far as I have been able to learn.
But, sir, we Canadians have a real opportunity to do something useful in this area. Many developing countries speak either the French or the English language, and I think Canada finds itself in a unique position to provide a great deal more of this aid. We have trained people eager to help. Finally, we are not yet spending nearly enough to make any real dent in the problem of poverty in the developing countries.
In today's Globe and Mail there is a letter dealing with how we could order our priorities and do much in the foreign aid field. This
February 18. 1970	COMMONS
letter is by Escott Reid, former principal of Glendon College, and in it he says:
Canada can do relatively little to assist in preventing war by maintaining armed forces. That game has become too expensive. If Canada were to double its present defence expenditures of 1.8 billion Canadian dollars a year, this would increase the total expenditures of the NATO countries by one and a half per cent. But if Canada were to increase its net expenditures on foreign aid to poor countries by 1.8 billion Canadian dollars a year, this would increase the total net expenditures of the wealthy white countries on foreign aid to poor countries by 33 per cent.
Such an increase could not, of course, take place in one move. It might be reasonable to assume that if Canada were to decide to increase its foreign aid by this order of magnitude, say to 2 per cent of its GNP, the increase would be spread over six years.
My hope is that Canada will decide so to increase its foreign aid. The annual rate of increase might be such that if our GNP should go up by an average of 7 per cent a year ... we would be in the fiscal year 1975-76 be spending about $2.4 billion (up from the present $300 million) on foreign aid. If our expenditures on defence were held at $1.8 billion a year the total expenditures of Canada on defence and foreign aid in the year 1975-76 would be $4.2 billion-about 31 per cent of the GNP.
Three and one half per cent of the GNP for defence and foreign aid is less than what Australia, Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, or Norway spent on defence and foreign aid in 1967 and all these countries have lower per capita GNPs than Canada.
This puts some perspective into our position, and shows how we in Canada, through perhaps the CYC volunteers and other techniques, could increase our aid, our responsibility to these developing countries. I would hope the minister would see fit to continue the work-abroad principle that exists within the original CYC bill. I believe he can do so without being any more disloyal to the broadcasting committee report than he was when calling for an appointed council, despite the fact that this was not part of the committees recommendations.


Gérard Pelletier: One word only, Mr. Speaker, to say that we cannot accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member. I could give several reasons to justify this refusal, but one will be more than enough.
We have overseas an organization of young people precisely to try and meet these very real needs of which the hon. member has spoken movingly and which provides young Canadians with the opportunity to work in under-developed countries.
This is a well known agency called Canadian University Service Overseas and it per-
DEBATES	3779
Company of Young Canadians Act forms excellent work. We do not see why we should have overlapping by steering in that direction the activities of the Company of Young Canadians. Work sharing is an excellent principle for social action as well as for industry.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
This is why we object to the amendment. I could put forward other objections, but this one seems quite sufficient to me. I like the hon. member's aims, but it seems to me that it is possible to attain them more effectively through an institution which has already an experience of several years abroad, which has done Canada proud and whose effectiveness is acknowledged. Therefore it would not be well advised to have in the same field two separate and overlapping institutions.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I too will be very brief, even more brief than the minister. I am happy to find myself on this occasion agreeing completely with what the minister said.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I know the minister has many other reasons he could enunciate and define, and there are many other reasons I could give why we could not support this amendment. Many of the objectives of the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) are idealistic, and he hopes to resolve the problems of the developing countries by some agency, any agency, and in this case the Company of Young Canadians. But it comes down to this, Mr. Speaker, if I may be short and to the point. In view of the experience we have had with the Company of Young Canadians, and in view of Mr. Pearson's original concept of the Company of Young Canadians, although even in the gestation period he decided that we should try the Company at home first before we exported it, I do not think it should engage in activities abroad.
I appreciate that this legislation is only a chapter in the history of the Company of Young Canadians, and that the question of the company will back before this Parliament or certainly it will appear before another Parliament. There have been problems with the Company of Young Canadians, and I believe we should make sure that it works at home before we start to export it abroad. In view of the experience with the Company's handling of some of our problems at home, I believe that the hon. member's objectives of
February 18, 1970

Company of Young Canadians Act seeking to resolve problems such as poverty and disease abroad through the activities of the Company would not be met. In fact, there would be an adverse result. Until we get the Company to fulfil its objectives properly at home, we should not export it abroad. For that reason, the members of this party cannot support the amendment.
We believe this debate should come to a close so that the government may go on to discharge its responsibility of trying to work with this new agency, which is so far from the original concept of the Company that it is an entirely different vehicle. We have expressed our opinion on that, and we do not think we should take any more time to have the opinions of members canvassed upon it. Let the government and the Company get on with their work. Perhaps the Company will fulfil the expectations of the minister by contributing to the solution of problems at the community level in the way that Mr. Pearson intended. But, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Pearson certainly did not want or envisage the creature that we are creating today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: In my
opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Call in the members.
And the members having been called in:
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House will now proceed to the deferred division on motion No. 1 in relation to Bill C-176, an act to amend the Company of Young Canadians Act. The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) moved:
That Bill C-176, an Act to amend the Company of Young Canadians Act, be amended by adding in section 4(1) in clause 1, the words "of whom three shall be elected by volunteer-members and the remainder" after the word "members" in line 16 and deleting the word "who" in line 17.
[Mr. Nowlan.3


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: The House will now take the deferred vote on motion No. 2. Mr. Rose moves, seconded by Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):
That Bill C-176, to amend the Company of Young Canadians Act, be amended by deleting in section 4(1) in clause 1, all the words in lines 17 and 18 and substituting the following words:
"of whom three shall be elected by volunteer-members if the Council consists of seven or eight, but of whom four shall be elected by volunteer-members if the Council consists of nine members, the remainder to be appointed by the Governor in Council for such terms not exceeding''.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The House will now take the deferred vote on motion No. 3. Mr. Rose moves, seconded by Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): That Bill C-176, to amend the Company of Young Canadians Act, be amended by deleting clause 5 therefrom.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Gérard Pelletier: that Bill C-176, to amend the Company of Young Canadians Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By
leave, now.


Gérard Pelletier: that Bill C-176 be read
the third time and do pass.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock when the
NAYS Messrs:
February 18. 1970	COMMONS
House will consider a motion to be moved by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) pursuant to Standing Order 26.
It being 14 minutes after six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Pursuant to Standing Order 26, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), seconded by the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade), moves:
That this House do now adjourn.


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I will start off by saying how sorry we are that members of the press gallery, interpreters and all personnel who normally should have a free evening tonight must be here in the House so that we may deal with a matter of major importance.
Tonight's debate could certainly have been avoided if the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans) had performed his duties more adequately. As the post office conflict is constantly worsening and the Postmaster General arrogantly denies the House information as to the present situation in Montreal, we had no alternative but to demand this debate.
I know the Postmaster General would have preferred that there be no debate. We would have preferred to get other information which would have enabled us to understand that within the Post Office Department there was one man whose capabilities were equal to his responsibilities. Unfortunately, the recent events have shown in an undeniable way that we, members of Parliament, who speak on behalf of the people, have not been able to get from the minister any information of such a nature that would allow us to inform the public and which would enable us to make suggestions in order to settle this dispute.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that facing us there is a shadow government, because as soon as an important issue is before the House, the ministers disappear in a mysterious fashion.
DEBATES	3783
Montreal Postal Strike
Recently, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and these last few weeks, the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans) were not to be found here when matters under their jurisdiction come before the House.


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois):: Mr. Speaker, the minister is in Montreal to try to solve the problems.


Georges-J. Valade: We should have preferred, Mr. Speaker, that-


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Speaker, it is in Montreal that he can solve problems, not by staying here to answer the often stupid questions put by some members.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer back the hon. for Beauharnois (Mr. Laniel) who has just made a stupid remark but I am not here to waste my time taking up such stupid and foolish comments.
The Postmaster General has been beating about the bush for 15 days while he is deep in an explosive situation. He has often refused to give explanations to the House and to supply information. Sometimes the minister was in the building but was not present in the House of Commons. He thus avoided to answer for his administration.
Once again Canada is going through a major crisis in an essential sector of our economy, namely the postal service. For the second time, in so many years, and under the direction of the same minister, the postal service is about to become a national issue, while the minister looks on unperturbed, and even secretly pleased.
Furthermore, as the minister has obstinately-not to say stupidly-refused to reply to hon. members' questions, during the oral question period, in order to inform the House about the conflict, he behaved in an irresponsible manner. In view of his duties, he should act differently. Such an attitude shows that the Postmaster General has lost all sense of the participatory democracy which was championed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Liberal party at the last federal election. Most of all, the minister has shown that he is incapable of coming to terms with the employees of his department.
It is obvious, as time goes by, that the taxpayers and the postal workers have lost the confidence they had shown in the minis-

February 18, 1970
Montreal Postal Strike ter. It is also becoming more and more obvious that the minister has no other alternative, in the present situation, but to resign.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, the government members who usually keep very silent when it comes to-


Gérard Loiselle: You will
find it is the other way around in due time.


Georges-J. Valade: Has the hon. member some remarks to make? If he wants to take part in the debate, I wish to remind the hon. member for LaSalle or Saint-Henri that he has every opportunity to do so, because it is a very important matter. Being a member for Montreal area riding, which is particularly affected by the postal strike going on at the moment, he should have been the first to ask his government-


Mr. Lessard:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon.
member for LaSalle on a point of order.


Georges-J. Valade: -to take appropriate steps to settle this dispute.


H.-Pit Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade) to indicate by the name of his constituency the hon. member who made a remark. The hon. member to whom he was referring is not the hon. member for LaSalle. I would like him to make the correction.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, it does not matter very much. I must say that the hon. member who rose is not the one I meant; I had in mind an hon. member who has been sitting here for over 12 years, yet nobody seems to know which constituency he represents, because of his stolid silence, his carelessness and the incapacity he has demonstrated since he came to the house.
Mr. Speaker, we are here to discuss an important problem and try to find a solution. If the Postmaster General would condescend to call to order that bunch of unruly members, I believe that the debate would prove more constructive than the one in which some are trying to involve me.

[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
We are now faced with a crucial problem, otherwise this debate would not be taking place this evening. This is a serious problem to the extent that if in the near future, the entire postal system is disrupted on account of the slowdown or the work-to-rule now carried on in Montreal, we might be confronted with a national dispute.
Basically, it is not a simple problem, but the minister does not seem to understand anything. It is a conflict in which 450 union members are threatened to lose their job in a couple of months, but this does not seem to concern the Liberal members from Montreal.
In fact, the employees are only asking that the government take measures to ensure that the tenderers or sub-contractors, whatever they are called, recognize the only bargaining unit which represents them. Since only one contractor provided the postal service in Montreal and the area until now, the minister, in his doubtful wisdom, decided to distribute the postal service among five or six separate contracts.
The employees are threatened because their bargaining unit will not be recognized by the contractors. If this happens, they will no longer have any job security.
Those people are also threatened with losing their seniority. Some employees have held their jobs for over 20 years but with a single stroke of the pen the minister recently threatened their security.
Have we reached the point in this society the Prime Minister calls just, where people are no longer entitled to survival? Ail those employees ask is for the Postmaster General to assure them that they will not be laid off in a month.
Mr. Speaker, I fail to see why the minister did not take a clearer stand in that conflict. He could have benefitted from past experience. We remember the strike that broke out when the mail was delivered by Rod Service Ltd, which also knew of the experience of the former contractor, a certain Senecal whose contract was transferred merely by verbal agreement between the minister and the G. Lapalme Inc. to a new contractor who was forced to respect those contracts, that bargaining unit.
Thanks to that bargaining unit, for which they paid dearly through four years of work and efforts, the employees managed to obtain decent salaries, normal fringe benefits and
February 18, 1970

finally, security of employment, as long as they could work.
Mr. Speaker, the minister has done nothing. He merely said: I am not an employer; I cannot intervene in the conflict since, as minister, it does not behove me to deal with the employees. To my mind, the minister is merely bringing out the hypocrisy inherent in this supposedly just society.
Mr. Speaker, the minister could intervene and he still can do it if he wants, since in the contracts he grants, he himself determines the working conditions such as the minimum wages paid to the people working for the new contractors. And, when the minister is forced to protect the employees and union members by setting up a bargaining unit, he refuses to commit himself and he tries, by devious means, to beg off and to shun his responsibilities.
If the minister needs additional arguments we might be able to oblige him. When he says that he cannot provide a bargaining unit for many employers, I think that he could refer to the Canadian Labour Code. The minister does not know it because he has never been close to the workers but has always represented higher interests. I am not blaming him for it, it is his privilege. But in the House it is his responsiblity, as a minister, to deal with workers and union members. The minister should know about the mechanisms capable of preventing such conflicts.
The minister could resort to the Canadian Labour Code, which permits but one bargaining unit among a group of employers. Besides, this is done in the Montreal area, in the province of Quebec. In fact, there are bargaining units on building sites and the members of all the trade associations have to go from one place to another and belong to a single bargaining unit. And those units have to deal with numerous contractors.
Mr. Speaker, the minister is too ready to find an excuse for his inaction. He could intervene but he refuses to do so and that is why the union members accuse him of wanting to destroy the bargaining unit. I do not accuse him myself, but I wonder whether his refusal to reply is not an indication of the truthfulness of their allegation.
It is up to the minister to state clearly his position in this regard. Why does he refuse to relieve the workers from their anxiety as to their future employment? They want to know if they will be unemployed tomorrow and if, like thousands of others, they will have to 21701-291
Montreal Postal Strike swell the already great number of unemployed in Canada, especially in Montreal and in the other areas of Quebec.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, if the Postmaster General was really serious and sincere, he would have asked immediately his colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) to act as a mediator in this conflict. Apparently, in view of the questions that we put to him recently, he would be ready to do it. The member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) asked recently the following question in the House: Is the minister ready to offer his services as a negotiator in this conflict? The minister replied then that he was ready to do so. Then, as a supplementary question I asked the minister if his services had been required. The Minister of Labour did not answer because we know as well as the ministers that the Postmaster General has not yet asked his colleague the Minister of Labour to intervene.
Why this silence, this indifference and this arrogance towards the working class? The workers are only asking for one thing: justice, the right to work and security of employment.
There are mechanisms which could be used. When I look at what is going on here, I wonder what is being done by the Minister' of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand)-and I regret that he is not in his seat-and the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier), two men who, in days gone by, in the labour world, used to write-before they were elected to the house-that they were the great defenders of the working class, of the downtrodden, of the proletariat and of what you will. The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, a former president of the C.N.T.U., should make a statement about this conflict and demand that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) come and solve it because he knows the mechanisms of negotiation well. He could certainly be a good adviser to the Postmaster General. In fact, those men who, in the past, achieved a reputation as great defenders of the workers are mute as fish. They do not say much.
We are confronted here with a serious conflict requiring immediate measures. We want and have to know what is the position of the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications and what he suggests to settle this dispute.
The minister has left us wondering whether the strike was illegal or not. It may be. He never gave us any information in this respect.

February 18, 1970
Montreal Postal Strike If the minister is aware of what he is saying, he will come and prove it to us but until then, may I tell him that under the contract binding the employees, 20 of them can stay away on union business without infringing their labour contract.
Mr. Speaker, we all deplore the vandalistic acts and the breaches of property which may have happened during this troubled period. Sometimes, we do understand the workers; we do not excuse them nor do we encourage them; we simply ask them to keep a cool head in spite of the minister's indifference. Still, Mr. Speaker, this conflict is a cause of friction, of anxiety and concern for those who only ask to make a decent living. The Postmaster General denies them this right, this inalienable right, the right to work which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) even wanted to entrench in the preamble of a new constitution.
I conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, since my time is running out. Before resuming my seat, however, I want to be clear and practical. To get down to brass tacks, because we have to, I believe we still have a choice of six solutions.
First of all, the government could assume temporarily the responsibility for distributing the mail.
Secondly, the government could review the contracts now being negotiated so that the future employers will recognize the bargaining unit.
Thirdly, it could assure present workers that they will not lose their job at the end of March.
Fourthly, it could avoid unnecessary threats and provocations in official statements.
Fifthly, the minister could show a greater sense of justice and defend the right to work for everybody, as proclaimed by the Prime Minister when he talks about the establishment of a just society.
Sixthly, the minister should ask immediately his colleague, the Minister of Labour, to intervene in this conflict. In my opinion, the best solution is that the Postmaster General should simply resign, to every body's satisfaction.


Mr. J. Edward Broadbeni (Oshawa-Whil-by):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief. I shall begin my comments with a couple of observations about the factual situation before I become involved in some areas of controversy. As I see it, the following are the facts.

There are now 459 drivers in the city of Montreal, employees of G. Lapalme Inc. and members of the CNTU, who are about to lose their jobs. In some cases these men have worked for up to 20 years in this employment. But as of March 31 they will be on the street.
How did this come about? It happened that the postal department decided for some reason, perhaps a good one, to split the region of Montreal into five new sectors in terms of the particular service these drivers were performing. As a result, instead of there being one contract for the work being done, tenders were sent out for five. It so happened that the firm for which these men worked did not submit a tender. The result, of course, is that there is no way these men can keep their jobs and 459 men, plus their wives and children, will suffer. I believe this fact should be kept very closely in mind.
The second fact is that the destruction of a trade union local is taking place. When we consider what the trade union movement has meant to the workers in this country and what it will mean to the future on our workers, we appreciate the significance of this fact. Perhaps the number is small in respect of the workers directly involved: it is only one trade union local; it is not a national trade union that is being squashed. However, in terms of the potential national consequences, I believe the significance of these facts transcends in importance the attitude of this government toward the working people.
It seems to me there are some very important questions which need to be answered by the minister. Why did not the postal authorities, for example, ensure that the jobs of these workers-these people who have worked for up to 20 years and who have been workers in good standing.-would be preserved even if a particular employer changed? Job preservation could have been made a condition of the calling of tenders; some effort could have been made to ensure it. But no report I have read has suggested, nor has any person to whom I have spoken about this matter, that any effort was made by the postal authorities to have these workers transferred to other firms if other firms were to end up doing the job.
Similarly, as was suggested by the hon. member who preceded me, why was an effort not made to ensure that the CNTU would still be recognized as the bargaining agent for these workers? This again, as has been indicated, could have been done by making
February 18, 1970

the CNTU, or one union local if you like, the bargaining agent for a number of firms. No precedent would have been set by this kind of action.
If it had been concerned about this question, the Post Office Department could have preserved the jobs of the workers involved for their well-being and that of their families. It could also have preserved an institution which is very important to these workers- the trade union local with which they had been associated. It seems to me that the opposite kinds of considerations have taken place, and it is hard to escape the conclusion that for whatever reason a deliberate attempt has been made to smash a trade union local. I think the minister has to answer for this action.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Quite beyond the particular question, it seems to me that this situation does suggest something about the government's attitude toward workers. How do they feel about the working people in this country, particularly about the people they employ themselves? A short while ago I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in this House whether he was considering taking action in terms of law which would make it mandatory for an employer to give substantial notice to an employee before releasing him from his work.
As is frequently the case, the Prime Minister said this was a provincial matter. For once the Prime Minister is absolutely right. Most areas of labour legislation are within provincial domain. However, there is one very important area which is not within the provincial domain; that is the area of federal employees. It seems to me the Prime Minister could have indicated at that time-as could the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) and other ministers of the Crown-in the administration of the government and its departments a humane and progressive attitude toward the working people of this country. The government has the constitutional authority to do that.
The federal government is in a position to be a pacesetter in terms of labour legislation and attitudes towards labour in this country. Instead, what do we get? There are some exceptions, but the general pattern of this government-and I must say it seems to be the general pattern of this minister-is to put all the emphasis on technocratic market efficiency at the expense, very often, of working people in this country.
Montreal Postal Strike
Again with particular reference to this minister, he is a man whose writings some time ago I admired because they suggested that at least here was one cabinet minister who knew something about modern social theory, who knew something about the nontechnocratic aspects of existence and who seemed, as my colleague suggests, to talk a good fight-at least prior to the leadership convention of the Liberal Party. Had I been a delegate at that convention I suspect I would have voted for the minister. However, I must say that his performance in office, to understate the case by about 100 per cent, has not entirely measured up to my expectations because he, of all ministers, has seemed to revel in a complete preoccupation with market efficiency. I suspect that somewhere at the heart of this dispute we will find this was the big question.
We will get this argument from the minister: We had to change our pocedures in Montreal. We had to change the employer that was doing the trucking because this would have resulted in a more efficient postal service. But I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that every serious, empirical study done in the United States and in Western Europe in the last ten years suggests that this kind of approach reaches the kind of conclusion we have here. It does not reach the conclusion that we have a more efficient enterprise, more productive and more contented workers. In fact we get just the opposite-discontent, inefficiency and wildcat strikes.
Every study in fact indicates-there have been a number in the past few years-that where working people are given serious consideration, where they are taken into the power structure in running enterprises, we get two very important by-products. We get greater, not less, efficiency by taking the worker more seriously. By treating him more as a human being we increase productivity. We also do this by giving him more power. All the evidence points to this fact.
The second and more important result so far as I am concerned is that you get happier workers, more contented human beings. I suggest to the minister that if he is really interested in efficiency he will begin to take the worker more seriously as a human being. Quite beyond that, I would like him to suggest to his colleagues in the cabinet, and particularly the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mack-asey), that the federal government begin to make basic changes in its management attitudes and in legislation as it affects federal employees. There is no better place to start

February 18, 1970
Montreal Postal Strike this kind of activity than in the postal service of this country, and no better time to adopt a change in attitude than during this current crisis in Montreal.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, again we are faced with a Post Office problem. It is a pity, in a world where communications are increasingly important, that the department concerned is continually having this problem which, in fact, has never been thoroughly dealt with.
The department's policy is greatly to blame for the situation. All the solutions brought forward by the present Postmaster General and Minister of Communications (Mr. Kier-ans) have been superficial and short-term ones. The department is incapable of preparing a long-term policy. There is no dialogue, no regular contact with employees, no true spirit of conciliation and consultation. The minister's attitudes are always those of a dictator, designed to enforce his decisions. Such an attitude is ridiculous, when we remember the minister's assertion that increased postal rates would bring about an improved postal service. There is the record of this administration. It costs us more to get less service.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
The minister pleads his case by saying that the conflict is illegal. Having said that, he stays put, he does not do anything, he does not try to meet-except at the very last minute-the union leaders.
Therefore, it is not surprising to find that the whole thing is a failure and that the dispute may reach the national level.
In the report issued by the firm of Kates, Peat and Marwich, the judgments were harsh. The minister remembers that. Indeed, as far as the public needs are concerned, as well as postal rates, manpower management, labour relations, working conditions, equipment, executive training, the report of this firm was particularly severe.
Unfortunately, this department has always developed a short-term policy. The Postmaster General, believe it or not, is the eighth minister in office since 1962. Thus, it is not surprising to note that, from one minister to the next, the policy is always a superficial and short-term one.
The least that we can ask from the Postmaster General is to prove that the recent rate increases are justified, due to the present situation. People are tired to bear the cost of strikes, even though they have no choice.
[Mr. Broadbent.l
When the communication phenomenon as a whole is affected, the situation goes much beyond the innocuous economic and administrative purpose.
We know that the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications has always been known for his letters. As this is precisely the question under discussion tonight I should like to refer you to the official report of the House for February 17, 1970. It contains a famous letter which will make him go down in history for his spirit of conciliation and dialogue. In fact, the minister in this letter describes his approach, that is that he has none.
This letter is dated February 17, 1970 and is addressed to Mr. Raymond Parent, Secretary-General of the Confederation of National Trade Unions. It reads as follows, and I quote:
Dear Mr. Parent:
Since the mail transportation situation in Montreal has become intolerable, I wish to state clearly the position of the Post Office Department and the Government.
Mr. Speaker, when the minister wrote those words, the dispute had already lasted for over 16 days, but that is not important. The minister finally made up his mind to speak, and you will note the conciliatory tone he uses, his ability in collective bargaining with regard to labour problems.
I quote further:
The resulting disruption, violence and intimidation have hampered enormously the competitive capacity of industry and commerce in Montreal.
Later on we find the following, and I quote:
I will not list the Incidents of violence, sabotage, and destruction of government property which have occurred during the last two weeks. You are as aware of them as I am. I will simply say that the mail is not being delivered.
Mr. Speaker, it will thus have taken 16 days for the minister to discover that the mail is not delivered, that violence occurs, and so on.
If you are looking for some indication of the employer's offer in the letter, you will not find any. Supposing that the employer, as such, recognizes that it is not the responsibility of the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications to settle the dispute, but of the contractor, one could wonder about the position taken by the Post Office and Communications Departments concerning the conflict.
February 18, 1970

The minister concluded his letter by stating three solutions, but nothing further was done. His first solution was as follows and I quote:
How can we assure the best service for the people of Montreal between now and March 31?
This first basic question asked by the minister in his letter is once again a short-term policy. He finds it essential to know how the mail will be delivered until March 31. He is not worried about giving an efficient postal service, but about what will happen between now and March 31.
However, the employees wish to know what will happen not only between now and March 31, but also after that date.
Here is the second question of the minister:
Secondly, how can we ensure the continued employment of the greatest number of present employees, with priority being given to the 162 men with more than five years service; thirdly, what are the best arrangements that can be made with Manpower to admit the remainder to paid retraining programs.
I eliminate the third one because the list of those who would like to benefit from the retraining programs is already very long. Let us examine the second question.
When I first read it, it seemed to have some merit. The means of ensuring job security at least to the 162 employees who had five years experience or more appeared to be worth considering. So I dug up the files and discovered something which I should like to bring to the minister's attention-a CNTU press release dated February 5, 1969. Obviously, the release was given to the newspapers and the minister and all members must have received a copy. I think it would be worthwhile to read it tonight, during this emergency debate. When I read it, I realized that I was right when I claimed that it was a short-term policy and that the second proposition of the government was unacceptable. The press release deals with the conflict with Rod Service Ltd. and reads as follows:
After that, the Post Office Department informed the union leaders that it would provide these services on its own, but it also called for tenders from three contractors, including Rod Service Ltd., in order to let out new contracts for these services.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if we make a comparison, we find this is what is happening now in the dispute relating to Lapalme Inc.
The communique continues:
One thing is certain: the net result of all these operations is that 111 dismissals have been announced yesterday by the company to the union, 38 of which concerned the special delivery service and 12 the mobile delivery.
Montreal Postal Strike
During the dispute which took place in Montreal in August 1968, 111 dismissals were announced to the union. The union was caught off guard. They were ready for it in a way but not to the extent of fighting against a minister who disregards consultations and negotiations. You will remember the famous crisis of August 1968.
These same workers were then threatened to lose their jobs. They come up this year against the same problem. The quotation continues:
So, the wheel is beginning to turn:
-says the CNTU. And it was right because it had anticipated that the same release could be used again this year.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
On February 5th, the CNTU stated, and I quote:
-Ill employees lose their jobs, tomorrow others will also lose them. When will the 420 members of the union be out on the street?
That is the question the CNTU asked on February 5th in its press release; today we are up against the problem of knowing what to do with those employees.
Mr. Speaker, I should not overstay my leave but it seems to me that today's problem could have been foreseen. In spite of my limited experience in that field, it seems to me that if the Postmaster General had been more conciliating, had he worked harder at negotiations, if he had taken the trouble of going out to the parties instead of convening them to his office, had he gone out to meet the employees or at least the union leaders in short, had he taken into account the representations made in 1969, he might perhaps understand the drama now taking place in Montreal.
Mr. Speaker, it may be that government members will accuse us of wanting to play politics with this question, but by putting ourselves in the shoes of those employees who are threatened with being laid off, it is obvious to us that the department has a shortterm policy with regard to personnel management, personnel planning, and that the conflict could have been avoided.
That does not necessarily mean that the minister is solely to blame, but the fact remains that if the minister is honest, he will have to admit his failings, because he is mainly responsible for those lay-offs.
I suggest this conflict will increase more and more in scope in spite of the extraordinary measures the minister may take, espe-

February 18, 1970
Montreal Postal Strike cially if they are dictatorial measures, that do not rely on the co-operation of union leaders, on negotiation and consultation, and next year, we will have to cope with a new problem, even if the minister says it will not be next year, but five years from now.
It seems to me the communications field is of such importance that we should act seriously and try to prevent situations such as this one.
That we have known eight Postmasters General since 1962 seems to me significant enough. That is an indication that there is no long-term policy in that department, but a short-sighted one which may serve the ministers' interests while they hold office but surely does not serve the people's interests. Therefore, I invite the government members-without any political ambition but on the contrary very sincerely-to read the Kates, Peat and Marwick report and they will see that my criticisms are but a repetition of that report.
Before concluding, I should like to point out that the most serious thing I have against the minister is that he has been saying for several days that the Department of Labour and the Department of Manpower and Immigration are ready to intervene and that besides, they have already taken steps.
When the Postmaster General has the floor, I should like him to clearly state the position of the government and the steps he intends to take to settle this conflict because dictatorial measures are out of the question. It would be desirable to know what bargaining measures he intends to use to settle the conflict in Montreal, not only for this year but also for the coming years, while providing the employees with job security.
I should like the minister to tell us what progress he has made in his discussions with his colleagues in the cabinet so that his department can show that it does serve the people and that it is not simply dedicated to ensure the good name of the minister.


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
I hope that if the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans) speaks, he will not close the debate.


Eric William Kierans: No, not at all.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Eric William Kierans: Hon. members will have the opportunity to be heard.

[English}
Mr. Speaker, I should like to make one or two things clear at the outset. Some hon. members opposite have called for the intervention of my colleagues the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey), the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand) and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen). I simply say to hon. members that if they are seeking to divide the government, this is a government decision. This decision has been taken by all members of the government, and all members of the government are solidly behind it. I, myself, have suggested on various occasions to the secretary general of the CNTU that he contact my colleagues.
We are unanimous on another point. I refer again to the ministers who have been mentioned, the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. They are completely unanimous on this point: We will begin to talk when the violence stops.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eric William Kierans: One hon. member has spoken of the destruction of a union. We are speaking of the annual destruction of mail service to 2.5 million people for no other purpose than to bludgeon and blackmail the government of Canada, through its contracts, into prices and tariffs that are beyond all reason. This has gone in since 1954, and it is not going on any longer. The Minister of Labour, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, as well as all members of the government, are determined on this. We are not destroying any union. The union is destroying itself.
The union is now in a position of having led its members in such a way that they can no longer find an employer. Last year Rod Services said it could no longer deal with the union and carry on the service; it asked to be relieved. The present activities and violence of the union and its influence on its members are driving its present employer into a position where he will either ask to be relieved of his contract or go bankrupt. So once again these men will be without an employer. And what does the union suggest to me, as minister? They suggest, as they suggested last March: You create for us a new employer, a Crown corporation. It could take us all in, whether you need us all or not. There are 455 of us now; last March there were 397.
February 18, 1970



-at that time the real problem was precisely surplus employees and a cost of production which was over a third greater than in any other city in Canada.

I told them we are not going to create a Crown corporation for one city. If we create one for Montreal, why should we not create one for Toronto, Rimouski, Sept lies, Vancouver, Rainy River-


An hon. Member:: Or Winnipeg.


Eric William Kierans: -or Winnipeg.


Martial Asselin: What about the CSN; what do they say?


Eric William Kierans: The CSN is not interested in this. The CSN is interested in the CSN.
This union says, "Administer and regulate the affairs of this company." I say this is not our business. We hand out 10,000 contracts and we expect the people to whom we have given the contracts in open competition to do a job for us. If they do not, we change them.


Georges-J. Valade: Will the minister permit a question?


Eric William Kierans: At the end of my remarks, if the hon. member does not mind. Now the union comes to me and says, "Find us another employer. You found us Lapalme last year. Get us another contractor." I say it is too late. We have already handed out contracts. We have signed the contracts and we will honour them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eric William Kierans: The latest proposal is-I say this for those who are skilled in union affairs-that I should tell the five successful contractors, "You will all join the CSN or your contracts will be annulled." What kind of bargaining is that?


An hon. Member:: You should have done it originally.


Eric William Kierans: Wait a minute. That was their problem. They were asleep for five months and woke up only when there was a strike. I asked them, "Why should I tell these five contractors anything?"


An hon. Member:: Is that how the opposition would choose a union?


Eric William Kierans: One of the contractors already has a union, that union being the Teamsters.
Montreal Postal Strike What will we tell the contractor who presently is dealing with the Teamsters? Will we tell him that unless he changes to the CSN, the contract will be null and void? Justify that to the Teamsters!

The guys from the CNTU do not need me any more. They are men and not children.

When the new contracts start on April 1, that is their problem. They can go out, as the Teamsters can, and bargain with the new contractors. They may be recognized or they may not. But they will not be under pressure from the government of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Georges-J. Valade: That's an easy way out.


Eric William Kierans: I assume the hon. member has a better solution. We have never heard it. It is quite obvious, Mr. Speaker-indeed, some speakers this evening have admitted it-that they have very little knowledge of what is going on in Montreal. I wish to give a brief resume of the facts. There have been five breakdowns of service in the last year. Only the first of these was legal. Last year's illegal disruption, slow-down, violence, chain gangs, goons and threats lasted 32 days. We have had 2J weeks of disruption so far this year. There were others previous to that; it has worked in the past. What has now happened is that the costs in Montreal are 25 per cent higher than in other comparable cities. Montreal has been held by the throat by a temporary arrangement each year. It is to be expected that sooner or later the government or the people of Montreal will crack. However, this year the government is not going to crack; and if the people of Montreal understand the situation, they are not going to crack either.


Martial Asselin: They are going to suffer.


Eric William Kierans: What is responsible for the suffering? The hourly rates. Should we submit to the blackmail, as a Conservative government would?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eric William Kierans: The total cost in Montreal last year-


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

February 18, 1970
Montreal Postal Strike


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


Eric William Kierans: The Conservative government gave them everything they wanted.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The hon. member for Sainte-Marie on a point of order.


Georges-J. Valade: I will make my point of order in English because I do not want any ambiguity. I ask the minister, in view of his statements about violence and threats-


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


Georges-J. Valade: That is my point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member asked the minister whether he could ask him a question and he is rising on a point of order.
I would like to know whether he is rising on a point of order or whether he wants to direct a question to the minister.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker I rise on a point of order because in the course of his speech the minister mentioned threats and violence. He seems to be accusing all the employees involved in the strike. I feel he should be specific.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. That is not a point of order.


Eric William Kierans: I accept the hon. member's point. A small group of individuals-a gang- within the union is responsible for these things and leads everybody. The leader of the group called the Post Office the pork barrel of politics.
I asked him to be more explicit in his comments and his criticisms. If there is something in the garbage can, let him raise the cover.
That individual has even said that last year, between 7,000 and 8,000 parcels had been stolen during the Christmas season, and that he himself had engaged in this practice, as it was the common thing to do. Those are the undesirable ones!

For 14 years, Mr. Speaker, contracts have been given in Montreal without public tender. As I said in my letter to Mr. Parent, I am not blaming anyone-the management, the union or the government. I am simply stating the

facts. I want to point out that the opposition must also share the blame. One newspaper article states that the mail situation in Montreal is a jungle. During the six years of Conservative government a tender was never asked for; they gave in on every occasion.


Georges-J. Valade: You did it for 25 years before that.


Eric William Kierans: Last year after Rod Services was no longer able to continue, they lost their employer.


Mr. Sulaiycky:: You realize they never had a strike either.


Eric William Kierans: You can buy your way out of anything, can't you? At that time I offered to make clear exactly how far I was willing to go. I offered to take into the department those drivers that we needed and to run the service in Montreal ourselves. I went further than that; I said that those employees whom we could not take into the department-because we did not need all 397 of them-would be offered part-time work until such time as we were able to hire them full time. If there were some left, we offered them the possibility-


Eric William Kierans: -the possibility of retraining themselves so as to be able to fill other positions. This rather generous offer has been refused.

Why was it refused? It was refused for two reasons. The first reason was if they came into the department I could not recognize the CSN because we have our own unions in the public service. The second reason was that if we did take them, we could not give them recognition of their seniority. This was not because we would or would not have wanted to do that. I have no opinion on that matter; it is a union problem. What is quite clear is that the CSN is not interested in their members, but in themselves.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eric William Kierans: Last year they lost their employer and this year they are again losing their employer.


Georges-J. Valade: That is a misrepresentation of facts.


Eric William Kierans: He took a deliberate choice. He wanted no part of this. He took that choice despite the urging of the Post Office.
February 18, 1970

He decided not to submit any bids. In effect he said, "I cannot manage my own affairs; I cannot hire my people; I cannot fire them; I cannot appoint supervisors or run my own business." This is why he did not submit a tender. Due to the fact he did not bid, this group again lost its employer.
What this strike is all about is this: Can another employer be found that will permit them to operate, recognize their status and give a legal existence to something that has in fact disappeared twice within less than a year?

The union took no action. They were advised at the end of September. The union ignored the fact that the government of Canada was announcing public tenders. Why did they not ask us until the end of January when they blew it and decided to revert to their old tactics of violence against the people of Montreal? Why did they not ask to see 21701-301
Montreal Postal Strike me? Why did they not speak up on behalf of their men? Why did they not ask me to include in the contract a clause protecting their men? Mr. Speaker, they are not interested in protecting their men; they are interested in protecting themselves. We ourselves included-not at the instigation of the union-such clauses as "tenderers must undertake to pay wage rates not less than prevailing rates." We have paid more attention to the welfare of their men than they have themselves.
In January the new contracts were awarded, representing five times the security of the old ones and stipulating that employees shall be paid daily wage rates-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the minister but his
lime has expired. He may not continue without the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Agreed. The Postmaster General and Minister of Communications.


Eric William Kierans: This company's contract
expires on March 31. These 455 employees will therefore be out of work. They will no longer have a union; they will no longer have a contract. They have never been Post Office employees, nor have the other 40,000 or 50,000 people who work for other contractors across the country. The principle suggested tonight, that the government should guarantee all 455 jobs whether they need them or not because their company has ceased to exist, could be extended to include the case of workers in any textile or other factory which went bankrupt. It might be said that we should guarantee employment to all who lose their jobs. We cannot guarantee employment. We can make suggestions and ask people to take certain steps. We shall do all we can to help them. But first of all they must help themselves.
I have a better breakdown of the seniority of these employees than the union does. We asked them for this information but they refused to give it, or did not bother to reply. We cannot urge contractors to take on new employees until the new employees are permitted to seek work; until they are permitted to register with Canada Manpower and permitted to approach the new contractors. This they cannot do. One of the new contractors can show you any day the goons of the union

February 18, 1970
Montreal Postal Strike who are watching to see which of the members of the union goes into his plant.
I was invited to one meeting of the executive. I went to it, as did the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, and the Minister of Labour. I received the telegram inviting me to another meeting of the executive on the morning of the day on which the meeting was convened. I could not go because I was appearing that day before the Senate Committee on Mass Media, and the Minister of Labour was in Vancouver. The next meeting took place at my instigation. We went over all the points and had a very useful talk and a very hard one.

I am ready to meet with Mr. Parent and Mr. Beaudoin.


An hon. Member:: The Minister of Labour also?


Eric William Kierans: Surely! But I would prefer meeting with the union members themselves and having a frank talk with them.
I was told, two or three weeks ago, that I would be invited to a general union meeting. But I heard no more about it.

You want the details? You talk about the destruction of a union! Do you want me to talk about the destruction of government property? What do you want the government of Canada to do when 568 mail boxes out of 1,800 have been damaged, blocked, cemented? Are we supposed to say to these people, "You are right. Your methods have forced us to recognize the logic of your arguments"?


Georges-J. Valade: Of course not. We never said that.


Eric William Kierans: You can see the damage all over Montreal. Where will it end?


Georges-J. Valade: You are the minister.


Martial Asselin: Arbitrate.


Eric William Kierans: What is there to arbitrate when people block your trucks and destroy your mail boxes? Who wants to arbitrate with people like that? We shall come to that after they stop these practices-and not before.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eric William Kierans: The situation in Montreal is that 700,000 items of mail have been delayed. Now these people are beginning to damage the relay boxes. I could read two pages of

incidents. In short, the unions have worked themselves into a position in the last five years where the people of Montreal and the taxpayers of Canada are calling a halt.
In the last five years the cost of operation in Toronto has risen by 33 per cent. In the last five years the cost of operation in Montreal has gone up by 73 per cent. And still they are not satisfied. I have said that unless the violence and the slow-down ceases, I shall have no choice but to revoke the Lapalme contract.
I will say more: It is much more likely that by that time, if the present situation continues, the employees themselves will have driven their employer into bankruptcy. He is not delivering the mail, and in accordance with many of his contracts he is getting paid for what he delivers. Nevertheless, he is paying the employees at full-time rates even though they deliver 20 per cent of a load instead of 100 per cent. In effect, we the people of Canada are financing this slowdown. It is the taxpayer of Canada who is financing what is going on in Montreal.

The Montreal taxpayer is fed up also.
[English\
If the Lapalme contract is to be revoked, or if the company should have any reason to give up this contract, the members of the union are back where they were when Rod Services decided to go out of business. They will have no contract because they will have no employer. They will have no union because they will have no employer. This time we are not looking for a guardian angel to take them into the fold because we have the people to handle the mail transportation services in Montreal. The sooner the CSN understand that, the better it will be for them and for the people of Montreal.
e (9:20 p.m.)
I have explained to Mr. Parent that if I am forced to revoke the contract we will hire 350 chauffeurs. That is all we need, not 455. V,re will give priority to those who have long service. I can break down the service for the House. According to the newspapers, some of this service goes up to 20 years. In fact it goes further than that, because 30 of the present drivers for Lapalme have worked for between 15 and 43 years. Three of them have worked 14 years, four have worked 13 years, nine have worked 12 years, 13 have worked 11 years and 27 have worked 10 years. Another
February 18, 1970

76 have worked between five and ten years. That represents 162 men with ten years of service.

No, no goons are involved in this case and I agree with you on that.

Thirty of these employees have worked for four years, 48 for three years, 80 for two years and-this is the heart of the matter- 135 have come in within the last year.


An hon. Member:: Troublemakers.


Eric William Kierans: I do not say that they are troublemakers, but I do say that the people who came in within the last year knew that it was a temporary arrangement. They knew the conditions which had been prevailing. I do not think that I have a particular responsibility to them, any more than I have a responsibility to make sure that the Teamsters are thrown out of one contract and the CSN pushed in.
We will take account of these people as best we can, but first of all they must look after themselves. They have to risk-and the way things are going, it is quite a risk-listing their names with Canada Manpower. They have to make application. If they do not register with Canada Manpower, there is nothing that I or anyone else can do. If they do register, they will be given every consideration. However, if they do not and the union decides to continue violence because the government is weak-kneed and cowardly and eventually they will win the day, we can help no one in the present group.
One thing we will do is go on delivering the mail, and we will take all the necessary steps to deliver it. If they do not register with Manpower, we will begin by employing 350 new drivers and will give them the security that the occasion will require. The issue is in the hands of the union, and their representatives are here tonight. I hope all of them understand the situation, and that through whatever contacts they have they will make it clear that this government will not yield to violence, to intimidation-that the government will not yield, period.
If the union wishes to discuss job security, the officers of the Post Office and Canada Manpower are waiting. But they have already been waiting for five months since the announcement of September 26. What we heard from them then was not that they were interested in job security, but rather that
Montreal Postal Strike they were interested in bringing the government of Canada and its Post Office Department to their knees. We are not on our knees now, and we will not be.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I listened with rapt attention and great interest to the statement of the minister, which lasted longer than the rules for this type of debate allow. However, we were delighted to grant unanimous consent that he prolong his remarks and we on this side of the House will expect, if necessary, that similar reciprocation will come our way.
The minister spoke with great vigour and tremendous volume. He reminded me of one of my old elocution teachers who used to say that when you find your opponents roaring, you know that their argument is very, very weak. The minister used words like "bludgeon", "blackmail" and other brave words in talking about certain unions in Montreal and their iniquity. Since they were also asleep for five months, their iniquity must have been compounded during the few months that they were awake.
I used to read the telegrams and statements that union leaders addressed to or made about this present minister and often they came from the workers in his department. They made the most outlandish-as I then thought-denigrating remarks which I thought were excessive and extreme, and to which I was totally unsympathetic. After listening this evening to the outpourings of this minister, I can quite understand how the spokesmen for the unions feel. I can quite understand why he has been such a total disaster in the matter of dealing with the workers of his own department.
The matter we are discussing tonight on an urgent basis is not one that concerns only the people of the great city of Montreal. My colleague from Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade) has discussed brilliantly and cogently the problems facing that great city. This is a matter that greatly concerns the whole country since the mail of many Canadians is processed in the metropolis of Montreal.
On the other hand, as a Canadian who is not from Montreal I want to say that I have no desire to see the people of that great city deprived of their essential services. The Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans), who spoke with such volume and apparent conviction as well as partisanship, is himself unique among the ministers of this unique government. In his short term of office he has emerged as an

February 18, 1970
Montreal Postal Strike outstanding curtailer of services and an eminent diminisher of jobs. Postmasters all over the country have found themselves sacked, their offices closed and the services that they have rendered to the people discontinued. People who have rendered faithful service over many more years than the minister has been in government have found themselves tossed out unceremoniously as the minister, with his technocratic sophistication, embarks upon making the Post Office pay regardless of the public and the needs of Canadian citizens.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Newspaper publishers, people who produce the non-profit press, who try to disseminate useful information for the Canadian people, long time users of the post office, have found themselves cast out because of this arrogant technocrat who was going to do such wonders for the postal service. He says the same things about the publishers as he says about the unions. He told us in committee that when the publishers said they could not publish under the new rates "they are selling you a bill of goods." He had the insufferable arrogance to tell me, "They are selling you a bill of goods, and you know it." The man who can presume to read the thoughts of other people is certainly no judicious interpreter of their actions.
In no area has this rapidly disillusioning government created more public resentment than in the Post Office, a department of government possibly closer to the average Canadian than any other. Many people will not be building new houses. Regrettably, many people are not tuned-in to external affairs and many people do not even pay income tax because they do not make enough money in these days of austerity. But most of us like to get some mail once in a while, and today we do not get it too promptly or too regularly. But tonight we discuss and we agonize over yet another grave deterioration in the postal service, one of the oldest and most essential utilities which the government of Canada owes to its people.
Since the present minister took office, what was bad has become worse and what was wrong has become intolerable. Tonight he had the presumption, which he has displayed before, to compare his record with that of preceding Conservative governments. I will follow him in that rhetorical exercise and say to him that he has certainly exceeded his Conservative predecessors and his Liberal predecessors also. He has exceeded both of

them because at no time since John A. Macdonald was postmaster has there been such dissatisfaction and such poor service as there has been since this technocratic expert assumed the office of Postmaster General. So if he wants to make comparisons, let him go ahead, but his record is greater than that of the Progressive Conservatives and greater than that of the Liberals-greater in ineptitude than both combined.
It is not surprising that there has been a shocking decline in the morale of the workers in his department. I have been here 13 years but I have been studying government for far longer than that. However, never have I seen workers in a department go to the public decrying what is going on in their department to the extent which has been the case in reference to the postal workers since this man took office. Those who want to read may refer to the press of yesterday or the telegrams of months ago from leaders of the unions in the Post Office Department to know what I mean. I have read into the record the statements of union spokesmen on these matters. As months go by we know that the mail accumulates and morale decays. That is the sad and dreary story of the Canadian Post Office in this the second year of the just society; this the second year of the announced satellite era.
Yesterday I read one of the most disturbing statements concerning a section of the public service of Canada which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen entitled "Death of Post Office Efficiency". It is a paid advertisement by the Letter Carriers' Union of Canada. I mention this because I think it is germane to the problem. I think we would be faulty in our analysis of this great public problem if we thought that the present discontent and the current troubles in Montreal were unique and isolated from the whole story of the pathetic, regrettable, constant and continual mismanagement of the Post Office Department. The paid advertisement to which I refer reads in part as follows:
The Letter Carriers of Canada wish to convey to the public, our deepest sympathy while they wait in frustration for mail they know should have arrived.
On February 17, 1969, a system called single mail processing was instituted in the Canada Post Office. This system was imposed full-blown by the minister to cut costs. In spite of this, figures recently published representing government estimates show that the Post Office will again operate at a deficit of close to $69 million for 1970-71.
February 18, 1970

They end up by saying, in a most unusual appeal from public servants:
We also ask you, the taxpayer, to contact your MP in an effort to have your dissatisfaction voiced in the House. Let us collectively bring back to the people of Canada the efficient postal service to which they are entitled.
It is signed, and presumably paid for, by the Letter Carriers' Union of Canada. I say again that this is a unique demonstration of relations between governmental employees and spokesmen for the government which, we can assume, is their employer.


Eric William Kierans: May I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would the hon. member please talk about the situation in Montreal, if he knows about it?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. After that admonition from the minister, I will ask the hon. member to keep to the subject of the debate.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: May I say on this point of order, with all due respect, Mr. Speaker-and the Postmaster General was absent until just a moment ago-that I have looked very carefully-


Eric William Kierans: But I did not miss anything.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I thank the minister for his courtesy. This is what makes him such a success. His insufferable condescension has got him where he is. I would like to say, with all due respect, that I have read carefully the motion on which we are speaking. I listened carefully, without interrupting, although with a great deal of incredulity, to what the minister said. I am certain that what we are now discussing is part of the total decline in the morale of the employees of the postal department and I am wondering if the minister in his own remarks, or if anyone in the delineation of this debate, could properly suggest that we must confine ourselves

although I would be glad to do it-to the exchanges between those in Montreal and the minister himself. I am talking very definitely about the situation which is a grave one, so grave, so serious, so national in its importance that we are discussing it tonight under Standing Order 26.
It would be a partial and incomplete analysis to regard the Montreal episode as a separate instance. It is the last part of a regrettable story of abominable public relations and a pathetic failure to understand the aspirations
Montreal Postal Strike and priorities of the men whose work is necessary to make the department function properly.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
The minister mentioned the appeal to the Minister of Labour. He waxed indignant about this. But it was not the members of this party who suggested the Minister of Labour be involved it was people involved more directly in the dealings of the minister who made this suggestion. I shall quote from a telegram:
The Confederation of National Trade Unions Wednesday asked Labour Minister Bryce Mackasey to intervene in Montreal's two-week-old mail delivery slow-down.
That is a euphemism, I may observe.
In a telegram to the minister, the CNTU said: "Our meeting yesterday, Tuesday, with Mr. Postmaster General Eric Kierans demonstrated his refusal to seek an equitable solution to Montreal's postal dispute.
We have received your public offer to intervene. That 450 workers are losing their rights concerns you in your capacity as labour minister and we ask you to intervene immediately to reach a solution.
So it is not from this party that the suggestion that the Minister of Labour appear as a saviour has emanated. It is from those others who have something less than confidence in the Postmaster General's ability that the suggestion has arisen. This situation, one of a series I regret to say, is deplorable. I think it is unfair to suggest that the whole responsibility resides upon those on the labour side, no matter how many years of seniority they may have. None of us has any right or reason to condone for a moment the violence which has been reported to us, but to heap scorn upon those on the other side-to use the kindest expression I can command-I submit, sir, is a most inadequate explanation of this regrettable and deplorable affair.
Some actions have been deplorable. I exonerate no one who meddles with the public's mail. Things have happened in Montreal which are beyond excuse. But I say in candour and sadness that the major blame must be placed, not upon the workers who have some reason to feel insecure but upon the minister whose record as an expert in labour relations has been deplorable when it has not been worse.
I think that instead of the superlatives of abuse which we hear about the excessive demands and actions of the union, we can never approach a solution, let alone an understanding of this acute problem in one of the

February 18, 1970
Montreal Postal Strike most important areas of the whole postal operation until we can invoke a little more objectivity, calmness and reasonableness. In all the discussions I have heard over this recent period, one which commends itself outstandingly to me in its objectivity and soundness is a statement made by a Mr. David Waters of the Montreal Star on the CBC the other day. Reflecting on this subject in a thoughtful way he said:
The drivers want job security, the Post Office wants to ensure efficient mail delivery, hopefully at a lower cost by contracting the delivery of mail through public tenders to independent firms. That it has proceeded to do by awarding contracts as of April 1st to five new Arms. The drivers claim that in the process their jobs and their futures have been jeopardized.
Then Mr. Waters asked:
How just is their claim?
He goes on, as a thoughtful man, to say:
Well put yourself in the driver's seat for a few moments and try to decide for yourself. Let's say you are 50 years old-
That strikes a chord because I am at the half-century mark.
-and have been driving a mail truck for some ten to twenty years. You are presently paid better than the average truck driver who works for some of the firms who have been awarded the contracts. You know that legally the successful bidders are under no obligation to hire you, to respect your seniority or any of the other provisions of the collective agreement which had been negotiated on your behalf with the company with whom you will be working until the end of March. You have heard it reported that Mr. Kierans himself intimated that the new firms may need only 350 of the 400 or 450 more drivers now employed. What has particularly galled you was the answer the Minister of Communications gave to your demands for job security. He suggested that if you ceased your protest-if you applied quickly to the new firms for jobs and if you asked the Manpower Department for help, he would be willing to help you in any way he could. In your view he meant if you are docile enough, if you apply cap in hand for a new job then men of good will at the top will do what they can for you-just trust them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Thank you, sir. I thank my colleagues and will try to reciprocate by

brevity. I shall continue to quote Mr. Waters as follows:
But should you trust them. If they cared about your future why wasn't fair treatment for you as to salary and seniority, etc., written into the public tenders put out by the post office. Most of the drivers have concluded that unless they protest vigorously by slowing down the delivery of mail their future well-being will most likely get lost in the shuffle. That distrust is not the fatality of dispute, but it certainly lies very much at the human heart of it. Meanwhile the undelivered mail piles up and the conflict grows more complex and uglier every day. By now everyone involved and that includes the public has become a victim of some kind of injustice. The mail must get through, the solution to the present conflict has to be found or one will have to be imposed. Whatever the outcome it will be wrong if legitimate insecurity of the drivers were not resolved in the process.
I noted very carefully the comment of the minister when he said the workers should take the risk of putting their names into the Canada Manpower office. Knowing how ineffective that particular branch has been in providing jobs, I can quite understand why he used that word.
Mr. Warren Allmand (Nolre-Dame-de-
Grace): Mr. Speaker, during the past two weeks the people in my constituency and the people in most of Montreal have been faced with a virtual breakdown in the postal service and with violence and destruction. These innocent, hard-working citizens of a city have been faced for a year with different types of violence and strikes. As usual, it is the innocent citizens who suffer, the old people who wait for their pension cheques, the small and big businessmen and people waiting for important supplies.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
As I said, the citizens of the city of Montreal during the last several months have experienced a wildcat police strike with accompanying violence, and a wildcat strike and violence among taxi drivers. They have been subjected to explosions and fires, destruction in their universities, violence in St. Leonard, and many other incidents.
Mr. Speaker, the sad consequence of much that has been going on and is now going on in Montreal is that these people who otherwise are very sympathetic to an open society, to democratic institutions, are demanding authoritarian institutions. I find this is an extreme and very disappointing side-effect of this whole situation.
As I say, the present postal situation is just another incident of many things that have happened in Montreal in the past year. I go
February 18, 1970

home to my constituency and face telephone calls, letters and meetings with people. They were moderate people, sympathetic to trade unionism and to many of the institutions of democratic society. But now they are questioning these things and wondering whether, if violence is the first principle of action by people who seem to have grievances, they must in protest demand authoritarian institutions. This is a real danger-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade) on a point of order.


Georges-J. Valade: I find that I have to make the same point of order as the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications a while ago.
Even though the subject is very interesting, I am under the impression that the hon. member is talking about security or order. I believe that we are not discussing that question, but-


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


Georges-J. Valade: -the Montreal Post Office
strike.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I think the hon. member is discussing the situation prevailing in Montreal, where violence exists, and I feel that this is in order.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


The Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Sainte-Marie rises on a question of privilege.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I should like to point out that I rose on a point of order, and I should like the Chair to recognize it anew. We are not here to waste our time, even if it is very interesting to discuss the order or the disorder of society. We are here to discuss the strike in Montreal.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. For the benefit of the members of the House I will read the motion, which I have here only in English:
I ask leave, seconded by Mr. Valade, member for Sainte-Marie, to move the adjournment of the House under standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the postal
Montreal Postal Strike
slowdown in the city of Montreal which has crippled mail service, a concern which is within the administrative responsibility of the government of Canada and which has presently reached crisis proportions.

I feel that the statements of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace are relevant.


Georges-J. Valade: I do not agree with you.


Mr. Allmand:: As a citizen of Montreal I am very much aware of the situation and I consider this debate important and serious. I am talking about the postal strike, the accompanying violence and the destruction of property that has gone with it. But I am trying to inform the House that one must look at this situation in context with all the other violence that has gone on in Montreal during the past year. I warn hon. members that it is becoming extremely serious when people, because of situations such as this, are beginning to question our democratic society and are demanding authoritarian institutions.
I find this situation extremely disturbing. I say that with all the sympathy that I have for the 450 workers who might lose their jobs, with all the sympathy for the points they may make in their favour and with all the sympathy I may have for trade unionism and the working people of Montreal, because Montreal is a working-class city. Even with all that sympathy, the people of Montreal cannot accept that the first principle of action in redressing a grievance or in trying to correct the abuses that may be against you, should be the illegal strike, violence and the destruction of property.
When the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) spoke he said, "let us speak about the facts." One very important fact he did not mention in this case is that the officials of this union, whose duty it is to protect the interests of the working men they represent, did nothing for five months. They knew this situation was going to arise. They did not take steps under the collective agreement to do the things they should have done to protect their workers. The first steps we saw in protest at the new situation were the slowdown, the violence and the destruction of property.
As I say, I am sympathetic to the situation of the men who are losing their jobs. I feel that it is unfortunate that matters have progressed to this stage. But I hope that even at

February 18, 1970
Montreal Postal Strike this stage of the dispute the unions and management, in this case the Post Office, can come together and work out a settlement for the good of everyone-for the good of the 450 truck drivers, for the good of the citizens of Montreal who are not getting their postal service and for the good of many others.
The purpose of this emergency dehate,, as I understand it-and indeed of all emergency debates-is that members of this House can contribute something to the solution of a problem. I think the minister has been doing his best in a very difficult situation. His emotions are taxed; he has been under great strain. Ever since he was appointed to this post he has been faced with lawful strikes and wildcat strikes. As he himself pointed out, of the last five strikes in Montreal only one has been legal and the other four illegal. If the procedure of emergency debate has any meaning, it is so that members of this House may contribute in a constructive way to the solution of a problem that constitutes an emergency. I hope that members on all sides of the House will do this.
I am going to put forward two suggestions. They are not original; they have appeared in the newspapers and have been put forward by other hon. members. I do not know everything the minister has tried but I hope that despite what he said he will still make an attempt to offer a guarantee of security to those truck drivers who have worked for a long time in the delivery of mail in Montreal. Perhaps he cannot do it for all of them.
As I say, I do not know how many attempts he has made already. I am sure he is well meaning. After all, it is certainly not in his interest to continue the strike. It would be very much in his interest to have this dispute settled so that he could go on to deal with other important problems. The minister is trying. He is taking great steps to improve the conditions of the workers in the central post office in Montreal. He is trying to put some of the recommendations of the Montpetit report into operation. But 1 hope that even at this stage of the dispute he will offer to guarantee work, at least to those drivers who have been trucking the mail for a considerable number of years.
My second suggestion is that the Department of Labour should lend a hand. I made this suggestion the other day in the House, but not as a criticism of the minister. I am not a member of the cabinet; I do not know how it works internally. But I am a supporter of the government and I feel when we have a

group of men who are experts, whose speciality is the settling of disputes, we should use them. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) has some top flight negotiators and mediators in his department. Perhaps it is time they were invited to help. Perhaps the minister has been too close to the problem. With all his good will and all his experience, perhaps he has come to a point where he just cannot deal with these men any longer. Maybe they cannot deal with him any longer because of the violence and the other harshness that has occurred in the dispute. So I recommend in all good faith that the Minister of Labour or the Department of Labour be invited to appoint a mediator or conciliator.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
As I said at the beginning, Mr. Speaker, it is a sad aspect of our society that because of violence, or where violence is used as the principle of action to redress a grievance or a demand, the majority of people in our society who are generally sympathetic to trade unions and to democratic procedures are now beginning to think in terms of authoritarian regimes to suppress violence.
I hope we will return to a civilized method of procedure, to negotiation, bargaining and mediation, and that through co-operation we will settle this dispute as quickly as possible.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister has mentioned in his speech tonight the atmosphere of violence which prevails in Montreal owing to the postal strike.
Previous speakers, including the minister himself, have given to understand that we did not propose this urgent debate because we favoured violence. Indeed we were wishing that the minister would expound clearly how he expects to settle the dispute, and how he intends to have regular mail deliveries in Montreal.
The hon. minister was very firm, which pleased the members of his party. I learned at the university that when a lawyer got angry and spoke very loudly in presenting his plea, it was because he had a poor case, and therefore we were advised to remain very composed because our colleague was on the point of making a mistake.
This is exactly what the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications (Mr. Kier-ans) has done tonight. He has offered no practical solution to settle the dispute.
February 18, 1970

He launched out at the CNTU, at the employees of G. Lapalme Ltd. and we are obliged to ask him to make a distinction. Not all Lapalme employees broke the law, only a small group. If the minister has any influence, he should ask G. Lapalme Ltd. to Are these trouble-makers.
What has been done until now? First, the minister demands that Lapalme employees return to work; then, accusations are made by the CNTU and the FTQ against the Postmaster General for his failure to propose a solution that would help these people solve their present conflict.
Last night, I watched TV when Mr. Laberge stated that the minister was incompetent, arrogant and aristocratic. Tonight, the minister has said in his speech that it was up to the government to decide, that he will not crawl on his knees before the unions and that the CNTU should face their responsibilities.
I therefore ask the minister how, in such an atmosphere of discussion, he can find a solution to this extremely urgent problem?


Eric William Kierans: May I reply to the question?


Martial Asselin: Yes, provided this does not come out of my time.


Eric William Kierans: May I reply to the question?


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, please tell me two minutes before my time is up that the minister wants to reply to my question.


Mr. Thomas (Maisonneuve):: We are in no
hurry.


Martial Asselin: The hon. member is in no hurry? I hope he is going to make a speech as we have not heard him speak in the House for a long time.
I feel that the way the minister marshalled his arguments tonight will not improve the situation in Montreal.
Even though the minister accuses the CNTU, he must have only one objective, providing service for the population of Montreal and avoiding any disastrous economic consequences from the discontinuance of mail delivery in Montreal.
If there are any union problems, the minister will call upon competent people to solve them.
Tonight, the minister missed the boat! Had he proposed any solution, the situation would be entirely different.
If the hon. member on my right wants to make a speech, he can make it in due time,
Montreal Postal Strike but he should let me finish mine. It is not often that Liberal members from Quebec make speeches. We are anxious to hear them.
The minister did not say how he intended to settle the dispute. He concluded tonight, by saying that he wanted the dispute to drag on, suggesting that nobody would blackmail the government who is the master. The workers must be put in their place. The government must prevail. If the minister persists in this attitude for weeks and months, he will not improve the situation now existing in Montreal.
I am not for or against labour unions, but I am very concerned with human problems. The one we are considering now is the following: 450 employess of G. Lapalme Inc. have changed employer four times in five years.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
Instead of trying to find customers to whom the trucks of G. Lapalme Inc. might be sold, as he said the other day in this House when he answered a question from the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), the minister should rather be concerned with the future of the 450 employees who are in danger of losing their jobs at the end of March. Mr. Speaker, there lies the real issue.
Even though the Liberal members from Montreal, headed by the minister, would like people to believe that this emergency debate was requested because we were glad there was violence in Montreal, I shall say to the minister that, like him, and like all other members from Montreal, we are against violence. However, we ask the minister to act in the interest of the people of Montreal and the 450 employees facing an intolerable situation.
The minister should be aware of the situation since it had already arisen with Rod Service Limited. He has decided to change the manner in which tenders are called and to divide between four or five districts mail delivery in the region of Montreal. But in four or five years, when these contracts expire, the minister will meet again with the same problem and will have to solve it.
Today he merely says that he cannot guarantee to the 450 employees that they will be rehired by the new contractors whose contract will come into force next April 1. What solution does the minister contemplate to help the 450 people who will be laid off? To go and register with the Department of Manpower and Immigration in order to get employment! And, as my colleague, the hon.

February 18, 1970
Montreal Postal Strike member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) stated a moment ago, with our experience of that service, these people are not about to find a job in the Montreal area or elsewhere in Quebec, because that is where unemployment reaches its highest level, that is 8 per cent. And with a big smile the minister says: Personally, I can do nothing for the 450 employees who will be laid off on April 1 next.
Mr. Speaker, what is lacking in the Post Office Department's policy is planning. It was stated tonight, a short-sighted policy is applied, there is no control and, as one of my colleagues stated a short while ago, when the Letter Carriers' Union of Canada puts the minister's death notice in the papers when he is still living, that is a sure sign that the situation is worsening and that, obviously, the minister must do something about it. All my colleagues must have read in the newspapers the following notice:
In Memoriam. Efficiency of the Post Office Department.-February 17, 1969-February 17, 1970.
The Letter Carriers' Union of Canada was asking the population not to hold it against its members if the postal service was operating slowly, because the morale of Post Office employees was exceedingly low owing to the drastic steps taken by the minister since he became the head of that department. Indeed, he stated that he wanted to make the Post Office Department a profit-earning proposition, but for the years 1970-71, that department will still show a $69 million deficit.
These are figures and considerations on which it is well to ponder. I hope that the minister, at the end of this debate, will be allowed to say whether he will let the Montreal situation deteriorate or whether he has a practical and effective solution likely to settle the problem now existing in the metropolis.
There are some solutions. We are often told that the opposition can only complain and blame the government. Of course, our role is to criticize, though objectively; however, we must tell government members that we are not those who govern this country. The responsibility for taking the necessary decisions rests on the government itself. As far as we are concerned, we can help the government come to some decisions when it fails to find solutions to current problems, and in this case, when solutions must be found to the Montreal conflict.
How can the minister get out of this situation? Is he in a position to make arrangements through a negotiator? A Liberal

member who spoke earlier suggested the appointment of a negotiator who would intervene, in order to look fully into not only the problem of employees, but also that of an efficient mail delivery in Montreal.
I think that the first solution which the minister should consider would be to appoint a negotiator acceptable to all parties.
Secondly, what prevents the minister, if he wants to show some kindness, from urging those to whom the contracts will be given out as of April 1, to hire the greatest possible number of employees now working for G. Lapalme Inc. This is, in my opinion, the only efficient step which would show the employees of G. Lapalme Inc. that the minister wants to help them find solutions to their problems.
Besides, as long as Montreal and in the large centres of the country as well, we are not given a tender system imposed by statute, the minister will be faced with insurmountable difficulties.
When the minister rose to speak a few moments ago, I suggested, regarding the mail delivery and the postal system, that he set up a Crown agency that could award contracts to responsible companies which could hire workers on a permanent basis to ensure their continued employment. Those companies could provide supervision and a much more efficient planning than the present system. That is the only way out for the minister. A Crown agency could help in the planning of contract awarding and regular service, and could also bring job security to the workers.
* (10:20 p.m.)
The minister is now facing this problem in Montreal, but he will run into similar difficulties in Toronto, Winnipeg or anywhere else when contracts come up for renewal. I believe that the only way the minister could plan the policy of the Post Office Department would be to set up a Crown corporation with control over all aspects of the operation.
Since we are proposing objective solutions, the minister will not be able to claim that the opposition does nothing but criticize. We are not here to put the minister to the test but to help him get out of the mess he is in. If the minister were in our shoes this evening he would know just how many letters and telegrams we have received, not only from employees of G. Lapalme Ltd. but also from people who use postal services in Montreal
February 18, 1970

and others whose businesses are badly jeopardized because of that temporary interruption in the service.
As I said a while ago, we are not here to put the minister to the test but to help him. We are making suggestions to him and he should tell us, before the end of the debate, whether he accepts them and intends to deal humanly with the employees of G. Lapalme Ltd. in order to bring their problems to an end. In my opinion, that is the only way to cope with the situation.


Gérard Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, we are holding an emergency debate this evening on the postal services and the problems now rampant in Montreal.
Of all members, I am perhaps most aware of postal services in Montreal. As Rod Services operated in my riding until last year, and the drivers for G. Lapalme Ltd., which operates further east in the city, used to hang around in a certain restaurant in my riding, and still do, I often have had the occasion to chat with them.
It is true that from time immemorial there has been a problem in that administration sector and that the present strike in Montreal, be it a slow-down strike or not-I will mention some facts to show that it is a deliberate one-is a source of serious trouble for the people. In fact, as the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) said a while ago, that strikes affect not only the poor who are waiting for cheques by mail but also the provincial economy and particularly that of the city of Montreal.
Last Monday, we did not get any mail in my office and last week we were two days without mail. That is the way it is in all business offices in the city of Montreal.
Mr. Speaker, this means that the economy suffers from that strike and that the CNTU leaders, instead of always blaming everything on the governments, the city of Montreal or public corporations, should assume their share of responsibility.
It is up to the minister and the government to provide the people with an adequate postal service.
But unions also have a responsibility as regards to the welfare of the employee and, in order to provide that welfare, one should not always rely upon governments.
It is also their responsibility to tackle the problem in order to solve it. While examining
Montreal Postal Strike the problem, we could compare the costs of this service in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver.
For the year 1969, when Rod Services Limited provided the mail service in Montreal, the cost to the Canadian government was $4.3 million.
Lapalme Inc. has a temporary contract. It was remitted to them when Rod Services Limited withdrew. They were told to take over mail delivery overnight. It will cost the Canadian people $5.2 million. With the five new contracts which were just signed by the Post Office Department and which will come into force on April 1st, it will cost $3.5 million. Therefore, there is a saving of $1.8 million.


Martial Asselin: Is it as efficient?


Gérard Loiselle: The hon. member for Charlevoix had his turn. Now he should listen to what others have to say, as he mentioned to other hon. members earlier.
Let us consider the cost involved in collecting parcels from mail boxes in two large cities of Canada where the cost of living is higher than in Montreal and in the Quebec province. In Toronto, it costs $20.75, in Vancouver $20.15 and in Montreal $25.60. As for colecting letters from mail-boxes it cost $6.11 in Toronto, $6.39 in Vancouver and $7.46 in in Montreal.
I have never heard anybody say that the employees were not paid enough. Their salary is $3.42 an hour but, as the minister said a moment ago, when the contract with Rod Services Ltd. expired, 397 drivers worked on mail delivery. But now, one year after the contract has expired, there are 455. Were the department to undertake the same work as that provided by G. Lapalme Ltd. they would have a payroll of 350, therefore 105 people fewer.
Surely, there is a failure somewhere. Why should we increase the personnel for the mere sake of providing them with jobs when it would be easy to find employment for these 100 people?
I am all in favour of unions, but not when they go beyond the limits of common sense. They sometimes go too far. In the Quebec province, however, there are a number of fields in which they would be welcome. Unfortunately, unions start growing where they thrive best. It is all too easy to say that the government should pay. But in the long run, who is the government? The government rep-

February 18, 1970
Montreal Postal Strike resents all the citizens of Canada. Were there no citizens there would be no government at all.
I often say to people that if the government has no money to pay, they go and get it in the pockets of taxpayers. Everything boils down to this. Now, the important thing is to restore the service in Montreal and to help the 300 or 400 drivers. I understand them, I know them. Several of them are married.
The minister said a while ago that 30 employees have been collecting the mail for 15 years and some for 43 years. About 162 of them have been doing this work for over five years. They practically have vested interests in their work.
The unions must also admit that they have no responsibility towards the department and that the department has no responsibility towards the unions. We may have a moral responsibility towards these employees, and I am sure that the minister offered his co-operation to the unions. The union concerned has even offered the minister to meet the members. Too often, in fact, when those strikes occur, three, four or five union leaders control the members and the whole association.
In proof of this, let me tell you that one of the new contractors whom I know ran an ad in the papers last week in Montreal, asking the drivers of G. Lapalme Inc. who were interested in joining his staff to apply to his offices, to make an application which would be taken into consideration.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)
Until Saturday, no one had come to his office. Why? Because cars filled with goons and thugs were keeping watch over the entrance to his premises to make sure that Lapalme's drivers, CNTU members, would not apply for jobs. This is not logical. If the CNTU is so anxious to help the 300 or 400 drivers why did it not get in touch with the five new trucking businesses which will have the mail contracts from April 1 in order to help those people find a job?
Did not the 1969 contract linked with Lapalme stipulate that a six months' notice was to be given to the contractor as well as to the union before cancellation of the contract?
This notice was given in September by the Montreal postmaster.
It seems to me that, since September, the union has had time enough to foresee what was to happen to these drivers if it was that interested in their welfare.
As the minister said a moment ago, Rod Services Limited probably gave up their ser-
[Mr. Lolselle.l
vice in 1969 for the same reasons that led Lapalme Inc. to do the same, i.e. not to bid.
How is it possible for bidders to co-operate and to supply an appropriate service if they cannot, as we are told, hire or fire employees?
Unions are a good thing, provided that they do not go beyond the limits dictated by common sense. Unfortunately, in other fields where they should make their presence felt, they are not there.
It is the responsibility of the department to supply postal services to the people of Montreal and to the people of the whole country. However tonight we are concerned with the situation in Montreal. A short while ago, the minister gave the reasons for his attitude. Even if the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin) stated earlier that he was not here to crucify the minister, I suggest that the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade) not only wanted to crucify him, but also to flog him beforehand. He called the minister all sorts of names.
On the other hand, the other previous speakers have dealt only with what they blame the minister for, which is normal. It is indeed normal to ask what is going on.
Hon. members should recognize that the minister gave a brilliant account of the present situation. He proved beyond any doubt that he was prepared to offer his co-operation, that he did offer it and that it was refused, because conditions were laid down to the department even though it has no obligation towards those people.
The department offered its assistance to help those drivers. They were offered the assistance of the Department of Manpower and Immigration and, as I mentioned earlier, it would be very easy for the union to negotiate with the five new contractors, so that they could hire those 300 or 400 employees. Why should the government assume responsibility for their hiring overnight? What will it do with those 400 men? Now that the new contracts have been agreed to, are we to impose a supplementary condition?
I believe that the CNTU leaders are not so stupid. They know that such a thing cannot be done. This would have been possible before, had it come to the minds of those concerned, on receiving their notice in September, that tenders would be called in November and that contracts would be concluded in January, taking effect on April 1. But no one worried about that. People would rather pay attention to other things, whereas those people should have been looked after.
February 18, 1970

I wish a solution were found, but there is no point in exasperating the government and blaming the minister and everybody, charging them with all imaginable sins, claiming that they do nothing and oppose existing projects; we shall not achieve co-operation in such a way.
The minister said a few minutes ago: We are prepared to enter into new negotiations to ensure better co-operation as soon as the illegal actions will cease in Montreal.
One of my friends told me yesterday that he had taken a certain street in Montreal and that he had followed a truck of G. Lapalme Inc.. I do not blame the contractor, but perhaps the driver. He had perhaps been forced by the union to act in a certain way.
But he was following the truck. Twice, the driver got out of his truck, bowed to the mail box, climbed back in and went away. That fellow was getting paid for his work but he did not do it.
Elsewhere, Monday morning, one of my Montreal employees advised me that on Park Avenue a mail box had been smashed and that the mail was scattered in the street. You are not going to tell me that such behaviour is not reprehensible. A while ago, the minister was blamed for his firmness, but I think that firmness is and will always be necessary. We want to help those people, but on the other hand, if they are paid to do that work, they are responsible to the department and the Montreal community for doing it properly.
The union has its responsibilities too. If it intends to oblige the employees to resort to violence to make the government treat them well, it is blackmail and the government should not yield to it.
A few moments ago, the minister said that some 500 mail boxes were ruined in Montreal and that some people had the "brilliant" idea of cementing the locks. And after such acts of vandalism, it is expected that the government will hire those people and will tell them: You were right, we shall give you certificates of good behaviour.
If a government did things like that, it would not deserve to be in power. If the minister ran his department in this way, he would not deserve to be Postmaster General.
I agree that these people should be protected, provided the drivers and the unions are also prepared to co-operate with the government. But the situation is not going to improve by leaving the people of Montreal to
Montreal Postal Strike
cope with such a problem. Undoubtedly, everyone has noticed that the worst problems of the Post Office have always come up in Montreal.
Even with the collective agreement, the situation has grown worse over the past two years. Again yesterday, I received a telegram from the Board of Trade telling me that conditions are unbearable. The employees should be left alone, the union should co-operate, the roughnecks, the bigwigs of the new employer should be thrown out. The new drivers should be allowed to find jobs.
The unfortunate feature of all such strikes is that while 500 or 600 union members are on strike they receive no pay whereas actually the strike was called by a few union leaders who control them and who continue receiving their salaries.
If, when a strike starts, the union leaders also were deprived of their salaries, strikes might be settled faster and more favourably.
But no. Baptiste, the little man, is on strike because the big wheels of the unions have decided to call a strike, to demand a raise of 30 or 40 cents an hour. But in the meantime, the worker does not get any pay.
Many strikes have been called in Montreal. One in particular, that affected a company on St. Patrick street, it lasted four months, after which the employees accepted the offer made to them at the beginning. The members of this union had been deprived of their salary during four months and it will take them two years to recover their losses.
The union leaders had not been affected by the strike. They lived quite well because they were well paid. Once they have settled a strike, they go somewhere else and start another strike. The unfortunate part of it is that the worker, who needs his salary from one day to the next, is always the loser.
He is not given a chance.
Actually, it seems that postal employees are prevented from applying to other contractors for employment. There are five new ones who will start operations in Montreal on April 1. Why not let the people who will be laid off be hired by these companies so that they can earn a decent living? Thus on April 1 they would start work for the new contractor. I wonder why the CNTU which is so interested in the welfare of these workers did not cooperate with these five contractors so that all the present postal employees may be hired again?

February 18, 1970
Montreal Postal Strike
Why blame the government and charge the minister with all the sins of the world? In fact, he has problems, he has responsibilities regarding the population and the union has some towards its members.
They should perhaps broaden theirs views, instead of always counting on the government. They themselves could perhaps try to obtain the means of helping their members from private enterprise and the public at large.
[DOT] (10:40 p.m.)
Nobody can accuse the minister of having infringed the law or of having abused his rights. If he abused them, I think, it is by offering more than others.
The hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) said a while ago that there was some unrest, that the morale is low in the Post Office Department and that the situation looked bad. Under the Progressive Conservative government, federal employees were not allowed to strike.
Postal workers in Montreal had a hard time when the Conservatives were in office. They will tell you it was the worst time of all. We must not cover up the present sins with past sins.
As someone said a while ago the minister and the union have responsibilities to assume. The minister must act firmly but sensibly, and this is what he has done so far. This evening, he offered again his co-operation to the employees as well as to the union leaders. It is a question of wanting to co-operate. Let the union members co-operate also. Perfect strangers must not be allowed to attend the meetings. They should be actual members, and not people from outside who got their CNTU membership card as truck drivers only a week ago. Let us bring the members together with the minister. There exists a solution to the problem. It is not the end of the world but there must be some co-operation. Cooperation must not come only from the minister but from the others also.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.
Does the House agree to let the hon. member continue his speech?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gérard Loiselle: The hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin) said that the department

could be turned into a Crown corporation. I have already suggested it.
Even now there is a small area in Montreal where the department picks up the mail. I have not heard that there are any problems in that area. The problem might perhaps be solved, or at least 90 per cent of it, if a Crown corporation were set up. But before coming to that, other problems should be solved because, as the minister said a while ago, the problem exists across Canada. We should not have a small Crown corporation for Montreal, another one for Toronto, and yet another for Vancouver. There should be one single national corporation.
This is a human problem, one of equality and honesty for the citizens of Montreal. I trust there will be co-operation not only on the part of the minister but also on that of the union leaders and members, so that this situation may be solved in the best interest of the drivers, the members of that union, and also that the reputation of that association may be spared. The honour of the province of Quebec and of the City of Montreal must also be spared and their economy encouraged for it is now in sad shape.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I had the advantage this evening of listening to a very interesting debate and finding out a great deal more about the subject of torment to the largest metropolis in Canada. I was particularly interested in the remarks of the last speaker about the time when the Conservative Party had the honour of administering the postal service and how badly off the postal employees and the public were then. It seemed to us that our chief fault was that we delivered the mail on time and at a much lower cost than the present administration is able to do.
What kind of situation faces the people of Montreal? It is the people of Montreal with whom we are concerned and not the egotism of a minister or factors like that. We are concerned with public service and we have to find a solution to our problem. Having heard the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) speak in the chamber this evening, the main contributing factor to this difficulty obviously was laid bare in dramatic form. The minister was able to recount as well as his supporters incident after incident in this hot war between a union and the Post Office Department.
It is fine and good for the minister to take whatever advantage he feels he has in cloth-
February 18, 1970

ing himself in righteousness, pointing his finger at these incidents and saying that he will not be blackmailed. This would be a fine position if it were one that would work. But nothing the minister said convinces me that his position will work. The intransigence of the minister is at the heart of this problem, and the intransigence on his side is as solid and firm as it is on the union's side. There is a willingness to obstruct, to block to overturn mail boxes and to wave one's hand at mail boxes while going by.
So you have an irresistible force pressing against an immovable object. How does that solve anything for the people of Montreal? I think that the minister, who is a charming fellow in many ways, is about as flexible as a fossil. He cannot move. He takes his stand on a position and neither common sense nor the urgency that is so apparent in the city of Montreal can in the least way budge him from the position in which he finds himself.
The minister continually points to outrages with no suggestion of any action to cure them or the over-all situation. This simply leaves everyone floundering in the morass he and his party have created. When we consider the difficulties in the postal service over the last year and a half-and I shall stick to this particular problem-we find one common factor throughout the whole story: it is the intransigence of the Postmaster General. Once his mind is fixed on something, that is it. I do not think one solves any labour problem by being intransigent. One must have flexibility in his approach. I believe the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) in his question on Friday the 13th put it pretty neatly when he said:
Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. In view of his success on the west coast and his other successes during the past year, would he consider offering the services of his department to the Postmaster General in settling the postal dispute in Montreal?
Hansard records some hon. members saying, "Oh, oh". I believe there were a great number of hon. members that day who said, "Hear, hear". Although Hansard records it as "Oh, oh", I think quite a number of us thought this would be one glimmer of light at the end of the rather long, dark tunnel into which the Postmaster General has led us. His pointing to these instances may warm the cockles of his conscience but it does not deliver the mail in Montreal. His somewhat facetious suggestion the other day that perhaps
Montreal Postal Strike the people in Montreal might stop writing drew its proper rebuke in an editorial in the Montreal Gazette.
We have the minister's intransigence on the one hand and on the other hand a feeling by the union people that there should be some security. We have had examples of people serving for as long as 43 years. If we cannot find a way to give security to people like this, we are in the wrong business.
No one on the other side of the House has been able to say that the rank and file of the union involved would not support their leaders. One can talk about harassment by goons and the like, but I have not heard any concrete evidence that this is taking place. Perhaps this is a Frankensteinian monster the minister is talking about. These people say they are going to stand and fight and that these things have carried on for a long period. This must be the case, if someone can give 43 years faithful service to the people of Canada. It would seem to me there is only one way to solve the impasse. It cannot be done in the posture which the Postmaster General adopted this evening. He should either turn the job of negotiating over to somebody else or the government should get rid of him. It is as simple as that. Obviously, he cannot solve the situation. Obviously, the longer he is there the worse the situation becomes.
[DOT] (10:50 p.m.)


Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, the presence here tonight of all Liberal members from the island of Montreal and the area is surely an indication that the situation in which the people of Montreal now find themselves is of concern to all members of parliament.
I am sorry that the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade), who called for this emergency debate, did not see fit to stay in his seat to hear the retort. I believe the main dish that the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications, (Mr. Kierans) served him did not agree with him.
I think the minister might have thanked the hon. member for Sainte-Marie who gave him, through this emergency debate, the opportunity to really explain to the people the situation in which his department finds itself.
It is a serious problem, which deeply concerns not only the 450 employees of G. Lapalme Inc., but also the whole population of metropolitan Montreal. As member of this

February 18, 1970
Montreal Postal Strike
house, I felt duty bound also, even at this late hour, to take part in this emergency debate, tor a member's duty consists in keeping an eye on the interests of all his fellow-citizens.
Mr. Speaker, I will deal in my remarks with three different aspects of this problem: the economic aspect, the efficiency of the service as regards our fellow-citizens and employment security, which seems to cause great concern to the opposition members.
The population must be informed about the way the government considered those three aspects.
As was mentioned by the hon. member for Saint-Henri (Mr. Loiselle), from an economic viewpoint, we are going to save $1.7 million this year through public tenders and changes in the present system. This problem is urgent because this stoppage in the mail service is costing about $200,000 a day. And, what is even more important, losses in the business sector are said to amount to $1 million a day. That is why my first remarks deal with the economic aspect.
Now, mention was made of service and protection for the citizens. This is a point to be considered. In my opinion, there is not a single member who would go against the interest of the workers. But any rule goes just so far. We agree to protect the workers but we also want to know what that will cost.
Here I refer to the tenders called by the department on November 28 last. I think it was clearly indicated then that the tenderers should agree to pay salary rates at least equal to those in effect in the trucking industry on the day the tenders were called.
Furthermore, employment security was not for a year only but for five years. I think that the minister has really taken into consideration the security of the job for all drivers now employed by Lapalme Inc.
Now, to do justice to the G. Lapalme Inc. Company which did not tender for contract, which did not see fit to answer a letter written by Mr. Cormier, postmaster of Montreal dated September 25. May I say that here again, the question of employment security was considered. In fact, this is what Mr. Cormier had to say:
Your experience in local trucking and your knowledge of postal operations put you naturally in an excellent position to tender for a contract. We are expecting you to come forth with offers.
The Post Office Act provides now a five year period for transportation contracts. This longer period allows the successful tenderer to stabilize his activities in an efficient way as against the insecurity resulting from temporary agreement providing a one year term.

So when the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin) blamed us for apparently waging war on the unions, this was sheer demagogy.
May I now be allowed to quote from an article in the February 5 issue of ha Presse, and written by Roger Champoux:
There is a limit to everything.
The Canadian Post Office has evidently scrupulously complied with the law. The agreement with G. Lapalme was temporary and the drivers concerned were surely aware of it. When the Lapalme company went out of business, the authorities had to look elsewhere, which they did. Who could blame them?
So I believe that all those points at issue which were raised were simply questions asked by the opposition members. Tonight, I think all their questions were really answered.
I now come to the following conclusions, Mr. Speaker. Tonight, we have seen in action a minister who has not always chosen the easy way out, but who has really assumed his responsibilities. He really called a spade a spade, and I think all the members of this house will want to support the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications who has looked fully into all the aspects of the problem and who did credit to his colleagues, as I said earlier, by not taking the easy way out and by facing his responsibilities as an administrator. He was easy-going, he examined the problems of the employees, the problems of the unions and the interest of the public and then came up with constructive suggestions.
When the interests of a country are threatened by a minority, the duty of the people's elected representatives is to protect the interests of all their fellow-citizens.
Those people, Mr. Speaker, show no regard for their own property as they have ransacked mail boxes which are public property. They have lost the respect of their colleagues, of their fellow citizens. I think they should be called back to order.
Mr. Speaker, the public is entitled to the service for which it pays. The government has a part to play, and the attitude of the hon. Postmaster General and Minister of Communications is really firm and positive.
From the information supplied by the hon. minister tonight, the situation has to be brought under control quickly so that the daily loss of $200,000 to the Post Office and of over $1 million to the business sector will be blotted out.
February 18, 1970

In my opinion, the department of Communications wants to help give a new impetus to the economy of Montreal which needs it very badly.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I thought it only proper that I take part very briefly in this debate tonight, particularly in view of the fact that the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) may feel that the the wheat belt of Canada is not represented in this particular issue.
[DOT] (11:00 p.m.)
I remind the Postmaster General that what has happened in Montreal can happen elsewhere. We are all concerned about this matter. The point is that the Postmaster General should realize that you cannot use confrontation when dealing with people. Look at the newspaper headlines! One of them says, "Kierans warns CNTU to end postal tie-ups." I do not know whether the minister is warning the 455 people involved, or the entire CNTU. The newspaper article purports to report what the Postmaster General said yesterday. It says:
Postmaster General Eric Kierans said yesterday he will inform officers of the Confederation of National Trade Unions today that unless the Montreal postal situation returns to normal, the government will have 'no choice but to take extraordinary measures.'
Another headline says, "Kierans threatens quick move to cancel mail firm's contract". We heard tonight what a benign Postmaster General we have. It depends on your point of view: at times I wonder whether he is a sort of benign cobra. The Treasury Board has on occasion dealt with its employees as the Post Office Department appears to be dealing with its employees, that is, with a heavy hand. You cannot have collective bargaining with a heavy-fisted minister responsible for any department.
When the minister talks about extraordinary measures it means men will lose their seniority, the means of livelihood to which they have devoted their lives and jobs in which they have spent their whole working lives. It also means that there may be violence of the worst form; and that will destroy the minister's credibility. I think all will agree that you cannot run a Post Office Department as if it were a ticker-tape. Ticker-tapes have no heart or soul and do not consider the human consequences of any action. Ticker-tapes do not react to anything
Montreal Postal Strike in a human way; they only register money that is being put into and taken out of the stock market; and the money taken out, if a profit is shown, bears no capital gains tax.
People are devoting their lives to service in the Post Office. They are working for the people of this nation. They have hearts and souls and we must worry about them. One newspaper article says that the business community of Montreal and the people of the city have been suffering hardship because of the slow-down.
The Postmaster General ought to be worried about this situation. He should also be worried about people in other parts of the country who receive mail on only five days a week. That constitutes a slow-down. And who but the Postmaster General introduced it? He may laugh and jest, but he would not do so if he knew the names people all across this country are calling him. Some call him Eric the Terror; others, No Mail Eric; and still others, Heartless Eric. If I were not speaking in the House I might tell him other names that people call him.
If the minister were really concerned about the backbone service of the nation and about problems relating to mail delivery, distribution and handling, he would treat people as equals. This is no time to discriminate against a person because you do not like him. You may not like certain people, but you must treat them fairly. This is a basic human right that many people in government today are forgetting.
Let me also comment on the Postmaster General's suggestion that the present decision has the backing of the entire government. I suggest to the Postmaster General that if this decision does have the backing of all government departments, the cabinet must be responsible for the greatly reduced mail service in this country and the complete deterioration of the morale of people working in the Post Office Department because of the incredible attack made upon them.
We have heard the minister say tonight that there is a disruption of mail service to 2J million people at different times of the year. I suggest that the mail service has already been destroyed in so far as an effective system is concerned. At the same time the minister told us the union is destroying itself, driving employers out of business who are then asking to be relieved of their contracts. I suggest it would be pleasant to hear the other side of this story. I believe the minister is credible in many cases but too often we have

February 18, 1970
Montreal Postal Strike heavy-handed ministers who do not give us all the facts. In this situation we should hear both sides of the story if we are to know the whole story.
We have heard statements made by many people in responsible positions. As the minister said tonight, there are union leaders who are interested only in protecting themselves. Statements have been made on other occasions that people have deliberately tried to brainwash the public and lay the blame at the leadership level. I am not in a position to say whether the blame should be laid at the leadership level in this case. I have heard this familiar theme song many times. Until I have some facts to support that contention, I am not prepared to say that it is factual.
The greatest need today is for expert negotiations. I plead with the minister to ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) to send one of his crackpot negotiators-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Leroy Skoberg: -I mean one of the crackshot negotiators of his department to try to remedy the situation.
The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) made a few suggestions. One was the need for security for those displaced. We all agree with that. I hope when these people go to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) they will have the sympathetic hearing to which they are entitled. Another suggestion with which I agree 100 per cent is that we immediately assign one of the labour minister's negotiators to deal with this matter. I believe the minister should get away from the closeness of the situation. This was also suggested by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace. The minister is too tense and worked up. Possibly this situation could then be resolved.
A member of the government should not come into this House, under any circumstances, and call people goons and other names and expect any labour organization or other association to have respect for him. We have heard in this House tonight people being called goons and other names. I ask the Postmaster General to put the record straight. When the minister talked about goons, was he referring to the CNTU as an entire body or as individuals; or was he talking about the 455 people who are worried about their livelihood? It is time the former leader of the CNTU, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand), took a hand in

this situation. Let us see whether the CNTU is credible and whether the Postmaster General should be calling this organization the names that he called it tonight. If he was not calling the organization those names, to whom was he referring?
I believe the time has come for the minister to cease issuing press reports in the way he has been doing. We must not have confrontation in this situation. We must have negotiation if we want intelligent bargaining.
[DOT] (11:10 p.m.)


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I did not always agree with the policy of the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) but having listened carefully to his statement tonight, I must say that the position he took on the postal conflict in Montreal is in the interest of the people of Canada and particularly of the users of postal services in Montreal.
Since 1963, the Post Office Department established a complete reform programme of the postal service in Canada and the mechanism was set in action following the introduction of a report by the Royal Commission. A bill on management reform was submitted by the hon. Postmaster General and defeated by the Opposition. This modified bill has been again presented in October 1968 as bill C-116.
The purchasing of new equipment, the building of up-to-date plants and the increase in wages have entailled increased expenses for the Post Office department and bill C-116 was to correct partly this situation. Some members of Parliament, on the Treasury benches as in the opposition, have objected against certain clauses of this bill, and we have succeeded in amending it in the interest of all the users of postal facilities in Canada.
From an article published by La Presse in October 1968, I quote the following excerpt:
The most active defenders of Mr. Kierans' bill are the postmen themselves.
For Instance, yesterday, when members of the opposition parties continued to harass Mr. Kierans in the House of Commons, the president of the Canadian Postal Unions of Canada, Mr. William Houle, declared that the postmen had been fighting for 10 years for such a reform in the Post Office Department. In fact, Mr. Houle has indicated in an interview that the way things are run today in the postal services has been a major cause of the two strikes of the employees in the last years. According to Mr. Houle, the posties are backing unreservedly the bill in its present form. He added that concession appeared acceptable, that of leaving post offices open in rural areas, that is where this would not give to any or very little additional costs.
February 18, 1970

He is interested in expenditures. In this act, to which Mr. Houle gives his wholehearted support, section 22 reads as follows:
Before entering into a contract for the conveyance of mail involving an annual expenditure of more than one thousand dollars, the Postmaster General shall, for a period of at least three weeks, display public notices inviting tenders for the contract in post offices and other public places within the area to be affected by the contract and may, by any means, give such other public notice of the invitation to tender for the contract as he considers desirable.
And subsection (2) reads as follows:
Where mail is conveyed pursuant to a contract referred to in subsection (1), the Postmaster General, if he is of the opinion that it is in the public interest so to do, may with the approval of the Governor in Council discontinue the conveyance of mail pursuant to such a contract and instead cause it to be conveyed by postal employees in vehicles owned or leased by Her Majesty-
When the president of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, on behalf of all its members, was in agreement with the proposed bill, namely Bill C-116, he was also in agreement with section 5. The procedure followed by the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications is consistent with the act passed by Parliament on October 28, 1968.
Again pursuant to the act, the department made it known on September 26, 1969, that tenders for contracts would be made for the transportation of mail by truck in Montreal.
As my colleague from Montreal has indicated, a zoning service was tried in the Montreal east end in 1966; it produced a better service and allowed the department to achieve a more efficient control. The experiment was carried on and, after a few years, the Canadian Post Office decided to split the Greater Montreal service into various zones. That did not happen unkown to the labour unions. Everybody was aware of the decision, as well as of the temporary agreement that was concluded with G. Lapalme Inc., pursuant to Section 5 (2) of the act. The agreement's duration was of one year only and again the union was aware of the terms involved.
The minister's responsibility is to enforce a legislation voted by Parliament. If the minister had not let the live contracts according to the stipulations of the act, the opposition, which today requested an urgent debate, would have been first to criticize him and to call him to account, to ask explanations. He would have been asked why he had not enforced the legislation to which, as I said earlier, Mr. William Houle, president of the
Montreal Postal Strike post-office workers of the Canadian Postal Unions, had given his complete approval in 1968.
The conditions have become entirely unbearable for the Montreal population and the effect of the delayed mail delivery in Montreal is felt throughout Canada. The statistics provided by the minister on postal services in Montreal show that they are more costly than any other similar services in other large Canadian cities.
Under the new contracts, the Post Office and Department of Communications, that is the Canadian people, will save $1,100,000. This is a clear indication that this government agency wishes to operate as efficiently as the best-run big businesses of the country.
I agree with the minister who invited the union members to take advantage of the opportunity that is offered to them and apply for jobs with the new contractors.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colches-ter North):: Mr. Speaker, I have just listened to the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Cyr) explain the situation as he sees it. Among the things he suggested was that the situation has become untenable for the people of Montreal. A Liberal backbencher earlier in the debate said that he wished to call a spade a spade, and I agree with him in that regard.
[DOT] (11:20 p.m.)
I agree with the hon. member for Gaspe because I believe the situation in the Post Office Department has not only become untenable for the people of Montreal but it has become untenable for the people of Canada. The main reason for this situation is the Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans). I do not think there is any doubt that if the Minister of Communications or any of his public relations people were to go across the country and ask the people of Canada who was the best-known individual in the Trudeau government, some might not know who Mr. Trudeau is but all would know who the Minister of Communications is.
They might have something else to say; they might say that he is the most disliked man to ever hold a portfolio in the history of this country. That is as it should be, for since this government was elected on June 25, 1968, there has been a catalogue of failures so far as public relations in the Post Office Department are concerned. Time after time this House is faced with a crisis because the Min-

February 18, 1970
Montreal Postal Strike ister of Communications has foot-and-mouth disease. There are times when he cannot even take the time to take one foot out and put the other in.
This situation is a sad commentary on the government, the more so because it will not get better. I believe that the greatest thing that can happen to the people of Canada is to have the Post Office Department made a Crown corporation, because by doing that they will get rid of the Minister of Communications. That would be a grand day for everybody in this country, and for good reason. Here we have a situation wherein negotiations are supposed to be going on with the employees, and we have the minister suggesting that he will find 350 unemployed people to take the place of those who have held positions for many years and felt they had job security until the minister opened his big, fat mouth again and put his foot in it.
Here we are on Wednesday evening at 11.25 p.m. talking about the Post Office Department, when if almost anyone else held the portfolio in question we would not have to be here because the crisis would not be upon us. It is a sad situation for the people of Montreal. It is a sad situation for the people in my constituency, especially my rural constituents who have witnessed the closing down of 25 post offices, the elimination of service after service that has always been available to them and having reduced service at greater cost. Everything that you would imagine a government would not do, this government has done. Why? Because this minister who comes from the city of Montreal has no appreciation or understanding of what it is like to live in a rural community. Apparently he has no appreciation of what it takes to run a business in this country and what is even worse, apparently he does not care.
This government has been referred to as a plastic government, a government without heart, a government without blood in its veins. Never was there a better example of that type of administration than in the performance of the Minister of Communications. He cares not one iota for the problems of the people in the rural communities of this country. He apparently cares not very much more for the business community in this nation, because he allows unthinkable things to happen within his department. Instead of correcting the situation and allowing his negotiators to try and solve the situation, he makes public utterances on behalf of himself and no one else which make it impossible for the negotiators to do their job.

I can think of nothing worse than to be a negotiator involved in postal matters in the Department of Communications working under the present minister. It is a wonder he has any negotiators left. I just shake my head every time I go home, because my constituents come up to me one after another complaining about this, that and something else concerning the Post Office Department. The minister tells us the same thing every time; he tells us he is saving money.


Eric William Kierans: Is that bad?


Robert Carman Coates: It is bad the way you do it, my
friend; it is mighty bad. I will tell you something else. If the Minister of Communications would ask the people of Canada what should be done, they would say, "Put the Post Office back the way you found it in 1968, and we will gladly pay the extra money because we will have some services once again."


Eric William Kierans: You do not mean 1968; you mean 1868.


Robert Carman Coates: The minister says I mean 1868. I tell the minister he can set up all the Liberal backbenchers he likes and they can read ad infinitum in extolling his virtues; and when they are all through, the sum total of the improvement they will make to his public image will be a big, fat zero-because he is dead; he is as dead as any man has ever been in the history of Canada so far as politics are concerned. I am not quite certain about that, because the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon-Humboldt (Mr. Lang) is matching him or running a close second, especially after his performance on Tuesday afternoon.
Never in the history of Canada has such a catalogue of failures in such a short period of time been placed before the House of Commons for consideration as we have had in respect of this minister. He is in hot water all the time. One would think the minister when shaving in the morning would stop, take a good look at himself and say, "Maybe somebody in Canada besides me is right. Maybe I should stop and think for a minute and consider whether all these situations in which I am embroiled are not my own doing." Perhaps he should say to himself that he is partly wrong.
If he did that, it would be a big step in the right direction and perhaps we would not be sitting here quite so often on Wednesday nights debating postal matters, talking to the minister and trying to make him aware that everybody does not live in a penthouse in the
February 18, 1970

sky which no one can reach, where no one can tell him anything or negotiate with him. Everybody in Canada receives a miserable service from a minister who gives a miserable performance and who should resign for the good of the country. This would be the greatest thing that ever happened to Canada.


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, a moment ago when I heard the member for Saint-Henri (Mr. Loiselle) say that people cannot breathe or live in Montreal any more, I fully agreed With him. It is probably because they vote for the Liberal party.
Later, I heard the member for Laval (Mr. Roy) say that all the members from the Island of Montreal were present this evening. I counted exactly three of them. Either the member for Laval cannot count, or he wants to make fun of postal employees. We all know that the member for Laval often laughs at farmers, but I hope he will not go so far as making fun of postal employees.
We have before the House today a motion of censure involving the Post Office and Communications Department. I would like above all tonight-as it will soon be midnight-to explain why such an explosive situation prevails in Montreal.
The department and the minister have tonight been accused of all the world's sins. It is true that the minister may suffer from political far-sightedness particularly when he states that we have only up to 1975 to bring order to the Post Office.
Perhaps he feels more comfortable in the Department of Communications from where he can better contemplate the vast spaces and dream of glamorous projects to be realized around the year 2,000. However, he should be more realistic and prove that he has his feet on the ground by settling the problems cropping up in 1970.
[DOT] (11:30 p.m.)
Thanks to him, since the revision of the postal rates, several newspapers and magazines which made it possible to bring culture to all the regions of the country have folded, and that has caused dissatisfaction throughout Canada.
Today, the labour union are aware of this problem. These magazines reached the people before the revision of the postal rates at a fair price and allowed some degree of culture to reach all the regions of the country. By
Montreal Postal Strike wanting to put his department on a profitearning basis, the minister is, on the contrary, accumulating a deficit which is said to be this year of the order of $70 million. Thus, the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications is automatically responsible for that dissatisfaction and for the very explosive situation that prevails in the Montreal region.
However, I suspect that several of his Liberal friends, who want his head, led him to believe that it might be possible to get the Post Office and Communications Department to pay its way, knowing that it will be difficult for him to get out of this tight spot.
And, as though to rejoice about his attitude, they advised him to increase rates, a move designed to make him so unpopular with the population that he would be forced to resign.
I must admit that the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications has had the courage to do away with patronage, particularly in rural and semi-rural communities. Small town post offices, for example, and contracts awarded for rural mail delivery are not subject to patronage as they used to be.
At least, he has this to his credit, and we hope that he has not done away with this patronage, only to replace it by another less palatable one, as we see now in Montreal, by wanting to divide up contracts in four and, possibly reduce the efficiency of the Union representing the postal employees. By reducing the Union's power, he is fueling the explosive anger that we are now experiencing.
On the other hand, a company that has submitted a tender under a fictitious name, in Montreal, leaves us nonplussed. I hope the minister will not let this patronage practice that we meet far too often, take root in Montreal.
In the field of postal service, priority should be given to the immediate needs. It is not by pretending to ignore the problems and trying to find patched-up solutions that we shall solve the problem on a permanent basis.
Besides, relying on attrition to settle a question is not a viable formula. Instead of letting his mind run upon satellites and computers and of dreaming of making his postal empire competitive with the big telecommunication corporations, the Minister should do his utmost to solve the pressing problem of mail delivery, which is appalling everywhere totally non-existent in Montreal.
The hon. Minister wanted to simplify a problem which seemed unsolvable and try an

February 18, 1970
Montreal Postal Strike accounting type of approach. He first decided to raise postal rates. Then, he did away with mail delivery on Saturday. Then, as a next step, he denied to a great number of publications the privilege to remain in the category to which they ought to belong, thus raising a general outcry. As for us, from the Rallie-ment Creditiste, we had at that time, warned the hon. Minister against his mistakes. I have here a statement from the Committee of fair postal rates and if union representatives are not satisfied with the administration of the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications, I would say that they are not the only ones in Montreal. Also, among others, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Society of Public Welfare, the Union CoOperative of Canada, grouping ten other organizations, which are the Canadian Association of Home Economics, the Canadian Consumers Association, the Canadian Association of Industrial Editors, the Canadian Association of Social Workers, the Indian and Eskimo Association, the Canadian Council of Urban and Regional Research, the Canadian Federation of Professional Women's Clubs, the Canadian Federation of Teachers, the Chemistry Institute of Canada and the Scouts of Canada have expressed their dissatisfaction to the minister. The responsibility for the explosive conflict in Montreal is not that of the unions alone since all the organizations that I have just mentioned had warned the Minister that the situation was deteriorating.
What had they recommended to correct the situation that we are now experiencing and to stop the criticism to which the Minister is subjected? First of all, they had asked that third class rates applicable to organization publications be brought back to the level of the second class commercial publication rates. As the Minister claims that commercial publications are now paying their fair share, there
is apparently no justification for charging higher rates to organization publications when the handling of such mail is the same in both cases. They had then asked that the periodicals of associations be considered as a separate group within the third class mail.
Finally they wished that the present rate classification of 10,000 emits for bulk delivery be lowered further to the same level as before, with regard to the rules for third class mail. Since the minister refused to comply with those requests, he caused dissatisfaction throughout Canada. All those organizations are almost happy to witness this explosive situation and the minister does not get any sympathy. Seeing he refuses to admit all those facts, there is only one thing left for the minister to do. He should have the courage to do what the ex-Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) did and resign from his post.
His refusal to admit his mistake has created an intolerable and disastrous situation which, to my mind, can become very dangerous because of the abuses it could lead to from both sides.
Finally, as several of his colleages and so-called liberal friends want his hide at all cost, because his good friend Rene Levesque, former member of the liberal party, does not protect him, he should like the former Quebec Minister of Justice and the former Minister of Transport, resign from his post in order to be able to leave the liberal party with dignity and say: "I leave happy."


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do
you want him in your party?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. Pursuant to Standing Order 26 (13), I am satisfied that the debate has been concluded. I therefore declare the motion carried.
At 11.42 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, February 19, 1970