1971-06-02

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege. A news report in today's Globe and Mail indicates that I voted against the proposal to put off a pay raise for Members of Parliament until the next election when in fact I voted in favour of it. The record is correctly shown in Hansard on page 6258 and lists me as having voted for the proposal to defer.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I ask the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. This urgent matter arises because the federal and provincial welfare ministers meet next week in the midst of a welfare crisis which has grown so great that some municipalities in Canada are driven to strike single unemployed men from their welfare rolls. The House has been unable to get assurances from government spokesmen that this problem will be discussed at this closed conference. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard):
In view of the agonizing choice which municipalities in all regions of Canada must make between assuming the impossible financial burden of the unprecedented escalation of welfare costs due to the inequitable welfare cost-sharing arrangements and. on the other hand, refusing welfare payments to increasing thousands of deserving unemployed victims of the government's unemployment and inflation policies, this House urges the government to place this welfare crisis on the agenda of the federal-provincial welfare meeting next week, recommends that in addition to the federal Minister of National Health and Welfare and the provincial welfare ministers there be present those other federal government ministers who are charged with responsibilities related to welfare and employment, representatives of the Federation of Mayors and Municipalities, and representatives of the National Welfare Council, and declares that the primary objective of the conference must be to construct
a crash remedial program which the three levels of government can put into immediate force and effect.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member under the terms of Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent and the motion will not be put.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, could I ask which "no, no" said no?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



PROPOSED WEST COAST TANKER ROUTE-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion under Standing Order 43 which I believe could be passed without debate. The view expressed in my motion has been stated by spokesmen for all parties in the House and I believe it would be useful for it to be formally recorded. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert):
That the House express its opposition to the proposed oil tanker route from Valdez, Alaska to Cherry Point in the state of Washington, and that this decision of the House of Commons be transmitted to the United States government through official channels.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Kootenay West. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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

June 2, 1971
Questions



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
CONTENTS OF EFFLUENT FROM PULP AND/OR PAPER MILLS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
['The answer is yes. The answer to part (a) is May 17, 1971, and to part (b) it is the Hon. D. G. Steuart.']
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: 1. The Government has compiled a mass of data concerning the effluent from the pulp and/or paper mills of British Columbia. Data relating to chemical constituents of the effluents have been regularly forthcoming from four mills and are tabulated below by name:
Average Daily Chemical Discharge in Pounds Company	Sulphides	Mercaptans	Resin Acid Soaps
Prince George Pulp and Paper Co.
Intercontinental Pulp Co.
Northwood Pulp Co.
Kamloops Pulp and Paper Co.
2. (a) The sulphides, mercaptans and resin acid soaps listed above are among the constituents of pulp mill effluents known to be toxic to fish, but bioassays carried out on effluents from the mills indicate that they are not present in high enough concentrations to produce a toxic effect, (b) Studies conducted by B.C. Research and the International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission on invertebrates in the Fraser River have shown that the numbers of species and relative abundance of each of the species are not different above or below pulp mill effluent discharges. Such changes are one of the most subtle indicators available of environmental deterioration, when they can be detected, (c) Studies conducted by Kamloops Pulp and Paper Company and the Salmon Fisheries Commission have noted no difference in the plankton population of Kamloops Lake as a result of pulp and paper mill operations, (d) The Government is not aware of any report of toxicity to humans of pulp mill waste in water.



Mr. Schumacher: 1.	During the fiscal year 1970-1971, was a special ministerial grant made by the Department of National Health and Welfare to any organization or organizations in the City of Calgary and, if so (a) what was the purpose of each grant (b) have the purposes of each such grant been accomplished and, if so, in what manner?
2.	What is the purpose of each organization?
3.	(a) Have any provisions been made for the auditing of the books of such organizations (b) have audits been made and, if so, by whom?
4.	What are the names and positions of the executive members of each organization?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. The Department of National Health and
30	270	33029	320	950260	750	1130Trace	Trace	96
Welfare awarded a demonstration project grant to the Calgary Welfare Rights Society in the City of Calgary. (a) The purpose of the grant is to demonstrate whether welfare recipients can achieve a greater degree of independence and improve their ability to manage their own lives and solve their own problems if they are enabled to have a meaningful role in the identification of their own problems and needs and a say in how assistance and services are provided to help them cope with their problems and needs, (b) The demonstration is in progress, consequently it is not possible to determine whether the objectives of the demonstration have been accomplished.
2.	The purpose of the organization is to promote participation of poor people in programs developed to meet their needs; to act in an advocacy role for welfare recipients; to promote self help activities among welfare receipients.
3.	(a) Yes. (b) Interim audits have been undertaken by the Audit Services bureau, Department of Supply and Services, in conformity with the terms and conditions of the National Welfare Grants Rules.
4.	Executive members of the organization are: President, Daphne Davison; Vice Chairman, Shirley Fyke; Recording Secretary, Linda Mullins; Correspondence Secretary, Charlotte Rasmussen; Treasurer, George Sandilak; Directors, Ted Flakman, Alec Tiermeu, Bob Cox, Judy Todd, Bill Best and Alan Knowles.


NEWFOUNDLAND-FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TOWARDS COST OF PROPOSED GENERAL HOSPITAL
Mr. Carter: Has the Government of Canada received an application from the Government of Newfoundland for a capital contribution toward the cost of the proposed new General Hospital and, if so (a) what was the date of the application (b) for what amount (c) what is the present status of the application?

June 2, 1971


John Carr Munro: No application was received as of this date from the Government of Newfoundland requesting federal financial support under the Health Resources Fund program towards the cost of the proposed new General Hospital in St. John's.


CANADA MANPOWER MOBILITY PROGRAM-APPLICATION OF MR. T. R. WALLACH
Mr. Aiken: 1.	Has an application by T. R. Wallach of Ancaster to the Canada Manpower Centre at Hamilton for a moving and resettlement grant in June, 1970, been refused and, if so (a) what jobs, if any, were offered to Mr. Wallach between the time of registration in February, 1970 and the time of application in June, 1970 (b) did the Canada Manpower Office at Hamilton secure a job for Mr. Wallach in Bracebridge, Ontario and is he still so employed (c) for what reason?
2.	In June, 1970, what employment in the sales field was available in Hamilton or area, for which Mr. Wallach was qualified and suited?
3.	If an applicant for assistance under the Manpower Mobility Program has a firm employment offer in a new Manpower area, how long is he required to continue to look for employment in his home area before qualifying for assistance?


Hon. Oiio E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. Yes. (a) None, although had Mr. Wallach been willing to accept employment as a commission salesman in Hamilton, he could have been referred to a number of positions, one being with the same firm with which he is now employed in Bracebridge. (t>) (i) No;(ii) Yes. (c) Mr. Wallach was refused a mobility grant because suitable local employment was available.
2.	Six employers had listings of vacancies in Mr. Wallach's registered occupation.
3.	The first condition of eligibility for a grant under the Manpower Mobility Regulations is that an unemployed, about to become unemployed or underemployed worker must have little or no prospect of obtaining suitable employment in the locality in which he resides. The Canada Manpower Centre concerned is responsible for making appropriate enquiries to determine whether or not the client satisfies this condition at the time he requests a mobility grant. This can usually be done the same day that the request is received.


MOISTURE PICK-UP CONTENT OF BROILER CHICKENS
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Is the moisture pick-up content of broiler chickens processed for the retail market in Canada controlled and, if so (a) what limits of moisture are allowed (b) what department or agency is responsible for the enforcement of these regulations?
2.	Have any charges been laid with respect to the breach of these regulations and, if so, what was the disposition of each such charge?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. Yes. (a) The percentage increase in weight over the weight 24107-48
Orders for Returns
of the bird prior to washing for chickens five pounds and under can be eight per cent. For chickens over five pounds the gain in weight can be six per cent; (b) The Department of Agriculture is responsible for the enforcement of the Regulations made pursuant to the Canada Meat Inspection Act.
2. No charges have been laid with respect to a breach of the relevant section of the Regulations.


MEADOW LAKE, SASK.-INCENTIVE GRANT FOR PULP MILL TO BE CONSTRUCTED
Mr. Burton: Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion dispatched a letter of offer with respect to an industrial incentive grant for a pulp mill to be constructed in the special area located at Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan and, if so (a) on what date (b) to whom?


Mr. Marlin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The answer is yes. The answer to part (a) is May 17, 1971, and to part (b) it is the Hon. D. G. Steuart.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Carter: 1.	Have public tenders been called for all cost-sharing federal-provincial projects in Newfoundland since 1965 and, if not, what projects were excluded and for what reasons?
2.	Are tenders opened publicly?
Return tabled.


PEI-FEDERAL EXPENDITURES UNDER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1971-72
Mr. MacLean: What are the estimated expenditures to be made by the federal government under the Development Plan for Prince Edward Island in the 1971-72 fiscal year?
Return tabled.


PUBLIC SERVICE-DESIGNATION OF EMPLOYEES IN MANAGERIAL OR CONFIDENTIAL CAPACITY
Mr. Francis: As of March 1, 1971, in that portion of the Public Service represented by Treasury Board as an employer, how many employees were designated as persons to be employed in a managerial or confidential capacity (a) in each of the 73 occupational groups (b) by sub-head for each occupational group as described in section 2 (u) of the Public Service Staff Relations Act?
Return tabled.

June 2, 1971
Motions for Papers



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Notice ol Motion No. 154?
BLUE WATER BRIDGE AUTHORITY FINANCIAL RECORDS Motion No. 154-Mr. McCutcheon:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid oil before this House (a) a copy of all reports of receipts and disbursements filed annually by the Blue Water Bridge Authority since May, 1964 pursuant to section 19(2) (a) of the Blue Water Bridge Authority Act (b) a copy of all auditors' reports and statements relating to every audit of the accounts of the Blue Water Bridge Authority, including any report or statement of the Auditor General of Canada (c) a copy of all cheques or other papers covering reimbursement out of the revenues of the Authority to each of the several Canadian members of the Authority for travel, living and other necessary expenses.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the requirements and responsibilities of the Canadian government, certain financial information, mainly with respect to tolls, has been submitted to the government by the Blue Water Bridge Authority under the provisions of the Railway Act. No additional request for financial information has been made to date under the enabling authority contained in the Blue Water Bridge Authority Act, section 19(2)(a). Therefore parts (b) and (c) are not applicable. Under the circumstances I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. McCutcheon:: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has really only read an answer to question No. 415. The request for papers, etc., under Notice of Motion No. 154 has not been answered, and I cannot agree to his suggestion.


Mr. MacEachen:: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate. Shall the remaining Notices of Motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Burton:: Mr. Speaker, could 1 ask the parliamentary secretary if he would look into motion No. 234 which is a relatively simple motion to deal with? I have had some discussion with the department and I introduced this motion in substitution for one which I withdrew from the order paper. I would also ask the parliamentary secretary to look into motion No. 232 which was approved by the House on May 19 but which has not yet been tabled.


James Alexander Jerome: I have made a note of those numbers, Mr. Speaker.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance with respect to the expectations of manufacturers regarding investment in light of the government survey showing that for the year 1971 there would be a decrease of 6 per cent from 1970, the survey having been completed in December. Has the minister had any more recent surveys made of the investment intentions of manufacturers and, if so, what do such surveys show?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, these are ordinarily done through the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I will inquire and provide the information.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Finance has no such information showing any improvement with regard to the investment intentions of manufacturers, does he propose to announce any plans, or has he any plans, to encourage investment by manufacturers which, of course, has a very important bearing on the employment outlook for the remainder of 1971?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the intentions of the Department of Finance on fiscal matters will be made known in my budget when it is presented.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, we will look forward to something really constructive in that area.



REGIONAL DISPARITY-DECISION ON ATLANTIC PROVINCES DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question I would like to ask the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion whether he is now prepared to give a favourable answer to the requests put forward by the Chairman of the Atlantic Development Advisory Council, Professor Smith, with regard to an appropriate federal policy to fight regional disparity? I ask him that question particularly at this time in view of the dissatisfaction expressed recently by the people of Nova Scotia in this regard.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the recommendations of the Atlantic Advisory Development Council presided over by Mr. Smith are generally accepted by the department and we intend to carry out its general recommendations.

June 2, 1971



SUPERVISION BY PRIME MINISTER OF PREPARATION OF BUDGET

Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasfings):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. As the DBS report referred to by the Leader of the Opposition also shows that business failures are up very sharply over a year ago, and instalment financing, farm cash receipts and bank loans are down equally sharply over a year ago, giving further evidence of the serious state of the economy-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: -is the Prime Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member kindly ask the question?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I am just telling the Prime Minister what has been going on in his country while-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member might want to do this on another occasion but he cannot do it during the question period. He should ask a question.


George Harris Hees: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is the Prime Minister giving personal supervision to the preparation of the budget, because of the factors I have mentioned and the serious state of the economy, to make sure it is an expansionary budget that will give some stimulus to the economy?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the considerations in preparation for the budget are discussed in a cabinet committee, and I am a member of that committee.


George Harris Hees: As a supplementary-


Mr. Speaker;: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: -will the Prime Minister show more intelligent-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.



UNEMPLOYMENT IN NOVA SCOTIA-ASSISTANCE IN BRINGING COLLIERY INTO PRODUCTION IN SYDNEY AREA

Mr. Edward Broadbenl (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Because of the particularly high unemployment level in the province of Nova Scotia, a short time ago I asked the minister if he would look into the possibility of bringing a particular colliery into production in the Sydney area and he said he would do so and report back to the House. Would he now comment on what he has discovered?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will be in the House again tomorrow and I think I will be able to give an answer then.
Inquiries of the Ministry



UNEMPLOYMENT-PROGRAMS TO ASSIST UNIVERSITY GRADUATES TO FIND JOBS

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the Technical Service Council's calculation that job opportunities for new graduates are down by 30 per cent and the number of graduates is up by 17 per cent, can the minister inform the House what measures are being undertaken to encourage industry in this regard and, more specifically, what programs the department presently has under way to provide assistance, whether in terms of incentives or other measures, to help these graduates now on the fulltime labour market to find positions?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister's reply, if he decides to reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Egmont, should be brief. I suggest he should not attempt to give a general statement at this time.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: As a further supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will notice that there are a number of members seeking the floor to ask supplementaries on this subject. I suggest to the House that we should go on to the next subject very soon and return later to hon. members who have indicated they wish to ask supplementaries, but for the moment the Chair has recognized the hon. member for Egmont.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration is either unwilling or unable to answer, perhaps I could put a similar question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of regional estimates which indicate that career hiring of new graduates is down 82 per cent in the Atlantic region, can the minister inform the House if there are any special measures being planned, or ready to be implemented, to alleviate this serious situation?


Jean Marchand: Are you referring to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am referring to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and inquiring about what steps his department is taking with regard to the abnormally high incidence of unemployment among graduates in the Atlantic region right now?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the various programs in effect in the Atlantic provinces-whether it is F.R.E.D., ARDA, the development programs for designated areas or industrial incentives-are all meant to create more economic activity and employment in the area.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for
Winnipeg North Centre.
6292

June 2, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Egmont is rising on a point of order. Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member in a moment, but I invite hon. members not to take up too much of the time of the question period with points of order. Very often I find that points of order really are used to ask supplementary questions. It might be preferable if hon. members awaited the opportunity to be recognized a second time. The hon. member has the right to seek the floor on a point of order and I have recognized him.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some problem of communication. Perhaps it would be worth while for Your Honour to check whether the hearing devices are working on the other side of the House as the Minister of Manpower and Immigration was unable to answer and then the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a point of order; it appears to be a point of disorder-disorder of the system. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the statement attributed to the minister in yesterday's issue of the Toronto Telegram to the effect that unemployment figures will decline, may I ask if he is prepared to make a statement on this matter in the House and can he tell us by what date unemployment figures will be down to more reasonable and more tolerable levels?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I will be presenting a budget to the House of Commons very soon and shall discuss this particular problem at that time. I am sure my hon. friend would join me in indicating a belief that unemployment figures will decline in the country, even though this displeases the opposition.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister in a position to announce the target date he has in mind for a reasonable reduction in the unemployment level?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: 1975.


Edgar John Benson: As soon as possible, Mr. Speaker, and hopefully immediately.



THE BUDGET


Mr. Colin D. Gibson (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Finance indicate on what date the budget will be introduced in the House?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Apparently the minister has a very important statement to make.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, as Your Honour seemed to imply by his cancellation of an invitation to a party, it will be on June 18, I believe, at five o'clock.


John Stratford Burton: I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Finance. Would the minister inform the House whether his newfound responsiveness to policy suggestions as caricatur-ized on the CBC television program "Operation Chicken" last Sunday night is the real thing or is it simply a modern day fairy tale of Scrooge and the Christmas Carol?


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Minister of Finance if he got his information about unemployment improving from now on from the same source that made him say at the beginning of the year that we had rounded the corner on unemployment?



FINANCE


Mr. Real Caouetle (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
While in Russia, was the Prime Minister given an opportunity to visit one of Russia's wonders, the Moscow subway, 70 miles long, and whose construction was made financially possible, interest-free, through the National Bank of Russia?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think that the hon. member's question could easily be put on the order paper.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member might put his question on the order paper.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question which could not very well be put on the order paper.
If the Prime Minister knows of this method of financing, would he not be tempted to do the same with regard to the development of the public sector of the Canadian economy?

June 2, 1971


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I did not visit the Moscow subway on my last visit because I had already seen it in 1952, several years before the hon. member. However, I visited the Leningrad subway which was financed the same way as we have financed the dredging of the St. Charles River, Expo '67 and several other undertakings, namely, from federal funds.



AIRPORTS


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport, whose day it is to be in the House, may I direct my question to the Prime Minister. As a $13.5 million contract to expand Terminal 2 at Toronto International Airport in a major way was announced yesterday, can the Prime Minister assure the House that the government has not abandoned plans for a second major airport in the Toronto area?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this contract which was announced recently has to do with a decision the government took a couple of years ago to expand the present facilities in Toronto. It has nothing to do with our plans for a future airport in the Toronto region.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Does the Prime Minister still expect that the second Toronto area airport will be ready for the year 1975, as originally announced by the Minister of Transport? If not, when may we expect it to be finished and in operation?


Stanley Howard Knowles: As soon as possible.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on the timing I think I would have to refer the matter to the Minister of Transport who could answer more precisely the hon. member's question. I know that the minister has been involved in discussions with the Toronto authorities and the authorities of the province of Ontario for many, many months now in the hope that we would reach agreement on the site of that airport. However, I would say that if agreement is not reached rather soon the traffic will not go to Toronto in 1975 but will go to Montreal, provided the Ste Scholastique airport can get off the ground.


An hon. Member:: No wonder Givens quit.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Will the same cost-sharing arrangements for capital costs involving such items as sewage, pollution, water, etc. be entered into with the province of Ontario as were entered into with respect to the airport at Ste Scholastique, Quebec?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the details of the discussion which is proceeding now between the department and the Ontario authorities.
Inquiries of the Ministry IMMIGRATION



EFFECT OF LAW ON WORK OPPORTUNITIES FOR CANADIAN PERFORMERS

Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley Wesi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It concerns the employment, or rather the unemployment, of Canadian artists and performers and is currently a matter of urgent consideration because the Pacific National Exhibition grandstand show for our British Columbia centennial year is going to employ mostly American performers. I asked on February 5, 1970, if the Minister of Manpower and Immigration was doing anything about making our immigration laws such that they would offer more protection to Canadian performers. I was told at that time that discussions were going on. Can the minister tell us if any decision has been made between the government of Canada and the government of the United States regarding the lack of reciprocity with respect to the immigration laws of the two nations?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, no decisions have been taken but the matter is continuing to be reviewed. We are, of course, conscious of the important relationships between the United States and Canada in the total field involving the temporary movement of people across the borders. It is in this light that the matter is being discussed.


Mark Willson Rose: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. This will be a much shorter question. The then minister replied: "If these discussions fail I believe we will have to consider some alternatives." That was over a year and a half ago. Would the minister be kind enough to tell the House what alternatives he is considering?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Mackenzie.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the verbal assurance the Prime Minister had from Premier Kosygin that Russia will give preference to Canadian wheat be any more binding than the written agreement which according to some interpretations is not worth the paper it is written on inasmuch as Russia has not lived up to it and has not picked up the 52 million bushels of wheat?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this is an argumentative question as to which is more binding-


An hon. Member:: It is the Speaker who rules on that.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Thank you. I will let him do it.


Stanley James Korchinski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Prime Minister felt that the verbal agreement was more binding than the written

June 2, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
agreement which the Russians have not lived up to? Can he give us that assurance at this time?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is repeating the question he asked in the first instance.


POSITION OF SOVIET UNION ON CURTAILMENT OF FISHING OPERATIONS OFF EAST COAST OF CANADA
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. The International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries at its meeting in Halifax has confirmed that heavy exploitation is destroying the Atlantic fisheries. In his private talks with the Russian leaders did the Prime Minister obtain any indication that they were aware of the need for conservation measures on our offshore banks and did they inform the Prime Minister what efforts would be made by the Russian state-owned fleet to curtail some of their fishing operations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the
member will refer to my statement of last Friday, Mr. Speaker, he will see that I dealt with this question.


CANADIAN PROPOSALS TO ICNAF NATIONS RESPECTING FISHERIES QUOTAS
Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Has Canada made any proposals to the ICNAF nations concerning quota systems and will the Prime Minister table such proposals in the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Concerning what systems, Mr. Speaker?


Louis-Roland Comeau: Quota systems, as announced by his minister.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I still do not understand what systems, Mr. Speaker.


Louis-Roland Comeau: You don't know about fish?


PROPOSALS TO SOVIET UNION RESPECTING OPERATIONS OF RUSSIAN FISHING VESSELS IN CANADIAN COASTAL WATERS
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Will the Prime Minister indicate to the House whether the government plans to make any formal proposals to the Soviet Union, following the informal discussions he had with Premier Kosygin, in order to try to ensure the withdrawal of the Soviet fleet to a certain extent from the waters off our coast or at least the placing of a ceiling on the technology they apply to the east coast fishery?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As I said last Friday, Mr. Speaker, we agreed that both sides have the same long-run interests, and it will be necessary to have further meetings to try to convince them of our point of view.


John Howard Lundrigan: Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the government plans to make any formal follow-up to the informal discussions he had in the Soviet Union with regard to quotas, to which the hon. member for South Western Nova referred, the closing of certain areas and other kinds of conservation measures?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We signed the protocol in order that we would have this frequent and regular contact with the Soviet authorities. I told the House that I intended to have this subject followed up. Therefore that is what we will do.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Since the minister took part in the Monday election in Trois-Rivieres and was responsible for it, can he indicate whether he intends to see to it that the ladies of the Trois-Rivieres constituency get the hot pants promised to them by the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Belanger) if the Liberal candidate was elected?


Hon. Jean Chrefien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: While I am up, Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer the hon. member for Shefford.
I do not know whether the member for Mercier made those kind of promise, but they certainly would make more sense than the promises made by the Social Credit members.


CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I have a question for the Minister of Justice. As a result of the minister's discussions with the provincial Attorneys General and other provincial officials, can the minister advise whether any of the provincial governments are prepared to adopt a new section 94A of the British North America Act containing a reallocation of powers dealing with such things as social welfare, manpower and unemployment insurance?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: I cannot answer that specifically, Mr. Speaker, except to say it was one of the prime subjects of discussion.


Gerald William Baldwin: In its dealings on this subject, is the federal government prepared to accept such a reallocation of powers?


John Napier Turner: The whole issue
remains to be determined by the first ministers in Victoria.

June 2, 1971


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question.
Following discussions between the Minister of Justice and the provincial Attorneys General, an agreement has been reached on the subjects to be included on the Victoria conference agenda. In the interest of the Canadian public, will the Prime Minister reveal, before the conference, the agenda to be discussed by the premiers and the federal government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Of course, Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday we shall divulge the agenda as soon as the participants have all approved it. I explained to the House yesterday that I had not received written replies from all the premiers. My staff is getting in touch with those who have not yet answered at least to obtain an oral approval. As soon as this is secured, we shall make the agenda public.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Can the Prime Minister tell the House when he intends to make that statement about the Victoria conference agenda?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As soon as the premiers of the provinces have reached an agreement, Mr. Speaker.


CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. When the minister was in Britain discussing the patriation of the constitution, did he assure the British officials at that time that he or his government had an agreement with the provinces with reference to the veto part of the amending formula? Was that part of the discussions he had with the British authorities?


John Napier Turner: When I was in London last week I discussed with the Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom and the Attorney General the details of any possible patriation of the Canadian constitution-if there were-any successful conclusion of the discussions between the first ministers at Victoria. During these discussions, therefore, the ministers and officials of the United Kingdom knew that what we were talking about depended on a successful conclusion of the negotiations in Canada.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: This brings me to the second supplementary that I directed to the Prime Minister yesterday. Maybe the Minister of Justice can give us the answer. In
Inquiries of the Ministry
his discussions with the provincial premiers of the Prairie provinces, did the Minister of Justice receive the assurance that they agree to the veto formula at this time and will agree to it at the conference in Victoria?


John Napier Turner: I do not accept the description that the hon. member chooses to place upon the formula. At Victoria the first ministers will decide whether or not they will accept a formula for amendment of the constitution, patriation and other important elements that will be part of the same discussion.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: One further supplementary. This
should clear up the matter. Whatever the Minister of Justice calls it, a veto formula or a formula for amendment, have there been objections from Premier Thatcher or any other prairie premier with regard to that particular amending formula at this stage?


John Napier Turner: I had the privilege of discussing the formula for the purpose of obtaining a consensus for amendment with all the first ministers of Canada. Mr. Thatcher made his views known to me. I hope he will be able to attend the conference or, if not, be represented in Victoria so that the views of Saskatchewan can be expressed in the discussion.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: My question is for the
Minister of Justice. Has the minister been contacted by the Attorney General of Ontario or any of his officials with regard to doing something about the loophole in the Criminal Code with regard to off-track betting? If so, what does he intend to do about this?


John Napier Turner: As a
member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs the hon. member knows that I gave an undertaking to that committee to discuss the question of off-track betting, placing bets through paramutual windows, with the provincial Attorneys General. I fulfilled that undertaking to the standing committee. I discussed the issue with all the Attorneys General in Halifax last July. There was not a consensus among the Attorneys General at that time. I am again writing to all the Attorneys General to ascertain their current views on the subject. I do not intend to bring the matter back to the House until I have those opinions.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. R. J. Orange (Northwest Territories):: I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern

June 2, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
Development. In view of the renewed enforcement of the Migratory Birds Convention Act in the Northwest Territories by game officers and others following a three-year moratorium, can the minister say whether he is prepared to undertake the necessary discussions with his cabinet colleagues to ensure that no charges are laid against those who depend on the taking of migratory birds, particularly at this time of the year, for their livelihood?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I thank my hon. friend for bringing this question to my attention. I was not aware of this situation but I will be happy to look into the matter and make sure that the northern people do not suffer from that situation.


TRANSPORT
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker,
this question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister prepared to give an undertaking to the House, especially to hon. members from Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, that the government will review the inflationary and unwarranted increases in ferry rates imposed by Canadian National Railways recently?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will take notice of the question on behalf of the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon members who are seeking to ask supplementa-ries, but those hon. members who are now seeking the floor on supplementaries must have looked around the House and seen that there are between 25 and 30 members who are still seeking an opportunity to ask questions. Perhaps we should try to limit supplementaries and ask shorter questions and, hopefully, have shorter replies.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: When the Prime Minister is looking into this matter will he ask the Minister of Transport to consult directly with the provincial governments to ascertain their views on this very important question?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will also ask the minister to take notice of that question.


John Howard Lundrigan: I should like to direct a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport. Is he now in a position to respond to the request earlier this week that the new rates be set aside until their probable consequences and, indeed, their constitutionality, have been assessed?


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: No, Mr. Speaker. On the contrary, we expect that as a result of the construction of new vessels and terminals the ferry traffic in that district will
increase. The rates have been established after very profound study.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Egmont and the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate are seeking the floor to ask further supplementaries. I again appeal to them to give the Chair an opportunity to enable other hon. members to ask questions.


John Howard Lundrigan: I will co-operate, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
* * #




Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is it the view of the government that India should permanently sustain millions of refugees from another country, even with financial assistance from other lands, and, if not, can the right hon. gentleman advise what steps the government is taking to promote a long-range solution to this grave international problem?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would not exaggerate the extent to which the Canadian government can settle this problem of refugees over the heads of the governments of India and Pakistan, but I would gladly entertain constructive suggestions from the opposition as to what might be done.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Would the Prime Minister tell us, before that stage is reached, what his government is doing in this connection?


PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Cenire):: May I ask the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State if he is now in a position to reply to the question asked two days ago by my hon. friend from Regina East concerning an employee of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who was refused leave of absence to be a candidate in the Saskatchewan provincial election?


Mr. James Hugh Faulkner (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but to give the full and complete answer which the hon. member requests would be difficult during the oral question period. It could be given by way of a letter or in response to a question placed on the order paper. The reply is a lengthy one.

June 2. 1971


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Roland Godin (Porineuf):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion to whom I would like to express my thanks for the $500,000 which his department is about to grant to the Valcartier arsenal.
Could the minister tell the House whether, when we are being told of 200 new jobs, we should add these jobs to the 225 which already exist at this plant or add them to the 1,300 which existed last year at this time?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the hon. member's question is argumentative and I think it is not in order.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: should like to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development a question relating to the St. Regis Indian Band and the dispute which has arisen concerning title to Loon island, I believe it is called. The minister has promised to issue a statement. Is he prepared to arrange for a public hearing so that members of the band may present their case?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, at the very request of the members of the St. Regis band, we have referred this problem to the Department of Justice and we have asked the officers of both my department and the Department of Justice as well as the Indians' legal adviser to co-operate in trying to solve this problem in a satisfactory way.
The conclusions of the study show that Loon island did not belong to Indian territory and they have been advised accordingly. If they have any more suggestions to make at this time, we shall gladly take them into consideration.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Had the Department of Justice received representations on behalf of the Indian band before this decision was made and, if not, is the minister prepared to give an assurance that a full opportunity will be given to the band to be represented by counsel in presenting their case?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I myself arranged a meeting with the St. Regis band and this problem was discussed. It was at the request of the chief and members of
Inquiries of the Ministry
that reservation that we referred this problem to the Department of Justice. It has also come to my knowledge that justice officials and the legal adviser of the St. Regis Indians have frequently held consultations on this question.


NATIONAL DISASTERS
Mr. Gilles Marceau (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the Saint Jean-Vianney tragedy which caused 30 casualties and several million dollars in damage, I would like to know whether the Quebec government has formally requested federal assistance and whether Ottawa is prepared to provide assistance of some form.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the Hon. Gerald Harvey, the Quebec Revenue Minister, has filed an application with the federal government through the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, and that discussions between the two parties are underway as to the extent of federal assistance to the population which has been through so many hardships and on behalf of which the hon. member has made such pressing representations to the government.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Can he tell us now how much the federal government will pay to Quebec for assistance to the victims of the Saint Jean-Vianney disaster?


Jean Marchand: It all depends on the assessment of work to be carried out at Saint Jean-Vianney, Mr. Speaker. I can therefore give no reply at this time.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
Could he tell us if, according to some recent reports, in cases like that of Saint Jean-Vianney, assistance would be granted under certain conditions by the federal government and if so, what would these conditions be?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Of course, Mr. Speaker, there are conditions. If the government were to spend arbitrarily the taxpayers' money, I am convienced the hon. member would be the first one to criticise. Every month, every week, in all parts of Canada, there are opportunities to help people who are suffering from one thing or another and the federal government has set a number of conditions when help to afflicted areas that are not in aposition to help themselves is warranted. Those are the conditions

June 2, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
which we are trying to apply with maximum equty. On every occasion, throughout this country, when there are special cases, Mr. Speaker, we try to settle them as such.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for-


Martial Asselin: I want to put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has had already the opportunity to put a supplementary question on this matter. There are only a few minutes left before the end of the question period.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can he tell us whether he is undertaking to equalize feed grain transportation costs in so far as they now affect Alberta producers?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker, we are not contemplating any feed grain transportation costs anywhere within the major production region.


MANPOWER
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that many applicants are having difficulty receiving counselling services at manpower centres, necessitating long waiting periods and expense to the unemployed who have to travel long distances, would the minister investigate this situation with a view to increasing the counselling staff at those centres where there is an overload of applicants?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will bring a specific situation to my attention I certainly will be glad to look into it. The offices are indeed faced with a heavy load and are trying to do their very best with it.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs which has to do with the tremendous amount of publicity he has given recently to hazardous products. According to his own admission the
people most affected are children. When does he intend to bring in regulations requiring hazardous products to be put in safe containers and bottled properly?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the publicity dealt with hazardous product containers rather than hazardous products themselves. The Food and Drug Directorate, under my colleague, has already asked pharmacists to prescribe prescription drugs in safety containers. We are now working on and are on the verge of announcing a standard for a safety enclosure for liquids which, when it is perfected and meets the economic tests that must be applied, will be provided for by way of regulation.


REGULATION OF TELEVISION ADVERTISING DIRECTED AT CHILDREN
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs when he proposes to do something tangible by way of legislation in respect of regulating advertisements on television directed at children?


Hon.   Ron. Basford@Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping the hon. member's private bill on the subject might come up for debate.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister would talk to the government House leader-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


POLLUTION
Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry I should like to direct this question to his parliamentary secretary. Have any further plans been made for the establishment of a single agency or department, with the necessary manpower, equipment and cash, to deal with oil spills in Canadian waters in accordance with the recommendation in the third instalment of the report of the operation oil task force?


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take that question as notice on behalf of the parliamentary secretary.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

June 2, 1971

In view of the fact that a conference of the provincial ministers in charge of consumer protection took place last week, and as British Columbia stated that it refused categorically to implement the bilingual labelling policy, would the minister be ready to indicate whether he is going to respect the decision taken by British Columbia, or if he will invite the province to respect the policy already announced by the federal government?
tEnglish]


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I announced a policy in the House in December relative to bilingual labels under the federal labelling and packaging statutes. That policy still stands and we are in the process of implementing it.




Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Has the present Canadian ambassador in Moscow recently requested, as a condition of extending his stay in Moscow, a complete renovation of his residence facilities at an approximate cost of $150,000?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I missed part of the question because of noise down to the right, but I know of no request of the general nature of what I was able to understand. If the hon. member cares to repeat his question I might be able to assert more-


Steve Eugene Paproski: Has the present Canadian ambassador in Moscow recently requested, as a condition of extending his stay in Moscow, a complete renovation of his residence facilities at a cost of approximately $150,000?


Mr. Speaker:: I will, of course, allow the Prime Minister to reply to the question. Had I heard the question correctly in the first instance I might have suggested to the hon. member that it be placed on the order paper. As the hon. member went to the trouble of asking it twice, perhaps he is entitled to an answer. While the matter is being considered I will recognize the hon. member for Simcoe North.


Steve Eugene Paproski: My supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Will he advise the House why the government is contemplating a building program in Moscow amounting to $10 million?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Never heard of it, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry HEALTH


INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENT OF NATIONAL COUNCIL
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It is based on a recommendation of the royal commission which submitted a report seven years ago outlining certain goals to be attained. Seven years later there is still no national science policy for health in spite of the fact that 6 per cent of the gross national product is devoted to health services. When can we expect the appointment of a national council on health?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree at all with the premise to the hon. member's question. He must be aware of the national health science policy as reflected in the activities of the department, including food and drugs, the national health grants and the Medical Research Council. If he looks at them he will see the direction in which they are all going in terms of a national health science policy.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, the minister apparently did not grasp the significance of my question. I asked when a national council on health would be appointed. If he cannot answer we will debate it at ten o'clock.


John Carr Munro: That was not the question the hon. member asked.


Mr. Speaker:: Obviously we will have a ten o'clock debate.


BANNING OF IMPORTATION OF BEEF CATTLE WHICH HAVE BEEN GIVEN GROWTH HORMONE, DES
Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will he indicate whether Canada is one of the 21 countries that have banned the importation of beef cattle which have consumed the growth hormone, DES?


John Carr Munro: I am not aware of this, Mr. Speaker, but I will check into the matter.


John Leroy Skoberg: In view of the fact that the United States is aware of the situation that exists, and the fact that the Common Market has banned the import of beef cattle from the United States because of the possibility of causing cancerous growth in man, will the minister immediately act on this matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Bellechasse and the hon. member for Edmonton Centre on a supplementary. We will then have to proceed to orders of the day.

June 2, 1971
Senate and House of Commons Act [Translation]


FINANCE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
In a very recent release from his department with regard to the federal government's expenditures under the student loans program, mention is made of the amount allocated to each province, and I note that, in spite of the fact that Quebec-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should ask his question as quickly as possible, because the question period is over. He has a few minutes' grace to ask his question quickly.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thought it was better for me to explain, but, at any rate, here is my question: How is it that, under the federal-provincial agreement concerning student loans, Quebec only received $5,350,000 in 1970 and came in fourth place, when, with regard to population, it ranks second-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that the question should be put on the order paper. If the matter is urgent, it could be debated at the time of adjournment.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: At ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


THE BUDGET
Robert Jardine McCleave: Monsieur l'Orateur, ma question est dirigee au Ministre des Finances. Will he assure us that some regard will be had for the circumstances of the elderly retired on fixed incomes in his presentation to us on June 18?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, we always do our best to look after the old people.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: that 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, be read the third time and do pass.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I listened to a bit of comment on CBC radio this morning and heard one of our press gallery friends make a rather cynical remark about the debate scheduled for this afternoon on this bill, third reading of which has now been called. The remark was to the effect that it is a foregone conclusion that this bill will be passed and wrapped up in no time because, after all, the members are anxious to get the money that will be provided when it is passed. I realize, Sir, that it is quite routine for us to regard remarks by friends in the press gallery, which may be cynical, as their view of us whether or not it is justified. I suggest, however, that in this instance it might be well for us to pause for a moment and realize that maybe that cynicism reflects a view held by a very large number of Canadians. I certainly know from my correspondence there are many Canadians who are offended by what the government has placed before us in Bill C-242. Even though it may be routine for this bill to be debated on third reading and passed by this House this afternoon, some of us feel we must still rise and state our very strong objection to it.
I may put members slightly to rest by saying that I have just five things to say. When I have only two or three things to say it can take me 40 minutes, but when I have five things to say I can do it in a lot less time. The first thing I want to say is that I am fully aware of the problems many Members of Parliament face in trying to balance their budgets on the amount of money they now receive as salary and expense allowance. I doubt if there is anyone in this Chamber for whom this is the only income who is not having difficulty, and I am included in that group. But, Mr. Speaker, we are here as representatives of the Canadian people and most Canadians when they have trouble trying to balance their budgets, have to sharpen their pencils and find ways to cope with reality. They do not have the opportunity just to vote themselves the necessary increase. I think, in the light of what most Canadians are coping with today, we should not give this offensive example of voting ourselves this substantia] increase at this time.
The second thing I should like to say is that we are living at a time, in a Benson-type economy, when our people are being urged to practice restraint. We have guidelines of one kind or another. Trade unions are told they must not ask for too much money. All down the line the preachment is restraint. Since we are part of the parliamentary, and in that sense the governmental section of this country, it seems to me the maxim applies that we should practice what we preach. If restraint is being proclaimed as something others should follow, I suggest we should follow it ourselves. In my view, we are not showing restraint when, in one fell swoop, we raise our total income from the present $12,000 salary and $6,000 expense allowance, which is a total of $18,000, to $18,000 salary and $8,000 expense allowance for a total of $26,000. That is my second reason for once again rising to oppose this bill. Since we are preaching restraint we of all people should practice it.
My third reason for opposing this bill is that I do not like the elements of special privilege contained in it.

June 2, 1971

There are two in particular. One is the tact that the increase to be provided by this bill is to be retroactive to October 8, 1970. Like other members of this House, I have a great deal to do with workers in the private sector and in the public sector who try to get increases and try to get some retroactivity. But how seldom they get it! I am also aware of the fact that the Canadian Legion and other veterans' organizations asked that recent increases in veteran's pensions and allowances be made retroactive a year or at least a few months. But, no; when the legislation was brought in there was no retroactivity in it. The same is true about old age pensions and about many of the things we provide for others. We provide no retroactivity for all these other groups, but in this bill we take for ourselves the special privilege of making this very large increase retroactive to October 8, 1970.
The other element of special privilege in this legislation is the continuing in effect of the principle of a portion of our income being called expense allowance and being made tax free. The one thing in the Beaupre report which had wide approval was the recommendation that the special privilege of a tax-free allowance should end. Instead of ending it, this bill entrenches it by raising the tax-free amount from $6,000 to $8,000 a year. I suggest if we continue in this direction it will be even more difficult, if ever Parliament wants to do it, to abolish that special privilege. My third reason for opposing this bill is, as I have said, these two elements of special privilege that are contained in it, retroactivity and freedom from income tax. I have had letters from persons who, whether I agree with them or not, expressed no objection to an increase in the salaries of Members of Parliament, but all of them object most strongly to our providing ourselves with freedom from income tax on what is part of our income, especially since no such privilege is granted to them.
The fourth thing that I wish to say-and it is something that I have had occasion to say on a number of times in various debates in the House-is that in my view the problem that besets our society the most is that of inequality and of wide differences between the living standards of those at the bottom and those at the top. This is a problem in our Canadian society and it is a problem in our world. My fear is that this is the kind of thing that could bring down our society and that could tear our world apart. I believe we must move in the direction of greater equality in living standards; we have to level things up. One does not level things up by following this percentage rule and always providing bigger increases for those at the top than we provide for those at the bottom. We boast of the fact that welfare standards and minimum wages are higher today than they were a few years ago, but the living standards of those at the top are so much higher, the gap is so much wider, that in a psychological sense the poverty of those at tne bottom is even worse.
This applies, as I said, in the world at large, and it applies in Canada. I think that the effort to level things
Senate and House of Commons Act up and to achieve some sort of equality has to begin with some of those at or near the top. It is not good enough just to tell those down at the bottom that they must be satisfied with a minimum wage of $1.75 an hour. It is not good enough for us to tell those who sit at the collective bargaining table that they must be satisfied with lower wages than they want, all of this being said in the name of restraint and in the name of keeping the economy going. If we believe that there should be some sort of approach toward equality, toward solving the problem of wide differences, those of us who are up the scale a bit are the people who should say so. I think we should be giving a lead, and I think this responsibility rests upon us as Members of Parliament even more than it does upon the professional and the business community, because we are the people who have come here to be the representatives of the Canadian people. We are the people who should be giving a lead. Therefore, I think we should say no to the proposed boost in our take home pay which this bill provides.
The fifth and final thing that I want to say may perhaps be somewhat personal. It is something that I had occasion to say in the standing committee to which this bill was referred, but I feel I must say it again. A good deal has been said about the comparison between our salary levels and the salary levels of senior public servants, of executives, of deputy ministers, and so on, and the argument is made-and I understand and respect the argument-that our salaries should somehow be comparable to theirs so that our working relationship with them will be an appropriate one. I do not accept the premise of that suggestion, namely that we have been hired to do a job. We hire public servants for that purpose and we pay the rates that attach to those jobs. But we come here rather as representatives to speak for the people whom we represent. To put it in the plainest language that I can, even though it may be somewhat personal, I am far more concerned about my relationship with the people whom I represent than I am with my relationship with the deputy ministers or the senior public servants who may, in a sense, be sitting across the table from me.
Of course, the argument can be won for a pay increase if you trot out comparisons, at least if you trot out comparisons with senior public servants. You cannot win that argument if you mention figures in relation to what we have done for old age pensioners, for people on the minimum wage, for war veterans, and so on. But speaking for myself may I say that it means far more to me to have the people in Winnipeg North Centre feel that I am their representative, that there is some relationship and some rapport between them and me, than it does for me to have enough salary so that I can say that I am the equal of some level in the federal public service. I do not need money to be their equal, but I do want the feeling that I do represent the people who sent me here.
Therefore, for these five reasons, if I may recapitulate them, having kept my promise not to take my full 40 minutes, I am opposed to this bill. I think in the first place that, like others, we should sharpen our pencils and balance our budgets rather than just vote ourselves an

June 2, 1971
Senate and House of Commons Act increase. I believe we should practice what we preach, and we are preaching restraint. I insist that we should deny ourselves such special privileges as retroactivity and freedom from income tax. I think we should give the lead in the battle to level up the standards of living of those who are down, and the place where that should start is with some of us who are at or near the top. I believe that we should be concerned, not with our monetary relationship with the people who are high in the public service, but with our relationship with the people that it is our privilege and our honour to represent. Therefore, I intend to vote against the third reading of this bill. If in spite of my opposition it carries, I shall govern myself according to my vote.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I did not have the opportunity during the debate on the motion for second reading to make comments on Bill C-242. I shall try not to repeat the arguments put forward on the motion for third reading.
I agree with most other hon. members that it may be embarrassing to vote in favour of an increase of our salaries and allowances, especially when there are in Canada thousands of unemployed who are not getting any pay.
That is why we think it is not the proper time for us to increase our salaries and allowances, particularly in view of present economic conditions in Canada.
We should not be compelled to tolerate the blunders of the present government, but since the people generally judge Parliament by its achievements, we refuse to support the economic policy of the government and be blamed for having been in favour of an increase of members' indemnities, while Canadians are experiencing such deplorable economic conditions.
Mr. Speaker, when an employee asks for a raise, the boss immediately checks his performance record in order to see how efficient he is. Any good boss, once he has determined that the employee's work is satisfactory, will readily grant him a raise.
In our case, we have to vote ourselves higher indemnities and allowances, but on the other hand, if we believe in democracy, the people are still the boss. We know at the present time that the Canadian people-and we had proof of it last Monday in the four by-elections-are altogether dissatisfied with the economic policy of the government. That is one of the reasons why we are inclined to vote against this bill.
Our position, so far, on the increase of pay and allowances for members of Parliament, is as follows: We would have preferred, because of the present economic conditions, unemployment, the great number of welfare cases, income tax and other taxes, that all people must pay- not to mention the threat of new taxes in the soon to be introduced budget-the provision of services for members in their ridings. We are quite serious about it, especially since we have to put up with the policy of this government and, when we go back to our ridings, we

have to meet 40, 50, 60 or 75 people struggling with problems of welfare, unemployment insurance, taxes, jobs, industrial development, forms to fill and telephone calls. In fact, telephone calls average from 35 to 40 on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, and from 60 to 75 on Saturdays and Sundays. On the other hands, our wives at home must act as secretaries, calling welfare offices, organizing meetings, going to city hall, phoning the mayor because people consult us about municipal problems and receiving people who trust their respresentative and ask him to give them a hand or to solve their problems.
We deplore the fact that the government did not take into consideration the recommendations of the Beaupre committee in that regard. I would like to ask the sponsor of Bill C-242, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) if, tomorrow morning, I hire a secretary in my riding to help me in my work, will her salary be deductible from my income tax and will I be able to give her a T-4 slip.
So far, I have not read in the regulations or in the speeches of those who preceded me that an hon. member had the right to hire an employee whom he would pay out of his salary and to deduct that amount from his income tax.
We must also take into account the work of the member's wife, who does at least as much in her home answering inquiries from constituents, from 8 in the morning until 10 or 11 at night seven days a week, as any secretary working in Parliament. However, this work is not acknowledged by the general public.
I am not saying the wife should be paid, but that we should have a secretary, male or female, to spare our wives the work they are called upon to perform when we are away; because, when an elector has a problem, he does not ask himself whether the member is at home or in Ottawa, especially in urban areas where 60 per cent of the people can be reached simply by dialing a telephone number. That is why some members like myself get at least 50 telephone calls on days when we are away, and twice as many on Saturdays and Sundays when we are home.
The problem is serious and also explains the fact that many wives come to hate politics; they become aware of the problems of the public in general, and it happens that they do not like to be overworked, especially when they have to look after a family.
This time I would like to bring another matter to the attention of the government: every time the Creditistes propose in the House social measures such as increasing the old age security pensions or family allowances, the government never fails to say: Where shall we get the money? However, when it comes to increasing members' allowances and expenses, the question does not seem to be raised. I know very well that this is not a problem for the government as the latter will take the money from new taxes that sooner or later it will ask Parliament to rote.
June 2, 1971

Mr. Speaker, there was another comment published by a Vancouver paper, The Province, on May 6, 1971, and it is as follows:
Some people think that you can get better members by giving them much larger salaries. I don't agree because you have to be a "yes" man in order to get anywhere in the party.
You can elect the best Liberal in Canada, wealthy, influential, clever, but he will never get anywhere if he bucks the Prime Minister too often. A good example of "yes" men are Minister Sharp and Ex-Secretary of War Cadieux. A year ago both of these cabinet ministers came out strongly against any reduction in the NATO forces.

Mr. Speaker, we regret that the minister responsible has not introduced an amendment to this bill in order to comply with the recommendations of the Beaupre committee. Before the bill is passed on third reading, I do wish to receive the assurance that those hon. members who are going to hire a secretary in their ridings will be able to supply him or her with a T-4 slip and deduct his or her salary on their tax returns.
{English]


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to speak on 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. At the outset, I would like to say that I fully endorse the remarks made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I think he has pretty well put the case for those of us who intend to vote against this legislation.
However, I would like to point out that when the bill was before us for second reading, just about a month ago, I opposed it at that time and urged that some changes be made to it in committee. We find that the bill has come back to the House without alteration. Yesterday, there was an amendment moved by a member of our party which suggested that the increases should be delayed until the next election. I voted for that amendment and I still feel that something of the sort should be included in this legislation.
There are one or two other points I should like to make, Mr. Speaker. While the bill will give adequate increases to members of the House of Commons and the Senate, it does not solve the problem of dealing with our remuneration in the future. This is one of the major weaknesses of the legislation. I had hoped that some kind of formula would be established to take care of future increases, and surely this is what we should be aiming for instead of passing amendments which will give lump sum increases. I feel that there has not been a sincere attempt to evaluate the job done by Members of Parliament. Really, it is not too different from any other job in industry, so it could and should be evaluated and have a remuneration attached to it.
When I spoke on second reading of this bill, I suggested that there should be some niche in the civil service to
Senate and House of Commons Act which the work done by Members of Parliament would be comparable. The remuneration could then be set at a commensurate figure with an annual increment or an increment every two years, as is the case in the civil service. The matter should be taken out of our hands. We should not be placed in the position of coming here every five or six years to vote for an increase in our salaries. I believe that the failure of this legislation to evaluate the job is an indication that it is not good legislation.
There are several other points I should like to make, Mr. Speaker, to show why I am opposed to this bill. For the past 2i years members of this House, government ministers, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and those who advise the government on the economy, have been preaching restraint. There have been guidelines which industry, business and the labour unions have been urged to follow. Up until this year, the guideline indicated that we should not have more than a 6 per cent increase in salary in one year and this past year the guideline was set at between 4 per cent and 4J per cent. The House of Commons has been giving this advice to the people of Canada. Now, we come here and take a 50 per cent increase on our salary, plus a 33J per cent increase in our taxfree expense allowance. If we expect others to follow our advice and have some respect for what we say, we should at least follow the restraints we set for others.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Randolph Harding: June 2, 1971
Senate and House of Commons Act
sive. I have no objection to members from some of the ridings in British Columbia or other ridings where expenses are very heavy receiving such consideration. We all know that those who represent rural ridings spend a great percentage of their salary in covering the area, and I feel no one would have any objection to special consideration in such cases. However, I feel that most members would agree that a first priority should be the provision of better facilities here in Ottawa. I would have preferred to see the money allocated for salary increases go to research facilities and avenues which would enable members to deal more effectively with the problems of the Canadian people. We are loaded with work, and a great deal of research is necessary in order to deal with it but the facilities and staff are not available for this purpose. When legislation comes before this House, we should be able to research it properly if we are to criticize effectively. If it is our aim to improve the lot of Members of Parliament and the service which they give to the country, then I think this should have priority. I will not say anymore, Mr. Speaker. I think we have covered the bill quite adequately. I say without hesitation that if the bill comes to a vote this afternoon, I intend to cast my vote against it.


An hon. Member:: But you will take the money. [Translation]


Mr. Rene Matle (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the riding of Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) has just demonstrated, as all my other colleagues have done, why the increases involved in Bill C-242 are uncalled for.
1 should therefore like to briefly express the views of the majority of the citizens of the riding of Champlain in regard to this increase.
I must admit that the population cannot stomach the discrimination practice by the government by bringing forward such a bill. Telling workers to tighten their belts, businessmen, industry and trade to restrict expenses, advising everyone to avoid escalation of prices, and thereupon increasing salaries and expenses of members of Parliament is unacceptable arrogance.
I do not deny the objective value of our functions. It is difficult to evaluate the vast responsibilities they involve. However, in order to be fair to each member, we could have left the members' indemnity at $12,000 a year and tried hard to find ways to reimburse real expenditures directly related to the profession, or rather to the responsible role that we fill.
It is difficult indeed for the citizens of this country who are the shareholders of this tremendous financial establishment which is the government administration, to agree to higher indemnities and expenditures for their directors, when they find that not only is the establishment not profitable, but it is systematically getting the country into debt if not bankruptcy.
If the country was well administered, it would distribute dividends and then, the shareholders, who are the citizens of this country, would be only too happy to grant their good directors an appropriate salary.
But they all know that it is not so. That is why I
wanted, in a few words, to illustrate the views of my constituents of Champlain.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to take part in this debate on the motion for third reading of Bill C-242, but before it being put, I should merely like to state the position of the Ralliement
Creditiste on this question.
I think that any Canadian will agree to the principle of increased allowances. Nobody is stupid enough to refuse a salary increase. However, considering the timing of this proposal, other considerations should be taken into account. We do object to the timing of this legislation.
I do not feel it is appropriate, at a time when there are in Canada 800,000 unemployed and 1,500,000 students seeking summer jobs, when, as my colleague said awhile ago, the Canadian people are asked to tighten their belts, manufacturers, to reduce capital expenditures, and the provinces, to avoid economic development outlays, to bring before the House a legislation designed to increase the sessional and expense allowances of members.
Some comparisons are likely to be made. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said, not so long ago, that members of Parliament are less paid than some high-ranking government officials. Indeed! But public servants do not have to get elected every two, three or four years. That is for sure.
We do not hear people disparage senior officials, deputy ministers or others earning $30,000 $35,000 or $40,000 a year. We do not hear them criticize hockey or baseball players earning $100,000 per year. That is something everybody admits.
But when it comes to Parliament, things are a little different because the government organization is the one that determines the members' allowance, not hockey or baseball players nor senior officials. We have to make the decision, we have to vote for or against an increase in our salaries and allowances.
Mr. Speaker, the members are in a somewhat ridiculous position and the Creditistes have offered the government an alternative solution. We have suggested a means of helping the members of Parliament without increasing their allowances or expenses.
For instance, we have demanded marginal services, such as those provided to the Quebec pf-ovincial members who, in addition to a yearly indemnity of $18,000, as their federal counterparts, have in their riding secretarial facilities paid by the provincial government.
Provincial members who must attend parliamentary committees between sessions are paid $50 per day. In addition, they receive an allowance for the expenses incurred in their own riding. No newspaperman is against that. But, if federal members ask for similar services, we make the headlines.
We should be able to provide those services to our constituents so as to be constantly in touch with them and aware of what is going on in our constituencies. We are in Ottawa from eight to ten months each year, let us

June 2, 1971

not forget it. This would be much more important that
what we are about to vote on this afternoon!
Mr. Speaker, I ask once again that a secretariat be established in each constituency to serve the population. This would be acceptable to everybody, and the people would be satisfied.
This does not mean at all that we are against any salary increase. For instance, I completely disagree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who said a moment ago that we should level up incomes. Take from the haves and give to the have-nots! The real socialist is the fellow who is prepared to distribute what belongs to others, but never what belongs to him. Not on your life! This is what real socialism boils down to. I hear the hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way (Mrs. Maclnnis) laughing. This is precisely what they are doing.
Some NDP members make $100,000 a year, but they would not give a nickel. These are the people who come and preach in this House, blame capitalists, small businessmen, those whose yearly profits amount to $10,000, $12,000 or $15,000. They are too big, these fellows. We know some of them who get paid $50,000 and $75,000 a year out of union funds, out of the Canadian taxpayers' money. There is a limit to being gulled by these people. I will not be muddled by this.
Mr. Speaker, we shall refuse to vote in favor of this raise. The other day, someone said: "Of course you will object." Indeed, we are against the timing of this raise, but still we are in favour of the principle just like anybody else in Canada would be in favour of a wage increase.
The labour leaders to start with are being paid more money than the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. He is aware of that, for he himself was employed once bj a labour union and since this job meant more money for him that his present job as a member of Parliament, he did not complain.
Mr. Speaker, we support the principle but we are against the timing. That is the reason why we shall vote against it. Some people say: if you get the increase you will accept it nevertheless. My colleagues and myself have often voted against taxes. In fact, we lost the vote, but nevertheless we pay our taxes. If the bill passes, we Will use the increase to educate the Canadian people and to give them by means of Social Credit a sound and honest administration which will bring about better justice.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the House ready for the question? I recognize the hon. member for Lotbiniere.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some brief remarks that I wish to direct especially to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen).
Senate and House of Commons Act
During consideration of Bill C-242, entitled "An Act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act", the President of the Privy Council stated, in his introductory remarks, that some time in the future he expected to consider the possibility of increasing services to members in their ridings.
Before the committee, he contradicted himself to some extend and equivocated. I know however that he has thoroughly considered the recommendations of the Beau-pre report.
We should like, before the end of this debate on third reading, to get from the President of the Privy Council some specific indications as to how soon services may possibly be added to those already available to members in order, as my colleagues said, to provide a permanent type of service to the people in our ridings.
Mr. Speaker, we have to close the gap between democratic institutions and the people, and it seems important to me, while considering this legislation, that the President of the Privy Council, before the end of the debate, give us specific indications and undertake, morally at least, to assure members and the people that the people's representatives will have the required tools to do the work that has been entrusted to them, in their ridings.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Bill read the third time and passed.
* *
*



POST OFFICE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, June 1, 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.
John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I feel I should enter the debate on this bill because of the number of serious problems presently facing Canada's rural communities in particular. I raise this matter in this debate because it should be obvious that the post office plays a very essential and vital role in the rural communities -of Canada. At the present time, rural Canada is going through a crisis. We see farmers leaving the land. They are being forced off their farms. The rural communities in many parts of Canada are disintegrating because of the lack of any cohesive policy designed to ensure the stability and the future viability of rural communities throughout all Canada. I suggest this is a matter of national concern. It is something which should concern all members of this House as well as the people of Canada.
It is perfectly obvious, of course, that in Canada there is a movement of people from the rural areas of the country to the urban centres. This movement has now reached such proportions that many people are wondering what is happening to Canada, and whether in fact the form this development is taking is a healthy one. Some predictions are being made that, if present trends in Canada are continued, we will see a concentration of population in a very small number of supercities in a few locations of Canada. If we are to retain and build viable rural communities in Canada one of the first essential
June 2, 1971

public functions which must be looked at very closely is the postal services. It seems to me the government has failed to do this. It has failed to deal with the problems affecting the post office in the past few years.
I wish to acknowledge that one of the first actions, possibly the first, of the present minister responsible for the post office was to place a moratorium on further post office closures in Canada. I was happy to see this action because it at least brought about a temporary reprieve in respect of the havoc wreaked by his predecessor who closed hundreds of post offices across Canada. I think all of us will recognize that some adjustments and changes had to take place. Of course, many of the problems now facing the post office are the direct result of the political patronage practices of the past. I know the former Postmaster General at least tried to take some of the politics out of post office matters. I want to say I hope the present minister in charge of the post office is following and will continue to follow such a policy. I hope he will take partisan politics out of post office matters.
I acknowledge that some progress has been made in this field in recent years. Of course, the political patronage system is responsible for some of the problems with which the post office department has been wrestling. I heard of a case involving three post offices in a rural area which were within five miles of each other. The three postmasters concerned were not all Liberals. The two on either side, at the extremities, were Liberals and the man in the centre was a Conservative. The two Liberals were appointed when the Liberal government was in power and the Conservative was appointed when the Conservative government was in power. The post office situation in that area was studied and it was found that there was room for one post office. A decision was made to keep the one in the centre, which happened to be the one held by a Conservative supporter. Were the Liberal supporters of that area angry! They knew that some of their privileges of the past had been foreclosed. This is the type of thing which has bedevilled the post office too often in past years.
I have had some experience with the closing of some rural post offices in my constituency. I had no argument in respect of some of them. In a few cases I made inquiries and found there were no objections in the communities, therefore I entered no objections to the closures which were being proposed. However, there were some others the services of which I felt were essential and should be retained. One such case I discussed in this House on a previous occasion. I refer to the post office at Serath, Saskatchewan, located about 60 miles north of the city of Regina on highway 6, and on the boundary between Regina East and Regina Lake Centre constituencies.
Serath is a small rural community removed from the railway lines. It is some 20 miles distant from the nearest railway line to the south and almost 20 miles from the nearest railway line to the north. Also, it is 20 miles from the nearest railway line and post office point to the west. This is a large rural area in which there were a number of small post offices. All these post offices have been closed in recent years, and I have no argument in respect
Post Office Act
of some of these closures. It would seem to me, however, that there is room for this one last post office located not in some farmhouse or small isolated store, but in a community which has been built up and centered around the post office and a number of other services in the immediate vicinity. Not a very large number of householders were involved-some 48 in number-but once the Serath post office was closed some of them would have to go a distance of 25 miles or more to obtain postal service. Lo and behold, the Postmaster General decided to close the Serath post office along with one other post office in that rural area. The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) and I made representations. We discussed the matter with the people in the local community who made it very clear that they wanted to have that post office retained in preference to having the rural route service which was offered as an alternative. In spite of all the representations we made and the interviews we had with the minister responsible, our representations and appeals were turned down.
This seemed to be a strange decision, so I put down a motion for the production of papers asking for all correspondence in connection with this post office closure. I found that the Liberal members for Saskatchewan had become very much interested in this little post office at Serath. Serath had not received as much attention throughout its entire life span. I have, for example, a letter which came from the office of the Hon. Otto Lang, now Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I might say the Minister of Manpower and Immigration is responsible for piloting a bill through the House of Commons, which is now being considered by the Agricultural Committee, and which he claims will be the salvation of the western grain industry and the prairie agricultural economy. What was the role the minister played in connection with this particular rural community? I should like to quote from a letter that came from a research assistant in the office of that particular minister. He was dealing with two post offices, one happened to be close to the Minister's constituency. The one Post Office served only about 40 householders, while the Serath post office served 48 householders, a larger number. He said:
However, there is a proviso and that is that the same people who would prefer the Serath post office to close would firmly support the maintenance of the Esk post office.
This, I suggest, is a sleazy bit of political business.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Stratford Burton: Here we have an example of political patronage at its worst in the Post Office. This letter is dated January, 1970, and the minister could go to his files and find this correspondence. This letter shows the role that was played by one of his colleagues in closing out a service that was vital to the people in that rural community. I suggest there are other cases similar to that to be found in the files.
So, this study went on and eventually a letter came from the office of the minister of communications inform-

June 2, 1971
Post Office Act
ing me the department had decided that the Esk post office still served a very important function in that community but that Serath did not. The department said Serath did not have any banking facilities, but neither did Esk; that Serath did not have any medical facilities, but neither did Esk. There were a couple of other things, mentioned which neither municipality had. Nevertheless, because there was a political factor involved, because, I suggest, the local Liberal executive in that area wanted to see the Serath post office closed and the Esk post office kept open, the government decided to keep the Esk post office open. This type of thing is not good enough. I think it is the type of thing that simply has to stop if we are to deal satisfactorily with the problems of the Post Office.
What have we experienced in recent years? We have had increases in postal rates from four cents for local delivery and live cents for out of town delivery to eight cents for first class mail. This is a substantial increase. We have had reductions in service of various sorts which have already been mentioned during the current debate. Yet, in spite of these increases in rates, the Post Office Department could not keep little Serath open. When it came to a matter of political patronage, political considerations, Serath was clobbered. That community suffered. I suggest there is a place for a post office in that community which is far removed from other communities. This is the type of thing that I think must be corrected if we are going to see any change of direction in the course of affairs in the Post Office Department.
There is one other matter with which I would like to deal as well, and which I think warrants further investigation. The minister is aware of the fact that a certain event will take place in the province of Saskatchewan which will be of considerable interest to him, I am sure, as well as to all members in the House. I refer to the election on June 23. I have had some contact with some people in various rural communities and I understand they are receiving mail these days, some of it in plain envelopes. There is one item of mail that is being delivered in plain envelopes in several rural communities in north western Saskatchewan, and inside there is a pamphlet put out by the Saskatchewan government information services which describes what a fine job the government is doing about highways. The information I have, which I am not in a position to authenticate at the moment but which nevertheless I feel is reliable, is that the householder mail rate for this particular item was paid by the premier's office. It is not clear whether this payment was made out of the funds of the government of Saskatchewan, by the Liberal party of Saskatchewan or out of the premier's own private funds, whatever they may be. However, it seems to me to be a questionable sort of activity in terms of the way the mails are being used. There are laws against pornography in the mails. Well, I suggest that the type of rubbish and refined fertilizer that is being distributed through the mails from the office of the premier of Saskatchewan at present certainly warrants as much investigation as the Post Office Department has carried out from time to time of mail which has been alleged to be pornographic in nature.


Mark Willson Rose: I have a question, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Will the hon.
member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) allow the hon.
member to ask a question?


John Stratford Burton: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mark Willson Rose: The hon. member for Regina East made some remarks concerning a piece of literature that is being .distributed through the mails, and he suggested that it might be pornographic. I want to ask the hon. member Whether he has undertaken any kind of investigation of this literature through the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford), under whose jurisdiction this matter would fall, I believe, under the truth in advertising provisions of the act.


John Stratford Burton: I did not suggest directly that this letter was pornographic in nature. Certainly, there might be some elements of indecency in it. I suggested it was refined fertilizer. At the same time, I think the suggestion made by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) is one that merits attention. I suggest that the minister in charge of the Post Office should take this under consideration as well to ensure that the truth in advertising laws are followed with respect to materials such as I have described which are distributed through the mail.
In conclusion, I want to make an urgent appeal to the minister in charge of the Post Office to come to grips with the problems of rural postal service and that he take a different approach than the Post Office Department has taken in the past several years. I want to suggest that there are ways of dealing with problems, which I have to acknowledge exist. I am quite aware that on the basis of the salaries being paid to postmasters, which are set out in certain schedules, and on the basis of the volume of mail handlings, on the basis of receipts and revenues in various post offices, it is difficult to justify the setting up of a full postal structure in a number of communities.
I want to suggest that there are alternatives that could be considered. I would like to suggest that the Post Office further investigate the establishment of sub-post offices in rural areas. This, I might mention, is done in our large urban centres. In my own city of Regina there are around 37 sub-post offices. I recognize that for the most part they do not handle mail deliveries. There are a few of these sub-post offices at which patrons can pick up their mail, but that is not their normal function in an urban setting. They are there to sell stamps and provide the other services which are provided by the post office. Of course, sub-post offices would require a further adaptation to the rural scene if such a system were adopted. But it seems to me that it would make a great deal of sense if we did have regular post offices in main centres in the various rural areas of Canada, while in the smaller centres which are too small to justify a full postal service, there could be established sub-post offices which would be under the jurisdiction of a full-time postmaster. I want to suggest that there are many people

June 2, 1971

who have been or who are handling mail at present who would be quite prepared to undertake such a service.
e (4:40p.m.)
I might say that the primary consideration of some of the Postmasters with whom I came in contact was not the matter of revenue. Rather it was that he was providing a community service, be it from a garage, service station, store or some other community facility, and operating the post office was one way of rounding out the service that he was providing to his patrons in the community. Of course, it also helped to ensure that people would return to his place of business for other services as well. I hope the minister will take a close look at the suggestion I have made, namely, that where it is difficult to justify a full post office, a sub-post office be established under the jurisdiction of a neighbouring post office and postmaster. I feel this is vital because other elements of government policy being advanced at the present time seem to indicate that the government wants to find ways and means of saving rural Canada, and of maintaining viable rural communities. The provision of postal services has to be integrated in any such proposals. Thus, I commend the suggestion that I have made to the minister.


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to delay the debate on Bill C-240, but I take this opportunity to congratulate the minister for the good service provided so far by his department.
Insofar as the service is concerned, between Ottawa and Quebec City for instance, I can say that it is practically a success. Furthermore, when it comes to first class mail between Ottawa and Quebec City, or any area in Portneuf, it is always a 24-hour service, which means that a letter posted in Ottawa around two o'clock in the afternoon will arrive at its destination at about the same time the next day.
On the other hand, the service between Quebec City and Ottawa is always slightly slower. I therefore ask the Minister without Portfolio responsible for the Post Office (Mr. Cote) whether a little investigation might not help bring about some improvement in that area.
With regard to second class mail, delivery may be a bit slower, but I feel the employees of the department honour their commitments according to the standards set up for that class of mail.
I should like to point out one more thing: I fail to understand why, in a municipality like my own, two contractors should have Post Office contracts to deliver the rural mail and do not work during the same hours. One of them serves 150 homes, every day, in the afternoon. The other, serves 65 homes in another area, during the forenoon, and delivers the newspapers of the previous day. Considering the fact that the people of that municipality, 30 miles out of Quebec City, receive their daily papers only on the following day, I would not be surprised if some of the news had lost some of its interest.
They claim that they provide a better mail service through morning delivery, but most families complain
Post Office Act
that they get their newspaper the day after although they do not live far from Quebec City.
I have already mentioned the fact to the hon. minister who sent me the following reply on October 14, 1970:
Dear Mr. Godin:
I refer to previous letters about the representations you made to me in order to have mail and newspapers delivered to customers of Rural Route No. 1 in St. Basile Station (Que.) the day they are received at the post office.
An investigation has revealed that the bulk of the mail is received at 8:30 a.m. and for this reason on Rural Route No. 1, St. Basile Station, the delivery is preferably made in the morning. Moreover, the rest of the mail and the dailies Le Soleil and L,'Action arrive in the afternoon.
We have also established that out of 64 customers on that rural route, only 12 have subscriptions to the two dailies. Consequently, so as not to delay the delivery of the bulk of the mail, we think we must maintain the morning service and not change it for afternoon delivery.
Another advantage of morning delivery is that it can be made in daytime throughout the year, thus reducing for carriers the risks of accidents which would undoubtedly be more numerous if they had to work after sundown.
Yours truly,
Jean-Pierre Cote
Now, the minister states that there are 12 subscribers to the dailies. It is obvious that they are not interested in obtaining the newspapers of the previous day. We can imagine what would happen if a headwaiter waited until the following day of a wedding to purchase the wedding cake. He would certainly lose some customers! Now 12 out of 64 families receive Quebec City newspapers. It is ridiculous. The service is simply bad, at least in that area. Moreover, the St. Basile rural route which services the other section of Cap-Sante parish-part of the rural route of which is on Highway 10-is serviced in the afternoon and without accident. Therefore if a carrier can service 150 families in half a day without accident in 10 years, I feel that another carrier who must service only 64 users along country roads could certainly do so without accident.
I feel that we must change our methods so as to find the means to give satisfaction to the people of the whole region.
Another matter which, to my mind, should be revised by the department is the present requirements on the minimum number of families for the establishment of home delivery service.
In large cities, there is no problem; everyone gets good service and the people are generally satisfied.
In rural districts where villages are rather small, where everyone can call at the post office for his mail without having to cover too great a distance, things are not too bad.
All rural regions are fairly well served by the carriers who deliver rural mail. But considering that the rural population of Portneuf, the riding that I represent, is only 10 per cent of the total population, some modern small towns get very poor service indeed.
I do not blame the minister for what is taking place now. But I would point out to him that if such is the situation in our modern small towns, an old regulation is

June 2, 1971
Post Office Act
the culprit since it stipulates that mail should be home delivered only where population reaches 2,000 families.
Now, to get 2,000 families in an old section of Hull, for instance, at a time when lots sold were not over 40 feet wide, or in old sectors of Trois-Rivieres or still in certain parts of Quebec City where houses are as close to one another as boxes in a warehouse, it is rather easy. But today, for the greatest enjoyment and satisfaction of all, town-planning committees have been set up in our smaller towns. Mayors are forward-looking and aldermen are doing their job very well. Wider streets have been laid out. Lot standards have also been established so that everybody may have some space, a front lawn, flowers and trees.
Apartment buildings being very rare in those small modern towns, it follows that before the figure of, for instance, 1,500 households may be obtained, people have to walk or take an opportunity to go to the post office which is sometimes one mile from their homes.
When we ask the minister to establish a sub-post office, he informs us that such a service would be possible in municipalities which already have home delivery.
The point I want to make is that today, the fewer services we have as a result of certain regulations, the less chance we have of obtaining them.
And I repeat that when a municipality asks for a sub-post office, it must already enjoy home delivery service. One does not go without the other.
I think that this is a point really deserving consideration, in order to reach solutions which would bring about some equity.
You take out a newspaper subscription. If the paper comes by mail, the price is the same whether the service is good or bad. The newspaper people cannot do anything about it.
When a citizen mails a letter, it always costs the same price, whether the addressee gets it from the mailman or has to walk a mile to fetch it.
Since the Liberal government has tried to eliminate regional discrepancies, I feel the minister in charge of the Post Office (Mr. Cote) should leave no stone unturned to ensure uniformity of the Canadian postal service.
I should also like to refer to the building of post office buildings which is, I know, a responsibility of the Department of Public Works, whose plans are generally good. It has managed to put up quite luxurious and spacious buildings at not too high a cost. But what is unsatisfactory is the exterior finish of these post offices.
For instance, we know that Portneuf supplies great quantities of granite and stone for the building trade. I still remember quite clearly that a post office had been built at Saint-Marc-des-Carrieres, where all the stone used for the Parliament buildings in Ottawa came from. At present, Portneuf still supplies stone to Montreal and Toronto.
Moreover, a quarry at Riviere-a-Pierre, another community in Portneuf, also ships most of its granite production to Italy and to several other parts of the world. It
also happens that some of it comes back to us from New York and even from California. It is rather strange, but that is what actually happens. We export our raw material to other countries and they come back to us as finished products.
However, what is even more strange is that when the department recommends the construction of a post office in a community, specifications call for a finish of imported artificial stone.
I realize that the Postmaster General is not completely responsible for this situation, but again, I feel that he should bring to the attention of his colleague, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing), the situation I have just mentioned with regard to the construction of post offices in the Quebec area, especially in Portneuf.
I know that as a rule, plans are mass-produced. I also know that artificial stone manufacturers make enough profits to promote the sale of their products. However, the minister will agree with me that whether it be wood or stone, an imitation can never match the real thing. A fine and well finished wood is always an eye-pleaser. The same goes for stone and granite. One does not need to be an expert to know that granite is durable, and will keep its colour. And, since the granite found in Riviere-a-Pierre comes in several colours, I urge the minister to advise the architects of the Department of Public Works to get in touch with the managers of the quarries in Portneuf, so that our post offices may be built with good and cheap materials that, above all, will not lose their colour.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, when most politicians begin to speak they say, "It won't be long, will it?" I shall only take a few minutes before the minister responds to some of the observations made in the discussion of Bill C-240.
When appearing before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, the previous Postmaster General made it very clear that there would be no further closings of post offices in this country until a thorough investigation was made of the social and economic conditions in the areas affected. I should like to remind the Acting Postmaster General, no doubt soon to be the fully-fledged Postmaster General, that this commitment was given and I hope that he will honour it. I hope residents of affected areas will have an opportunity to present their views.
Not too long ago a statement was made before the committee that the Post Office Department intended to take every possible measure to reduce the deficit and to arrive at a balanced budget within a few years. Unfortunately, at that time the words "reasonable" and "social" were left out of the commitment. It must be realized that the postal service in Canada helps unite the country from east to west and that this is very important. Vast distances must be contended with and we realize that this adds considerably to the cost of the postal service. If the

June 2, 1971

cost of moving mail across the continent is to be met, then of course we must expect bills such as this to appear several times a year.
Not too long ago at a meeting of the Transportation Research Forum in the United States the question of postal pricing policy was dealt with. A paragraph in the report of that forum deals with one of the problems we face in this country, and reads as follows:
Postal service is international and domestic. Postal services are not limited to the concentrated business community and the highly populated city and suburban residential areas. They are available to every rural community and farm, to every outpost no matter how isolated. Postal services are not, nor can they be, limited to those services and coverage which are economically feasible.
I am sure the minister realizes that in this country as well, postal service must be provided to people in the outposts, to the rural community as well as the densely populated urban centres.
About a year ago a statement was issued by the Post Office Department to the effect that new facilities would be built, particularly in Montreal and Toronto. I hope it is realized that the smaller centres are entitled to the same type of service and the same consideration as large urban areas. I believe that when governments engage in a business activity it is because of a desire to encourage the growth of the nation and I am sure that is the case in this instance. However, concern for the welfare of the nation must take into consideration cost increases which will affect the people directly. I think it is disgraceful that we were not able to deal more favourably with those citizens who live on a fixed income. We failed to allow for an escalator clause in the Old Age Security Act yet bills such as this make extra demands on that fixed income. True, only pennies are involved today but the welfare of the nation is affected.
I can appreciate the fact that the government would like to operate the postal service on a break-even basis, but it must be remembered that Canada is one nation from east to west, entitled to a uniform postal service. I have the highest respect for the former Postmaster General, but I believe he was used as a hatchet man by some people in the government. He was brought into the picture to make changes in the postal service but at the same time was told that it must operate on a break-even basis. If the present minister has been given the same set of instructions, he is being used as a hatchet man as well. The whole social picture requires more than this if we are concerned about people in all corners of the nation.
It is well known that in situations such as this the government hires consultants. In my opinion, these consultants often forget about the social sciences. When the minister hires consultants, I strongly urge him to hire them on the basis of competitive tenders and not on the basis of selective invitation. Also, when he hires consultants I hope he will make sure that they are social scientists and that sociologists are included among them. It seems to me that we have become primarily concerned about economics without worrying about the social consequences of our course of action.
Post Office Act
I, personally, believe that the so-called pork barrel approach to filling post office positions across the country has come to an end in most places. People generally realize that post office vacancies must be filled according to ability, and the people in the area best suited for the jobs have filled vacancies. I hope we will never return to the pork barrel era in politics in filling these positions. If we do, without question the credibility of our post office will suffer, as it has suffered in the past. I hope the minister will have something to say about that when he responds in a few moments.
We are absolutely opposed to increasing the first class mailing rates at this time. Our position is that all types of mail, parcel post included, should share in the increased burden. Also, we do not believe that special concessions should be given to vested interests. The minister is obligated to explain to this House and the people of this country why certain vested interests have obtained special concessions with regard to postal rates. Unless he does that, he will not convince the people of this country that they are not being made to pay the shot for those vested interests outside this country that are being given great privileges to which they are not entitled. I hope that these privileges will stop and that all mail will be treated equally. In short, we do not want to hinder the ability of our people to communicate with one another across the nation. If we hinder them, it will mean the end of the road for Canada. I think we are concerned about Canada and concerned about the country's welfare. I think we want to make sure that people can communicate with one another at a reasonable price. If the incomes of people now on fixed incomes were to be increased, we might argue differently. However, on the one hand the government has stabilized the basic old age security income whereas, on the other hand, it has increased the cost of living of these people without considering that, in so doing, it is doing a disservice to them and to the people of this nation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I ought to advise the House that if the minister speaks now, he will close the debate at this stage of the proceedings.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, during the debate on the Post Office estimates and on the amendments to the Post Office Act, the same remarks keep recurring nearly all the time. This is probably the way things were being done one hundred years ago and the way they will be done a hundred years from now.
During such debate, the postal service is generally criticized and, very often, there is an hon. member who takes this opportunity to deal with items which are particular to his riding. This is normal. I must add that if on the one hand the Post Office Department has been criticized rather severely, on the other hand there have been attempts made both on the opposition and the government sides to be as objective as possible. Several mem-

June 2, 1971
Post Office Act
bers have even commended the department for the efficiency of its service. I want to thank all those who participated in this debate.
Mr. Speaker, we must be realistic and we cannot expect wild cheers for a legislation aiming at increasing the postal rates on any class of mail. Hon. members cannot be blamed for taking this opportunity to criticize the minister in charge.
In my remarks on the motion for second reading, I will not be able to reply to all the questions and to all the remarks. The committee which will study this bill will be in a better position to do it and if I cannot reply at the committee stage, I will personally get in touch with members who have raised specific problems.
In his remarks, the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales) said, and I quote: "I had a public relations job to do." I can assure him that I will appoint nobody from the opposition to do this job.
If all the department's clients were to read what the members have said during this debate, it would be enough to discourage them. However, most of our clients have a better opinion of the Post Office than some hon. members.
It is true that our postal system is not perfect and that we have much to do to improve the department's reputation. We can accept these critics but we can keep our heads high since, in spite of all the difficulties the department has been meeting and is still meeting, we have maintained a kind of service which compares favourably with any postal service in the world. The steps and decisions recently taken will significantly improve this service.
It has been said and repeated in the past-before 1963, if my memory serves me right-that the department was making profits. Perhaps this was true in the books but if the account system had been the same then as it is now, those profits would have turned into deficits. In fact during those years, the department did not have to pay rent and the fringe benefits of the employees were not paid by the Post Office Department but by the Treasury Board.
Today those expenses remain in our accounting books and the bill now before us will also fill in another gap, as it will require other departments to pay all their mailing expenses.
Some people wonder why, and rightly perhaps, after a rather substantial increase in postal rates in 1968, we had a $120 million deficit in 1970. As I already said, it is because of a tremendous decrease in mail volume, mostly due to transportation disruptions in Montreal, in the spring of 1970, and to rotating strikes in the summer of 1970.
Several members during this debate ask us to cut our expenditures. But how could it be done when practically all the costs incurred are for workers salaries and transportation expenses? People seem to forget very quickly, Mr. Speaker, that changes were long overdue in the department.
Have we already forgotten the Montpetit report on the working conditions in the Post Office Department? We

could, certainly save some money, but I hope we shall never go back to the system under which employees worked for starveling wages in outmoded buildings.
Mr. Speaker, a visit to certain offices where all improvements are not completed yet would show that no public servant from any other department would work in our buildings. Even though postal workers have the reputation of being militants, I feel they have shown great patience in some cases.
As far as our buildings are concerned, a five-year renewal and building program was undertaken in 1970. Its total cost is more than $300 million and it will take care of more than 800 post offices across the country.
In the city of Montreal only, the program providing for the construction of new post offices will cost about $60 million, whereas in the city of Toronto, a similar program will cost about $75 million. Moreover, as an essential tool for the planned updating of the Post Office, a five-year mechanization program of postal operations was recently approved by the cabinet.
The total cost of this program will amount to about $80 million. The mechanization of postal operations will ensure a much faster service. In certain cases, it will speed up mail delivery by several hours.
Finally, in order to offer its clients improved services, the department has decided to lauch new programs. I have already mentioned the assured mail program. No doubt, it is effective. It is not merely a publicity gimmick, as a member suggested.
We expect from this program a dependable postal service on which the Canadian people can rely. This program, launched last winter in Toronto, has since been implemented in four cities of western Canada: Winnipeg, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver. It will be established very soon in the Ottawa-Hull area, and in the city of Montreal, next July. It will progressively extend to practically all Canadian cities by the end of 1972.
Mr. Speaker, until this system becomes fully operative and because our whole transportation system and our pricing methods must be changed, it may be that in some cases our service will be far from adequate. People are of course impatient.
Another program designed to hasten mail deliveries is known as the "Postal Code". It has been initiated here in Ottawa on April 1. By the beginning of 1974, the Code will be a permanent part of every Canadian postal address. This Code, which is an alpha-numeric combination, has unparalleled accuracy. It contains a great deal of information and it can even designate a single building in the case of a large apartment of office complex containing many units.
The new service, Mr. Speaker, reflects the concern of the Post Office to better serve Canadians. When I announced certain changes such as re-establishment of wicket service on Saturdays, we were applauded for that step. My announcement that the door-to-door delivery had been resumed in some cities, a service that had been frozen in 1968, was again applauded. The announcement
June 2, 1971

that we would not close any more small rural post offices except for extraordinary reasons got the same response.
Of course, since those announcements, the service has improved some. This is only a brief idea of the re-organization of the postal service.
In all fairness, it must be recognized that the program represents the biggest effort of a government to update the postal service. It is understandable that, as the minister in charge of the Post Office, I feel so proud. Never has the Post Office Department had so much money to spend in all its history to give the postal service the efficiency Canadians deserve. When all this is achieved, Mr. Speaker, we will have the most automated and fastest postal system in the world.

The post office is also investigating a number of new services which will supplement and complement the existing range of postal services. These are planned for introduction in late 1971 and 1972. One program being tested at the moment will provide mailers with the opportunity of bulking their mailable material in bag lots between major points at substantial savings. We have given this new service the name "Postpak", and you may expect to hear more about it.
We are also looking into an entirely new type of superfast service for letters, documents and business information within and between major cities or wherever a suitable market exists. This service will operate on the same principle as assured mail except that the mailing deadlines will be substantially later, with guaranteed over-night delivery. Naturally, the price charged will be commensurate with the service offered, but will provide businesses and individuals with a service capability that does not presently exist. As I have already said, we have lost some business in the post office during the past few years. We are going to get that business back and we are going to give much better service.
The hon. members for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) and Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson) have raised questions about delegation of the powers of the Postmaster General, as proposed in clause 1, subclause (3) of the bill. First, let me point out that the power to delegate is being sought for the purpose of making field management in the postal service more effective by enabling it to respond quickly when the need arises in a particular situation. Such authority will be delegated by the Postmaster General personally, on the basis of need, and confidence in those to whom authority will be conferred. Furthermore, the Postmaster General will continue to be accountable for the postal service. Those to whom authority is delegated will exercise that authority in his name and he will be answerable for any action taken.
When delegated, the authority will be exercised within policy guidelines established by the Postmaster General. The sole purpose of the proposed delegation of authority is to enable us to derive the full benefit of decentralized administration, by making it possible for field managers to deal promptly with problems that arise, without the necessity of awaiting decisions from headquarters. No 24107-49
Post Office Act
powers which are not already delegated to the deputy minister will be delegated to other persons.
Members have raised the question of what happened to the studies that were conducted from September 1968 to November 1969 by the firm of Kates, Peat, Marwick and Company. Their findings were published in the book "Blueprint for Change" on November 1, 1969. This report was tabled in the House of Commons on December 11, 1969. Since that date the feasibility of converting the post office to a Crown corporation has been, and continues to be, the subject of active consideration by the government. Given the country-wide effects of such a change, it is not a matter to be entered into lightly.
A number of representations have been made on the subject of charges assessed to rural box holders. At the present time, customers in towns and villages not having letter-carrier delivery are entitled to free general delivery service across the counter at their local post office. If they wish the additional convenience of a locked box, a charge is made. In cities and town where letter-carrier delivery is provided, locked box service is also available but at a charge which is about twice that made to rural residents. Nevertheless, we are examining this general situation and are reviewing our entire policy with respect to locked boxes and the relative scale of charges assessed to both rural and urban residents. Our objective will be to achieve the greatest degree of equity possible, making allowance for differing conditions and needs.
An hon. member, I think it was the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales), has raised the question of delays in the delivery of unaddressed householder mail. I am pleased to inform the House that following consultations with the unions delivery time for householder mail has been reduced from seven consecutive delivery days to five for magazines or the catalogue type of mail and three delivery days for the flyer, card or envelope type of householder mail. This improvement in service took effect as of June 1.
It is the intention of the Canada Post Office, I might add, to establish appropriate delivery specifications for classes of mail other than first class, once the assured mail program has been implemented across Canada. Other classes of mail will not receive the same type of priority in handling and will not as a rule be carried by air. This is one of the reasons they are cheaper. Nevertheless, we believe reliable delivery specifications can be provided which will emphasize regularity and consistency, rather than high speed. The quality of service and the cost of providing the service justify the substantially lower rates which will apply to these classes of mail. As in the case with the assured mail program, the quality assurance program will measure results in relation to specification, on a continuing basis.
Comments have been made concerning the imbalance of foreign mail, and the cost of handling this mail. In discussing the costs incurred by the Canada Post Office in the handling of incoming foreign mail, reference was made to a universal postal congress which would take place on July 1, 1971. The last congress of the Universal

June 2, 1971
Division
Postal Union took place in Tokyo in 1969 and the next will not take place until 1974. However, the new Acts of the Universal Postal Union Congress will become effective July 1, 1971 and the new convention will contain provisions for compensating postal administrations, like Canada, which receive more mail than they despatch. The compensation rate authorized by the Tokyo Congress is 8 cents per pound calculated on the imbalance of traffic. This rate is far too low to cover actual costs, but it is under review in the Universal Postal Union and hopefully will be set at a more realistic level by the next congress in 1974. These provisions will also apply to our imbalance of traffic with the United States. I can add that some officials of my department will be in Washington on Monday to discuss the question of the imbalance of traffic with the United States with their counterparts in an effort to obtain a new agreement in this area.
Now, a word about what has been happening with respect to those groups and associations which have asked to be excluded from the effects of the increase in third class rates on the ground that this is so vital a matter to them. They appreciate the problem involved, but think a solution can be found. They also realize that a similar problem is being faced in the United States with respect to this class of mail, and that the post office there is looking for a way of reducing these losses. But I will have an answer for these people before the end of the debates which are now taking place.
In closing, I want to say that in my department priority is being placed on service and I believe we are now giving Canadians the kind of service they deserve.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

James Alexander Jerome: Perhaps I could give the business of the House for Friday, which had originally been agreed upon to be an opposition day. Since that agreement has been changed, Friday will be a government day. We will commence on Friday with The Canada Development Corporation, followed by the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act and subsequently the Judges Act. This will be the schedule for Friday. Subject to a further meeting of
June 2, 1971

House leaders which will take place early next week, there have been consultations concerning an order in the following terms on which, I understand, there may be unanimous agreement of the House: that on Mondays, June 7 and 14, and Tuesdays, June 8 and 15 and Thursdays, June 10 and 17 of this year, the ordinary hours of sitting of the House shall be from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m.; 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. to 10 p.m., and that, when any such day is designated as an allotted day for the consideration of the business of supply under the provisions of Standing Order 58, the proceedings on that business shall be interrupted or disposed of no later than 6 p.m., in order that government business may be considered from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m on such day and that the daily adjournment proceedings shall not be set aside by virtue of the operation of this order;
that for the purposes of section (5) of Standing Order 58, the number of sitting days allotted to the consideration of business of supply in the period ending not later than June 30, 1971 shall be fixed at ten, provided that an additional three sitting days shall be added to the total number of days allotted for the consideration of the business of supply in the period ending not later than December 10, 1971;
and that the order of business and procedure set out in section (10) of Standing Order 58 shall apply to the tenth allotted day in the current period and to the eighth allotted day in the next ensuring period.
Business of the House


Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Speaker, the statement made by the parliamentary secretary represents the agreement which was arrived at by the House leaders, and we in this party give unanimous consent for it to be made an order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The statement of my hon. friend is also correct, and we also agree.


André-Gilles Fortin: We were at the meeting, Mr. Speaker, and we agree.
[English}


Mr. Speaker:: I have to assume that there is unanimous consent, since 1 have not heard from the independents in the House. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Thursday, June 3, 1971