1971-06-01

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I should like to table copies in both official languages of the communiques issued by the NATO Nuclear Planning Group at the conclusion of their conference, May 26, 1971, and the NATO Defence Planning Committee at the conclusion of their conference, May 28, 1971.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I ask the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion on a matter of urgency and importance. It concerns the recent increase in rates on the Prince Edward Island-New Brunswick ferry service which constitutes a further deterrent against the type of interprovincial transportation service promised the people of Prince Edward Island and presents serious disadvantages to the tourist industry and other aspects of the Prince Edward Island and Atlantic economy.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald):
That this House requests that the fare increase on the Prince Edward Island-New Brunswick ferry service be suspended and that the matter be referred forthwith to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has proposed a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43 which requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity and the motion cannot be put.



INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Ian Watson (Laprairie) moved: that the third report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, presented to the House on Friday, May 28, 1971, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister with regard to the Soviet-Canadian declaration calling for a conference properly prepared. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether a prior settlement regarding the security of West Berlin is still a prerequisite for such a conference in the view of the Canadian government, as it was the view of the NATO council last December when it issued a declaration to which Canada subscribed?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in my discussions with Prime Minister Kosygin I did make the point that we did not feel that the matter of European security could be advanced very readily if some solution had not been found for the question of Berlin. He, of course, expressed a contrary view to mine and we discussed the matter along those lines. There was no agreement. I indicated that the Canadian government was anxious to look for any means of promoting peace in Europe and arriving at mutual, balanced force reductions but that we did feel as a result of our NATO discussions that the Berlin question was paramount.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Is it the position of the Prime Minister that a settlement of the security question in West Berlin is a prerequisite to the holding of such a European conference, as was the position taken by NATO in December?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is not a prerequisite in the sense that it would have to be settled first-not necessarily. It would be part of the general discussion. Our position was that there would not be much point in

June 1, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
a meeting on European security if we felt there would be no serious discussion on the question of Berlin, to which Prime Minister Kosygin answered that in a sense he agreed but that they had a plan for arriving at a solution of the Berlin question and wanted to discuss it with us.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question. Is not the government of Canada unilaterally departing from the position taken by the NATO council jointly? I should like to ask the Prime Minister finally whether the Canadian government continues to support the position taken by the NATO Council last December when it insisted that a rejection of the so-called Brezhnev doctrine must be included in any meaningful renunciation of the use or threat of force, that for this to be meaningful Russia must reject the doctrine under which it claims the right to enter another country in order to save and preserve the communist regime.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That matter was not discussed, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. Is the Canadian influence so strong in Russia that we now refer to Kosygin as Prime Minister?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is the government giving consideration to the request of Premier Davis of Ontario that the talks at Victoria be continued for a fourth day so that economic policies can be discussed, and can the Prime Minister say whether he discussed this matter last evening with Premier Bourassa?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, before leaving for the Soviet Union I wrote to the premiers of all the provinces putting to them what the agenda for the conference might be. I did put to them Prime Minister Davis' suggestion for additional time on the economic question. I have not as yet received replies from all provinces, and therefore I do not know what the final agenda will be.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it fair to take it that if the provinces want the fourth day the federal government is prepared to agree?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I said in my letter to the provinces that of course we would be prepared to stay for a fourth day and discuss that or any other matter of a non-constitutional nature which it was desirable to put on the agenda.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: In that event, can the Prime Minister tell us why the Secretary of State for External Affairs was able last week to tell my colleague, the hon. member for Spadina, and I believe the hon. member for Sainte-Marie, that the agenda for the conference had been fixed, in light of the fact that yesterday there was a conference with Premier Bourassa to set the agenda and now we are told that there are further openings on the agenda?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, the meeting with Mr. Bourassa was not to set the agenda. As to the answer of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I do not have his reply at hand but I do know that the traditional practice was followed of the federal government suggesting an agenda to the provinces and until the provinces agree to that agenda we do not make it public. In that sense the agenda is not final. Perhaps it may be final in our minds in the sense that we put it to the provinces, but we are always willing to make additions, subtractions or inversions of the order of the items according to the desires of the provinces. I repeat that we have not had answers from all the provinces yet.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question dealing with the agenda of the constitutional conference. In light of the fact that Members of Parliament represent all the Canadian people in the House of Commons and as the Prime Minister will be representing Canada federally at the conference, can he now tell us, as representatives of the Canadian people, whether any of the provincial premiers have at this date indicated that they will oppose the Turner veto formula to be laid before the conference which is about to meet?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what is meant by the Turner veto formula, but I have no indication from any province that they will make objections to the general amendment formula which was discussed last February.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In light of the population shift that will take place in British Columbia, thus placing them in a preferred position particularly in relation to the veto formula, and in view of the language of the Prime Minister, has the Prime Minister considered that some of the Prairie provinces now and in the future may be without any say with reference to constitutional questions if that formula were agreed to and accepted at the conference?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This has to do with the negotiations which went on between the Minister of Justice and several of the provinces. I have made my position quite clear, and I think it is that of the federal government. We made it after the February conference. I understand that the western provinces themselves are prepared to give a kind of veto to British Columbia, and that is where the matter rests so far as we are concerned.

June 1, 1971


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have one more supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Calgary North on a further supplementary question and then recognize the hon. member for Greenwood.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Do I take it from the Prime Minister that Premier Thatcher of Saskatchewan has agreed to the formula in question about which I have been asking and to which the Prime Minister referred today which will be discussed at the conference?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, it is hardly fair to ask me to be the spokesman for Premier Thatcher or for any other premier. I can only report on the state of the discussions as they took place. Surely the hon. member is not asking me seriously to tell the House what Premier Thatcher's position will be at the June conference. I do say, however, that in February we had a conference at the end of which a communique was issued in which all the provinces indicated, shall we say, very strong interest in the adoption of an amending formula along those lines. The word "veto" first appeared in the question of the hon. member and not in my language.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to ask the Prime Minister whether the subject of social security and income security being transferred to provincial jurisdiction, as suggested by the Quebec Minister of Social Affairs, is on the agenda or if any of the provinces have sought to put it on the agenda?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: To the
second question, Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. Some provinces have sought to put it on the agenda. I might say that we agree with that suggestion, but I cannot go much further without saying what the agenda will be because I do not know what it will be until all the provinces have agreed to it.


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister.
I should like to ask him whether the return to Quebec jurisdiction of social security is a prerequisite for Quebec's acceptance of the new Turner amending formula.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not authorized to inform the House of Quebec's prequisites; I believe the Quebec authorities are in a position to do so themselves.


Martial Asselin: I have another supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Can the Prime Minister tell us whether, during his meeting yesterday evening with the premier of Quebec, an agreement was arrived at with regard to the transfer of jurisdiction in the field of social security.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, those conversations were private and confidential, and I do not intend to reveal Mr. Bourassa's position. If the hon. member is interested in mine I will surely make it known to him, but as far as those of the other governments are concerned, I refer the hon. member to those governments.


Martial Asselin: I wish to ask a last supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
May I have the Prime Minister's opinion on this question?


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolieite):: I wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether some provinces have officially expressed their disagreement about this proposed amending formula, in short whether some provinces have informed him that they disagreed with him completely?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Here again, Mr. Speaker, I am requested to speak on behalf of the provinces, which is not altogether my role. I must say that a press release was published after the February conference; this press release is public, and if the hon. member reads it he will know the position of the provinces.


Roch La Salle: I wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
I am not asking the Prime Minister to speak on behalf of the provinces, but rather to indicate whether he has received correspondence from the provinces stating that the latter rejected the amendment proposed at the last conference?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If my understanding is correct, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is repeating the same question.
The Minister of Justice has met with the attorneys general of the provinces at intervals since the month of February. Many views have been expressed.
As regards the position of the provinces, once again I would ask the hon. member to inquire from the provinces.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the right hon. Prime Minister if he would consider, aside from the formal and regular agenda involving all the premiers, holding discussions with the premiers of the three Prairie provinces with a view to securing their views as to the adequacy and efficacy of

June 1, 1971
Inquiries oj the Ministry
the government's grain policies, particularly the proposed
stabilization plan?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we have always agreed to discuss subjects which were acceptable to the provinces when we set up the agenda, but so far to my knowledge there has been no request to put this matter on the agenda. Therefore it becomes a hypothetical question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the candlelight conference last night can the Prime Minister tell us if there has been any change in priorities between discussion of the amending formula and/or the division of powers that might ensue at the conference in Victoria?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would like to answer fairly, Mr. Speaker, but I do not understand the question.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I will omit the part about candlelight and thus shed light on the question. As a result of the discussions last night was there any request-I appreciate that the Prime Minister cannot speak for the provinces but he does speak for Canada-or any action on changing the priorities at the conference in Victoria to give precedence to discussion of the division of powers over discussion of the amending formula?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of ordering or arranging the items on the agenda, and although there has been some speculation in the press that this is what we were going to talk about I must say quite candidly that Premier Bourassa and I did not discuss in any way the order of the items on the agenda. It does not seem all that important.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Yesterday I asked a question of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour in connection with the withdrawal of services by members of the firemen's union at Edmonton International Airport and the threatened spread of that labour dispute. In view of the fact that negotiations have been taking place with this particular group since last October, is the President of the Treasury Board able to enlighten the House on what is actually being done to solve this problem or are we going to see a full-fledged strike?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot predict what will happen but I can
say that the actions of employees in the firefighting branch at 11 airports across Canada are contrary to the terms of the collective agreement. Discussions are now under way with the President of the Public Service Alliance with a view to getting the men back to work immediately. In the meantime, supervisory personnel are carrying out firefighting assignments so that no peril to the public will arise as a consequence of this interruption of work.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Is it the view of the minister that the action taken by the employees is any worse than the government's action in changing the conditions of employment during the currency of the contract, particularly so close to the time when they should be negotiating a new contract?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the intended change is designed to improve substantially the reaction time of firefighting units in meeting an emergency. As the hon. member pointed out, it has been under discussion for some six months with a view to implementation. The steps envisaged have been explored by the contracting parties and the date of implementation on an experimental basis in Edmonton was just a few days ago. The delay in implementation has been occasioned by the extent of the consultations and discussions. These are continuing at the present time to see whether the work stoppage can be brought to an end on the basis of reason rather than enforcement of the law.



FIREMEN'S STRIKE, EDMONTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT -METHOD OF IMPLEMENTING WORK CHANGES

Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the President of the Treasury Board tell the House whether the work changes were unilaterally implemented by management without regard to the so-called Freedman report?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, implementation by the employer in this case was strictly in accordance with the terms of the collective agreement following some six months of consultation with the members of the bargaining unit.



THE CENSUS


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Yesterday I directed a question to the right hon. Prime Minister and he agreed to transmit it to the minister responsible for the census. I asked whether the minister would give consideration to a delay in the return of census forms and suspension of the provision for the imposition of penalties until such time as

June 1, 1971

the privacy of the individual and the secrecy of the returns could be protected. In other words, will those people who object to sending their census forms to a locally appointed census committee for checking and study be able to mail their forms directly to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics in Ottawa?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: This is a long question, Mr. Speaker, and the proper answer is even longer. If my hon. friend would like to look at the questions and answers I distributed last Friday he will find that question No. 7 covers his point. I might say that, if a person is not satisfied with the census representative who picks up the questionnaire, if it is someone who is a friend or a neighbour-


An hon. Member:: It is just that they are all Liberals.


Jean-Luc Pepin: -he can ask for a commissioner to come and pick it up. If he is not satisfied with the commissioner he can ask that the regional officer come and pick it up. However, confidentiality is assured in each case: the census takers are all under oath.
I notice that yesterday the hon. member mentioned that in 1961 things were done differently; indeed they were. In 1961 every census representative helped every single householder to write the answers to the questions, so in some ways the system of self-enumeration we have this year is much better from the point of view of confidentiality.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to get into the field of argument on this point, but I would ask the minister this question. If anyone objects to the present system, does he have the right and privilege of putting the census form in an envelope and sending it to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics in Ottawa?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, it is believed that that would not be a good system because, if the questionnaire is found not to be completed fully, it would have to be sent back to the person and returned again. Each questionnaire has to be checked locally. I repeat that if the person is not satisfied he can ask for the commissioner to come and pick it up. If he is not satisfied with the commissioner, he can ask for the regional officer of DBS to come and pick it up. That, I think, should assure satisfaction to everybody.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a last supplementary question. Are we to assume that the minister is in agreement with the policy of having local citizens check and tabulate the returns of other citizens of that area?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, this is the way it is done in every part of the world. If we were to hire an additional
42,000	people on a permanent basis for DBS, hon. members on the other side of the House would complain /iolently.


An hon. Member:: There are not that many Liberals left.
Inquiries of the Ministry



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-PROVISION OF ADDITIONAL FUNDS

Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board.
Considering that projects put forward by students under the Opportunities for Youth program have not yet been accepted because it seems that all available funds have been allotted, could the President of the Treasury Board tell us if the Secretary of State has put in to him a request for additional funds?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think that the question can be put like that. The hon. member is asking the President of the Treasury Board if he has received a request from another minister. In these words, it seems to me that the question is not acceptable, but if the minister can find a way to reply to it briefly, the Chair sees no objection to it.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I can say that the Secretary of State is presently considering this matter, that considerable amounts are allotted to this program and that, until now, there have not been any actual discussions by the government.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I should like to put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
I realize that considerable amounts have been allotted to this program, but it seems that a great number of requests are still pending. My question is as follows: Is the government, through its President of the Treasury Board, prepared to consider a request that supplementary estimates be used so as to subsidize these numerous projects?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems that the question of the hon. member is taking the form of a suggestion to the minister concerned, and he has to assume that it will be taken under consideration.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Since earlier this year we extended the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act for a period of two and a half years, with the idea of discussing with a number of the interested parties the success of that operation, has the minister anything to report on his recent meeting with the mining industry inasmuch as the Upper Canada mine has found it necessary to close?

6250

June 1, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the recent meeting with mining company officials was called for the purpose of exploring whether or not methods could be found to extend not only the life of the mines but of the communities by further exploration and geological studies in the areas of the gold mines. We hope to take the matter further by bringing in community leaders, trade union leaders, etc. to discuss social as well as economic plans for the communities later in the year. As yet I have nothing to report as to any definitive solutions pursuant to our agreement to extend the act for 2J years and to try to draw up total economic plans for the communities.


William Arnold Peters: May I ask the minister if his department is participating in a study that is now being contemplated by the Ontario government, involving those mining areas where there has been a great potential and probably still is, in the form of research into the availability of other mineral resources in the area?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain whether we are participating specifically with the province of Ontario in their program, but certainly the very purpose of the recent meeting that my officials had with the various companies was to try to determine a plan for finding other mining resources in the area of the gold mining communities.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to return to the Prime Minister in connection with the joint Soviet-Canadian declaration regarding a European security conference. May I ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the declaration of the principle of non-aggression in the Canadian-Soviet declaration, which differed significantly from the NATO declaration in that it made no reference to the so-called Brezhnev doctrine, I am to understand that he agreed to this declaration without any discussion with the Soviet government as to whether it was precluding itself from invoking the so-called Brezhnev doctrine when it made a declaration assuring the territorial integrity and inviolability of frontiers? Did the Prime Minister agree to such a declaration differing from the NATO declaration without inquiring as to what it meant?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me the Leader of the Opposition has asked a question and perhaps the Prime Minister might be recognized at this time for the purpose of replying to the question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have not neard the question, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition was just going to ask it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister heard the question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I asked the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, whether he associated himself with this joint declaration of principle, differing from the NATO declaration, without inquiring whether the declaration he was associating himself with prohibited the use of the Brezhnev doctrine which justified the invasion of Czechoslovakia? Did the Prime Minister associate himself with that declaration without inquiring whether or not the Soviet Union was rejecting in future-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Ask the question.


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


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, it is all very well for those people opposite to joke about something they do not understand.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must seek the co-operation of the Leader of the Opposition. I believe that the Leader of the Opposition has asked a question and he may wish to ask a supplementary, but I would be inclined to recognize the Prime Minister now and then allow the Leader of the Opposition to ask a supplementary.


John James Greene: What did you say, Bob?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that the Prime Minister is refusing to answer my question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think it would be simpler if the Chair were to recognize the Prime Minister for the purpose of answering the question and then recognize the Leader of the Opposition for the purpose of asking a supplementary.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the protocol I signed speaks for itself. There is no reference in there to the Brezhnev doctrine. I did not feel it would be a very sensible venture on my part to go into this matter. We signed a protocol for continued agreement. We signed a protocol which both sides hope will lead to a de-escalation of the arms race in Europe. I did not go into all the past doctrines and practices of the Soviet government and they did not ask Canada to justify its past ventures or, for that matter, for us to talk about the American role in

June 1, 1971

Suez or in Guatemala. We did not discuss these subjects. We sought agreement and not disagreement.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question related not to the protocol but to the declaration calling for a European conference. With regard to the future, did the Prime Minister associate himself with a declaration which significantly disagrees with the NATO declaration, the NATO declaration being deliberately designed to call for rejection by the Soviet Union of the so-called Brezhnev doctrine? With regard to the future, has the Prime Minister associated himself with the position of the Soviet Union which differs significantly in this respect from the position taken by NATO?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to indulge in semantics, but when I talked about the protocol I thought that was what the Leader of the Opposition was talking about. He is now talking about a declaration. I suspect he means the communique.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Yes.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There was a joint communique in which we included those subjects that we could agree should be included. Our position on Berlin was not put in there, nor was their position on Berlin because we do not agree on our respective positions with regard to Berlin. What we did agree on, we put in the communique. Among other things, we said we would meet again at regular intervals in order to try to iron out these differences which had been the subject of disagreement.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: One further supplementary. May I ask why the Prime Minister of Canada associated himself with a declaration of rights and duties in this communique which significantly differs from that which had been agreed upon by Canada as a member of NATO?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the premise on which the question is based. We did not put everything in the communique which Canada believes. We did not put everything in the communique for which NATO stands. This was not the objective of the communique. It was not that the Russians should be asked to agree with what we stand for in Canada. It was that Canada and the Soviet Union try to find some common terms of agreement, which we did.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Annapolis Valley for one supplementary. We have to give other members an opportunity. There are only eight minutes remaining in the question period.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: My supplementary arises out of the Prime Minister's answer to the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister mentioned equating and relating past endeavours of Russia with Canada. Can the Prime Minister inform the House and Canada what past endeavours of Canada even compare to some of the past endeavours of Russia, be it the Ukraine, Czechoslovakia or Hungary? It was the Prime Minister who used those words.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would think that this is debate. The point may have been reached when the Chair should recognize the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: On a point of order or a question of privilege, depending on how Your Honour wants to interpret it-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Seriously, Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to ask a supplementary, but the answer of the Prime Minister led to a very responsible and constructive supplementary question to attempt to find out what is in the mind of the Prime Minister on something that is as important, which I admit it is, as the relations between Russia and Canada. I am all for better relations. I am not for some other things.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: My friend from the Ukraine-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is debate, of course. The hon. member will recognize it is the feeling of the Chair that, if there is to be debate during the question and answer period, we could continue with the first question every day and spend the 40 minutes on debate. I suggest that is not fair to other members who have questions to ask. There are now only seven minutes remaining in the question period. We spent the first 15 minutes on this point and we are now spending another 10 minutes on it. I fail to see where there is equity in relation to other members in doing this.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: With due deference and all the respect I hold for the Chair, I would like Your Honour to declare and define for me-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not going to declare anything for the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The rules state very clearly that the question of supplementaries is in the exclusive jurisdiction of the Chair. At one point the Chair must rule whether we should go on to another question. This discretion has to be exercised by the Chair. It is perhaps not always exercised with the degree of wisdom that it should be, but it is certainly exercised with good will. That is why I thought we might have reached the point where the Chair should recognize another member of the House.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: On the same question of privilege-


John James Greene: Shame!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Now that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who is commonly known as the minister of gas-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
24107-45J

June 1, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that the situation is perhaps deteriorating a bit. I invite the hon. member to give the Chair the opportunity to recognize another hon. member. I am not suggesting that the question asked by the hon. member is not important and relevant, but it is a question of discretion and judgment whether we should go on to another questioner. The hon. member, who is here every day, might have an opportunity to ask the same question tomorrow as he is asking today.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: With all due deference and for clarification for future questions, I would like to know what part of my question to the Prime Minister was argumentative in seeking an explanation of his own answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member will read the Standing Orders he will know that he cannot ask that question. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: My question is for the Prime Minister. As there is serious confusion concerning the Prime Minister's views on civil liberties arising out of his remarks on Ukrainian nationalism, both on a radio program on the CBC on Sunday and in answering questions is the House yesterday, and particularly as one of those involved is a distinguished scholar who has been convicted of advocating nothing more than linguistic and cultural freedom, will the Prime Minister please clarify his position on this issue?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think I made my position quite clear in answer to a question in the House yesterday.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope we are not resuming the debate we had on this point yesterday. The hon. member seems to be poised for a supplementary. I will allow him to ask a supplementary.


John Edward Broadbent: I am poised, indeed, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to be very serious and not indulge in any spurious kind of red baiting, to be quite frank, but the kind of equation that has been made by serious people on the subject-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will recognize that this is debate. I have recognized him with the suggestion that he might ask a supplementary.


John Edward Broadbent: Would it be correct to infer from the Prime Minister's comments over the CBC and in the House that he no longer distinguishes between the activities of Mr. Rene Levesque and the FLQ?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmoni):: My question is for the
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. For some time I have been asking the minister what decision will be taken with regard to building a causeway or bridge to the Lennox Island Indian reservation. The minister recently informed me that the Department of Public Works was considering a possible design and would reach a decision by the middle of May. In view of the present construction season and the need for an almost immediate start on the project, will the minister indicate when this important project will commence?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: I cannot report to the House today, Mr. Speaker. I have not received the report yet.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville):: My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the indefinite lay-off of approximately 200 employees of the Windsor engine plant of the Ford Motor Company yesterday, with the prospect of further lay-offs in the next month, allegedly caused by a company decision to transfer a substantial part of its engine production from the engine plant in Windsor to that in Cleveland, what action does the minister propose to take?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have an answer to this but I cannot find it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: The gist of it is quite simple. Ford is not now selling in Canada in sufficient number the type of cars for which engines were being produced in the Windsor plant, so there is no transfer of work from Canada to the United States. There seems to be a change in the mood of the population with respect to the size of cars they wish to buy at this time.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Can the minister advise the House how Ford of Canada intends to maintain Canadian content in line with that of the base year if these engines are going to be made in another country?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Canadian content of Ford is very high at this time, in the neighbourhood of 100 per cent, Canadian value added.
June 1, 1971



ALLEGED MOVING OF PARTS BACK AND FORTH ACROSS BORDER BY AUTOMOBILE COMPANIES

John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask whether, with reference to the question asked by the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville, the minister is aware that because of the auto pact it is quite common for companies to shift parts back and forth across the border, whether the whole automobile is assembled in the one country or the other.


Jean-Luc Pepin: If the hon. member has some information he would like to give me on this subject, I would be delighted to study it.
* # *



POLLUTION


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the proposed minister of the environment and the Minister of Transport I should like to direct my question to the acting minister since it is urgent. In view of the fact that the motor vessel Trans Pacific is aground off the southeast end of St. Pierre Island near Cap Noir lighthouse, has been aground since May 18, has on board 250 tons of bunker oil and is liable to break up at any time, can the government say what action it has taken to remove this threat to our shores?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I will take this question as notice.



CONTINGENCY PLANS TO DEAL WITH OIL SPILLS FROM SHIPS

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or the acting minister might answer the question whether the government has any contingency plans to deal with an emergency such as that referred to by my colleague from South Western Nova, as recommended by the Arrow task force several months ago?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, this question would come under the responsibility of the Minister of Transport and I shall be glad to draw it to his attention.



FISHERIES


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister concerning which I sent a short memorandum across the
Inquiries of the Ministry
floor to him a while ago. In light of the continued violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the reciprocal fishing arrangements between Canada and the United States on the Pacific coast by the United States coastguard in refusing to allow Canadian fishing vessels to seek harbour refuge, will the government consider the immediate suspension of present rights granted U.S. fishing vessels to use Canadian ports and to travel the inside passage?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the answer to this question. I will refer it to the Minister of Fisheries or the Secretary of State for External Affairs.



SHIPPING


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I will direct to the right hon. Prime Minister. As a result of the Darling report on shipping, is the government now giving some consideration to the establishment and operation of a government sponsored marine insurance program?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if any policy is to be announced it will be announced in the House.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-ADDITIONAL FUNDS PROVIDED IN 1971 COMPARED WITH 1970

Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I should like to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister or to some other responsible minister. In view of the fact that the federal student summer program package announced some time ago was to have a budget of $58 million, which was later raised to $68 million, to provide extra opportunities for youth, and in view of the fact that reports are coming in that certain programs in operation last year catering to the same general area have been reduced, can the minister say how much money additional to that budgeted last summer does this summer's program contemplate? In short, how much new money is in the program?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not
have the figures in my head but they should not be difficult to ascertain. This year there is $68 million in the program. Last summer I believe there was approximately $15 million to $20 million. The figures can be found in the estimates and the simple deduction can be made.

June 1, 1971
Senate and House of Commons Act AIR TRANSPORT



ASSURANCE OF SAFETY OF PASSENGERS PENDING SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTE INVOLVING FIREMEN

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Transport. Unfortunately he is not here today and neither is the acting minister so I will direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister who perhaps can distribute it among his ministers. Is the government making arrangements to ensure the safety of air passengers in Canada until such time as the dispute between the Department of Transport and the firefighters union is settled?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes, Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-242, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, and an act to make provision for the retirement of members of the Senate, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization.
Mr. Speaker:: Might the Chair inquire who is the seconder of motion No. 1?


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, after consultations with members on both sides of the House I find there is not sufficient bipartisan support to guarantee the motion's passage, so I would ask that it be dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: My understanding is that the hon.
member is not moving the motion standing in his name.


Mark Willson Rose: That Bill C-242, an act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, and an act to make provision for the retirement of members of the Senate, be amended by deleting clause 5 therefrom and by inserting instead thereof the following:
''5. This act shall come into force on the day fixed for the general election following the dissolution of the twenty-eighth Parliament".
He said: Mr. Speaker, before commencing my remarks I should like to thank my seconder, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), for his generous assistance. I am glad he sincerely supports what I am about to say.


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


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Broadview is rising on a question of privilege.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, the only reason I seconded the motion was so the House could debate it. Certainly, I am not supporting it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps I owe an apology to the hon. member for Broadview. He was standing at the moment the motion was put and I assumed that he wanted to second it. Perhaps he was simply moving from place to place and had not intended to be named as the seconder. If he wishes me to name another member I will do so with pleasure; perhaps this would be best. Mr. Rose, seconded by Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion. The hon. member for Fraser Valley West.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I regret that my remarks are being accompanied at this point with such a great deal of hilarity because I am speaking, on a very serious matter. In introducing this amendment, which deals with the date on which this act shall come into force, I am really contemplating delaying the coming into effect of any increase in indemnity until after the date of the next general election. I fully appreciate that many members from distant ridings have in the past experienced, and are currently experiencing, some financial difficulty with the present indemnities and allowances. The financial objectives, of course, are recognized, especially the one that requires two residences, one in the riding of the member concerned and another in Ottawa. Similarly, the need for additional transportation expenses is both real and legitimate. The Beaupre report had some comments to make upon at least one of those two items, but the government has not seen fit to accept the recommendations of its own commission in this regard, and this I regret.
A greater expense burden is placed on those members who represent ridings which are geographically isolated, extremely widespread or scattered than the burden on those who represent relatively compact or nearby ridings such as those in Ottawa, Montreal and the Toronto area. The cost of an additional residence and an addition car represents a sizeable drain on the financial resources of any Member of Parliament, particularly those coming from the far east or the far west, or those representing rural or northern ridings.
I can appreciate the fact that those members who are in favour of an immediate pay raise might well be moved to ask why, in view of my remarks, I do not vote for the raise. My answer to this hypothetical and rhetorical question is that I have no philosophical objection to a pay raise for MP's or anybody else, but I do object to the size of the raise and its timing. I personally resent being put in the unacceptable position of voting myself a pay hike, and I will try to be more specific in that respect as I continue my remarks. I am also disappointed that the Beaupre report recommendations were not followed to assist those people representing ridings which require

June 1, 1971

greater financial demands because of their remoteness as compared to compact ridings near the urban centres.
No one can really win by taking part in this debate on this issue because if you are in favour of the increase you are considered to be greedy and irresponsible, and if you vote against the raise you are considered to be a hypocrite who secretly wants the money but wants to gain the political advantage of opposing such an increase. I suggest that view is widely held not only by some people in this House but also by members of the general public.
I have no objection to voting for a reasonable raise for the position of a Member of Parliament or for extra expenses, facilities or the staff necessary for a member to perform his job more adequately. It is for this reason I put my amendment forward. This is precisely why I feel any increase in salary or expenses should not come into force immediately but following the next general election. Under those circumstances, I would then be voting for an increase in salary for the position rather than for myself. There is little guarantee that anyone who is a member of this Parliament will be sitting as a member of the next Parliament.
I am prepared to vote for the upgrading of the position of a Member of Parliament. This position should be recognized by a salary increase. I am in favour of that if it can be handled in a different manner. Perhaps it should be tied to some salary scale in the civil service, or some other formula. This is not the case now. One of the main reasons for putting forward this amendment is the fact that this is our last hope of modifying the government proposal put forward at the worst possible time. I resent being put in the position of having to deal with this issue in the manner in which I am forced to do. Having been here for some three years, I am satisfied that the duties and financial responsibilities of an MP demand a constant reappraisal of financial return. No one comes here to make money. Most members are rewarded less than they would receive from their private occupations outside this place. However, I do not believe that Parliament should be the private preserve of those people with sufficient substance or wealth so that the size of an MP's indemnity is irrelevant. Parliament can be, should be and is to a large extent a reflection of various groups of Canadian society. The financial rewards, then must be such that the average Joe can run for office and serve his time here without taking a financial shellacking, therefore, there is a real need for constant reappraisal of the indemnity and expenses of MP's.
While the Beaupre did not propose a formula, it at least indicated the direction in which we should travel. The House leader has attempted to get the various parties to come together on a formula but I am sorry his negotiations failed. I am in favour of a pay increase coming into force only after the next election. While my expenses are much greater than I anticipated before I was a member-I admit that I did not fully understand the nature of the job or the demands placed upon a member-I emphasize that that dilemma is not unique in respect of the office of MP. All groups and societies have experienced inflation and the consequent reduction of the
Senate and House of Commons Act
value of our dollar in real terms. If there is anything unique about the position of an MP, it is that he is a member of one of the few groups in society which can vote itself a raise in pay.
Other groups, which perhaps need an increase urgently, must depend on others to vote for that increase. Most have to go through elaborate bargaining processes. We do not have to do this. The timing of this raise is particularly inopportune in view of the government's proposed two-year period of restraint in other segments of our society. Perhaps after the next general election the economic conditions of the country will be different. I have not much faith in that line of argument, but I put it forward to indicate that the general public is quite critical of this proposed increase. There is a vast number of adults and students who are unemployed. The contemplated change proposed for our financial status does not automatically assure a similar prospect for the thousands of unemployed people. They cannot improve their status as we can. Someone else must do it for them.
When I ran for office 1 was a big boy, and I knew what I was doing.


An hon. Member:: What happened, did you shrink?


Mark Willson Rose: I am sure some members think that I have shrunk since but I consider the personal rewards of a session of Parliament to be part of what I view as a contractual obligation. No matter how it hurts, members should be content with the $12,000 and $6,000 for the life of this Parliament. I am certain I will not receive substantial agreement on this point. I believe MP's salaries should be related to those of others on fixed income, veterans and pensioners, subject to yearly revision on the basis of a formula. We should try to avoid this controversy which occurs when we allow our salaries to remain in status quo for a period of 10 years and then propose a substantial hike. The government House leader has tried to explain that this increase is not a substantial hike but represents only five per cent or six per cent per year to bring our salary level up to date. The general public considers it a substantial hike, however, as compared to the increases the average individual is receiving. They feel this increase is substantial, monstrous and irresponsible.
I note that the government has abandoned, however, any attempt to reflect the cost of living in the old age security pension. We abandoned this last fall. A great number of people regret that even the limited two per cent escalator has been abandoned which was designed to perhaps bring some protection into old age security at a time when the value of our dollar was shrinking because of inflation at the rate of approximately five per cent per year.
Next, I should like the position of Member of Parliament to be recognized for salary purposes, rather than the person. In this way, during the next election citizens would have an opportunity in the ridings to choose from between three of four members who they would like to

June 1, 1971
Senate and House of Commons Act
see occupy the particular position. I believe this improvement in social justice would be accomplished by the passage of my amendment. The people would have an opportunity to decide which of three or four persons is the most worthy. Any political gain or disadvantage would then not accrue to anyone regardless of his vote today on this issue. I believe, by supporting my amendment, we would be recognizing the need for an increase but would be divorcing it from the individual member. This is what I would prefer.
Earlier, I expressed my regret that the government apparently had tossed aside the Beaupre Commission report. I know the government House leader said that the individual Member of Parliament could decide to do the things the Beaupre Commission recommended. I am not sure all the things the Beaupre Commission recommended could be accomplished by the individual member but certainly some could. Better research, office facilities and vouchered expenses reflecting riding needs have all been virtually ignored, so each member now is left with the decision, according to his own conscience, whether he wishes to use the money for the purposes suggested by the Beaupre Commission or pocket the increase himself.
I shall close by urging members to vote in favour of the amendment because it seems to me that only by supporting it can we at once recognize the need for a reasonable and responsible indemnity for Members of Parliament, with adjustments from time to time and also some better permanent legislation on this important matter.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, the remarks I am about to make may not contain too much logic. I fully confess that those who heard what I said previously will think I should speak in favour of the amendment advanced by-


An hon. Member:: Speak a little louder.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: If I had a microphone I would be heard. Otherwise, I will have to raise my voice.


An hon. Member:: You have a dead mike.


Mr. Speaker:: It is obvious that something is happening. Something would appear to be wrong with the hon. member's microphone. The problem now seems to have been resolved.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to mention anything that happened during the question period, but I am glad the gremlins have not decided to inhibit this desk. What I started to say before my dulcet tones could be carried across the chamber was that I confess what I am about to say may not appear to be too logical, and I admit readily that this is so, to those who heard what I had to say when this bill first came before the House. Hon. members will think I should support the amendment advanced by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose). I do not. I do not question the sincerity of the hon. member. Obviously, we cannot do that and it is a good thing that we cannot do it. I would
not do so in this case in any event, because the hon. member is a personal friend of mine.
When I spoke earlier I felt very seriously that a pay increase, separate from an allowance for expenses, was not justified for a number of reasons which I shall not repeat now. I also said that such a pay increase should come after the election. The hon. member's amendment, however, would put the whole problem over until after the election. There is not a member in any seat in the House of Commons, including the hon. member, who does not know that expenses, allowances and out-of-pocket money with which members are involved week in and week out needs readjustment, reassessment and revision. It is for that reason the hon. member's amendment goes too far.
I considered moving an amendment to eliminate that part of the bill referring to salary increases. I, personally, deliberated the question and felt, perhaps wrongly, that it was not up to me to put individual members on the spot in respect of such a sensitive issue which affects all of us. This is why, although in my earlier speech I said I would endeavour to see if an amendment could be developed, I confess I did nothing during the committee proceedings even if I could have. Also I do not have a formal amendment to move today which would enable members to pick and choose, thus putting them on the spot in respect of expenses and salary. In my opinion, members, no matter how maligned they are from all sources, be it from the editorials, cartoons and people who write letters to the editor, do need a review and adjustment of their expenses and allowances. That is why I give full credit to the President of the Privy Council, the government House leader, for attempting

and at one time I was most optimistic there would be some success in his attempt-to have included in this bill a provision for a regular review and revision of salaries so that members would not again be confronted with the invidious practice of having to speak for or against the amount that goes into their pocketbooks.
It makes me sad that the President of the Privy Council was not able to get an all-party agreement to amend the bill. It was thus a surprise to me that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) withdrew his amendment which, in effect, would go part way in providing for a permanent review porcedure which would obviate the necessity of members going through this moment of truth in making a decision which affects their pocketbooks. Such decisions can be misinterpreted or interpreted in any way one wishes. However, I am not supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Fraser Valley West. I also cannot support this bill. The bill which the hon. member attempts to amend, I believe, is a bad bill at this time. My main objection is that I believe it destroys the credibility of this institution as it relates to any economic matters involving restraint, discipline or control. One does not have to be a soothsayer to know that Parliament, in the months ahead, will be confronted from time to time with economic problems and with the duty of preaching the philosophy of restraint, discipline and control.

June 1, 1971

Furthermore, I believe, and I could make a speech on this topic alone, that this bill at this time downgrades Parliament in the eyes of the public. I said previously that I would not accept any benefits from this bill. Well, I went too far, and I admit it. An hon. member from behind the curtains says he wants them now. I also want them. If the hon. member behind the curtain comes to his seat-and I know who he is but I will not challenge him-I will show him that I never spoke against the principle of a review and a substantial upward revision in expenses and allowances of members. I also admitted freely that members needed an increase. So, my position, over which the hon. member behind the curtain chuckles, is one that I am prepared to face because it looks as though I have done a flip flop. In reality, however, it is no different from the one I took when I made my speech previously. But in honour to my friend behind the curtain I not only revise what I said, I repent in part for what I said.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: There is no doubt in my mind, as I said previously, that members need an increase in funds for living expenses. Many have attacked this bill in a most negative fashion and some have mouthed platitudes against the bill, but nevertheless admit they will accept the fruits of the subject of their attack in whatever form or fashion. Some say they will donate the amount of the increase to charity. I must say that I explored this possibility but found there are more than mechanical difficulties. There are monetary difficulties in being Santa Claus to so many deserving Canadians. Of those who say they would donate it to charity, some may be able to afford it. I admit I cannot. Some members say they will be Pied Pipers in their ridings, dispensing dollars for charitable projects. Let them go to it. I cannot and I will not be a part of such hypocrisy. Some members say they will set up offices in their riding. Fine; let them go ahead, but once they do they will be accepting the bounty of this bill. Let us not fool ourselves. If they accept the bounty of the bill, then those members should not rail so aggressively against it.
To put it simply, I believe honestly that my instincts are right, but my pocketbook cannot afford them. Therefore, I intend to take the increase, and thus I feel I cannot vote against the bill. But since I believe so fundamentally in what I said earlier about the bill and its negative character, I cannot support the bill. Therefore I find myself in a sterile, neuter and, in effect, negative position for the first time in my life as a member and so will deliberately abstain from voting on this bill. This is why I am making this short speech.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to miss the opportunity to state my views on the bill now under consideration, since I feel it is quite important. Some hon. members have been putting on a big show since the bill was introduced. I will not have anything to
Senate and House of Commons Act
do with that and I would like to say immediately that I welcome this bill.
I think that a member has some heavy responsibilities. Some object to the bill claiming that its passage would be untimely. It was the same in 1968 when I was elected. It was too soon then to deal with an increase of our parliamentary salary. It was again too soon in 1969. However now it is too late because I imagine that an election will be called within a year and then, the passage of the bill will have to be delayed till 1972 or 1973.
Mr. Speaker, some hon. members are putting on a big show since they don't need an increase. They should, at least, have the decency to allow those who need it to use this additional income provided by this increase. On the other hand, there are those who extol virtue, but are not prepared to practise it. They should be honest enough to admit it.
Mr. Speaker, two election campaigns have just ended where odious comparisons have been made between the increase of 42 cents granted to some disabled people and veterans and this increase of $8,000 for Members of Parliament. Of course, this made for an interesting debate for the people to listen to. On the one hand, some hon. members blamed the government for introducing this bill and on the other, some considered this increase insufficient.
I believe the opposition parties blamed the government for that truly insufficient increase. There can be no comparison between that last one and the present proposal. Electionwise, that was interesting and perhaps profitable.
Through arousal of feelings of all kinds, there is again today an attempt to gain politically from this increase. It might be interesting to know who is against the increase and who is afraid, for instance, of seeing Parliament lose some of its prestige. As for myself, I am wondering how much a member of Parliament is worth.
I made a few studies recently and I calculated how many hours members of Parliament put in-because most of them work hard-and I arrived at the figure of $3.46 per hour. Of course, I must include the hours I spend at my office on weekends. I think that I am not the only one in this House to do so much overtime on weekends.
On several occasions, I had the opportunity to ask some ladies how much their husbands were earning. The answer was $4 or $5 an hour, in the case of professionals. I came to the conclusion that $3.46 was not exaggerated if we take into account the responsibilities inherent to the position of Member of Parliament.
I am convinced that several hon. members do know that the salary increase will be passed. I am one of those who look forward to it, and I do not hesitate in saying that this has become highly necessary in view of the responsibilities involved in my work. It is true that during the election campaign of 1968, I agreed to serve in this Parliament for the current salary. However, it was difficult for me, at that time, to know what amount of work this position implied. In the light of my experience so far, I quite agree now with the proposal of the govern-
6258

June 1, 1971
Senate and House of Commons Act
ment. I blame it for one thing only: that it waited until today to have this House vote on it!
I feel that my opinion reflects the views of the majority, and I would invite hon. members, if they want to be honest with the population as they would like to be, at least to undertake to give this raise to charities if they think they do not need it and that this legislation is unacceptable.
I would like to be able to afford handing over that increase to charitable organizations. But I am not, Mr. Speaker. I shall use it simply to meet my present obligations.
I shall dwell on the matter no longer, but I had to express my views. I wanted to ask those who are against that increase to make less of a political issue of it or commit themselves officially to handing it over to charitable institutions. I know that, in my riding, the St. Vincent of Paul Society would be only too happy if I were to hand over the $8,000 a year. And I would be happy to do so, but I cannot afford it. The majority of members, except for those who are wealthy, cannot do any thing else but follow suit; but those who make political hay of the issue and oppose the bill in order to be able to say during the election campaign that they were against it, even though they accepted it, will be judged by the people.
I wanted to make these few remarks to ask other members who could be tempted to go on electioneering on this subject to refrain from doing so in order that we could now proceed to the vote; I will thus be in a position to take advantage of this raise to provide better service to my constituents and a better response to all solicitations for an improved administration of my constituency and I will also be better armed to defend the interests of my people.
It is with this in mind that I will welcome the raise and I am grateful to the government for acknowledging that you need money to go into politics and that I am not especially fond of having to work under difficult conditions. It is difficult for most people to accept and to understand the proper role of MP's and the expenses it entails. It is hard to understand that we should experience difficulty in getting along with our salary, but should we have to explain in minute details that our job involves some obligations and in this regard, I will refer to the invitations we receive from the public.
Having said this, Mr. Speaker, I hope this raise will not be delayed any longer and our situation should not prevent us from understanding that other groups of citizens also need higher incomes; furthermore, I do not hesitate in supporting the groups of citizens who are now in need of salary increases. I am not aware of this and I agree with it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I shall take only a few minutes of the time of the House at this stage. As hon. members are aware, I
opposed this bill at second reading. I intend to oppose it on third reading as well. The arguments for that position have already been made and it is not my purpose to repeat them now. However, I should like to say just a brief word in view of the fact that I was given the opportunity to second the amendment proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose).
I may say that I do not agree with everything my hon. friend said in his speech about the arrangements that should be made in the future, but I do agree completely with him that if this bill is going to be passed it would be better if its effective date were at the beginning of the next Parliament rather than its present arrangement which makes it retroactive to October, 1970. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to second the amendment. I shall vote for it, but when we come to the third reading it is still my position that Parliament should not pass such a measure at this time and I shall vote against the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is a little difficult with the noise, for the Clerk Assistant to take the roll call. Perhaps we might start again, beginning with the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau).
After the taking of the vote:


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion negatived.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council) moved: that Bill C-242, to amend the Senate and
Income Tax Act
House of Commons Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, and An Act to make provision for the retirement of members of the Senate, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: At the next sitting of the House.



PRIME MINISTER'S RESIDENCE ACT


Allan Joseph MacEachen: that Bill C-241, to amend the Prime Minister's Residence Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if Your Honour would call government order No. 69. I believe there would be some representations to put Bill S-15 through all its stages in order to meet the convenience of hon. members.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On the same point of order, it is our view that there should be an amendment to the motion. This bill should be referred to committee of the whole, and not to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.



INCOME TAX ACT


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue) moved: that Bill S-15, respecting the consolidation of the Income Tax Act in the printed Roll of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, be read the second time and referred to the committee of the whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.
24107-46J
[Stage Direction]
June 1, 1971
Post Office Act POST OFFICE ACT

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, May 31, consideration of the motion of Mr. Cote (Longueuil) that Bill C-240, to amend the Post Office Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Comeau (page 6220).
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to special order made on Monday, May 31, the House will now revert to the
deferred division in relation to the proposed amendment to Bill C-240. The question is on the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. Is the House ready for the question on the main motion?


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, for some time now the postal department has indicated that the only category of mail which constantly pays its own way is first class mail, yet we note that the full impact of this increase with fall on those who use first class mail. This increase is from six cents to seven cents per letter on July 1, and from seven cents to eight cents on January 1, 1972. Within the last three years we have seen an increase in the rates for first class mail from four cents to eight cents, including letters posted for delivery in local areas. Thus the increase on January 1 of next year will be 100 per cent.
The time has arrived to look at the source of the revenue of the postal department. We must make some concessions on behalf of those people who are paying for the greatly reduced and inferior postal service. Only five years ago when you mailed a letter in a community for
[Mr. Gray.)
June 1, 1971

delivery in that area it cost lour cents. At that time such a letter would have been delivered the same day as a result of a twice-daily delivery service. After January 1 of this coming year, we will be required to place an eight cent stamp on a letter for delivery in a local community. We will have once-a-day delivery, so if the letter is not posted in time it will be delivered perhaps two days later, if you are lucky. Not only is there this built-in delay, but we find that the cost of the service and the efficiency have increased and decreased respectively. As a result of the new service, it will take four or five days to deliver a letter within a community.
I have heard stories, as I am sure other hon. members have, about what happens when someone is at the end of a postal walk. When there are letters that have not been delivered at the end of a postal walk they are taken back and put in the box again. If there should be too much mail again on the second day, the same mail might be taken back a second time. If a person lives close to the end of a postal walk or at a point where the postal employee might be at the time he goes home or leaves for lunch, that person might wait from Monday until Wednesday to have his mail delivered. The minister in charge of the post office should be prepared to say why he believes first class mail should carry the major share of the cost of the mail service in this country. He has said he will have mail delivered across Canada at a much accelerated rate. He made some suggestions, but he has not been able to produce. There are many instances in which mail service in Canada is not as fast today as it was.
There is no question but that in Northern Ontario 20 years ago mail was delivered at least one or two days sooner, on an average, than it is now. Occasionally, a letter mailed in Toronto is received in Northern Ontario the next morning, but this must be the result of an accident in which the letter got mixed up in some way and managed to get there. There was a time when if you mailed a letter before four o'clock in the afternoon in Toronto, it would be placed in the box in New Liskeard, 400 miles away, between four o'clock and eight o'clock in the morning. This variation in time was caused by the variation in the time of arrival of the train; it was never on time. However, that letter was always there the next day. All business in northern Ontario was based on a one-day delivery service in that area. Better than that, if you posted a letter in the postal box at any railway station or handed it to the man on the train as it went by, the letter would be dropped off at any delivery point along that railway line. Now, if a letter is put in the mail box at the station it will probably be taken back to the post office because it will go out on a bus.
Obviously, mail cannot be sorted en route in a bus. That was tried in the United States. They used a gyro car which is a truck with the body suspended to compensate for the movement. They found they could not keep people at that type of work. It has been impossible to have sorting en route. This means that in northern
Post Office Act
Ontario the mail has to be sent to a distributing point. The mail goes to the post office and is handled through the sorting system. It is then sent to a distribution point for delivery. If there is insufficient time to do the sorting at the first distribution point, it is put back into the box and sent to another distribution point at the other end of the line. I understand this is how the mail is handled now that road transportation is used. So, I sympathize with the minister in charge of the post office.
There does not seem to be any way, because of the manner in which the mail is presently handled, to have decent service. If the service is reduced, then the cost also, to some extent, must be reduced because there no longer is sorting in cars on the railways. The people who rode in those cars year after year are no longer employed in that position. The mail at a distribution point is handled through the normal sorting procedure and, therefore, there probably is a reduction in the cost of handling that mail.
I presume the reason the government dropped the mail contract with the Ontario Northland Railway was that it was very expensive. So, expenses are being reduced. To my knowledge no one in this House who represents a riding, urban or rural, would say that we are getting better service now than we did 20 years ago. Twenty years ago letters were delivered for 3 cents. Now, on January 1, the rate is to be 8 cents. The former Postmaster General said he would do something about this problem. He sure did. He got things into such a state that the employees were walking up and down in front of the Parliament buildings almost every day a year after they had a disagreement with the Post Office Department. The minister has not been able to tell them that the government has nothing to say to them because every few months or so another suggestion is made to these employees. They are given another offer which they can negotiate. Nothing has been solved. The result of all the negotiations has been dissatisfaction and disillusionment with the Post Office Department. This has created very low morale and a very poor relationship between the public and the postal employees. It has resulted in the public being dissatisfied with the type of service they receive.
If the rate for first class mail is to be raised from 6 cents to 7 cents and then increased to eight cents by January, why is the minister not in a position to say we are now able to have mail delivered twice a day. Why is he not able to say that the problem of the delay in many areas has been solved, and that the postal service will meet the standard that we established 20 years ago. I am not referring to a standard that we should have in the future but rather the standard we had 20 years ago. A large proportion of the cost of the postal department is being paid by the revenue from first class mail. I suggest we should be told if we are receiving some other benefits for the expenditure we are making.
The minister has not indicated that there will be any relief for the social, charitable, religious, labour and trade magazines. These magazines were very important

June 1, 1971
Post Office Act
to the economy of our nation. Most of the farmers we talk to today still lament the fact that most of the farm publications have gone out of business as a result of the attitude of this government toward postal rates. The government has not done a damn thing about such magazines as Time and Reader's Digest. We understand that the same subsidization is being paid by the post office to Time and Reader's Digest that was originally negotiated. Neither Reader's Digest nor Time magazine, for all their comments, have done anything but provide Canadians with a lower cost propaganda machine, and most of the reports that we see in those magazines that are published in Canada have a slant in line with that in the parent magazine. But if the general public, the people who drop a letter in the mail box, are going to subsidize the reading material of this nation, then I suggest they could use their money to better advantage by subsidizing those magazines that were dropped as well as some of the trade publications that were beneficial to large segments of our population.
Much of the development in the agricultural field was brought to the attention of the farmers and of the entrepreneurs in the agricultural sphere by the articles that appeared in those magazines. I never found many people in Canada who were interested in providing such subsidization as we are now giving to Reader's Digest and Time magazine, but I have found many Canadians who would have preferred the government to subsidize magazines for the rural communities. They were one of the major instruments for social development in that segment of the population and helped to develop our rural way of life.
I did mention the fact that we have not done much to improve the relationship of the employees with the Post Office. Morale among post office employees in my area has had its ups and downs. In the last year or two, I have received numerous complaints about employees of the post office and about the fact that they do not seem to be very interested in serving the customer. They have a certain job to do at a certain time and that is all they care about. Customers can line up and wait or do whatever they want. The relationship of the employees to their customers is not as friendly as it used to be three or four years ago when people dropped into the post office for a kind of social gathering. They met there in the morning to exchange the news of the day. The rapport at present is not nearly as good as it used to be several years ago.
Why is there no indication in the bill of the view of the government as to whether it wants the Post Office Department to stay as it is or to become a Crown corporation? Are we going to get out of this never-never land of the Communications Department which is more interested in space vehicles, satellites and new types of communication rather than in the Post Office? Is any member of the government interested in the simple business of writing a letter, putting a stamp on it and mailing it to .someone in the expectation of eventually receiving a
reply to it? Are we to anticipate the establishment of a separate free enterprise organizations which would handle our mail? This possibility is not so remote any longer.
I understand that in the city of Toronto, during the time of the postal strike, hundreds of agencies were set up to deliver mail around the city by car. It was much easier to pay such a company for the service of distributing messages to customers around the city than it was to drop mail in the mailbox. If that was the case when the rate was at six cents a letter, such agencies will find it easier to obtain mail delivery contracts when the Post Office charges eight cents a letter. The entrepreneurs will take an interest in this, and I am sure many arrangements will be made which will have the pony express delivering mail around the major cities rather than the postal employees. All this depends on whether or not the Post Office can operate at eight cents a letter, and it is my guess that unless we bring the employees of the Post Office into the picture they will continue to be confused about the intention of the government with regard to continuing the Post Office as a government department or making it a Crown corporation.
We will have to wait and see how the Post Office department manages on the increased rates that are proposed and how it will manage the labour disputes. They will find that there are many other ways of handling communications within a city as well as from city to city. I we raise the rate to eight cents, we will not penalize a very large sector of the population. You will find that it is the business people who will suffer. Let me give you a small example. An American wrote a letter to a Canadian tourist operator in my area. He wrote that letter fairly early in the year asking for reservations on a certain date. It took 21 days for the operator to receive the letter. He then wrote back confirming the reservation, and that letter took eight days before it got back to the American. The tourist operator sent me the envelope. The destination of the letter was only northern Ohio. I sent this envelope to the Post Office asking them what happened. They are still looking, I presume, because I never had a reply. I am not sure that they can tell what happened because this seems to be a pattern which occurs frequently. Sometimes letters are delivered within a day and a half or two days, but this really shows that the whole system is wrong; it is not reliable. The tourist agent told me that he loses one out of five bookings because he depends totally on the postal service; he cannot use telephone communication. I am sure this is true of a number of other people who depend totally on the postal service.
It seems to me that before we raise our first class mail rates we, as Members of Parliament, should be assured that an over-all plan is being developed which will improve the mail service. When I get a bill from a company, I do not care how long it takes the bill to reach me. If I put a cheque in the envelope and send it back, I do not care if it takes a month for that cheque to reach its destination. This does not worry me, but it may worry the company that is billing me. They may want that
[Mr. Peters.l
June 1, 1971

money now. This must affect many companies because many people have credit cards. It it takes a considerable period of time for the bills to reach the company's customers, the company has much money outstanding.
I suggest that we should look at the problems of our mail service, and assess what we can do about them. We should estimate what it will cost to do something about those problems. We should be in a position to look at some of the ways in which the problems can be solved. We then might find ourselves justified in raising the price of stamps to eight cents on the guarantee that mail is delivered within a reasonable period of time and, if it is not, that it be returned to the Post Office Department which would refund the cost of the stamp. For such a guarantee, I am sure many people would be willing to pay a reasonable postal rate.
If the rate on letters delivered locally is raised from 4 cents to 8 cents next January, all within a period of less than three years, it will entail an abnormally high expenditure for the ordinary public, especially when one considers that they will not get anything like the service that they previously got for 4 cents. In some areas people who live on rural delivery routes have advantages over people living on other routes. If you live on a rural delivery route that does not have too many customers, the likelihood is that you will get mail delivery about three times a week. But if you live on a route which has many more customers you will get mail delivery six times a week. In fact so far as mail delivery is concerned, you may do better living on a rural delivery route than living in a city. I suggest that people living on rural delivery routes should be treated equally. All postal subscribers should get equally good service, no matter where they live.
I hope the minister is able to indicate that the dropping of a large number of small community post offices across Canada has come to an end. I agree that the question of economy was involved. Many of the small post offices were costing much more than they were worth, and it was probably time to examine the services provided by them in relation to the cost. But I suggest that all this had a great adverse effect on many communities. I do not know how many hon. members share my experience, Mr. Speaker, in that the place where I was born no longer exists. It may not have been much of a place to crow about, and my being born there did not add much to it, but it had a sense of community. It existed by virtue of the services provided by the railroad and the post office. These services have now been taken away from it. People still live there but they find it difficult to maintain any type of identity as a community. I am sure my colleagues from western Canada could name hundreds of communities that are in a similar position. The net result may have been a savings for the Postal Department, and in my opinion the amount of savings should have been sufficient to permit normal mail delivery, at the six cent rate for first class mail, to be continued to those communities.
Post Office Act
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Postmaster General will clarify for us the direction in which the department is heading. The country would like to know what is being done. Recently a departmental inspector came into my area, into the town of New Liskeard. It has been designated a bilingual area by the federal government. The inspector came in there, and what did he do? He doesn't look at the hole in the floor of the post office. People have been tripping on that hole. The hole has gone through some kind of plastic coating, and through the plywood beneath that to the original hardwood floor. But the inspector doesn't do anything about that. He says, "We are just renting the building from Public Works; it is the fault of Public Works." Mr. Speaker, it seems it doesn't matter if people fall and break their necks. One lady did fall and was highly embarrassed. When one of the local councillors said she should sue the post office she replied that she was only concerned to get out of the building because of her embarrassment. The inspector says, "You're supposed to have a bilingual notice on the door to show where the postmaster can be found." Mr. Speaker, anybody who ever wanted to see the postmaster had no difficulty finding him. But the inspector insists, and says the French should be at the top of the notice. Maybe that is important, Mr. Speaker. It will be important to that inspector because he will be in lots of trouble. Although it may be a bilingual town the people are not swayed to the extent that they want a major war over Frangais au verso Anglais, or Anglais au verso Frangais. They just want the floor fixed.
I know that the minister is very familiar with the Postal Department. He has a family connection with it. He is sympathetic to the problems of the workers. He has not got his head in the clouds as the former minister in charge of it had. I am sure he has some good suggestions to make. This is a department that must provide service to the public. As long as it remains in the public domain the minister owes us an explanation of his intentions, and of what this large increase in rates will mean to the service provided for the public.


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



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: Before calling the items to which I have just referred it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott)-Housing-Decision respecting Rochdale College, Toronto; the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton)-Youth- Capital assistance for provision of youth hostel facilities.

June 1, 1971
Canada Labour (Standards) Code



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Stanley Howard Knowles: that Bill C-42, to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code (Provision tor a Ninth General Holiday with Pay) be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to make a desirable amendment to the Canada Labour (Standards) Code and, in particular, to amend that part of it which provides for what are legally described as general holidays. The more common expression is "statutory" holidays. As it now stands, the code provides for eight of these holidays in the year and the proposal in this bill is to add one to the list. The days now provided are New Year's day, Good Friday, Victoria day, July 1, Labour day, Thanksgiving day, Remembrance day and Christmas day.


William Arnold Peters: No St. Jean Baptiste day?


Stanley Howard Knowles: My friend wonders where St. Jean Baptiste day is. Well, it is on June 24 but there is no provision for a holiday in this statute. He is probably recalling the fact that it is on the list of holidays taken by this House of Commons. However, thanks to the helpful interruption of my colleague, I shall point out at this juncture that there is a section in the Canada Labour (Standards) Code under which certain adjustments can be made and some other holiday substituted for one of those set out in the code. It is under the provisions of that section, namely section 28, that in some parts of Canada St. Jean Baptiste day is celebrated rather than one of the holidays listed in the statute.
In any case, Mr. Speaker, that digression is not as much of a digression as it might seem to be because while my bill seeks to extend the list of statutory or general holidays to nine, it keeps alive the provisions of section 28 of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. This means that in any part or region of the country where it was desirable to do so, any holiday more appropriate to a particular area could be substituted for one of the holidays listed. That is all by way of detail.
The purpose of this bill is simple and straightforward. It is a very minimal bill in terms of what it seeks; it asks for just one more general or statutory holiday in the year so that workers who come under federal labour provisions would get nine days in the year instead of eight. The bill specifies that this ninth day would be the first Monday in the month of August. That is a day which is celebrated in many areas of Canada under the title "Civic Holiday" or sometimes it is known as the "August Holiday". It is a little difficult to put a name to it that will meet with general understanding across the country and for that reason in my bill I simply refer to it as the first
Monday in the month of August. That is also the reason for the title of my bill which simply asks to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code in order to provide a ninth holiday with pay.
There is before Parliament at the present time, Mr. Speaker, a bill to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. This bill stands in the name of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey). Unfortunately, that bill does not deal with this subject and does not touch on the question of the number of general holidays in a year. I would hope that even if this House is not prepared this afternoon to pass this bill on second reading, that it would see it as appropriate to refer at least the subject matter of the bill to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration in the hope that the committee might add this holiday to the list.
Sir, it is becoming more and more recognized that what we used to regard as adequate in terms of vacations with pay and holidays is no longer the case. There is abundant argument for more time off, for more leisure for our people; there is abundant argument for not only shorter work weeks and more holidays during the working period but for a shorter working life, for early retirement and so on. In the context of the realization that we should be moving in that direction, both to do something about the problem of unemployment and to establish the fact that life is not only for work, my request is a very simple one: it calls for just one more holiday per year. There are already nine holidays specified in the Standing Order of this House for the House of Commons so it seems to me that we should not do any less than that for the workers who come under federal labour jurisdiction.
May I again make the point, and it seems we have to make it every time federal labour law is discussed, that we are not dealing with just the public service. When some newspaper people learn that we have been debating a law regarding workers who come under federal labour jurisdiction they think that means federal public servants. That is not the case. When we speak of federal labour law, we refer to those people who, under the British North America Act, come under federal jurisdiction, such as those who work for the railways, shipping, airlines, in banking and a number of other industries that are clearly set out. Surely, we ought to take the step of providing nine general holidays in the year for these people.
Let it be clear that a part of this package, and this is also set out in the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, is that these holidays are to be with pay. There is no point in having holidays without pay. Too many Canadians are experiencing that right now. The provision already in the code with regard to extra pay for people who must work on general holidays would still stand with the amendment that is suggested in this bill.
As I present this bill to the House, Mr. Speaker, it will be pointed out that this is not the first time it has been presented. As a matter of fact, for a good many years now I have been presenting these bills; in the first place o try to get a Canada Labour (Standards) Code and now to amend it. I hope the House is in the mood to say,

June 1. 1971

"This is so right, this is so well deserved, this is so little, the least we can do this afternoon is agree to it."


Mr. David Wealherhead (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to take part in this debate this afternoon on Bill C-42, an act to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code by the provision of a ninth general holiday with pay.
As the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, I am quite interested and concerned in this general field. It is of more particular interest at the present time because, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said, our committee has before it Bill C-228, another bill to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code which was proposed by the government earlier this year. We have commenced hearings on Bill C-228 and in the next few days will be receiving written and oral submissions from a number of main Canadian union and employer associations across the country, including the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, etc.
Government Bill C-228 recommends a number of significant amendments to the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, including the increasing of the minimum wage, initiating 17 weeks maternity leave, strengthened provisions for equal pay for equal work, severance pay and varying lengths of notice with respect to mass lay-offs. However, as the hon. member who just sat down said, Bill C-228 does not make any amendment with respect to the definition of "general holiday" in paragraph F of Section II of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code which now calls for eight general holidays; these are New Year's day, Good Friday, Victoria day, Dominion day, Labour day, Thanksgiving day, Remembrance day and Christmas day and includes any day substituted for any such holiday pursuant to Section 28 of the Code. Bill C-42, which is being debated here this afternoon, would provide for a ninth general holiday under this definition by adding the first Monday in August.
I note that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has introduced similar bills on at least three occasions, according to my information; in April and May, 1967, and September, 1969, but none have been given second reading. When the Canada Labour (Standards) Code first came into effect July 1, 1965, the provision for eight general holidays with pay was far in advance of the number obtained by collective bargaining in federal industries at the time and required a substantial adjustment by the employers under federal jurisdiction.
The proposal for nine holidays is still far in advance of the practice in industry as a whole, although it is apparent that there has been an increase in the number of employees receiving more than eight days holidays since 1965. According to the survey of working conditions conducted by the Canada Department of Labour, only 38 per cent of non-office workers in federal industries received nine holidays or more in 1968. For office workers, the
Canada Labour (Standards) Code figure is 75 per cent. This compares with 17 per cent of non-office workers and 51 per cent of office workers in 1965. In industry as a whole, 56 per cent of non-office workers and 75 per cent of office workers had nine holidays or more in 1968. This compares with 40 per cent for non-office workers and 59 per cent for office workers in 1965.
Only three provinces, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Alberta, have legislation similar in principle to the federal holiday provisions. Three provinces, Manitoba, Ontario and Nova Scotia, have laid down requirements regarding pay for work done on public holidays. Saskatchewan and British Columbia provide for eight public holidays and Alberta provides for five. Both Manitoba and Ontario require payment of overtime pay for work done on seven public holidays. The Nova Scotia provisions, which are contained in minimum wage orders, require payment of overtime for work on public holidays, but do not stipulate the number of holidays covered. In the United States, the matter of paid general holidays has been left to collective bargaining. The Code provides also that, under certain conditions, an alternative holiday may be substituted for any of the eight holidays specified.
Should a holiday occur on a day on which an employee does not normally work, he must be granted a day off with pay in lieu of the holiday, either at a time convenient to him and his employer or by the addition of a day to his annual vacation. If Christmas, New Year's day or Dominion day falls on a Saturday or Sunday that is a non-working day for an employee, he must be given a holiday with pay on the working day immediately before or after the general holiday. These provisions regarding alternative days off do not apply, however, to employees covered by a collective agreement that entitles them to at least eight paid holidays a year.
The Code lays down the general principle that an employee in a federal undertaking who does not work on a holiday is entitled to his regular pay for the day. If he is paid by the week or month, his wages must not be reduced by reason of his not working on a holiday. If he is paid on any other basis, he must receive the equivalent of a normal day's pay. An employee in a federal undertaking who is required to work on a general holiday, other than one employed in a "continuous operation", is entitled to his regular wages for the day and, in addition, to time and one-half his regular rate for all time worked. In effect, he is paid two and one-half times his usual rate.
An employee employed in a "continuous operation", defined to include employment concerned with the operation of trains, planes, ships, trucks and other vehicles, telephone, radio, television, and telegraph services, or any other service normally carried on without regard to Sundays or holidays, who is required to work on a holiday either must be paid his regular wages for the day, plus time and one-half his regular rate for all time worked or, in addition to his regular pay for the day, must be granted a holiday with pay at some other time, which can be either a day added to his annual vacation or another day convenient to him and his employer.

June 1, 1971
Canada Labour (Standards) Code
There are some situations in which an employee is not entitled to holiday pay. An employee is not entitled to pay for a general holiday that occurs in his first 30 days of employment with an employer, but if he is required to work on a holiday he must be paid time and one-half his regular rate. If he is employed in a continuous operation, he may be paid at his regular rate for work done on a holiday. A further exception is that an employee is not entitled to pay for a general holiday on which he does not work if he is not entitled to wages for at least 15 days during the 30 calendar days immediately preceding the holiday. An employee in a continuous operation is not entitled to pay for a general holiday if he did not report for work in response to a call from the employer.
Special regulations for longshoremen provide that a longshoreman employed by an employer who is not a member of a "Multi-employer unit" is entitled to holiday pay if he is entitled to wages for at least 15 days or 120 hours in the 30 calendar days immediately preceding a general holiday. Pay for the holiday may not be less than eight times the employee's basic hourly wage rate. A longshoreman employed by an employer who is not a member of a "multi-employer unit" must be paid, on each payday, in lieu of general holidays, an amount equal to 3 per cent of his basic wage rate multiplied by the number of hours he has worked for the employer in the pay period. An employee who is required to work on a general holiday is to be paid at not less than one and one-half t mes his basic rate of wages for the time worked by him on that day.
From the figures I quoted earlier of 38 per cent of non-office workers in federal industries and 75 per cent of office workers in federal industries receiving nine holidays or more in 1968 and, in industry as a whole, with 56 per cent of non-office workers and 75 per cent of office workers receiving nine holidays or more, I would think that the time is fast approaching for the federal government to further amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code to add at least one more, a ninth holiday. I believe, also, that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre should be congratulated for keeping this matter before the House of Commons in recent years. While he can often be criticized for private bills which propose considerable additional benefits, either in money or otherwise, out of all relationship to the practical realities of the day, I believe that in this case he is coming pretty close to a realistic mark in advocating the amendment of the Code to include a ninth general holiday for industries under federal jurisdiction.
I know that in Ontario, and I believe in many other parts of the country, a large proportion of employees, including most office employees, have obtained the first Monday of August as a holiday, known as Civic Holiday, for a number of years. The first Monday in August is particularly welcome as a holiday because it gives another long summer weekend in between the Dominion day, July 1 holiday, and the Labour day holiday on the first Monday of September. The workers, particularly in our large urban areas in southern Canada, look forward to a long holiday weekend about the first of August to get away from the often very oppressive heat in the cities to
the lakes and resorts districts. Accordingly, since in 1968 by the aforementioned figures considerably more than half the employees in general had this first Monday in August as a holiday, I would certainly think that it is about time that we amended the Canada Labour (Standards) Code to include this as a ninth general holiday as soon as possible.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for
Sarnia-Lambton.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He's back at the old stand.


Mr. Jack Culle.n (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I read with interest the bill presented by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). He indicated that I am back at the old stand. I think he made that somewhat derogatory remark because I participate in the debates in private members' hour. I can assure him that this is a compliment to him. I have heard him say on more than one occasion that this is a good opportunity to participate in the cut and thrust of a debate. The hon. member is well known for his talent and ability in the debating field. One appreciates the opportunity to match wits, talent and ability with a man of such long experience in this chamber.
The hon. member indicated that, in effect, this amendment applies to those who come under federal jurisdiction. He then went on to point out that this is not limited to federal civil servants. When this kind of suggestion is put forward, it has the effect of acting as a guideline for other jurisdictions. I sometimes wonder whether creating this kind of false holiday makes the small businessman wince a bit. It is my guess that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has never been a small businessman and, therefore, has not been faced with the difficulties of meeting these particular paid holidays. The hon. member would be right to correct me and say that this particular piece of legislation does not apply to small businessmen, but I suggest it is the thin edge of the wedge that would be used by workers employed by small businessmen to bring about the number of holidays that he is recommending.
If I might digress for a moment, the hon. member referred to the fact that we in this chamber have nine or 10 holidays. Frankly, that is not a fair comparison. Many of the holidays provided find the members back in the ridings participating as Members of Parliament in one function or another. In many cases, they can hardly be called holidays. I think that most members of this chamber within appropriate travelling distance are able to go back to their ridings and participate in Remembrance Day services. Although it is a holiday from the House, it is not a holiday as far as the members are concerned. They participate in the services, albeit this is something they like to do. However, it can hardly be described as a holiday.
I believe in having as much leisure time as possible. However, as I have indicated on more than one occasion, I was raised in a mining community where fathers and

June 1, 1971

older brothers worked a seven day week. We accepted this because it was automatic for dad to go to work every day. We were happy that he was able to be home on Christmas day. In many instances, particularly in the mining communities in northern Ontario, Christmas was the one and only day that was recognized as a holiday. There comes a time when we have to look at what I call false holidays, when we are creating holidays for the sake of leisure time. We must not go too far and create a detrimental effect by lowering productivity, thus making it possible for the employed to become unemployed because the small businessmen cannot cope with all these holidays. We must bear in mind that the small businessmen would have to hire others to fill the gaps on more than one occasion.
I take exception to the timing of this particular holiday, if the bill is carried. It has been suggested that the holiday be on the first Monday in August. The hon. member who spoke before me and the mover of this bill have indicated that the first Monday of August would be the appropriate time. I do not believe this proposal takes into consideration what we in Canada all know, namely the severe winters. If we are going to have another holiday rather than Victoria day. It is time we started the mood of vacation and holiday. Even though an individual has to work in July and August, there is a certain relaxed atmosphere, something that is not evident in the months of February and March, toward the end of a long winter. If the holiday proposed in this bill is adopted, I will move an amendment that some consideration be given having it sometime in February.
There is another aspect of holidays which disturbs me. This particular holiday has not been given a name. I notice that July 1 has not been given a name. The May 24 holiday is sometimes referred to as the 24th of May holiday rather than Victoria day. It is time we started looking at these general holidays with a view to giving them names and honouring different ideas and themes. I would like to see the name of Victoria day changed. It could be given a name that would pay respect to the men who won the liberty that we all enjoy and appreciate so much today, namely the veterans of this country. I do not think that members of the army, navy or air force would object if this were called the Battle of Vimy Ridge day or Dieppe day. I would like to see these men recognized so that each year the young people would ask why we have a Vimy Ridge or Dieppe day. We could stress the contribution that was made by our Canadian fighting men during those days. It would have much more significance and would operate as a unifying force, much more so than using a name such as Victoria day.
There is a great deal of debate at the present time about July 1. It is called many things. Here it is called Dominion day. This would be a glorious opportunity to honour the men who gave us the freedom and opportunity to work so that we can appreciate the eight, nine, 10 or more holidays which we get annually. To avoid any interservice jealousy, I would suggest a name such as veterans day.
Remembrance day has special significance. It is my hope that we will never change the idea of the eleventh
Canada Labour (Standards) Code hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month. That has a particular significance. It is not the kind of day where we should try to accommodate the working man in order that he will have a long weekend. I hope Remembrance day will always be on the same day as at present. In this way, when people ask why we have a holiday in the middle of the week and have two minutes silence at eleven o'clock on November 11, we will continue to be able to give an answer to the young people who have not known a time of war and hopefully never will.
It is not often that I agree with a gentleman we see over television from time to time, namely Gordon Sinclair. I hope that one day we will have a holiday that will be called flag day. I am not so naive as to think that after the bitter debate that surrounded the flag, the partisan politics brought to play and the viciousness of the attack and counterattack that this is apt to happen overnight. There are probably still many memories in this House of that particular debate. There are still some feelings against the flag. However, the day will come when we will all be proud of the flag. When that time comes, I hope we will have a flag day.
I was pleased to see the Kinsmen Club of Stoney Creek have a project to sponsor the idea of a flag day. They, as did Gordon Sinclair, suggested that it take place sometime in February, primarily because it would give a holiday to the workingman at that time of the year when the workingman is really looking for a holiday. It would have the effect of honouring the flag we have come to know as the flag of Canada, distinctly, uniquely and proudly Canadian. The hon. member who moved this bill has indicated that there is really not much scope for debate. In fact, it seems to boil down to the question whether we are going to pass this bill and thus create this particular holiday or we are not.
I am going to vote against the bill at this stage because I think other things should be done first. I sincerely believe that thought has to be given to chang ng the names of some of our holidays, as we understand them, so as to give them meaning in the way I have suggested, namely, to pay tribute to the veterans to whom we owe so much and whom all too often we have a tendency to forget. You cannot blame the young people for this, Mr. Speaker. With them it is not a question of forgetting but, rather, of never knowing about the contribution made by our veterans. Although I was not living at the time of the First World War, as a result of my experience during the Second World War, in which I lost friends and knew others who participated in the armed forces, I obtained a new insight into, a new interest in and, more important than anything, a new appreciation of our veterans.
It is unfortunate that we had to have a Second World War so that someone like myself could have a second look at our veterans and recognize the contribution made by what we have called our "old sweats", the veterans of the First World War. If we put into these holidays the kind of respect that I think our veterans deserve, then perhaps it will be better than giving the workingman an

June 1, 1971
Canada Labour (Standards) Code
extra day's holiday. Perhaps on more than one occasion during the year we shall say to our veterans that we are paying tribute not only to those who gave their lives but also to those who gave their time and effort, even parts of their bodies, in order to protect this country. We would tell them that we have not forgotten. And to those people who never knew them or had the opportunity to forget, we are pointing out the contribution they made. One small way in which we could do this is by changing the name of some of our holidays.
The hon. member who spoke before me must have had the same research material as I, because some of the comments that I wanted to make he covered in his usual comprehensive way, obviously the result of a tremendous amount of work done this afternoon or last night. I pay tribute to him for the fine job he is doing as chairman of the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration. Needless to say, I will not insult his presentation by reiterating the points that he made. I have tried to make my point; I hope I have done so effectively and I thank the House for its attention.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon.
member permit a question?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Cautiously, yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is a perfectly friendly one. After the good things I heard about the hon. member when I was down in Windsor over the weekend I want to treat him with respect. In view of the fact that the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Weather-head) expressed pleasure at the idea of an additional holiday in August, and in view of the fact that the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) has said that he would like a holiday in February, could these two Liberals get together and agree to make it ten holidays a year? That would satisfy them both.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to commit my hon. friend. This is the sort of thing that we as Liberals do in a very democratic fashion. I do not think that two of us in this House should determine what the whole Liberal party stands for. However, we will raise it in the Ontario caucus and discuss it in the national caucus. We do things in a democratic way, rather than making an offhand decision in the House simply on the basis of a question asked.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh?


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Saint-Henri):: Mr. Speaker, I must recognize the tenacity of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). When he is not calling for an increase in old age pensions, of Canadian National employees pensions, of social security pensions somewhere, he assumes the defense of the worker. Employers are seldom mentioned.
At the very start of my remarks, I should like to say that my quarrel is not with the idea of granting workers a ninth general holiday with pay but with the reasons given by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre,
which 1 feel are inadequate to warrant my support for the establishment of a ninth general holiday with pay. He so readily grants holidays that a few minutes ago he was even considering granting a tenth one. At that rate, we should start by reassessing the eight already in existence and perhaps, as the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) said a little while ago, "renaming" some of them.
He was speaking, for instance, of the Queen's birthday; I am very happy that I also have discovered that some people who are better informed than I am have learned this year that, when we celebrate the Queen's birthday, it is that of Queen Victoria and not that of our present Queen. I quite agree with the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton that a new name should be given to that holiday.
That holiday should be established in honour of our veterans who have fought and died for their country overseas. Such a holiday would be more useful and would gain more recognition. It would make more sense than calling it the Queen's birthday.
Since we are speaking about new names, why not give a new name to Dominion day? In my view, that name is old fashioned. Why not call it Canada day? Instead of calling the first of July holiday "Dominion day", we would have more reason to call it "Canada day". At least, it would be a Canadian holiday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gérard Loiselle: I see that the hon. member supports the idea. I would hope that those who opposed a bill to this effect during the last session will agree to this natural state of affairs. I see that the hon. member if frowning, I do not mean the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I said-

I was happy to see the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in favour of that subject.


Stanley Howard Knowles: With both hands.


Gérard Loiselle: I hope that those who were against the bill when it came up last session will change their minds. Mostly they were against the use of the word "Dominion". I agree that some of them were on my side of the House, but even so I still say that they are wrong. At least, in my opinion they are wrong, though they may have reasons for thinking themselves right. Nevertheless I still say that "Dominion day" should be called "Canada day".

-"Canada Day" in Canada, and this would be a holiday for all Canadians.
At the beginning of the remarks made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I believe that one of his colleagues said "Why not Saint John the Baptist day"? This is celebrated in Quebec, just as in other provincial legislatures have passed different laws on statutory holidays. It is a provincial right to legislate as

June 1, 1971

to statutory holidays. Incidentally, three provinces have eight statutory holidays while other provinces have six. In addition, there have been arrangements for other holidays, and this remains under provincial jurisdiction. I know also that the hon. member is proposing a ninth statutory holiday which would fall within the federal government's province. Now it does not make sense to me that there should be nine.
Earlier in my remarks, I said that I had no objection in principle to the holiday as such, but that we are now facing other problems which are much more important than that of proclaiming a ninth statutory holiday.
And, I have here a short list whose contents I do not have to detail to you, but still I would like to bring it to the hon. member's attention. Indeed, taking into account all the labour contracts signed in this country, the record shows that in 1968 there were labour groups which enjoyed 16 holidays, others 15, 13, 11, 10 or 9. There is evidence that additional holidays must be granted under contract between employers and employees. That should be the concern of associations and unions which consistently claim that they want to defend the employers' interests. They are the ones who should be responsible when negotiating labour contracts, for convincing the employers that they should grant one, two or three additional holidays.
Unless it has important reasons for commemorating a special event, the government must not give one or two additional holidays just for the pleasure of doing so. There is much more to do in that sphere.
Since I am aware that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is interested in labour, it would perhaps be advisable to settle problems of many Canadian workers. As it happened yesterday in my office, I met some who in a country like ours still work a 40-to-45 hour week and earn from $65 to $70 a week. One among them earns $68 per week after deductions and he has six children. This is illogical-


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Gérard Loiselle: Yes, it is a shame. It is truly ilogicall. Instead of granting additional holidays without a valid reason, we should try at least to find some solutions.
Why not set up normal wage rates for those heads of families who, because they work, are denied all kinds of supplementary benefits they could get if they were unemployed or depended on welfare allowances.
I would much rather encourage someone who is willing to work, who takes the trouble and has the courage to earn his family's living. I would rather help him than the chronically unemployed. I am not talking about those who are sick and are entitled to welfare allowances; there are exceptions. However, some people never want to work.
I had evidence of that a few times this winter. I hired a man for a three-to four-hour job. He was a man of good build, the same as mine, he was 28 years old, he had two
Canada Labour (Standards) Code children and he was on welfare. I asked him casually: Do you want to work? He said he did. And so, I referred his case to the manager of the Manpower Centre in Montreal. Now, can you imagine what the answer of the manager was after 12 days? "We made four appointments with him and he did not show up for a single one." I had to tell the manager to forget about it. This is another chronic case, another parasite of society. I would agree to treating those people in a very special way, because the fellow who earns from $65 to $70 a week, who kills himself working for a mere pittance, has to pay his modest income tax and support the man who sits comfortably at home all year round, taking things easy. Indeed, the worker deprives his family while the man on welfare does not have to do so.
I will give you an example. Last year, those who were on welfare could obtain special passes for "Man and His World". However, a father with six children and earning from $65 to $70 per week could not give $2.50 to members of his family for visiting "Man and His World".
The hon. member knows that when the veterans bill was debated in the House, I objected to decreasing the amount of pensions to the widows and mothers' pension who wanted to supplement their income by working outside the home. I objected to it on the principle that we should at least give some encouragement to people anxious to help themselves in this life, to those who are willing to earn their own livelihood, to overcome their daily difficulties, instead of surrendering all the time to opposition parties' demands to improve the welfare system with increased allowances.
I know what social welfare is all about. I come from a workmen's district, a district with citizens' committees and dissenters. Unfortunately, there are some traitors who, instead of helping these people to manage their budget and make do with their normal earnings are seeking an increase in social welfare benefits. I support these increased benefits in the case of people who are really in need. A 62-year-old widow recently came to my office. Since there is no legislation applicable to her case, I refered her to the local welfare office. She started crying and she told me: "Listen, Mr. Loiselle, while my husband was alive, we never had much money, that's true, but we never had to go on welfare. Well, he is dead, and here I am". I told her "Dear Madam, just take advantage of it. There are enough social parasites and heartless people who take advantage of these benefits at the expense of those who really need them. This money is yours, and you are entitled to your fair share of it."


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member mind indicating what this has to do with the bill?


Gérard Loiselle: Let me repeat what I suggested at the beginning. Instead of proposing another holiday for the workers of Canada, we should attempt to find a solution to the problems of the poor guy who earns $65 or $68 per week. Some of these people have six kids at home, such as the one who was in my office.

June 1, 1971
Canada Labour (Standards) Code


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tell that to your government.


Gérard Loiselle: We should try to benefit from experience. Instead of asking for more holidays the hon. member should attempt to help the government and those in this party to assist people who need it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit another question?


Gérard Loiselle: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will he, then, support an amendment I shall make to increase the minimum wage to $2 an hour for those who really need it?


Gérard Loiselle: Let me remind my friend that in 1965 the Liberal government increased the minimum wage to $1.25 per hour.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. While the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) did not say so, I take it he was rising on a point of order in respect of whether the hon. member for Saint-Henri (Mr. Loiselle) was relevant in his remarks. I think the hon, member for Saint-Henri may have been straying from the confines of the bill. With respect, I suggest that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre led him a little further astray. I suggest that both hon. gentlemen return to the context of the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was easy to
do.


Gérard Loiselle: It is always easy to do that in this place, Mr. Speaker. In any event, I will tell you the story later because you are the one who is bothered by the situation. I will not take much more time because I know other hon. members have something to say about this matter. Let me repeat my earlier statement. Instead of suggesting an additional statutory holiday, members of the opposition should make constructive suggestions in order that the government may assist the unemployed and those with low incomes. I remember when I was a young lad that I was happy to be in school. This was true of the young generation then. When I grew up I had to make a living and went to work.
Why should we have a holiday on August 1, at a time when the employees of most companies are in fact enjoying their annual vacations? Most employees take holidays in July and August. If August 1 were declared a holiday, these people would come back from two weeks' vacation and find themselves with another day off and nothing to do. What is the use of giving a holiday to those who have already been on vacation?
We have urgent problems facing workers that must be solved. The government has shown it wants to do something for the workers by increasing the minimum wage to $1.75 per hour. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre suggests the minimum salary should be $2 per hour. If the government had suggested $2 per hour, the hon. member would have suggested $2.25. That is exactly
what happened in 1965 when the government increased the minimum wage to $1.25 per hour; the hon. member suggested it should be $1.50 per hour. Now, when we suggest it should be $1.75 per hour, he suggests it should be $2 per hour. Members of the opposition will always suggest an increase that is above the government's proposal.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, this is a very well-intentioned bill, I am sure, but for the life of me I cannot understand how one can pick a day out of thin air and call it a national day of a day of special significance which merits being made a holiday. It makes me wonder about the purpose behind suggestions which encourage us to manufacture a holiday in order to get another day off.
To my mind, the words "the first Monday in the month of August" represent a nameless, pointless, meaningless and purposeless day. I cannot see how we could support a bill, even one to name an additional day under the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, such as this. If we want another day off for federal government employees, then let us give them a day off under the general provisions of the federal code. Surely it is not necessary to go through this terrible travesty.
I say this with all respect to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) because, as I said earlier, I am sure his intention is good. What we would be doing here would be adding another day to the general holidays of New Year's day, Good Friday, Labour day, Thanksgiving day, Remembrance day and Christmas day which for hundreds of years have become meaningful to people. We would be saying that there is another great day in Canada, which is the first Monday in the month of August.
I do not see how I could support this bill. I wonder whether the bill would qualify if we accepted it as one of Robert L. Ripley's Believe-it-or-Nots by saying we have the longest name for a holiday in the world, called "The first Monday in the month of August."


Mr. Francis:: Call it "Knowles day".


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I suspect the hon. member thinks we might do that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are two of us.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: There are two, and maybe that makes it doubly unjustified.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon.
member permit a question?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the hon.
member aware of the fact that the first Monday in the month of August is already a civic holiday in many parts of Canada and is a day which many people would like to have off?
[Mr. Loiselle.)
June 1, 1971


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Yes, I am aware of that. That was my final point. The first Monday in August is a civic holiday. A civic holiday has always been a day on which municipal councils have authorized the mayor of the town to declare a holiday as a civic matter. This is accepted in some places and not in others. I believe it would be wrong for us, firstly, to move in on this civic holiday and make it a national holiday because I do not know how we could justify it. It certainly would not be easy to make a municipal day a national day. However, if the hon. member had this in mind, I ask him now why he did not say so when he drafted the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon.
member permit another question?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Certainly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does he not realize that this bill does not declare a national holiday in the way the Victoria Day Act and so on do, but simply states that on this day anybody employed under federal labour jurisdiction will get a holiday with pay? Does he not realize that a civic proclamation does not provide holiday for employees of the railways, the banks, and so on, which come under federal rather than municipal jurisdiction?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Yes. I accept the hon. member's point there also. In the beginning I said that if we are to provide an extra day off, I see no purpose in putting it in this particular bill and making a travesty of the national holidays we already have. That is the reason I could not support the bill in this particular form, although it is possible when the labour bill comes up that something along this line could be included. I am merely objecting to breaking the long-standing precedent of national holidays which we have in this country by including this suggestion in, if I may say so, so clumsy a form.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, I hoped I would have a minute or two to add a few words. I listened with particular interest to what my colleague, the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen), had to say on this matter. He dealt with two aspects of the bill. I agree with him that in respect of the naming of the holiday we should take a hard look at the question. I feel another approach should be considered.
I agree with my friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), in respect of his objectives although I wonder whether he would consider this aspect. I believe he has chosen the wrong time of year for the holiday. The gap in the season now between New Year's day and Easter is too long. A generation ago everyone enjoyed the summer and the assumption was that in fine, balmy weather, such as we have today in this fair city of ours, is the time a holiday is needed. That was true at one time. However, the need now is for a winter holiday to break up the three-month or 3 J-month period between New Year's day and Easter. There is no holiday on the calendar in that period.
Many people enjoy winter holidays for the purpose of skiing, winter sports, snowmobiling, and so on. There has
Post Office Act
been a change in our generation. On many occasions we can enjoy a weekend or three-day holiday in the winter just as much as we can in the summer months.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us have both.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: What is an appropriate holiday which would fit the schedule? The suggestion of a flag day for the first week in February is a very good one. This was the time our flag was unveiled for the first time. I am looking at the hon. member who moved this motion. He was with me, I believe, on the day in February, 1965, when our flag was first unfurled on the Peace Tower. That was a memorable occasion. That, surely, is about the time of year when a holiday is needed. A civic holiday is fairly generally observed in those parts of the country where it can be observed. As mentioned by the hon. gentleman who just spoke, this is the general practice.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The time provided for private member's business has expired.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Cote (Longueuil) that Bill C-240, to amend the Post Office Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Mr. Robert P. Kaplan (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to support the bill that is before us. I agree in principle that the postal services should be efficient and modern. Indeed, I agree with the principle that the user should pay and I hope that the Post Office can achieve that objective.
I am rising to ask the minister some questions which I hope he will answer either in summing up the debate or when the bill is before the committee. I should like to begin by quot ng what the minister said yesterday when speaking in this debate:
The Post Office is relying heavily on marketing principles to determine the needs of customers and to tailor services to meet these needs.
I wish to tell the minister about a need which is not being met by the Post Office and about a service which is needed. It is one within my own constituency, in the

June 1, 1971
Post Office Act
community of Thorneliffe Park which now contains
14,000	people. If they lived alone and not in the heart of Toronto, the lack of attention which is being given to their needs might be considered scandalous. I suggest that the problem is all the more serious because they are located in the heart of an important city.
These 14,000 people have no postal services whatsoever. I should like to tell hon. members something about their history. Until about a year ago they were served by a postal substation. Then the substation was closed because it was too crowded, in view of the demand, to provide the kind of service that was required. It was not able to do the job-everyone agreed that this was so- particularly at Christmas, but all year round it was too busy and too crowded to do its job properly. Therefore it was closed.
It was replaced by two stamp machines. At first there was one stamp machine. It was inadequate because it would run out of stamps every few hours, that is to say, it required servicing more than once a day. So a second stamp machine was added. These 14,000 individuals, for whom marketing principles are being studied to determine the needs of customers and to tailor services to meet their needs, now have two machines which contain enough stamps for nearly one whole day.
In the speech to which I have already referred, the minister said:
We have long-range plans to replace Inadequate mail. .. facilities in major cities with up to date plants.
I hope there is a short-range plan to replace these two stamp machines with an adequate facility to cover the needs of 14,000 people. There is a range of innovative services about which the minister told us.
He referred to the Fairview mall boutique, a postal boutique which will provide government departments and agencies with an opportunity to disseminate information. I submit it is most unfair that the Fairview mall, which is not greater than Thorneliffe Park, should have a postal boutique which provides a wide range of services when the 14,000 people of Thorneliffe Park have only two stamp machines which run out of stamps before the end of the day.
Recently the minister indicated that work was being done to try and provide better facilities for Thorneliffe Park. In fact, for over a year there has been a search for a new location for the post office. But a year is too long. Physically, this is a small community. The number of alternative locations is quite limited and it should not take a year for a decision to be made, for negotiations to be concluded and for a post office to be provided.
A few months ago I tabled the following question in the House of Commons:
Has the government established any deadline tor obtaining a post office facility for Thorneliffe Park?
After the question had lain on the order paper for several months, the answer I received was a very simple one. It was "no"-one word.
In his address yesterday the minister indicated that a program to improve the services and appearance of small post offices is scheduled to get under way in July. Here we are, looking to July to improve the appearance and services of existing small post offices. I would like to close on this note and remind the minister that the 14,000 people of Thorneliffe Park are not waiting for an extra stamp machine, they are not waiting for a boutique or for services and facilities based on marketing principles: they are simply waiting for a post office and I submit they should have one.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take a few minutes to speak on the legislation now before us.
The minister is seeking passage of a bill providing that postal rates for first class mail be increased from 6 to 7 cents, effective July 1, 1971, and from 7 to 8 cents, effective January 1, 1972. This increase is about the only concern, or at least the main one, of this government, which sponsors the legislation now before us. It is not very much concerned, however, about services to be provided to mail users.
What the people require of the Post Office is fast and efficient service. It seems that since 1954 especially, postal rates have increased periodically and as they go up, the
service gets worse.
I do not know exactly what is wrong, if influences outside the postal administration interfere with its operation, but the fact is that the postal service is not efficient right now.
In fact, I have heard from time to time in the House some members convey to the minister complaints made by their electors to the effect that the mail is moving slower and slower. The minister then replied: If you bring specific cases to my attention, I shall investigate and we shall attempt to correct the situation.
Now, I have in my hand an article which I sent to one of my constituents. I admit that it was no first class correspondence but, nevertheless, according to the House of Commons post-mark the item was mailed May 6 at 4 P.M. and reached Authier on May 18, 1971. I think this is much too long to dispatch an item from Ottawa to a community in Abitibi. What is the reason for such a state of affairs? I think that once I have expressed this complaint to the hon. minister in a moment, if his officials want to take the trouble to do so they will find the cause of this delay.
This is not the only case. I believe that if an inquiry is made at the level of city regional offices, we shall find there the main reason for the inefficiency of the postal service. It is not up to me to criticize the employees of these big offices, but it is obvious that if postal workers in small towns or villages worked in the same spirit as those in the large post offices, we simply would not have any postal service.
I think there is much room for improvement in this field. Why are those workers not more efficient? Is it on account of low morale, or because their training officer did not do a good job?

June 1, 1971

We could compare this to a recent incident that occurred within the Canadien hockey team. At one time, there were complaints that if the team was not as efficient as it should be, it was due to the coach who did not have the knack to get the best out of his players.
I wonder whether it is not the same with postal workers and whether, at a given time, there was not a lack of leadership to boost and support their morale.
e (8:20 p.m.)
At all events, the fact remains that services have been considerably downgraded in spite of constantly increasing rates, labour and machinery costs and raw material requirements. We are therefore justified in asking what is wrong and what can be done.
A few years ago, the former Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) called on K. P. Warwick and Company to conduct studies on ways and means of improving the postal service. The company carried out 15 studies within the 12 months ending on November 1, 1969, at which date it submitted a report. It called on the services of six consultant firms in order to seek solutions to be applied to the problem. Apparently, however, the conclusion was that the Post Office Department should be transformed into a Crown corporation in order to provide efficient service on a self-sustaining basis. Indeed, the minister mentioned in the statement he made upon introducing this bill that if the postal rates were not increased this year, the deficit would add up to some $113 million for
1971-72. Aslo it is said in the report on the study that if changes are not made before 1975, the deficit could well reach $500 million.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know to what extent the cabinet has considered the report submitted by this firm nor what conclusions were arrived at, but, in any event, this report would deserve careful examination to determine whether it would be wise to make the corrections that are mentioned, since those experts which have studied the question certainly did not make their suggestions merely to have them ignored. The suggestions should be considered very carefully to see whether it would be desirable to make such changes, in order not to ensure a profit but to avoid a deficit.
According to the estimates in this report, it could happen that we shall have to pay 12 cents for a stamp in 1980 and 21 cents in 1990 in order to keep revenues at a sensible level corresponding to increasing costs.
According to the experts who have studied the matter thoroughly, it seems that this service will be more and more expensive yet without any guarantee of efficiency.
In his opening remarks the minister told us that it was necessary to increase rates for users of postal services so that those who do not use them do not have to subsidize them. The minister said that industries, tradespeople and businessmen accounted for 80 p. 100 of the volume of mail and the rest of the population for the other 20 p. 100.
I understand both the position and the purpose of the minister. However, he knows very well that if postal rates are increased for industries, tradespeople and busi-
Post Office Act
nessmen, the increase will be reflected in their cost prices and the consumer will be once more paying for it. The consumer always pays in the end for any increment. Whether he does so through public funds or higher consumer prices, the effect is nearly the same.
The increase of postal rates will only bring temporary relief and will not really solve the problem, because I expect that the administration costs of the postal system will continue to increase as those of any other system and even if the department were turned into a Crown corporation, it would be confronted with the same increases or the same requests for increases.
In my opinion, the government should try to find some practical and effective procedures to dispatch as quickly as possible the mail from a point to another, in order that the people who need those services to communicate with each another will quickly obtain them, otherwise they will resort to other means of communication. The rates will then be increased and the users will be tempted to use other means of communication.
I do not think the bill now before us brings the changes the public is expecting. It will do nothing more than ease the financial situation of that department trying to finance itself. We should not be more demanding of such a service as far as profitability is concerned than of any other department. The Department of External Affairs, the Secretary of State or the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation are not required to pay their own way, so why should we ask the Post Office Department to have no deficit?
Even if public funds must make up a few deficits, the people will not care too much about it, but we must first of all try to give them the satisfactory services they want.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wish to begin my remarks in French since we are discussing a department which is now under a Frenchspeaking minister and I think you can get along better with him in French than in English, although I notice he is wearing his earphone.
The bill now before us aims at raising postal rates. We are being told that the minister wants to do something which should have been done long ago. He has delayed raising the commission to be paid to agents selling postage stamps in small sub-offices. As much as 5 per cent will be paid in commission for some stamp sales.
Those people will take advantage of the opportunity and doubtless many people will want to sell stamps. Often one has trouble obtaining stamps, especially when they are sold through machines offering 24 cents' worth of stamps for 25 cents. Now, what is the minister going to sell the public since the cost of stamps will be increased to 7 cents? Will we get only three 7-cent stamps and three 1-cent stamps? What stamps will the booklets contain?

However, Mr. Speaker, various items are provided for in this bill. I have no great cause for complaint in my relations with the Post Office Department. I must say, though, that I join with hon. members who feel that for

June 1, 1971
Post Office Act
the last two or three years, particularly under the minister's predecessor, there has been a myth to the effect that the Post Office Department should show a profit regardless of the level of service.
The postal service, Mr. Speaker, was never founded to provide a profit. We have seen the paradox of rapidly escalating letter and parcel postage rates and charges for special services, and a decline in the quality of general services. Almost all members have complained about the time lapse between picking up and delivering mail. One does not rely any more on such things as overnight service. That service used to be provided as a natural course of events, but it is not any more. There was a local rate for overnight service, but now there is no local rate: instead there is poorer service.
I would refer to the time of the passport muddle. Never did one section of the government service join more in what I frankly fear were the inefficiencies of another department than did the postal service, particularly with regard to registrations. At that time, once a passport had left Ottawa in a bulk billing under registration it could end up in Timbuctu and nobody would be any the wiser. This happened in many instances. Passports went astray and were never found simply because there was no way of backtracking under the bulk billing.
I was promised that there would be some sort of improvement in the services in order that items could be followed up, but it would be at an increased rate and not at the registered rate. Services that had been standard before, or had been standard in certain communities where bulk billings did not apply, were to be upgraded, but we were also to upgrade the charges.
That was pure and absolute nonsense, Mr. Speaker, and was not justified under any circumstance. We know that items started out in small communities as registered items, then came to a main postal station, a distributing point and disappeared. If a letter were sent, say from a small town in Alberta to eastern Canada, it would reach Edmonton then join a bulk billing and disappear. It would be gone. Unless they searched the postal stations from the roof to the basement, the item could be gone forever: it was just lost. Yet we were being charged the same rate by the post office.
I have not heard of any new, improved service although it is possible there is one. The passport division has improved its efficiency and therefore we are not bound to search for passports as we were wont to do on previous occasions when it was always wise to send out the registration number because that, at least, was half a clue.
Then one runs up against certain regulations in the postal service. Some think, Mr. Speaker, that these regulations were written on the same tablets as those on which Moses put down the commandments of God, so sacred are they. They are treated with the greatest of reverence by postal officials. When you talk to postal

officials about these regulations you learn that they assume that Parliament has considered and approved them. Of course, we know that is totally false.
The regulations are made at home for home use and for the benefit of home, that is, for the benefit of those administering the regulations. That is surprising. I have talked with some of the senior people in the department-I do not mean here in Ottawa but across the country-and laid it on the line that the Post Office provides a service for the public and that the word that must be underscored three or four times is "service". The public does not exist for the benefit of the Post Office, although a great number of Post Office personnel operate on that basis. Many of them feel that the great, unwashed public is there for their personal benefit and gratification, on the basis of the regulations.
It is not pleasant to say these things, and I know that many of the minister's officials are listening. I would tell them the same thing face to face. I have said it many times over the telephone. The one cardinal rule that you must apply, not only in the post office but in other departments of government is the rule of service to the public. The regulations should be designed to provide service; they should not be made to inhibit service. There must be that degree of flexibility which will permit service to be extended. Let there be none of this business: You happen to be 50 feet beyond a certain boundary line and therefore we cannot deliver mail to your door. That, Mr. Speaker, is one of the self-serving regulations made for the benefit of those at home within the department.
I know that within its administration the department must also deal with groups of employees who come under collective bargaining but who have forgotten the word "service". As a matter of fact, the leader of one of these groups the other night said he could not care less about service or about the efficiency of the department; his interest lay merely in getting more money for his men. That type of demagogy just will not do. This is a service department. It is organized not for the benefit of administrators and employees but for the benefit of the public. And who are the public but the people of Canada? This is a service for the people of this country.
If everyone within the department adopted the same attitude toward service that has been exhibited by some of the men whom we have seen performing in the last couple of years, this would indeed become a sad, sad country. Unfortunately, there is an attitude of: Forget the women and children. Cast off the lifeboat because I'm in it. I could use much more, shall we say, crude expressions to illustrate the same attitude. That attitude is not right. It will not do to say: I'm all right; cast off. Forget about the others.
One point I would make to the minister is that right from the top of the organization under his jurisdiction there should be a re-examination of the motivation behind the regulations. These should be designed to give service with maximum efficiency and more than just a modicum af courtesy.
June 1, 1971

What are the public concerned about? They are concerned about the little things-rudeness and curtness and the fact that they cannot pick up their mail. A Member of Parliament provides the crying-towel for many of these complaints. These people are not going to make the complaints to their local postmaster, regardless of the size of town. They do not know the postmaster; he is a man in a back office. Timid little ladies or young persons who are not used to facing up to situations are not going to complain. Usually a strip is torn off them or someone indicates that they are soreheads. They usually come to their Member of Parliament to complain.
It is great to listen to these things but it is a sad reflection on what should be one of the jewels in the crown of services which the government provides. That is where the postal service should be. Of all the services the government can provide with almost daily repetition, the postal service should be uppermost; but unfortunately this is not the case.
For the second time in four years the public of Canada is faced with an increase in postage rates. This increase will be made pretty well across the board; it will affect the majority of the public. There were famous, or infamous incidents in 1967 or 1968. There is a rather sad history of a certain night here. I am sure the minister will always remember that. But there has not been an improvement in service. The only plea I make is insistence upon service. I will repeat it as often as is necessary. We cannot expect the public to come to us just because the postal services are there. If you have a service, you have to sell it by your attitude, courtesy and efficiency. In this way you have a much more successful and happier operation.
Some of the measures adopted have been gifts laid at the foot of the altar of efficiency. They have been appalling because they have not succeeded. There may appear to be some efficiency. But ask John Q. Public what he thinks! Although he pays more, he does not get his mail any quicker. I realize that salaries, and so forth, have escalated. One wonders when the demands are going to stop. However, equipment and productivity have increased. There may have been a case for an increase at some time, but at the moment the minister has not demonstrated an absolute need. It is incumbent upon the government to prove their case for an increase in postal rates.
There are clarifications of the law with regard to postal services that will be available to members of this House. There are some idiosyncracies in this respect. There is one provision of which I fully approve because I have seen abuses in the past. The franking privileges of members will cease ten days after dissolution of Parliament. In the past almost whole political campaigns have been launched from Ottawa. This was handy for members who had a geographical advantage. That is not fair. I think this provision will be much better for everybody. I fully approve of the limitation to be imposed on this service for Members of Parliament.
Post Office Act
It is up to the minister to make his case with regard to the increase in rates, not merely quoting grandiose figures. I want to see something demonstrable in the case of improved services. Will there be an improvement? To use a current phrase, I am still very much "out to lunch" with regard to the numbering code in Ottawa. Frankly, I receive very little mail from Ottawa which includes this code. The reason is that it is too complicated. It may be very simple for those who are in contact with the plan, but I have to stop and think very hard whether I have the letters and digits in their proper sequence. I even have to ask myself what they are; there are many combinations.
We must remember that these codes are not printed; they are written. One which I recall is K1H 5S8. When they are handwritten, the "5," "S" and "8" look very much the same. I think a sorter would have to make a triple examination of the 5S8 because of their similarity. These are some of the practical difficulties. Most of my neighbours put the notice which they received into a drawer. They found it too complicated to bother with it. They were quite happy with the postal zone they used before.
There many be some theoretical advantages in this system but unless the public is persuaded that it will be used generally and is to their advantage, it is of no use. I admit that perhaps more testing is required. It might be necessary to send out a few more reminders to the public. Very nice kits with little stickers were distributed. There are two cabinet ministers who live on my street. I wonder how many of those stickers are still in desk drawers in their homes. I cannot persuade my wife to use them. She says that she cannot remember the code. The same applies to my neighbours. Theoretically, this plan may be perfectly good but greater effort has to be made to sell it. At the moment, I must confess it is a bit of a non-starter. It may be all right in government offices.
When letters go out from our offices on Parliament Hill to our constituents, we use the new postal code. My correspondents have asked me what these symbols mean because they have not heard about them. I know they have been publicized in the press here and perhaps mention has been made of them in the press generally, but how many people remember that sort of thing? I would have to write a special letter to each of my correspondents in Edmonton and ask them please to use the code number, and I just cannot do it. I put it on my letterhead in correspondence from my office but I have only seen one or two replies bearing the number. This is a job for education.
Again let me say I do not think the minister has demonstrated the need for these increases in postal rates. This afternoon I voted to postpone second reading of the bill for six months, and unless there is a great change in the bill this will be my attitude when the vote is called on second reading.

June 1, 1971
Post Office Act


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak this evening since I spoke last night on the amendment to give the bill a six months' hoist. But having checked some of the speeches I feel that there is information which the minister should make available to members of the House when he winds up the debate on the bill some time this evening.
One thing that disturbed me was a statement the minister made in which he did not give certain facts; at least, they are not in Hansard. The minister was talking about the deficit the Post Office will have in the fiscal year 1971-72 unless there is an increase in postal rates. As reported at page 6217 of Hansard, he had this to say:
It is with this in mind that the deficit for 1971-72 is estimated at about $113 million, a reduction from last year, which is encouraging. This is the deficit we expect without any increases in the postage rates. Obviously, we must look to such increases if the gap between revenues and postal costs is to be narrowed significantly.
What was the deficit last year? The minister is saying that it was more than $113 million. Was it $120 million? The minister nods his head; therefore I presume we are talking about an operating deficit last year of some $120 million. Now I have established that, there are one or two things I should like to leave with the House because they disturb me immensely. A little over two years ago we in this House passed amendments to the Post Office Act which raised the rates on all second and third-class mail. Hundreds and hundreds of little newspapers and publications were put out of circulation simply because they could not afford to pay the increased postage.
We were told at the time that the increase in rates would help pull the Post Office out of the red and bring it to the point where it could manage the deficit it was incurring. On checking the record I find that the following occurred during the last three or four years, and I have taken this information from the accounts that are given members from time to time. In 1968-69 the revised net operating deficit was around $90 million. The full effect of the increases we made just over two years ago brought the deficit in 1969-70 down to $52.9 million. The following year, namely last year, the deficit rose from $52.9 million to a whopping $120 million.
Much has been said about Post Office management, but the minister now comes back to the House and to the public of Canada for approval to take another big bite out of the public purse in terms of first-class mail rates. One month from now the minister will raise the postage on a first-class letter to 7 cents, and six months later, on New Year's Day of 1972, as a bonus from this Liberal government the rate will be increased to 8 cents. This represents an increase of one-third over the present rate.
With regard to the income received from first-class mail, according to my interpretation of the minister's speech he said he expects to pick up this year about $37 million as a result of the increased rate. The next fiscal year will be 1972-73, and the revenue derived from the increase will amount to $80 million. The point that interests me most is that two years ago we did an "axe job" on the postal system of this country. We talked then about bringing down the deficit and holding it at a
[Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West) .1
certain level. It was suggested at that time that we would not need another major increase in rates. Yet lo and behold, we find that the increase in the deficit during the last fiscal year jumped to $120 million.


Mark Willson Rose: Mismanagement!


Randolph Harding: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think much of it is due to mismanagement. I think this House and the country is faced with deciding whether the Post Office Department is to be run as a service to the Canadian people or made to pay like a business organization. I have no doubt at all that the Post Office must be run as a service to the Canadian public and that we should expect to have deficits. If we are to supply service to outlying areas and to rural parts of Canada, in many instances it is simply impossible to make the service a paying proposition. I would be the first to admit that rural areas deserve small post offices and postal services because, after all, these people have pioneered this country and are entitled to some of the amenities of life. If we have to operate such services at a loss, as we do in many cases, I submit there is absolutely nothing wrong with doing so.
When the minister closes this debate I would also ask him to outline to the House exactly what are his plans, not just for next year but for the next few years. Where are we going, and where are the rates going to stop? Is the minister trying to put this department on a paying basis in order that it will show figures in the black every year? If this is the desire of the department it should let members of the House and the people of the country know what to expect. So far we have not been given the complete picture by the new Postmaster General or his predecessor.
Le me refer again briefly to the point I raised last night. The post office box rental charge to residents of rural areas is unjust. Let me make it crystal clear that as a result of studying postal revenue sources for 1970 in Canada as reported in the annual report of the Post Office, I found that $4.9 million were collected from post office box rentals, mainly from people living in rural areas. Again I suggest to the minister that when people living in rural areas are charged this amount for the rental of post office boxes they are being discriminated against by the government.
I have my mail delivered to my apartment in Ottawa. It is slipped through the door and I pick it up in the morning. People in rural areas should be assured that the mail delivered to small post offices can be picked up if necessary some time after the post office is closed, and without cost. They should be in a position to receive mail on a general delivery basis. They should have exactly the same service which people in the cities receive. Our Post Office is not giving these people this service.
I make this point as strongly as I can and suggest it is rank discrimination against the people living in rural areas. The department is suggesting to them that they must accept this kind of service charge because they have chosen to live in rural areas rather than in larger
June 1, 1971

centres. There is no rhyme or reason in the philosophy of the Post Office Department which maintains this discriminatory practice. Let me again remind the minister that this charge amounted to only 1.1 per cent of the total revenue of the department in the fiscal year 196970. By changing the system, the department might increase its deficit by a small amount but this should be absorbed by the system if the department intends to deal fairly with people who live in villages and rural areas.
I do not intend to continue my remarks because we will have an opportunity to talk about this situat on after the bill has been sent to committee and reported back to the House. I trust that when the minister closes the debate he will tell us where the Post Office Department is going and how it will get there.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few remarks on Bill C-240 as regards the hike in postal rates and certain services which are likely to be provided to hon. members should this measure be adopted.
I find it highly regrettable that the minister in charge of the Post Office-for whom I have the greatest respect-is the sponsor of a bill whose chief purpose is increasing postal rates.
However, no matter how imaginative one may be, one cannot find any improvement in postal services which would warrant this boost. I am referring more specifically to the services which should be improved and which have not been since the last raise.
Honorable members will recall that when the former Postmaster General introduced a bill to increase postal rates, we warned the government that such a measure would bring about an increase in the dailies' subscription rates. The government replied that there would not be any direct effects on subscription rates to daily newspapers. And yet, it is exactly what happened in the rural areas and as we had been telling the government all along, in the long run, the small taxpayer had to pay for it.
However, everyone knows now that it is precisely what happened and the daily papers, at least those in my area, now cost twice what they used to cost and the newspaper owners are saying that the increase is due to the high cost of delivery by mail.
It will also be remembered that, at that time, the president of Le Soleil of Quebec City was sending us, every day, three feet long telegrams. I even measured one, and it was 38 inches long, in which he asked us to oppose that measure.
At that time, it was the hon. members who had benefited the most from free publicity in that newspaper during the 1968 election campaign who were supporting the bill. As a matter of fact, they were supporting it because of the party line, as, deep down, they were not in favour of the bill. On the other hand, those who were against it, the hon. member for Bellechasse among others, were those who got the least out of that free publicity. Those hon. members opposed the measure not because they had
Post Office Act
obligations or through gratitude to the press, but because they knew beforehand that it would be the "small people" who would pay for the increase.
There is another thing we deplore, but unfortunately it is too late to do anything about it. If today we could be assured that the Canadian people would get a better service, we would certainly be confident and probably would support the increase because we would be convinced that in so doing we would give to the government and the Post Office an apportunity to offer a better service to the people, thus giving them a satisfaction they deserve.
We have now reached the point where we think twice before sending out bulk mail and figure on a 10 day delay to make sure it will be delivered on time. And we find that even if we allow for the necessary delays, delivery is still late.
I found out once that 50 per cent of the notices for a meeting were delivered two days after the meeting was held. I then asked the Postmaster General, following complaints from my constituents, if there was any possibility of making an inquiry to determine why those notices were not delivered on time. The Postmaster General, through his officials, authorized the investigation and they reported to me.
I must say I was happy with the way the investigation was carried out and also with the officials' performance of their duties, since they reported to me. I was just waiting for an opportunity to remind the Postmaster General-or rather his predecessor, that we express criticisms and suggestions only after having thoroughly gone into the matter-to use the words of a great one who has passed away-in order to cause prejudice to no one and not to make unjustified criticisms.
In such circumstances, when deliveries are not on time, the sender is dissatisfied, and so are those who are to receive the communications, both sender and addressee are discontented.
As representatives of the people we must, on occasion, report on the situation and try to call for improvements. The way things are, no wonder the public loses confidence in the postal service. The Minister is right being concerned about it. He is frank enough to say it publicly as he did yesterday in this House, as may be seen from page 6216 of Hansard, and I quote:
. .. one which concerns me greatly is the loss of public confidence the Post Office has experienced in recent years. As I have said before, this confidence must be restored if the Post Office is to be able to continue its vital role in Canadian society. To this end, we are moving to improve services through major reforms.
I am convinced that the minister is well meaning, that he wants to make major reforms, but these should not merely consist in raising postage rates. It would be necessary, indeed, to improve the postal service so that it might regain public confidence and be more widely used because, on the whole, when I was younger, I considered

June 1, 1971
Post Office Act
this service as a sacred one. When we mailed something, it could reach its destination without any concern. If any item got lost, it was possible to find it without too much difficulty by filing our complaints to the postmaster or the authorities.
The minister also said, and I quote:
Government has to decide if the taxpayers of this country should subsidize services whose main users are business and industry. Approximately 80 per cent of Post Office volumes are in fact derived from business and industry. Given this, the principle of successive operating deficits, to be supported by general taxation, would appear inequitable.
Mr. Speaker, even if the main users belong to the business and industrial sectors, the fact remains that under this procedure, in the field of business and industry, costs increase to the same extent and the consumer ends up footing the bill. If I were in business, if my operating costs increased because of higher postal rates, as a businessman, I would have to put in the expenditures column, higher expenses, so that these could be added in the end to my income. This would also apply to the manufacturing cost if I were in the industrial field. I would indirectly ask the consumer to cover them, which is normal.
Although it is said that 80 per cent of the mail is sent out by business people and industries, it is however the population that indirectly pays for it. If I were convinced that the increase mentioned in the bill would provide towns of about 1,000 people with the services of a post office, I would perhaps be more favourable to this legislation.
I would like here to appeal to the minister and make several requests that I have expressed before and which he has understood very well. However, he is unable to answer members' requests concerning the building of new post offices. If I were quite sure that those increases would finally be used to enable the minister to meet those rightful demands, I would have, in all fairness, to trust him and give him the support he needs under the circumstances.
In addition, the minister referred-and rightly-to the purchasing power of the dollar to justify that increase and I quote:
In terms of the purchasing power of the dollar, the basic increase of seven and eight cents is actually lower than the four cent rate which came into effect in 1954.
I am quite pleased to read what the minister said in that connection, Mr. Speaker. He takes into account the increased cost of living, the depreciation of the dollar to justify increased demand as far as the postal service is concerned. However, the same factor should also be considered with regard to families and old people. When we used that argument to ask the government for amendments to the legislation authorizing payment of family allowances or pensions to the disabled and the old, we were laughed at.
It will be recalled that in 1945 when family allowances were established, the dollar and the cost of living were not what they are today. If it is fair to advocate a postal increase on the basis of a higher cost of living and
depreciation of the dollar, I ask the other ministers of the government, the Minister of Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) for instance, to invoke the same reason when a study is made of the legislation concerning family and welfare allowances, etc.
Mr. Speaker, if it is logical to consider such factors, it should have enabled ministers and members to provide for improvements in other fields that are as justified as the one we are asking for today.
Bill C-240 is a kind of little omnibus bill, which puts me in a somewhat conflicting position. As a matter of fact, it contains changes, two of which are necessary.
First, it provides for an increase in the commission to agents selling postage stamps. Indeed, I can understand that postmasters selling stamps to the public deserve a pay increase; after all, the pay they get from the Postmaster General is not always proportionate to the work they have to do. I can also understand that it could be very difficult for the minister responsible for the postal service and officials to establish standards that would be absolutely fair for all postmaster across this country. That is why whenever I happen to talk with postmasters who ask me to appeal to authoritiees in order to get them a pay increase, I always make it a point to find out the total number of their customers, their turnover, etc. so as to be sure that their request is justified.
Second, this bill provides for collective mailings free of postage in the case of members of Parliament. I believe I am justified in saying that I should support that provision had it been put forward separately.
A few weeks ago during the debate on Bill C-242, I pointed out to the government the needs of Parliament members for services and this service was precisely one of those, we wanted so as to have an additional tool to better serve the people.
I will not repeat what I have already asked and this is why, in my opinion, this is a kind of a small omnibus bill which contains both good and bad things. Therefore, we must determine whether the pros outweigh the cons.
This is why I have analyzed as objectively as possible all the provisions of the bill and taken it upon me to give my opinion during this debate.
I would like to conclude by asking the minister in charge of the Post Office when he closes this debate to enlighten the House about the printing of stamps. Are they still totally or partly printed by the British American Bank Note Company Limited? Are they still totally or partly printed by the Canadian Bank Note Company Lmited with all its equipment? Are they partly printed by the British American Bank Note Limited and partly by the Canadian Bank Note Company Limited? I would like the minister to tell the House why the printing of stamps is done by those two companies and what is the approximate annual amount paid to them, because, in the absence of information to the contrary, I always thought that the government did not buy the stamps sold to the public, but had them printed. In fact, I believed that the Queen's printer did the job, but according to the information obtained, it is entrusted to the two companies I have just mentioned.
[Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse) .1
June 1, 1971

Therefore, I would like to be told, as accurately as possible, what it costs to produce those stamps and how much the government gets out of it, which would allow hon. members to study the situation seriously and to make suggestions to the minister on how to finance that department and improve the service to the public.
I shall conclude with those remarks, since I consider them essential to the guidance of hon. members. I am convinced that the minister will in due course do his best to provide us with the information I am now requesting.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: June 1, 1971
Post Office Act
come through with-the establishment of a special category for non-profit, voluntary organizations providing health and welfare services and, second, that he set up standards or criteria under which organizations like these could qualify for a special mailing rate. I think the minister should reply to these requests tonight. He should separate the profit-making, junk mail artists from organizations that are doing a real service to the Canadian public.
This is the point on which I wished to speak tonight. We should not indulge in any more slaughtering of voluntary, non-profit groups such as occurred in respect of numerous publications when the previous postal increase came into effect.


Mr. Henry Lalulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to delay the passage of this bill but I have a few words to say about it.
Mr. Speaker, we are faced with an increase in postal rates which had been announced quite a while ago. We are aware of the fact that the Post Office is getting deeper and deeper into deficit and that it will keep sliding down unless something is done to correct the situation. According to the figures I have here, the Post Office deficit presently amounts to $113 million and it will get even worse in the years to come unless we regain control of the situation.
I wish to express my admiration for the minister who did everything he could and cannot be held responsible for these increases and for the problems facing the Post Office. The minister did a good job, with the means available to him, to correct quite a number of anomalous situations and we appreciate his work. For all he has done, we express our admiration, but much remains to be done.
Mr. Speaker, if postal services decrease and costs increase, there surely is something wrong somewhere. The people are getting less and less service. I shall not dwell on the subject at length for my colleagues have already spoken about it.
With regard to those services, I mailed letters in my riding that were delivered three weeks later. Like the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) I too asked for a report on the matter, and received good ones. I can only praise the postal employees who, in general, perform their duties well, but the mail took two or three weeks to cover a distance of roughly 300 miles. That is not normal. There is certainly something wrong. I blame the delay not on the carelessness of the minister but rather on certain civil servants who do not do their jobs properly, who do not take their responsibilities seriously where mail delivery is concerned.
But there are other responsibilities, of much greater significance, which are far from being properly assumed by civil servants, and this tends to increase operating costs and hence the cost of living generally. As for senior officials, I have something to say about them and I think I have already told the minister. Now I am not criticizing the minister, but I suggest he should consider straightening out the situation. Inquiries should be made because senior officials are terribly expensive to the Post Office.
Some officials are not discharging their responsibilities by a long shot. This I am saying quite frankly: they are wasting public money. I will give hon. members evidence of it, but without going into details for it would be too lengthy and would cause a public scandal.
In my riding, for instance, they first closed down the post office four years ago before building a new one. Floor space was rented elsewhere to house the post office. Since then, plans were made, tenders were called and withdrawn, in short, they changed their minds about seven or eight times. The fact remains that the post office building is closed. It could have been kept open to the public. Therefore, for the last three years, we have had to pay rent to house the post office elsewhere. It is terribly costly to the department and even if there were three or four sets of plans made and as many calls for tenders, none was accepted, all have been rejected to consider something else again.
That issue has been pending for three years now and has probably cost thousands of dollars to the department. It is not really the Post Office Department that is responsible, but the Department of Public Works, because the latter is responsible for the construction of buildings. Delays of this sort, for one reason or another, are inexcusable. Then, when information is asked for, one is told that bids will be called next week. This has been repeated for two years. One is told: They will be called next month; you can announce it in the newspapers, it is certain, the decisions have been made. But three years later, the decisions are still pending.
Therefore, I blame the civil servants who do this sort of thing, or the Department of Public Works, as this increases the operating cost of the postal service. We are debating today a proposal for an increase in the postal rates because of all sorts of things of this nature. I could say a lot more on the subject.
I know many other things, but I shall not say more tonight. I would not want a public scandal.
All kinds of factors contribute to increase postal rates and hence the cost of living. And this is done everywhere. If it is done on a national scale in Canada, you can imagine how much it costs.
So, I ask the minister to work in co-operation with the Department of Public Works responsible for the construction of post offices. So the minister can certainly act, and ask for investigations. There are certainly some way to save, so that the people will pay reasonable rates. I repeat that senior officials are not serious, and do not fulfill their duty as they should, that is honestly and fairly. I do not condemn in any way the minister for this increase of postal rates.
As a conclusion to my remarks, I shall not go into details, because many other speakers have done so. I only meant to ask the minister to conduct serious investigations so that these abuses may end some day, that we may have more justice, and that the department might

June 1, 1971

offer a reasonable postal rate. It is desirable that services be paid for as long as there are no abuses. It is possible to find some solutions to this problem so that the minister might save as much public money as possible. The public can then expect better services, because if it is possible to reduce expenses, better services can be provided even though the Post Office Department should not be considered a national bank or the Bank of Canada.
Before closing I would like to say how much I admire the minister because he does his work well. I obtained answers to all my requests, and was given all kinds of assurances. He told me the truth and I admire him for it. He is fair and we can trust his word. He is not to blame for mistakes or nonsense which originate in other quarters. I ask him once again, with all due respect to him and the government, to do us justice, because it is not easy to understand some of the things that are happening.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I gather that the House wishes to conclude the debate shortly with the remarks of the soon-to-be Postmaster General, so I shall be very brief. I should like to make a suggestion to the hon. gentleman. He need not reply tonight but perhaps he and his officials would consider it and an answer could be given when the matter comes before the committee.
The one specific complaint that I have about this legislation is that it would add to the financial burden of charitable organizations which raise much of their money by solicitation through the mail. While the amount involved may be small, some of the views that have been expressed to me, and no doubt to other members, indicate that for these organizations it is a pretty serious problem. I suppose an increase of even 10 per cent in the cost of raising money could put a tremendous strain on them. While the third-class mail rate normally applies in such cases, perhaps the time has come to adopt a more flexible position toward these charitable organizations because of the important work they do.
Perhaps the minister or his officials could think of some other designation for charitable organizations which raise money through solicitation by mail. I offer this as a suggestion to the minister, and perhaps after consulting his officials he will be able to give a considered reply when the matter comes before the committee.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose everything and anything the minister may suggest or propose in the form of a bill to increase first-class mail rates. It has already been said that first-class mail breaks even or makes money. Junk mail has also been mentioned. I suggest to the minister that if he is really concerned about reducing the deficits in the Post Office Department there are a couple of areas he should consider. I do not know if they have been mentioned already because I have not heard all the speeches in this debate.
The minister might consider the $1.5 million used to subsidize Time and Reader's Digest, those great "Canadi-
Post Office Act
an" publications with all their Canadian content. He might consider raising their mailing rates to reduce the deficit of the Post Office Department. As a good Canadian, as one who is concerned about the welfare and good order of the postal service in Canada and who is primarily concerned about reducing the deficits of the Post Office Department or reducing the cost to the public, the minister should pick up this $1.5 million quickly because he can do that without antagonizing the people of Canada or the members of the House.
There is a second item that the minister might consider. Let him look at the $3 million or $3.5 million cost to the postal department of Canada occasioned by the imbalance in mailing services as between Canada and the United States. This mail is carried under an international agreement many years old. The volume of United States mail crossing into Canada, in terms of number of pieces of mail, is much greater than Canadian mail handled by the United States postal department. This has resulted in an imbalance or a net cost to the Canadian Post Office Department of $3.5 million a year. If the minister wants to find another $3.5 million with which to reduce the deficit, he need only look at all the crap that is sent here from across the border.


An hon. Member:: That's unparliamentary.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: If he cannot negotiate better terms with the post office department of the United States to correct that imbalance, it is obvious and logical that the treasury of Canada should pick up the tab and not our first-class mail senders. I am wondering if the minister has considered that little piece of cake. We brought it to the attention of his predecessor but he pooh-poohed the idea.
If the minister is wondering why he has not been able to get the floor before ten o'clock, I will tell him. He has not listened to our suggestions. We might take another couple of nights and the minister still would not get the floor before ten o'clock. Unless he indicates to the members of the House and the people of Canada that he has considered the matter, he may not get the floor before ten o'clock in the next two or three weeks. That is not a threat, it is a promise. Has he looked into that situation yet? If so, what will he do about it? Here is a matter involving Time and Reader's Digest where $1.5 million could be saved. On the imbalance in postal deliveries between Canada and the United States, another $3.5 million could be saved. That is five million bucks, Mr. Speaker. It is five times C. D. Howe's expression. What is the minister prepared to do about these matters?
If the minister wants to get off the backs of the people, if he wants to cut net costs in the Post Office Department and for those who perform some kind of social service or function for their fellow citizens-here I am referring to the weekly newspaper and to charitable, social or paternal organizations such as the hon. member for Vancou-ver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) mentioned-he should not allow Reader's Digest to send their junk through the mail asking me to buy a book or a record every month. That is costing us money. If he stops it, he will not hear any argument from members of this House.
6282

June 1, 1971
Post Office Act
He should make that magazine pay more lor bothering the Canadian people with stuff they do not ask for and do not want. The magazine sends out second, third and fourth reminders. They even send you a card with a number on it and tell you you have won a prize. We want the minister to say, "We will put up your mailing rate and make you pay whatever it costs the Post Office Department to handle all the junk that you send out." If the minister wants us to stop talking and allow him to get the floor and close the debate before ten o'clock, we will not do it, Mr. Speaker.
Mailing rates are to increase another cent for first-class mail on July 1 and another cent on January 1 next, bringing the rate up to eight cents. The rates for these magazines will not go up, yet each day they take up the time of the post office and the time of the community. The effort put out by the Post Office Department on these magazines is far out of proportion to what they are entitled to when one considers what they do.
I wish to cite another example. I recall that a publication was put out by the metropolitan Toronto policemen's association. It was a mimeographed, monthly newsletter, Mr. Speaker, and the association used to spend between $300 and $500 a year on postage. Their rate has now gone up by 400 per cent, so they do not send out the publication any more. Here was a perfectly legitimate, non-profit communication sent to a group of Canadian citizens who belonged to the association as a result of their occupation, and the minister "upped" their mailing bill. He did not "up" the mailing bill for Time and Reader's Digest. Those magazines must be candidates for social welfare because the Post Office Department still lets them get away with murder.
Unless the minister can come up with similar exemptions for publications such as I have mentioned, and until the treasury can pick up the deficit resulting from the imbalance in mail as between the United States and Canada, he need not ask us to hold still while he seeks to increase first-class postal rates. If you divide two into 42 you get 21. If old age pensioners send 21 additional letters, that will take up the 42 cents the government gave them when it increased the basic old age pension. How can the minister expect us to listen and wait with bated breath while he increases the first-class mailing rate? Until we have an assurance that the minister will say something about the items which have been mentioned, and until we have an assurance that he will deal with them seriously, we will hold up this bill.


An hon. Member:: Until when?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Perhaps until July or August. This just does not wash, Mr. Speaker. You cannot justify an increase in first-class mailing rate so that we can pick up the tab for freeloaders who deal with the Post Office Department. You cannot justify an increase in the first-class mailing rate for people who have lost their rural mail delivery and their rural post offices and who now get mail once a week instead of three times a week. You cannot justify an increase in the first-class mailing rate until you have corrected some of the deficits we have mentioned.
What we have tried to say, and what I have said in the last few minutes, has been said several times by other hon. members during the last three years. No minister in charge of the Post Office has dealt with these issues. Until the minister deals with them we will not permit him to get away with increasing the first-class mailing rate. It is as simple as that. Why should the first-class mailing rate be so high when Time and Reader's Digest are sending out brochures asking people to buy more books, more records, and are offering prizes?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, the record will show that I have been attempting for many months to obtain a full and satisfactory answer from the minister responsible for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation on the question of an outstanding CMHC mortgage on Rochdale College in Toronto. In fairness to the minister involved I have taken into account the fact that during that period there were extenuating circumstances in the Rochdale account which have tended to complicate the matter. There is the fact that Rochdale masquerades as an educational institution and these institutions normally receive preferential or at least less rigid treatment from lending institutions.
However, the complications in the Rochdale account have been due largely to the attitude of the minister rather than to any points of law or any regulations with regard to amortization of CMHC loans. I submit to the minister that if the Rochdale loan had been made to me instead of to the college, the loan would have been foreclosed many months ago, the Canadian people would have their money back and they would have a building to cover the defaulted principal and interest payments.
I have watched the proceedings with respect to the Rochdale College loan over a period of many months and am deeply concerned over the way in which a loan of such magnitude has been permitted to fall 14 months in arrears. I am concerned that the minister has of his own will and accord chosen to view Rochdale College in a way that is inconsistent with the regulations under which CMHC is required to operate and totally inconsistent with sound business and management practices. If all Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation mortgages were serviced in a like manner it would not take long for an overactive imagination to conjure up a vision of complete and utter chaos in Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation operations.

June 1, 1971

By way of background I would like to read into the record-the specific figures of the Rochdale College mortgage. The approved loan was in the amount of $4,884,165.90, a princely sum of money to risk on an experimental educational project to be run by its own students. The interest rate on the loan was very attractive at 51 per cent per annum. As of April 30 this year the loan was in default by 14 months for a total of $359,853.37. During all my years in business I have neither seen nor heard of anything quite like it. I therefore feel justified in asking for a full explanation of this apparent disregard for the sanctity of the public purse.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William C. Scott: One of my reasons for indulging in the past the minister's reluctance to answer my questions is that Rochdale is called a college and as such has been wearing a mantle of respectability that is totally undeserved. I have been, and am now, prepared to bend a little to accommodate educational institutions, but it has been evident for some time that Rochdale has been sailing under false colours. Almost from the day it opened, Rochdale College has been the symbol of everything that is wrong in our society. In the files of the Toronto police department there is evidence that Rochdale rivals Yorkville village as a haven for drug users and pushers, hippies and yippies, deviates and social misfits of every type and description.
There are recorded cases of underage, runaway children being lured into Rochdale and kept there for the depraved satisfaction of so-called students some of whom are as much as 35 years of age. By way of further clarification, to qualify as a student at this so-called college simply means that you can afford to pay the $80 per month single, or $50 double occupancy rate. There are no course requirements, no attendance requirements, no professors and no system of examination or grading.
I would like to make just a couple of brief, additional observations before I conclude. The first concerns an item in the Toronto Globe and Mail of May 21, 1971, wherein it was stated that Rochdale College accepts welfare cases from the city welfare department, some of them families with small children. I ask my hon. colleagues in this House, does this sound like a college? In days gone by it would have been called a flop-house and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or any other government agency would have laughed at the thought of supporting such an institution with public funds. A few days ago the Toronto police department raided Rochdale College-not for the first time-and confiscated a quantity of marijuana, hashish and chemical drugs while arresting three students. As the police left the college they were pelted with eggs and refuse and subjected to verbal abuse.
In conclusion, I would like to assure the minister responsible for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation that I am not asking him to assume the role of protector of public or private morality. However, I do expect the minister to exercise proper judgment in deciding who qualifies for Central Mortgage and Housing Cor-
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion poration mortgages. Rochdale College is a rabbit warren where anything goes, and the more anti-social and uncivilized the better. I call upon the minister responsible for the Rochdale mortgage to recover the money involved and to put it back into the public coffers where some better use for it can be found.


Mr. Ray Perrault (Parliameniary Secretary io Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, in August, 1966, a loan of $4,844,165 was made to Co-operative College Residences Incorporated to assist in the construction of a students' residence, now known as Rochdale College, on Bloor Street in Toronto. The administration of Rochdale College has experienced great difficulty in generating sufficient revenues to pay all the operating costs of the building, including the National Housing Act mortgage. Up to the present time arrears in mortgage payments have accumulated to the extent of $340,000.
If the problem of Rochdale College were simply a mortgage problem, the solution itself would be a straightforward matter, involving action by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to recover the public investment in Rochdale and to assume responsibility for the management of the building. The problem of Rochdale College involves considerations other than a mortgage in arrears.
While many of the negative aspects of its administration have received the greatest attention, some of the more positive aspects of their program have not been established or understood, including the role that Rochdale plays in the lives of many young people in metropolitan Toronto. There are, therefore, both social and financial implications to consider in dealing with Rochdale College.
Nearly two months ago an interdepartmental committee was formed at the request of the minister responsible for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to consider and assess alternative courses of action by which the public investment in Rochdale may be protected. The committee is under the chairmanship of the president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and includes representatives of the Privy Council office, the Department of National Health and Welfare, Secretary of State, Solicitor General and the Department of Finance.
In carrying out its work, the committee is considering all aspects of the Rochdale situation and in addition to the interested departments of the federal government the committee has met the council of Rochdale, representatives of the metropolitan Toronto corporation, the city of Toronto and departments and agencies of the Ontario provincial government. It is expected that the committee will report its findings through the responsible minister shortly.



YOUTH-CAPITAL ASSISTANCE FOR PROVISION OF YOUTH HOSTEL FACILITIES

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister without Portfolio in charge of citi-
24107-47i

June 1, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion zenship programs (Mr. Stanbury) the following question, as reported as page 6207 of Hansard:
In view of the large numbers of young people now travelling In Canada, is the government considering a program to provide capital assistance for youth hostel facilities?
I went on to explain that I asked this question owing to the fact that the current program is restricted to operational assistance. I was very much surprised when the minister answered my question in three words, namely, "No, Mr. Speaker". I should like briefly to review some of the factors involved in this brief exchange.
Over the last two or three years there has been a very sharp increase in the number of young people travelling across Canada and using a variety of means of unconventional travel, one might say. In particular, many young people are hitch-hiking their way across the country during the summer months, in this way seeing their country. One of the reasons they have taken to the roads is that they have a great deal of difficulty obtaining any sort of suitable employment, indeed any sort of employment at all in many cases.
Last year the government responded with its program of assistance for facilities for overnight accommodation for many of these travelling young people. This was of tremendous assistance for the most part. I understand use was made of government facilities such as armouries. This year a somewhat different tactic was adopted in respect of this program. A program was established to provide assistance to various communities and groups but the government decided to rely more heavily on local community initiative in the establishment of various facilities providing accommodation for young, travelling people.
One feature of the grants provided by the federal government under this youth hostel program is, as I indicated earlier-I refer now to a government statement issued by the department which was kindly supplied to me-that grants can cover salaries and operating expenses but cannot cover capital expenditures. That is a flat prohibition in respect of assistance for capital expenditures.
The reason I asked this question was not because I had any expectation the government had a program ready to announce yesterday, today or tomorrow, but because it seemed to me perfectly reasonable to expect that the department would now have looked at this problem from a long-range point of view. It is obvious that this new phenomenon is going to continue. It will be with us for some time and the department should be looking at it from a longer-range point of view.
I also want to make it clear that I am not suggesting we have to rely entirely or even primarily on government assistance or initiative for the establishment of permanent facilities for travelling young people. It seems to me the government does have some responsibility and could provide a very useful service if it took the initiative now in studying this matter and carrying on discussions with interested groups and people in order to arrive
at a method whereby the federal government could provide assistance and encouragement to groups and communities who wish to establish permanent facilities and accommodation for young people who are travelling, particularly during the summer months.
I hope the minister will indicate tonight that his department intends to look at this matter with a view to developing some means to encourage discussion among communities across Canada and the development of means to provide stimulus for and encouragement of community efforts in the provision of satisfactory facilities.
I also asked a supplementary question concerning alternative means of assistance this year toward the provision of facilities in communities where difficulties have been encountered in obtaining approval from municipal authorities. The minister indicated there are a number of ways in which assistance can be provided to communities in this regard. I hope the department and the minister will take advantage of every possible opportunity to encourage communities to provide these facilities, and that they will in fact develop other possible means of communication with communities across Canada in order to arrive at satisfactory arrangements. I include MPs in this category.
I draw to the minister's attention that my colleague, the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin), and myself issued a statement last week in which we indicated our unhappiness with certain developments in the city of Regina regarding a planned program there. Unfortunately, with regard to my own city the council saw fit to react on a short-term basis, with a short-run view of the situation in response to a request regarding the establishment of a local hostel. It seems to me that a little leadership by the council and interested parties could have been given to overcome the fears of the local citizens. In this way a satisfactory program might have been established which would in fact have benefited these young people. This could have been a credit to the city of Regina and Canada as a whole.
Thus, I hope the minister will look at these programs in terms of continuing the assistance undertaken over the past couple of years. I hope he will take a long-range view of this matter.


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for raising this matter which is of considerable concern to me and to the citizenship branch. As the hon. member mentioned, last year the federal government for the first time undertook to assist communities to cope with the presence of transient youth and also to help young people travelling across our country find accommodation wherever they might be. This year we have doubled the budget for that kind of assistance, but we do not yet feel we have enough funds or enough information to launch a program of capital assistance. I hope, as I think the hon. member does, that some day Canada will have a national system of hostels, although not necessarily sponsored by the government. I hope, rather, that it would be in the hands of voluntary organizations as I believe is usually the case in European countries.

June 1, 1971

I feel, however, that those Canadians who seem to jealously guard the boundaries of their cities against the alien hordes of other young Canadians for elsewhere in Canada seem sometimes to have a sort of double standard. Very often these are the same people who are proudly sending off their own spunky children to hike about Europe.


John Stratford Burton: That is right.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: It has been our experience that the successful operation of a youth hostel or other service to travelling young people is in large measure dependent upon the attitude of the local community. For this reason our summer hostel program this year is one of response to local initiatives and one which attempts to involve as broad as possible a range of community groups. Naturally, we are interested in the attitude of the municipal
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion councils although this is not the only criterion on which community initiatives can be judged. Through our regional offices we try to maintain close liaison with voluntary groups and municipal and provincial authorities in assessing local needs and developing our response to them.
We want to assist in every way possible in responding to the requests of local authorities and voluntary organizations. We are prepared to do that in Regina as elsewhere. I hope the people of Regina and their elected representatives will be able to make arrangements to accommodate the young Canadians who will be in Regina this summer, as other communities are doing in other parts of Canada.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at J 0 2ft p.m.

Wednesday, June 2, 1971