1971-05-31

PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF MEMBERS OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF GENERAL COUNCIL OF COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION

Mr. Speaker:: May I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the Speaker's gallery and also partly in the Senate gallery of a distinguished group of parliamentarians from various regions of the Commonwealth. They are members of the Executive Committee of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association's General Council who have just concluded their annual spring meeting held this year in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island. They are with us today as guests of the Canadian branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I am sure hon. members will want me to express to them on your behalf a most cordial welcome to Ottawa and to our national Parliament. We hope that their discussions here in Ottawa will be as fruitful as their meetings in Charlottetown have been and that they will enjoy their all too brief stay with us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



CONGRATULATIONS TO MR. SPEAKER ON INSTALLATION AS CHANCELLOR OF UNIVERSITY OF WINDSOR

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise briefly under the provisions of Standing Order 117 on a matter which I believe will meet with the approval of all members of the House. We should like to extend to you, Sir, our congratulations on your having been installed on Saturday as Chancellor of the University of Windsor.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: As one who
had the privilege of being there for that occasion, I can say that your performance of your duties and the address that you made brought honour to this House. We are proud of you and we extend our warmest congratulations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Windsor-Walker-ville perhaps rising on the same question of privilege?


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville):: Your Honour's intuition is as usual infallible. As a member of the faculty of the University of Windsor perhaps I may be permitted to say that those associated with that university consider themselves to be singularly fortunate in having such a distinguished member of this House as their chancellor.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members and I want to assure them, after 48 hours in my new office, that it is just as easy to be chancellor as it is to be Speaker.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Seventh report of Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works-Mr. Hopkins.
[Editor's Note: For text oj above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, pursuant to Standing Order 43, to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion in respect of a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. This urgent matter relates to the fact that census forms for rural areas and small towns, and the long forms for every third household, require these citizens to divulge information about their incomes, under pain of severe fine or imprisonment. This would be acceptable if such information were assessed and reviewed by career civil servants at centres generally remote from the areas surveyed. However, these returns are to be scrutinized and assessed by private citizens politically recruited from the local areas, in many cases neighbours of those required to give the information.
Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson):
That this House urges the government to reform the census procedures with respect to the scrutiny of rural areas and small towns census returns, and the returns on the so-called "long form", to ensure that such scrutiny is done exclusively by career public servants; and, further, that pending such reform, prosecutions for failure to file such a form be suspended.


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Speaker@: Order, please. The hon. member has indicated the essence of his motion. As he knows, no possibility is provided under the Standing Order to discuss the matter further at this time. The duty of the
24107-42J

May 31, 1971
Dairy Subsidy Holdback Rates Chair is to inquire whether there is unanimous consent as required by the terms of Standing Order 43. I therefore ask if hon. members, having heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Wellington, give unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



AGRICULTURE


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that the Canadian Dairy Commission will reduce the rate of holdback from payments to industrial milk producers, for milk within quotas, to 20 cents per 100 pounds, effective June 1. The previous rate has been 26 cents.
The holdback on over-subsidy quota milk will be reduced from $1.25 per hundredweight to $1.05, and the comparable figures for cream will be from 8 cents to 5 cents per pound of butterfat. For deliveries over market quotas, the holdback will be reduced from $2.40 per hundredweight to $2.05 for milk and from 50 cents to 30 cents per pound of butterfat for cream deliveries. These changes in holdback will directly increase producers' returns by an equivalent amount.
The funds collected from the holdback are used to recover costs of export assistance on surpluses which have to be disposed of below Canadian support prices.
The present reduction is in keeping with the principle of adjusting the rate of holdback as conditions change. There has been a considerable recent improvement in world market prices for dairy products, although the price for skim milk powder, which is the main surplus product, is still below Canadian support levels.
While the world situation is favorable at present, there are some indications that present prices may not continue through the full fiscal year. Since it is not desirable to change the rates of holdback too often, the present rate has been set in the light of the necessity of projecting the position for some time into the future.
Should the revenue to the commission from the holdbacks exceed the funds required to dispose of surpluses produced during the present fiscal year by any significant amount there will be a refund to producers after the end of the dairy year which of course is March 31, 1972.
The commission is also establishing and will announce consequential changes in the rates of holdback on deliveries in excess of quota.
It has been possible to take this action to reduce the holdback because of the improved international situation brought on by recent and remarkable changes in the dairy surplus picture throughout the world. As I am sure
members will appreciate, it is not possible for Canada, through its internal policies, to significantly affect the world supply although it cannot help but have a bearing. We have, however, been active in the international field and I would cite the skim milk powder agreement negotiated under GATT. It is our hope that the type of international co-operation that has recently existed will continue to the benefit of all concerned.


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to note on behalf of my party that the minister has finally listened to some of the representations which have been made to him in this regard by the official opposition. In view of some of the problems the farmers' unions have in getting the ear of the Minister of Agriculture, I am happy to note also that he has listened to some of their representations in this regard. I should like to read a portion of their representation made earlier this year. They said:
On a world scale, it is undeniable that 1971 was a year during which the dairy products market experienced an improvement. The enormous mountains of butter and powdered skim milk which were accumulated in North America and in Western Europe, have been considerably reduced-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member. There seems to be some irregularity about hon. members taking the opportunity provided by the Standing Orders when commenting on a ministerial statement to put on the record statements made outside the House by other people. I really do not think it is quite in order to follow that course of action. I would invite the hon. member to submit for the consideration of the House and the benefit of all hon. members his own comments at this time.


Robert Elgin McKinley: I agree, Mr. Speaker. I think I have read enough to let the House and the people know that the minister does occasionally listen to these people. It is rather ridiculous sometimes that farmers' organizations and others have to bring these things to the attention of the minister time after time before they can get him to act.
One thing is missing from this statement. In respect of the increase that will come to the farmers as a return for their milk production, nowhere in this statement does the minister promise that there will be no reduction in the subsidy in the future that would take this money away from them. When the increase in the price of powdered skim milk was announced some time ago I questioned the minister in an effort to get all this return for the farmers but in the end only half of it got to them.
Now the Minister of Finance fools around-


Mr. Bell:: He sure does.


Robert Elgin McKinley: -with financial arrangements in this country. We in the Conservative party believe that if we had a prosperous agricultural economy throughout the country many of our unemployment problems would be

May 31, 1971

solved. There is no way in which this can be achieved by removing two-thirds of the farmers from the farms. I have personally witnessed in the dairy industry in my own locality a number of dairy farmers selling out because the returns are not sufficient to enable them to continue to operate. Anything that can be done to increase the returns to dairy farmers in Canada is certainly worth while. The minister has taken some action in this respect, and we hope that this is an indication of better things to come in the future.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I think that the minister has certainly been well advised to make these changes in light of the changes that have taken place in marketing conditions. This statement indicates the situation that has developed in that it has been extremely difficult for the Canadian Dairy Commission to forecast adequately the changes that have taken place in market demands for dairy products and it is now trying to catch up with the changed situation. This points up the need, not only in the dairy industry but in other aspects of agriculture, for those who are now in the business of planning and programming the farmers-that is what they are trying to do-to get more accurate information or be more careful about their programming and the planning, either the one or the other.
I suggest to the minister that he read an editorial which appeared recently in the Western Producer, a western Canadian publication. In it there is the most severe condemnation of a government policy that I have ever seen. They say that this program, along with the red tape and other forms of torture, has rapidly thinned the ranks of cream shippers, and is one of the cruellest things that has been done to the cream shippers of western Canada. While I admit that the Dairy Commission has been willing at times to listen to representations on behalf of individual producers, the total effect on the ordinary cream producer in Saskatchewan has been really rough. They have suffered as a consequence of the policy being followed which is forcing a specialization that is resulting in the same kind of syndrome as that experienced in Ontario where the manufactured milk shipper is helping to create an added surplus of milk powder, whereas if the ordinary cream producer were given a break he would feed some of that byproduct-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but I believe it is my duty to remind him and others who may be speaking after him on this ministerial statement, as well as those who have spoken before him, that the Standing Order requires that statements at this time should be brief. As I have said before, it is always difficult to estimate what brevity is. Perhaps the hon. member thinks he is being very brief in making his speech. It is difficult for the Chair to indicate to the hon. member that he should not prolong his remarks too much, but I would invite him at the first opportunity, during the current sitting if possible, to bring his remarks to a close so that we can continue with the consideration of the matter raised by the hon. member.
Dairy Subsidy Holdback Rates


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall try to be brief. I shall finish very quickly, but there are so few opportunities for members to call to the attention of the minister what he is doing to the ordinary cream shipper in Saskatchewan that I feel it necessary to do so now. Perhaps to some extent we can impress on these planners that they really cannot deliver a total Utopia to the western producers and that very often they are delivering disaster instead.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, today the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) deserves some congratulations undoubtedly due to the circumstances prevailing on international markets and to some other causes.
He has announced a reduction for producers under the quota system. They used to be asked 26 cents per hundred pounds for export assistance, but they will now have to pay only 20 cents.
As for the holdback on over-subsidy quota, it will be lowered to 20 cents per hundred pounds, while that on cream will be reduced from 8 to 5 cents per pound of butterfat.
However, I think that the producers are now concerned about shipments and even if the penalty of $2.40 is reduced by 35 cents when shipments are over the allowed quota, I should like to bring this point to the attention of the minister, because I feel that this is what is now doing so much harm to the average and small producers, the big ones having had time to make proper arrangements before being hit with a fine. The minister would do well, in the future, to pay more attention to the small producer.
Today, the minister tells us that this improvement was brought about by the demand on the world market, but I wonder if that is the reason for the apparent improvement. If the dairy market shows some balance today, I believe that it is due to a large reduction of the dairy herds, especially in Quebec. Instead of stimulating production, farmers were forced to sell their herds, to stop production, in order to ensure this balance. The fault lies not so much with the fact that surpluses have been eliminated as with the lack of aid.
Today, under-consumption is caused by the government that has not come up with a policy to promote greater consumption of dairy products. If the farmers who have held firm benefit from this, I am happy and, once again, I ask the minister to come to the aid of the farmers who want to increase their returns. But, all the time the cry is heard: "They must die." I believe that the large producers should set an example and stop shouting: "They must die." Some of them should die once in a while so that the small and average farmers may live.
I thank the minister for his statement and I hope that as soon as possible he will reduce these fines which the farmers can no longer "digest".

May 31, 1971
Questions



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	Has the government any information on the use of aerobes in cleaning up water polluted by oil refinery operations in the Baytown. Texas area and, if so, will the government consider their use in Canadian oil-polluted waters?
2.	Is the information available as to the cost of using such micro-organisms in comparison with pollution control installations used to purify water polluted with oil and, if so, what is the cost?


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: 1. The Government has no specific details of installations at the Baytown, Texas refineries, but we are aware of numerous current applications of the principle in various parts of the world including Canada.
2.	Yes. Under reasonable conditions costs can range from four-eight cents per 1,000 gallons of waste treated but when relative capital costs are high, or conditions adverse, costs could exceed these figures.


ESTIMATED DEBT FOR AVERAGE CANADIAN FAMILY
Mr. Mather: What is the estimated debt for the average Canadian family including the nine billion, eighty-seven million dollars of debt for Canadian families reported by DBS in November, 1970, plus the approximate debts owed to oil companies, credit unions, retail stores reporting quarterly and doctor and dentist bills?


Mr. Bruce Howard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Statistics Canada (Dominion Bureau of Statistics) reports that: At the present time DBS has no statistics on the debt of the average Canadian family. However, DBS recently carried out a survey on family income, indebtedness and asset holdings. The results will not be available until the latter part of this year. These surveys are only conducted occasionally, and the last one was taken in 1964. In December 1970, total consumer credit outstanding was $11,406 million. This includes amounts owed on all charge accounts, oil company credit cards, and instalment debt. It does not include debt to doctors and dentists. These statistics are obtained from lending institutions and not households.


LABOUR DISPUTES-JASPER LODGE AND CHATEAU LAURIER
Mr. Fortin: What stage has been reached In the "Jasper Lodge" and "Chateau Laurier" labour disputes with respect to minimum salaries?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Canadian National Railways has appealed to the Alberta Supreme
Court the July 7, 1970 decision of the Canada Labour Relations Board to certify the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and General Workers as bargaining agent for its employees at Jasper Park Lodge, Jasper, Alberta, on the grounds that this operation is not within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada. This case is still before the Court and judgment has not yet been delivered. The decision of the Court should resolve current differences of opinion concerning the application to certain hotels of federal labour laws, including the Canada Labour (Standards) Code.


DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS-MEETING OF SENIOR OFFICIALS AT MONTEBELLO, QUEBEC
Mr. Schumacher: During the month of April 1971, did senior officials of the Department of Public Works hold meetings at the Seignory Club in Montebello, Quebec, to discuss reorganization of the Department and, if so (a) what was the expense involved (i) as to accommodation for meetings and participants (ii) transportation (iii) meals and per diem expenses (b) for what reasons were government facilities in Ottawa not used (c) what was the duration of such meetings (d) what conclusions were reached?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: Yes, (a) (i) and (iii) $4,638.27. Accommodation and meals not treated separately as expenses were based on American (meals inclusive) plan, (ii) $2,221.48. (b) It was essential that the agenda of the Conference be the singular concern of the participants. It was thus decided to hold the Conference in an environment which would minimize the potential conflict between the normal operating responsibilities of the participants and the conference objectives, (c) From the evening of April 19 to the evening of April 21, 1971. (d) It was not the objective of the meetings to reach conclusions but to permit a full exchange of views among management personnel to ensure that the conclusions finally reached by management are based on sound consideration of all the factors involved.


DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS-SEMINAR HELD IN MIAMI, FLORIDA, 1971
Mr. Schumacher: 1.	Is there a designation of "Zone Manager" within the Department of Public Works and, if so, what is the function or duties performed by a person so designated?
2.	Did any Zone Managers, other officials or employees of the Department attend a seminar in Miami Beach, Florida during the month of April 1971 and, if so (a) what was the purpose of the seminar (b) what expense was involved (i) as to accommodation for meetings and participants (ii) transportation (iii) meals and per diem expenses (c) what was the duration of the seminar (d) how many employees of the Department attended the seminar and, in each case, what position do they hold within the Department?


Arthur Laing: 1. Yes. A Zone Manager, under the general direction of an Area

May 31, 1971

Manager, directs and operates the property management zone activities and ensures that the most efficient and economical use of labour and finances is exercised in renovations, alterations, repairs, cleaning, elevator services and utilities in Crown-owned and leased premises.
2.	Yes, seven employees attended a course in Miami, Florida in April 1971. (a) The course is designed to study the latest technique in office building management as determined by the Institute of Real Estate Management. (b) (i) $19.76 per manager per diem; (ii) $162 per manager; (ill) $15 per manager per diem, (c) Seven days, April 18 to 24 inclusive, (d) Seven people attended the course, five were Zone Managers, one an administrator of Real Properties Inventories, and the other the Head, Federal Central Real Properties Inventory.


PUBLIC SERVICE-HIRING AND DISCHARGE OF MR. JULES DEMICHER
Mr. Nowlan: 1.	What were the names of individuals and the dates they were first considered or contacted, with respect to the senior financial and administrative job in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and (a) in what manner and for what reasons did the government come to (i) consider approaching (ii) contact Mr. Jules Demicher (b) on what date and for what purpose did he first contact the government?
2.	(a) Was the position of Assistant Deputy Minister for the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce filled by competition and, if not, for what reason (b) what were the job specifications or descriptions for that post (c) were these specifications or job descriptions modified during the course of 1968-70 and, if so, in what manner?
3.	(a) Did the federal government invite, or make a suggestion to Mr. Jules Demicher, to move to Canada (b) were any costs of transportation for Mr. Demicher and his family paid by the government, and (i) if not, for what reason (ii) if so, what were those costs, on what date and where did such transport originate (c) what was the nature and salary rate of the offer of employment made by the Public Service to Mr. Jules Demicher (d) for what period was he paid by the government (e) what were the total payments made by the government to and for Mr. Jules Demicher?
4.	With respect to the senior financial and administrative job or the post of Assistant Deputy Minister in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce (a) in what ways were the qualifications of the individual appointed superior to those of Mr. Jules Demicher (b) was Mr. Demicher sufficiently fluent in and able to work in English and French (c) in the Autumn of 1968, was a stipulation made that a French Canadian be appointed and, if so (i) by whom (ii) on what authority (iii) in what manner was it made known (iv) to whom was it communicated (v) on what date (vi) does this represent government policy?
5.	With respect to the discharge of Mr. Jules Demicher by the Public Service Commission (a) was appropriate Public Service employment available at the time of his discharge (b) have the circumstances of his discharge been investigated by, or referred for investigation to the Language Commissioner (c) what is the nature of the investigation of the Jules Demicher case underway in the Labour Department (d) are the results of the later investigation to be made public and, if not, for what reason?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: As this matter is still the subject of an inquiry, it would be inappropriate to provide the informat.on requested.
Order for Return


SUMMER WORKS PROGRAM
Mr. Comeau: Has the Department of Public Works made plans to implement a Summer Works Program to alleviate the unemployment situation, and (a) if not, for what reasons (b) if so, on what date can an announcement be expected?


Arthur Laing: The
works program of the Department of Public Works traditionally is at its peak during the summer months and consequently no plans have been formulated to date for a separate Summer Works Program, as such. In addition to staff engaged by consultants, contractors and suppliers in relation to the current year's Public Works program, the Department expects to engage approximately 558 students and 517 casual employees during the summer months in addition to its full time establishment.


RAPESEED FREE OF ERUCIC ACID
Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	How many varieties of rapeseed free of erucic acid have been (a) developed by the Department of Agriculture (b) imported and from what countries?
2.	Have agreements been reached by the government with other countries for the export of (a) rapeseed free of erucic acid (b) rapeseed products and, if so, with what countries?
3.	Has the government set a price per bushel for rapeseed which will be sold on (a) the domestic market (b) the export market?
4.	Will the government have representatives on the mission sent by the Rapeseed Association of Canada, to South America?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 1. (a)
Three varieties of rape which produce seed free of erucic acid have been licensed. They are: Oro, Span and Zephyr, (b) No variety or varieties of rape that produce seed free of erucic acid have been developed in countries other than Canada.
2.	No.
3.	The Government does not set prices for rapeseed.
4.	The Government was not represented on the mission of the Rapeseed Association to South America in 1971.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Coates: 1.	What are the names, positions and salaries of each of the persons employed in the offices of each of the Cabinet Ministers in the present administration at the present time?
2.	In each instance, what was the staff of each of the Cabinet Ministers as compared with one year ago?
3.	Are there any conditions placed on the number of employees each Minister might recruit for his personal staff and, if so, what are these conditions?
Return tabled.

May 31, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance who has just entered the House. He will have to be on the job more if he is going to get the gross national product moving forward satisfactorily. In view of the report by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics that the gross national product grew at a disappointing rate during the first three months of this year, substantially below the rate of increase during the final quarter of 1970, is it still the minister's position and that of the government that the economy is moving forward satisfactorily and that unemployment will fall by a satisfactory rate or is the minister now prepared to take measures to stimulate the economy and get it moving forward at a satisfactory rate?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the whole question asked by the Leader of the Opposition is in the form of a proposition to the House or an argument, and I wonder whether the question in those terms is acceptable. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition might like to rephrase the question.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is whether, in view of the report of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics regarding the GNP figures for the first quarter of this year, the Minister of Finance is now prepared to take measures to stimulate the economy of the country?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, starting a year ago we have taken measures to stimulate the economy in Canada. Whether it requires further stimulation is a matter which the government will have to decide, and I shall be bringing forward a budget in the near future.



WELFARE


Robert Lorne Stanfield: 1
have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, Mr. Speaker. In view of the report that the city of Halifax is finding it necessary to reduce welfare payments, an indication of what is taking place in many cities across this country, is the minister prepared to meet with the provinces and cities with a view to adopting measures to ensure that deserving Canadians do not go hungry as a result of the municipalities having to cut down on welfare because of additional unemployment?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated before in the House, the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan amply reveal the willingness of the federal government to share in these costs. On the question of getting together with the provinces to discuss this matter or other questions of this kind, may I say that I am meeting with the provincial ministers next week.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Will the government increase its effort to fight these evils to at least half the effort it is making to try to win the constituency of Central Nova?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



HALIFAX-REPORTED REQUIREMENT THAT APPLICANTS OBTAIN EMPLOYERS' SIGNATURES BEFORE ASSISTANCE GRANTED

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare which is related to part of the questioning by the Leader of the Opposition. In view of reports from Halifax that welfare officers are requiring certain welfare applicants to get the signatures of 20 or 30 employers before they can be granted welfare, will the minister have an investigation made into this practice to determine whether it violates the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, we will be meeting with the provincial welfare ministers at the beginning of next week. Undoubtedly such situations, and others to which hon. members referred last week, will be discussed by the welfare ministers at that time.


Mr. Forrestall:: Will you raise it?



SUGGESTED INCREASE IN FEDERAL PAYMENTS UNDER CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: May I ask a
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the problem does not concern the 50 per cent share of welfare costs which the federal government pays, will the government consider picking up a portion of the additional cost that the provinces and municipalities have to pay? Will the federal government increase its contribution beyond 50 per cent?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, at this point I cannot add anything to what the Minister of National Health and Welfare has just said, that he is meeting with the welfare ministers of all the provinces next week and they are going to discuss various questions, including the Canada Assistance Plan. There is nothing that can be announced to the House at this point.

May 31, 1971



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Real Caoueile (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question concerning unemployment and inflation.
When this government tries to fight inflation, there is an increase in unemployment. When jobs are created, there is an increase in inflation. Would the Prime Minister tell the House whether the government is currently using experts, economists, sociologists and so on to find a cure for these two evils and whether these experts have suggested a program to this end?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly employing experts to study these problems. The Department of Finance has many experts studying the question. The Prices and Incomes Commission has also been working on a solution for two years. The Bank of Canada also has a number of specialists who are concerned with this problem.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
Would he not agree to adding a few Creditistes to these experts, in order to come up with a solution-


Mr. Speaker:: The supplementary question of the hon. member is more in the nature of a suggestion and he must take it for granted that it will be considered by the Prime Minister.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Labour I shall direct my question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour. In view of the strike of firemen at Edmonton Internationa] Airport, with the threat of a spread of the strike, will the minister report to the House what steps he is taking to make sure that this labour dispute is brought to an end soon, it now having been in negotiation for seven months?


Mr. Ray Perxault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: The hon. member has asked an important question, Mr. Speaker, but I would point out that it comes under the jurisdiction of the Treasury Board. As the men involved are civil servants, it is not within the ambit of responsibility of the Department of Labour. I would be pleased, however, to communicate to my minister the gravity of the situation as reported to the House.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Notwithstanding the fact that the men in question may be public servants, I wonder whether the Minister of Labour would put some of that vaunted ability of his to work in getting this dispute settled immediately?
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



OPPORTUNITY FOR JEWS TO EMIGRATE FROM SOVIET UNION TO ISRAEL

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: I have a question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the Prime Minister's report to the House on Friday of Mr. Kosygin's assurance that the allegations of Soviet refusal to allow the emigration of Soviet Jews to Israel were unfounded and that the Canadian government has corroborated this statement, can the Prime Minister now advise whether the government of Israel was among those with whom the matter was checked and if that government is now as satisfied as he is with these assurances?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have figures from various sources, but the government of Israel has agreed that there has been a substantial increase in immigration from the Soviet Union.



SIMILARITY OF UKRAINIAN FIGHT FOR LIBERATION AND FLQ MOVEMENT-REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER APPEAR BEFORE SPECIAL COMMITTEE

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask the Prime Minister, now that he is safely back in Canada, whether he still believes that the Ukrainian fight for liberation in the U.S.S.R. is similar to that engaged in by the FLQ last fall?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I rephrase that question. It is very important.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question, of course is not in order. Perhaps the hon. member for Calgary North would like to rephrase his question. I have to recognize the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate in a moment on a supplementary to the previous question, and we will return to that matter.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, in light of the statement that the Prime Minister made over the weekend on the radio, would he be prepared to go before the special committee that is to be set up and give evidence in reference to his position regarding the liberation of Ukrainians and make clear his position with regard to the FLQ and future, repressive legislation?


An hon. Member:: That is some rephrasing.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will gladly answer any questions put to me in the House on this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

May 31, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister may be very glib-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Prime Minister has said that he will answer any questions asked in the House but the questions, of course, must be acceptable from a procedural standpoint.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I put another question to the Prime Minister. I realize, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister likes to answer questions here, but would he be prepared to answer a serious question and a series of questions in the committee that will be set up as a result of his own resolution?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I see no better forum for answering questions than the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Why did you people change the rules, then?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate has a supplementary to a previous question.


Mr. Lundrigan:: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Paproski:: May I ask a question?


John Howard Lundrigan: All right-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I thank the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate for his co-operation and his suggestion that another hon. member should have the floor although he himself has been recognized. The hon. member for Regina East.


Mr. Burton:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Parliamentary Secretary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate rises on a question of privilege.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary was in reference to an earlier question, and I think the urgency of this question-	.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a question of privilege. The hon. member will be recognized in a moment. The Chair also intends to recognize the hon. member for Edmonton West later. As hon. members know, there must be an attempt by the Chair to give an opportunity to representatives of different parties to ask their questions from time to time. That is why, at this point, I feel I ought to recognize the hon. member for Regina East.



PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State I wish to direct my
question to his parliamentary secretary. Will the parliamentary secretary, on behalf of the Secretary of State, assure the House that no impediments are placed in the way of federal public servants who wish to obtain leave of absence from their posts in order to run as candidates in the Saskatchewan election?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps it is time to return to the question to be asked by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate. I think we should try to dispose of the original question first, and then I will recognize sup-plementaries on the second question proposed by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre and others.


John Stratford Burton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I rephrase my question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. At this time I must seek the hon. member's co-operation. I have recognized the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate.



PUBLIC SERVICE


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, to return the urgency of a previous question, may I put a quick supplementary to one of the eight ministers present. Perhaps I could direct it to the Acting President of the Treasury Board. Can we have an undertaking that a statement will be made tomorrow concerning the impending walkout of firefighters throughout Canada, in sympathy with the firefighters at Edmonton international airport, in view of the fact several airlines have indicated their lack of desire to land at international airports where there is not proper firefighting control and patrol? This is an urgent matter which could tie up the whole nation. I wonder if there could be that kind of undertaking?


Mr. Alastair Gillespie (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to take that question as notice and refer it to the President of the Treasury Board.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister please advise the House what discussion took place as to the release of a great Ukrainian, Valentyn Moroz, during his brief visit with Mr. Brezhnev and Mr. Kosygin?

May 31, 1971


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I made no representations personally about that matter, although I understand that some members of my party did. I will try to ascertain what happened and report.


Steve Eugene Paproski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Why did the Prime Minister show discrimination and a lack of intestinal fortitude by not bringing up this very important matter?


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that that is not a supplementary question. It is a speech.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member kindly resume his seat. The hon. member for Regina East.


PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS
John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, may I rephrase the question I asked previously of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State. Will the parliamentary secretary undertake to investigate the case of an employee of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who has apparently not yet been granted leave of absence for which he applied two months ago in order to run as a candidate in the Saskatchewan election?


An hon. Member:: Who for?


Mr. James Hugh Faulkner (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to look into this. Possibly the hon. member could give me the name of the individual concerned.




[Stage Direction]
-DISCUSSION UNDER PROTOCOL WITH SOVIET UNION
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of his rather casual treatment of the question of freedom for some of the nationals under Russian domination, can he indicate to the House whether humanity will best be served by his not taking up the cause so that world opinion might pressure the Russians into allowing these people their freedom?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member refers to the argument of
Inquiries of the Ministry
humanity, I think that arguments based on humanity can be best made by parties who are in a good relationship with one another. That is why we have signed this protocol with the Soviet Union, in the hope that we could do that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley James Korchinski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The Soviets also signed an agreement with Hitler and that did not work out very well either.


Stanley James Korchinski: Prior to signing the protocol, did the Prime Minister have any assurances from the Russ:an authorities that the question of the freedom of these people would be one of the subjects that would be discussed at a future date?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I missed the whole first half of the question because some of the Conservative members were shouting.


An hon. Member:: This is just like old times.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, hon. members were probably shouting because the Prime Mmister did not take up the cause of freedom for the Ukrainian nationals.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


ALLEGED COMPARISON BY PRIME MINISTER OF UKRAINIAN NATIONALS AND FLQ
Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Prime Minister tell the House what justification there was for his remark comparing the Ukrainian nationals with the FLQ in Quebec?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I was not comparing the nationals of any country with the nationals in Quebec. I was indicating that the position of the Canadian government was that we were not supporting the independence of any part of any other country which is recogn zed under international law any more than we would want any other country to support the independence of any part of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In regard to Valintin Moroz, who has never preached the separation of the Ukraine from Russia, who has never been guilty of violence and has never preached violence-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member was recognized for the purpose of asking a question. He should do so and not make a speech.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is this. Do you equate freedom of speech with violation of the law or apprehended insurrection?

May 31, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is obviously debate and argument. It is not a question.


Robert Norman Thompson: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, and with due courtesy to yourself, the Prime Minister has invited questions. He said that this is the place where we should ask our questions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


OPPORTUNITY FOR JEWS TO EMIGRATE FROM SOVIET UNION TO ISRAEL
Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. Was the government of Israel one of the sources of corroboration of the statement of Mr. Kosygin that the statements about Soviet resistance to Soviet Jews going to Israel were unfounded? Has he actually ascertained that the government of Israel is now satisfied with the way the government of the Soviet Union is treating those of its citizens who wish to go to Israel?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not say that the government of Israel was satisfied that everyone who wanted to leave the Soviet Union to go to Israel could do so. I said that they are satisfied that the number has increased.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Were they one of those listed by the Prime Minister on Friday in his speech as having corroborated the statement of Mr. Kosygin? Were they among that group or not?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I fail to understand the question.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: The Prime Minister said the Canadian government had corroborated from various sources that Mr. Kosygin's statement was correct. I ask him now whether the government of Israel was one of those sources?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I stated that Mr. Kosygin said they had in recent months permitted an increasing number of Soviet citizens of Jewish origin to leave the Soviet Union for Israel. And I say that the Canadian government did ascertain this to be a fact from various sources, one of them being the government of Israel.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Annapolis Valley on a supplementary on the same subject and then go to a representative of one of the parties to the left of the chair.


DISCUSSION OF STATUS OF CZECHOSLOVAKIA BY PRIME MINISTER WITH SOVIET AUTHORITIES
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question arises out of the Prime Minister's answer to the hon. member for Mackenzie. In view of the Prime Minister's reference to humanity in relation to the status of independent countries and his statement that he was not
going to interfere, I wonder whether in his talks with either Brezhnev or Kosygin he discussed the status of Czechoslovakia and the plight of that country since 1968?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: In view of the importance the Prime Minister now places upon parliamentary committees, would he not agree to appear before the committee on external affairs to answer these questions which are taking up the time of the House right now?


FINANCE
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, if I might be allowed to turn the attention of the government to its domestic problems rather than its external ones, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance this question. Having regard to the very flexible decision he has taken to allow input into the budget up to 48 hours before the time the budget, and probably the minister, leave the launching pad, can the minister assure the agricultural industry that its very special plight and deteriorating situation, as evidenced by the recent DBS figures, will be the subject of remedial treatment in the forthcoming budget?


Edgar John Benson: I think my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, and the government generally have been doing a good deal and are proposing to do a good deal more to help the agricultural industry, if they can get co-operation from the other side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: As requested by the Minister of Finance I will ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he will give some indication shortly that the government intends to modify its present legislation directed to forcing small family farmers off the land?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Nothing could be further from the truth than that assertion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SUGGESTED INCLUSION OF MORATORIUM ON REPAYMENT OF FARM LOANS IN BUDGET
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he has made any representations to the Minister of Finance calling for a temporary moratorium on the repayment of farm improvement loans and Farm Credit Corporation loans in the forthcoming budget in view of the fact that farm cash receipts are continuing to decline and farmers are experiencing serious difficulty in discharging their obligations?

May 31, 1971


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I
announced some time ago that we are continuing the policy of deferring payments under FCC for any individual who can demonstrate that he is unable to meet those commitments. As far as the other part of the question is concerned, I believe the hon. member knows that the government has provided $100 million to relieve the grain industry and that there have been very significant improvements in the dairy industry recently.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rod Thomson (Baltleford-Kindersley):: My question is also directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Is the government planning to implement the recommendation of the Barber report on farm machinery with regard to establishing an independent agency to develop and test new machinery?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I cannot say positively today that we shall establish such an institute but we are giving serious consideration to the recommendation.




J. Michael Forrestall: wonder if I might direct my question to the Prime Minister. While it is regrettable that he did not see fit to make a full statement today on his trip to Russia-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


J. Michael Forrestall: You cannot call Friday's one. If the people of Canada consider his intrusion on Friday to be a statement on his trip-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


J. Michael Forrestall: That was a sort of cowardly approach on Friday. I wonder if the Prime Minister can give the House some indication whether or not there will be briefings of our officials within the context both of NATO and NORAD with respect to the conclusions and the purposes of the protocol so as to remove any possible misunderstandings with respect to our attitude here in North America?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State for External Affairs is leaving tomorrow for the NATO meetings which are being held in Europe and I am sure he will have occasion to inform our colleagues in NATO on any points they may wish to be clear about. He may also refer to the Conservative motion on Friday.
Inquiries of the Ministry


POSITION OF SOVIET UNION RESPECTING BALANCED REDUCTION OF ARMED FORCES
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Last week I was seeking information from the Secretary of State for External Affairs as to the change in the Russian position with regard to a reduction of troops in Europe. In view of the statement by the Prime Minister that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is leaving for an important meeting, can the minister indicate, or create an opportunity-I am sure the House would consent-to describe to the House what was meant by a phrase equivalent to appropriate conditions with relation to the meeting which the Prime Minister of Canada and the government of Russia urged should be held with regard to this whole subject? What are the conditions under which Canada-[DOT]


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. My understanding is that the Leader of the Opposition has inquired whether a statement will be made on motions. Certainly the type of statement he now suggests would normally be made by the minister on motions.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I have been seeking this information for more than a week. On one occasion, the Secretary of State for External Affairs apologized for not having provided it. He is now leaving the country in connection with these matters and I call it to the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs again, particularly in view of the joint declaration made by the Prime Minister of Canada and the appropriate representative of Russia with regard to this whole matter.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I think I can answer the question quite briefly, Mr. Speaker. The NATO forces in their communique of last December did propose negotiations on mutual arms reductions under certain conditions. The Warsaw Pact, in its reply, used these words:
It would help to lessen tension and promote security in Europe if a reduction of foreign armed forces on the territories of European states were discussed.
Mr. Brezhnev, on March 30, 1971, amplified this and indicated a change which we considered to be important. He stood for "a reduction of armed forces and armaments in areas where the military confrontation was especially dangerous and above all in central Europe". This is the area which was referred to by the NATO powers.


PROPOSED JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT-PARTICIPATION OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Regarding the large James Bay resource development project in which the Quebec government and Hydro-

May 31, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
Quebec are directly involved, is the federal government offering to take part in it and is it attending discussions in that connection?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: To my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, no such request has been made to the federal government.


SUGGESTED INCREASE IN TRANSITIONAL PAYMENT TO PRAIRIE FARMERS
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Agr culture, in light of the previous answer he gave today about the amount of assistance and effort the federal government is putting into agriculture, particularly western agriculture, and in view of the drop in net farm income in the three Prairie provinces of $476 million since he joined the cabinet, whether he or his colleague from Saskatoon-Humboldt is recommending to the government a substantial increase in the $100 million transitional payments that are presently proposed?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the $100 million is an increase in the amount that has been appropriated for that purpose before, and it would be helpful if we could have the legislation passed so that we could pay out the money.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In order that all members of the House may be co-operative and assist the Minister of Agriculture and the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt, would the minister now advise whether or not the government would bring in the transitional payments as a separate item so they may be passed by the House within the next 48 hours?




Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Souih Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Now that the Prime Minister has concluded an agreement with the Soviet Union to solve the problems of Arctic pollution and sovereignty, can he tell the House when he will be concluding a similar agreement with our ally in North American defence, namely, the United States of America?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the premise is not quite correct. There was no agreement reached solving these problems. There was discussion of these problems and, of course, we have discussions of the problems with our friend and ally the United States all the time. There will be a meeting early in June on pollution in some of the Great Lakes between United States representatives and their Canadian counterparts.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-Si. George's-Si. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the fact that the proposed increases in transportation rates between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland will have serious effects on the economy of the province of Newfoundland and therefore jeopardize the objective of overcoming regional disparity, does the minister intend to discuss the problem with the Minister of Transport, or has he discussed it with him, in order to try to overcome this situation?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am having continuous discussions with the Minister of Transport.


Jack Marshall: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister direct the Atlantic Development Board to look into this action, which will seriously affect the economy of the province, and report back to the House?


NOTIFICATION OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND OF INTENTION TO ALLOW FERRY RATE INCREASES
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which I should like to address to the Prime Minister. Since communication with and transportation to and from the rest of Canada were factors in the joining of Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland in confederation, did the government inform the governments of these two provinces of its intention to allow a very large increase in transportation costs between those provinces and the mainland?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take the question as notice. I know of no such information having been imparted.


REQUEST THAT NOVA SCOTIA-NEWFOUNDLAND FERRY RATE INCREASE BE SUSPENDED PENDING INVESTIGATION
John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which I will direct to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport. Would he ask the Minister of Transport to set aside the present rate increases, which are as high as 80 per cent above the present level, until the total effect of this move can be ascertained and the charge that there is a contravention of the terms of union of the province of Newfoundland with the rest of Canada is fully investigated?


Mr. Gerard Duquel (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I will gladly turn this question over to the minister when he returns from Europe.

May 31, 1971


CAPITAL ASSISTANCE FOR PROVISION OF YOUTH HOSTEL FACILITIES
John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of citizenship programs. In view of the large numbers of young people now travelling in Canada, is the government considering a program to provide capital assistance for youth hostel facilities? I ask this question in view of the fact that the current program is restricted to operational assistance.


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister without Portfolio):: No,


Mr.   Speaker.Mr. Burton@: A supplementary question. Could I also ask the minister whether he is considering alternative means of assistance this year for facilities in communities where difficulties in obtaining approval of municipal authorities have been encountered?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, there is a very flexible provision for assistance. The Canadian Assistance Plan offers a great deal of assistance to such projects, and the citizenship branch will assist further with operational costs where there is clear evidence available of community support and responsible management.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
William Skoreyko: Mr. Speaker, I should l.ke to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the statement made some time ago by the Minister of National Defence that the installation of ABMs in Canada's Arctic was possible, can the Prime Minister now say as a result of his trip to Russia whether this project can be considered possible in the near future?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the project to which the hon. member is referring. I will consult with the Minister of National Defence.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the Prime Minister's previous experience and the fact that the Russians seem to be calling the tune, was there any suggestion on their part that he would be better advised to return to his ballet dancing?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are running short of time. Perhaps we might try to limit ourselves to matters which ought to be considered during the question period.
Inquiries of the Ministry THE CENSUS


EXAMINATION OF COMPLETED FORMS BY PRIVATE CITIZENS-ACTION TO PROTECT SECRECY AND PRIVACY
Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question about the census. As the minister responsible and his parliamentary secretary are absent, I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the census forms, whether the long or the short, are not being mailed directly to Ottawa for scrutiny and tabulation, as was the case in 1961, but are being directed to local organizations for scrutiny and checking before being sent to Ottawa, would the Prime Minister ask the minister in charge to delay the deadline for sending these forms and suspend the provision for the imposition of fines until such time as secrecy and privacy are protected?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not
sense the nature of the question, Mr. Speaker. I will, of course, transmit it to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, but I am not sure in what way the hon. member is alleging that secrecy is not being protected.


Alfred Dryden Hales: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister whether he thinks that the privacy of individuals is being protected when local committees scrutinize the census forms rather than have the scrutiny made in Ottawa?


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breion-Easi Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question on the same subject. May I ask the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance whether the government is not aware that these forms are in violation of the Income Tax Act?


INQUIRY AS TO FINAL PAYMENT ON WHEAT FOR 1969-70 CROP YEAR-BARLEY PAYMENT
Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I
should like to direct my question to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. What is causing the undue delay in making the final payment for wheat, and when can we expect the payment on barley?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, when a pool is closed there is always a significant period of time before accounts are finalized, and there is nothing undue about the period of time that is being taken in this case. The barley pool for
1969-70 closed, of course, some time ago and payment was made.


Stanley James Korchinski: May we expect the payment within three weeks?

May 31, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry YOUTH


PROVISION OP BEDS AND MATTRESSES FOR HOSTELS
John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I have a question tor the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State. In view of the fact that many hostels are not able to open until beds and mattresses are made available, would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State indicate whether arrangements have been made to make available beds and mattresses for these hostels across Canada?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, this is the first I have heard about any problem involving beds and mattresses. I will consult my colleague who seems to be more familiar with the situation.


POLLUTION
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expanson. Is the E. B. Eddy plant to be entirely closed down by the 1975 deadlines or is it merely a question of cleaning up?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not know of any deadline, and I am not the appropriate minister to whom to put the question.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister please advise the House of his itinerary in Red China, particularly Peking, and say whether he plans to take his wife with him.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


TRANSITIONAL PAYMENT-FINAL PAYMENT ON WHEAT FOR 1969-70 CROP YEAR PRIOR TO JUNE 23
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In light of his hopes in respect of transitional payments, does he intend to announce a final payment on the wheat pool prior to June 23?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as soon as the Wheat Board has
finalized the accounts I am sure it will issue cheques in the usual fashion.


ROSTER SYSTEM-ATTENDANCE OF MINISTERS NOT SCHEDULED TO BE PRESENT
John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether I should direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister or the Acting House Leader as it has to do with the roster system. Will whoever is responsible on the government side for the imposition of the roster system consider tossing it out the window in view of the fact that a number of ministers-


An hon. Member:: What about your own ranks?


John Howard Lundrigan: Never mind the ranks on this side of the House.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Start taking responsibility.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, my question is a serious representation. Will the government consider-


An hon. Member:: Just a bunch of phonies.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might be allowed to ask his question and the minister might be allowed to answer as quickly as possible because we have reached the end of the question period.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether, in view of the fact that a number of ministers are not here today but are present on Parliament Hill, and a number of ministers who are supposed to be here today are not here, it is possible to permit ministers who are here tomorrow but who are not scheduled to be in the House to be in attendance in the chamber to answer questions?


Mr. Danson:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe there is something wrong with the translation system because the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate is not coming through very sensibly in English.


John Howard Lundrigan: The parliamentary secretary is being his usual witty self. Perhaps he is going to be retired. I should like to have my question answered. Is the Acting House Leader-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the hon. member's question is, by his own admission, a suggestion. He indicated that he wanted to make a serious suggestion to the government. At this time we must assume that this is what he is doing and that his suggestion will be taken into account. Orders of the day.

May 31, 1971



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, May 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lang that Bill C-238, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to make two points this afternoon with reference to the amendments to the Wheat Board Act proposed in Bill C-238. The first point relates to the inclusion of rye, rapeseed and flax, as well as oats under certain circumstances, under the Canadian Wheat Board.
I appreciate the fact that this is merely enabling legislation permitting the executive to pass orders in council, if and when it sees fit.
I am sure the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, as well as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), have received representations to the effect that the only cash crops the farmers have had for a number of years have been cereal crops, other than wheat or coarse grains, including oats and barley. The only cash crops they have had have been rye, rapeseed and flax. Let us deal first with rapeseed.
The introduction of this crop into western Canada took place at Tisdale, Saskatchewan, during the war. This crop was used successfully in the production of edible oils. It was introduced in that area by a man by the name of Kermit Purdy who became very successful. Rapeseed at that time ran at approximately 2,000 pounds to the acre and was worth about six cents per bushel on the farm. It was first introduced in the Carrot River Valley, and has since been introduced to other areas in western Canada. It was introduced then because of the same problem now facing producers. They were having difficulty making deliveries of grain in time to pay their expenses and to keep their families and their enterprises.
The same situation existed when wheat became surplus. Rapeseed was then used, along with rye and flax as a cash crop. If these grains are put under the Canadian Wheat Board, we may find western farmers in the same situation, without any cash crop to meet current expenditures. Hon. members with some knowledge of western Canada, and the production of crops there, will appreciate there are certain areas in which stock growing is not a profitable enterprise. In these same areas, the farmers can attain a high production of wheat and coarse grains including rye, rapeseed and flax. This is because of a shortage of water in many places. I could name a number and I will do so this afternoon. The minister knows one of these areas very well, namely Kindersley which is adjacent to Saskatoon. Other areas include Rosetown, and Vulcan, Alberta. These are basically cereal producing areas rather than stock producing.
Canadian Wheat Board Act
One of the greatest dangers inherent in the Canadian Wheat Board taking over these crops is the suggestion that they will be put on a quota system similar to wheat. As a result, the small scale farmer will have no cash crop to use for paying current expenses. I oppose that part of this bill. I had hoped the minister might have said this is a method by which farmers can obtain cash. The farmers in western Canada do not need handouts and they are not asking for them. What they need is a market for their produce. Before this bill is given second reading, I hope the minister will say the government does not intend to create a situation under which there will be no cash crops available to the operators of these small farms. If that is not so, then members of all parties on this side who have some knowledge of the situation can only come to the conclusion there will be no possibility of cash crop production on farms in order that farmers can pay immediate expenses and make a living. If the government takes any other attitude, then we must assume this is umbrella legislation which will deny farmers the opportunity of making enough money to support their families and pay immediate expenses, with the result they will be driven from the land. That is the first point I wanted to make.
My second point is related to the first. For a long time we have opposed the idea that you can control the sales of grain from one province to another. There have been literally thousands of bootleg sales between Saskatchewan and Alberta because of the quota system implemented by this government. This quota is entirely different from the old. I hope under this legislation that the minister and this government will end once and for all this control over the export of cereal grains from one province to another, particularly in western Canada where the grains involved are barley, rapeseed, rye and flax.
At the present time a great deal of grain, particularly wheat, is being produced along the western border of Saskatchewan and all across the border through Alberta to be used as feed. Very often this grain finds its way into elevators there under the quota system. The farmers in Saskatchewan do not want to bootleg their grain in contravention of the law. Many of them are not able to pay their expenses, their taxes or their liabilities without doing so. Being placed in these desperate straits, they are obliged to take the only measure at hand. As was said in "Oliver Twist", the law is an ass so far as this situation is concerned.
Today a case is being argued in Ottawa in respect of another commodity. I will not say any more than that. I would hope the result of that decision, and the result of the government's decision in the future, will be such as to carry out the objective of the constitution that we have free trade between the provinces. Many places in western Canada can produce-there is no doubt about it-grain of all types and much cheaper than it can be produced in the other provinces of Canada. This not only works a hardship on western Canada but also on eastern Canada which needs some of the cereals to feed livestock. There has been such a demand for livestock feed in Ontario and in Quebec-and I have heard all about this

May 31, 1971
Canadian Wheat Board Act
from my friends from those provinces-that corn and other commodities are being imported from the United States.
There is a third point concerning the matter of quotas. We now hear the minister boast that there is now a five-bushel and six-bushel quota in existence. He has not explained to the farmers, to the House or to the media, that the new quota is based on a much smaller acreage. The farmers would like to hear something about this. I would like to take the Minister of Agriculture to my farm in Saskatchewan. I would ask him why grain is not moving off the farms at Rosetown and Kindersley and why the farmers do not have cash.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, if the House would give unanimous consent I would be very happy to answer this question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the minister has spoken but when I am finished I shall be quite prepared to give consent, as I am sure the House will, because we want a solution to the problem.
I am sure the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Gibson) was not sent here by his constituents to holler and shout, as he did today during the question period, just so the Prime Minister could make a quick answer. I would hope that he would listen to those who want to make a contribution, if he does not wish to make a contribution himself, and start acting like a gentleman.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the hon. member a question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Certainly.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, has the hon. member taken into account the fact that there is not only a five-bushel and six-bushel quota on wheat but also a 20-bushel quota on flax and a 30-bushel on barley, all of which used to be counted within the six-bushel per specified acres.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, my answer to that is that I would have hoped the Minister of Agriculture would have told the truth. The quotas he is talking about are not based on the previous acreage. Under the old quota system, the quota in respect of wheat was based on the total acreage; not only that planted in wheat, flax, barley or rye, but the total acreage of the farm. If you had 640 acres under cultivation and planted only 200 acres of wheat your quota was based on 640 acres. Today it is based on production under the new Lift program. There is no use giving answers of this kind because they are far from honest or factual. The Minister of Agriculture will not tell the facts in the House or out on the farms. I am sorry he takes the attitude he does.
My point is that these quotas are based on the Lift program rather than on the old system of total acreage. The tenant who operates my farm tells me that what he really has in wheat, compared to what he used to have, is about a two-bushel quota. That is not enough to pay either his expenses or the taxes on the land which my father pioneered and homesteaded in Saskatchewan. If all farmers are in the same economic plight as that farmer

is, then they are in dire straits. I will be surprised if the Minister of Agriculture makes any contribution to the election in Saskatchewan because I think the most dangerous thing Thatcher has to face today is the Liberal government's policies in respect of agriculture and other things that affect the Prairies. I do not think the minister can deny this. I am sure he cannot say he has not had complaints, not only in respect of this legislation but also in respect of the whole agricultural program. He tries to pass the buck over here. I am sure he has had protests from the farmers who are in dire straits.
Questions have been asked today, for instance. The government was asked whether it is bringing in legislation which would protect against the vigorous efforts of government agencies to collect the money lent to farmers. I have received dozens of letters from farmers in the province of Alberta who indicate that they cannot meet the interest on the money. The government is pressing as hard as it did in the 1930's, in the days of Aberhart and Manning. The policies of this government are bringing the farmers to the point of bankruptcy.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The louder the better!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Sometimes it is necessary to get certain points across to you.


Steve Eugene Paproski: It has to come out loud and clear for you.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It must be logical, too.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My first point had to do with the cash flow to the farmer. My second point was in respect of free trade between provinces and my third point concerns quotas. I wish to return to the question of free trade between provinces. My recommendation is that the minister, under this legislation or by regulation, permit free trade of farm goods between all provinces. The former Chief Justice of Canada, who is now retired, said in this regard:
It seems clear that the enactment-
Dealing with the Canadian Wheat Board:
-of such a prohibition would be beyond the powers of any provincial legislature and so would appear prima facie to fall within the powers of Parliament under the opening words of s. 91 of the British North America Act and to be valid, unless it contravenes s. 121 of that Act.
Section 121 of that Act deals with free trade between the provinces in plain ordinary English.
It may be that if, on its true construction, s. 32 would have the effect of prohibiting the supposed transportation it would be in conflict with s. 121 as being a prohibition which, to borrow the words of my brother Rand, "in its essence and purpose is related to a provincial boundary" and not being a regulation of trade or commerce (since there are difficulties in regarding a person as engaged in trade or commerce with himself) or a necessary incident of such regulation. If this be so it would furnish a strong reason for construing s. 32 as excluding from its operation the transportation in the case supposed, but I do not find it necessary to reach a final conclusion on the point-
In other words, in CPR versus Murphy, 1958 Supreme Court Reports at page 644 the Chief Justice said in effect that the prohibition of free trade between provinces
May 31. 1971

might well be ultra vires in respect of the Canadian Wheat Board Act which is of course federal and not provincial legislation. A worsening situation has been brought about today by the fact that today the cash crops being produced on the farms are confined to the jurisdiction of the provinces in which they are produced.
The minister was asking questions and I have just been handed figures regarding cash income from grain in Saskatchewan. These figures are from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. In Saskatchewan, grain income in 1967 was $737 million; in 1968, it was $655 million; in 1969, it was $495 million; and in 1970, it was $449 million. I say to the minister that from the figures that are now being given out, it is obvious that the exports of wheat overseas have declined. He will find those figures to be correct. If I am wrong, I will sit down and he can correct me. He should compare those figures with figures in other years. Those are figures for both export and domestic sales. If they are higher, then why are we not moving the grain off the farms?
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Laniel): Order, please. Is the minister rising for the purpose of asking a question?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the hon. member is aware of the fact that wheat exports are running very heavily ahead of last year, and is he aware of the fact that the total grain exports are now somewhere over the 500 million bushel mark, which means that with two months to run we are ahead of any but the four best years, all of which we almost certainly will pass? Also, I wonder whether the hon. member is aware of the fact that while such quotas as the rapeseed quota are at the 30 bushel level, barley is also at the 30 bushel level and wheat is at the five or six bushel level. This means that a straight wheat farmer who has a quota on all his acres has a much higher total delivery quota than he has had for several years.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I must quote the figures to the
minister-


Mr. Osier:: You do not understand them.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I think I understand them. I thought the hon. member was more patient than that, even if he is suck.ng his thumb.


Edmund Boyd Osler: No, I was scratching my chin.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If what the minister said is true, may I bring something to his attention. Hon members have noticed how carfully he uses the word "grain" instead of wheat in order, as the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) pointed out, to hide facts. If he is correct in his assertions, I challenge him to explain why gross income from grain in Saskatchewan alone dropped from $737 million in 1967 down to $449 million in 1970, a loss of almost $300 million. Either he is selling grain at fire sale prices or else the exports have declined. He cannot have it both ways. The figures I quote are from the DBS.
Canadian Wheat Board Act
I do not blame the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier) for having two fingers in his mouth now. I would feel the same way if my minister were throwing figures around. I can imagine how badly members from eastern provinces feel when they know what is happening in Saskatchewan. I say through you, Mr. Speaker, that this government is in such disrepute today that the minister does not dare cross provincial borders, let alone allow grain to cross them.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Coming as I do from western Canada, I am scratching my chin in wonderment.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I know. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre wonders at the minister being so ill-informed about grain, particularly since his constituency was the home of the grain exchange. He will have to do a little visiting. I should like to ask the minister, before I sit down, whether, when he used the word "grain" he meant wheat, or did he mean grain. Let him look at his notes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair is wondering whether this procedure can be followed. I do not see how the hon. member speaking can ask a question of the minister. If the minister wants to ask a question of the member who has the floor, the hon. member would have to decide whether to allow the question. I do not think the Chair can allow this kind of exchange from one side of the House to the other because, according to the rules of the House, a member is entitled to speak only once at this stage of the debate. I do not see how the minister, who is not permitted to seek the floor to take part in the debate, may be allowed to reply to a question put by the hon. member.


Otto Emil Lang: May I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The minister is rising on a point of order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is different; I do not mind hearing the point of order.


Otto Emil Lang: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker; I was rising on the assumption that after 18 members had spoken I would in fact, take the opportunity to reply, which I know would close the debate, and I was waiting for you to say no.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will conclude with the following remarks. This just shows how factual the minister was. He deliberately used the word "grain" knowing that most people think of grain as being wheat. The two words are synonomous in people's minds. The minister hoped he could cover up the facts when I pointed out that exports had decreased. I say to him again that I challenge him to say that the figures for the export and domestic consumption of wheat equal those in 1966, 1967, 1968 or 1969, on the average. That is what we are interested in.
I want to drive home one more point. The minister has been talking about the great exports of grain. I have not received an answer to my question. If the minister is interested, I will go to Saskatoon with him and I will drive 200 or 300 miles through the grain belts with him.

May 31, 1971
Canadian Wheat Board Act
We will walk together and bring the press with us. He will find grain piled up on the farms everywhere.


Otto Emil Lang: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The minister laughs.


Otto Emil Lang: Because you were not saying so a year ago.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If the minister thinks we were not saying so, he must have had ear plugs or else it was beyond his comprehension. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, what they are really frightened of? They told me this in Saskatchewan the other day. They said that things are so bad for the minister, they are frightened he will be defeated and will return to being dean of the university. This would be one of the worst things that could happen.
I want to finish what I was saying. The supply of wheat is building up on the farms, as well as other crops, but there is no cash on the farms. Farmers cannot meet their expenses and liabilities. That is the true story, and that is the story that Saskatchewan knows. If Mr. Thatcher were to sneak through in this election, the only way in which he would do it would be on the strength of his performance. But he and his advisers know that what he has to fight today is not the NDP but the performance of this government.


Robert Norman Thompson: I am not
sure that I can show the same enthusiasm as has my hon. friend, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) when he talked about walking or travelling through the grain belt arm in arm with the minister. I suggest to him that if he were to do so, it would not do him any good politically out there.
The minister obviously wants to put the best face on his performance. In looking at the federal government statistics on farm income in Saskatchewan-and we are talking about net income, not gross income-I see a drop from $354 million in 1967 to $202 million. That is quite a drop when you speak in terms of net income. I do not know whether the minister has had enough farming experience to know what this really means, but surely his intellectual understanding of the problem should be adequate, even if his personal experience is not.
No act is any better than the government that administers it. I suggest that generally speaking the Wheat Board has not done too bad a job, in spite of the government as has been suggested, but frequently when they did not do a good job the reason was that they did not have the tools needed at the time. I should like to suggest some of the things that should have been done sooner in relation to the proposals now put forward by the minister.
One of the first things I would like to talk about is credit sales. We saw what happened when the government began to guarantee wheat sales to countries which had dollar problems. Mr. Speaker, if I were a country purchasing wheat and had to buy it with American dollars or gold, in all probability I would buy American
wheat rather than Canadian wheat. It seems to me that our government has insisted on a method of pricing that operates only in Canada's favour. We want the best of both worlds, but this is not the way things work. When the Wheat Board began to use the mechanism of credit sales it immediately increased its sales. I have heard the minister talk about this. Mr. Speaker, I was a Wheat Board delegate in the years 1954 to 1959, and we were talking about credit sales then, not to mention other things. It seems that before the federal government wakes up to a situation and takes action, someone has to go broke or reach the verge of bankruptcy.
The subject of pricing should have been examined by the Wheat Board a little sooner. I am not speaking as a producer of grain, but I think there have been times, if we had been on the ball, when we could have sold more grain at a better price, both in Canada and abroad. We should have been awake to what was happening to world prices. I believe that producers should be paid, through the Wheat Board, an adequate price for wheat consumed in Canada. I suggest that that price should be at least $1 more per bushel than the selling price abroad. At least that price would be comparable with the prices farmers have to pay for goods and services. If the minister does not want to accept my advice, or the advice of others like me, I would invite him to try a little farming on his own. These are the kinds of tools that the Wheat Board must use if it is to do a good job on behalf of the grain producers.
I have checked on some of the countries that purchased wheat from Canada through credit arrangements, and I have discovered that we have not sold significant quantities to some of them since 1952, while to others we have sold none at all since 1952. If grain had been sold to those countries during the intervening years, we would not have the surplus in Canada that we have now. When we first heard about the awkward problem facing the grain producers of western Canada we pointed out that the growing surplus of grain would be reflected in the future of the livestock industry. Just a few days ago I heard some Quebec members complain about the low price of pork in that province. One thing leads to another. The government did not act soon enough in one area, and the problem moved into another area. Surplus grain was converted into surplus pork, and now Ontario and Quebec farmers are facing the result.
Some of the changes brought about by the Canada Grains Act should have been enacted much sooner, and here I refer to protein grading, mixing at the terminals, and credit sales. The other change envisaged by the minister is the bringing of flax, rye and rapeseed under the authority of the Wheat Board. I think it is high time that this was done, but I cannot help but wonder why the minister is doing it now. I read his speech the other day in preparation for this debate. He said that, although he proposes to bring rapeseed, rye and flax seed under the Wheat Board, he does not intend to use those provisions of the bill now. Why bring those grains under the Wheat Board if this is the case? Must we read between the lines of his speech? I hope that when he replies he will tell us why he is including these grains. What is the purpose?

May 31, 1971

Hopefully, it is the prospect of selling more of them at a better price, and thus look after the farmer's interests in a better fashion. I have been trying to make an honest assessment of the matter, and am still wondering at the minister's reasoning.
I suggest to the minister that there has been some hanky-panky in connection with the prices that producers have been receiving for rapeseed. I can give one instance of a difference of 15 cents a bushel for rapeseed between Lloydminster and Maidstone. Sometimes the difference is only 10 cents per bushel, but that means a lot of money to an individual who has grown several thousand bushels. Producers wonder why there cannot be some other method of handling these grains. Occasionally a farmer gets burned if he sells his rye or flax at a low price on the open market. As a result, he thinks the Wheat Board type of selling is not a bad thing. I can recall when we had the option of selling on the open market or selling to the Wheat Board. When prices were good people sold on the open market, but when there was a surplus of grain and prices were down, people sold to the Wheat Board. The only time they used the Wheat Board was when there was trouble. I hope the minister replies to this point. I think it is a good move, assuming the Wheat Board uses the power given it wisely and well.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say just a few words. I believe the bill will get second reading and go to committee later this afternoon. I just want to say that, in my humble opinion, the over-all
package of federal government agricultural legislation, of which this bill is part, contains a collusive conspiracy between the government and government officials to denude the rural areas of western Canada of farmers, particularly those on small, family farms. I do not think there is any question about that. I asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) a question during the question period today. He really did not answer me factually, and the very indignant nature of his response indicated that there was no question about the purpose of the government's agricultural legislation.
Some figures will indicate the truth of this assertion. According to the DBS, total grain cash receipts in 1967 in Saskatchewan were $737 million; in 1968, they were down to $665 million; in 1969, down to $495 million, and in 1970 down to $449 million. There are similar figures showing over-all cash receipts received by the agricultural industry throughout the three Prairie provinces. In Alberta, these receipts fell from $794 million to $729 million. In Manitoba, the figure also is down.
The bill which we are discussing contains two elements which have been debated by my colleagues and other members of the opposition parties. But surprisingly enough very few, if any, government supporters took part in the debate to support the bill. That part of the bill dealing with the $100 million might well have been the subject of a very simple arrangement. Nobody in this House has indicated any objection to these subsidies being given to the farmers who desperately need the money. This payment could have been made in the way it was during the administration of the right hon.
Canadian Wheat Board Act
member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) when a simple item in the estimates was brought forward, debated and passed. This could have been done some considerable time ago.
The minister has indicated that, in his view, there is no intention to utilize the other part of the legislative program which permits the government to put into effect provisions which would bring rapeseed and the other grains mentioned under the control of the Canadian Wheat Board. He simply wants to have that power in case it may be needed. I disagree with that form of legislation. When the government needs power it should come forward and ask for it. There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is related to the provincial election in Saskatchewan. I do not want to get involved in discussing that as we have other problems, but I think it is disgraceful when a legislative program is related to a provincial election.
I should like to reinforce the point I made regarding the serious and deteriorating situation of agriculture in western Canada. I farmed there myself for a number of years and when I first went out to practise my profession I had the opportunity to meet and become associated with thousands of people in Alberta. I know that they are being driven constantly and continuously from the land into urban centres thereby causing problems for the areas they leave as well as those areas into which they are forced.
As the sprawling metropolitan areas of the east and west struggle with the miseries of overcrowding, weary farmers, ranchers, village dwellers and their educated young flee the Prairies by the thousands. Figures published by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics indicate this. The drain on the countryside has caused an almost desperate situation in many rural areas, and especially on the plains of the heartland, as people leave. Economic survival becomes more difficult and dozens of towns are dying, some are already dead. The Prairies are part of this problem and so are the urban areas. As a result of this exodus, fairly well educated and motivated people settle in urban areas and there is no question that they tend to displace people already there who need jobs.
The problems of pollution, overcrowding and the concomitant difficulties which are being posed are part of the total economic picture. In spite of the answer of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) to my question this afternoon, there is no doubt that the actions of the government and their advisers are such that we can only assume they are gripped by this stupid, wrong and false determination to strip the rural areas of all population except those people who, in the view of the economic advisers of the government, are competent to handle the problems of the agricultural industry. The rules and conditions which are being laid down contain all the economic factors which usually prevail under a government bureaucracy. I resent that and I think most people in western Canada resent it.

May 31, 1971
Canadian Wheat Board Act
I am not competent to speak on the problem as it exists in eastern Canada, but I have heard reports that it does exist there as well. I suggest to my hon. friends opposite, to the Minister of Agriculture and the minister piloting this bill through, that the day will come when they will regret having been part of this conspiracy. There is no doubt that it will be necessary to retrace their steps and settle people back in the desolate areas from which they have come as a result of the policy of this government.
Not too long ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) spoke about net soc'al benefit, but I think he had his tongue in his cheek. He spoke of it being a result of the gross nat.onal product of the country, which is one of the present indicators of our economic progress. In their deliberate scheme to strip the rural areas of family farms and send the people to the cities, I suggest that the government will have to retrace their steps and make it possible for these people to stay on the land. I could put on record hundreds of letters from people in my district who have been compelled to leave and who are anxious about the new life they face. They are concerned about leaving areas where the local municipalities have been involved in the school structure, in the system of utilities, in building up a society equipped to deal with a given number of people. When a half or a third or two-thirds of the people leave, those remaining face staggering problems. In all seriousness, I suggest to the government that they should review their policies and programs and not compel people to leave the land just because the government thinks that step must be taken.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Before allowing the hon. Minister without Portfolio in charge of the wheat board to speak in the debate at this time, I must warn hon. members that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, this debate on the amendments to the Wheat Board Act has ranged over a period of approximately two weeks, and during that time we have heard from 20 members of the opposition.


An hon. Member:: How many sitting days?


Otto Emil Lang: They have dealt almost totally either with one section of the bill or with matters not related to it at all. As I assess their general remarks, they support most of the amendments in the bill. With the exception of that one section they have either supported or not commented on the other amending sections so I take it that they are in agreement with those parts they have not commented on as well as those to which they have made reference. Their remarks related to agricultural matters generally, and there were several speeches on another bill before this House which is not part of this one. On occasion they linked the three pieces of legislation as though they were one. I refer to the three bills relating to grain which are before the House or on their way through committee. Certainly, the three bills are related in an effort to
improve the economic position of the grain farmer in western Canada.
In my opening remarks on one of these bills, I indicated formally my view and that of the government that those farmers who want to continue farming should be helped in every way we know in order to do so. That would be done by having that part of the system over which they have no control put in the best possible shape for them. I urged hon. members at that time to refrain from the mischievous and, indeed, malicious suggestion that in some way someone is out to get farmers off the farm against their will. I should really use the words used by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) to describe this suggestion. The words he used in describing it are, "stupid, false and wrong." Really, that is the best characterization of this continuing attempt to put fear into the hearts of people whose economic and social difficulties are already great enough. There is no need to stir up this idea of some great conspiracy lurking in the wings.
The main issue in the debate before the House, to the extent that it was relevant at all, touched on that section of the legislation which proposes to allow the addition, by order in council, of rapeseed, flax and rye under the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board. This will be done by extending parts III and IV to cover those grains, should it seem appropriate at some point to do so. Hon. members opposite have been divided in their views on that section. On the one hand, on the left, there is the view that this should be done immediately, without enabling legislation. These views were accompanied by strong statements that this ought to be done since everyone knows that producers are in favour of doing this now. From the right came sounds of indignation that anyone should even think about consulting producers. There were statements that the producers seemed to be lined up against that view-


Stanley James Korchinski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think it was amply illustrated in the House by various speakers, myself included-and a motion was moved to this effect-that our party had taken the position that we welcomed and wanted a plebiscite on this question.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) clarify his position on this point. As I listened to the speeches from the opposite side 1 had detected that those hon. members of the Conservative party who either had rapeseed growers in their constituency or knew something about rapeseed tended to be rather more broadminded about consulting the producers on the issue. I thought that the hon. member for Mackenzie had clearly expanded the view that the producers were totally against any change in the marketing system. I was glad to hear him in his point of order join me in the suggestion that the producers deserve to be consulted fully on this issue and adopt my view that, in this area, we should put ourselves into the position of serving the producers in the way they want to

May 31, 1971

be served. I have made it completely clear that the procedure which is being followed-


Mr. Southam:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in order to clarify the record and support the contentions raised in the point of order of my colleague, the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski), may I say that I had the honour and privilege, when leading off the debate one week ago last Monday on the bill with respect to the amendments to the Wheat Board Act, to support the principle that there should be a plebiscite to settle this issue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Perhaps at this time the Chair should take the opportunity of reminding hon. members that it is not the practice of this House to allow hon. members to intervene in the debate on points of order for the purpose of making explanations or corrections. The Chair is ready to allow hon. members to make clarifications. None the less, opportunities for clarification were given to all who participated in the debate. The minister now has the floor. I do not think hon. members should interrupt him regularly for the purpose of correcting statements or interpretations of statements.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it is true, of course, that we should get nowhere if every hon. member rose to redeclare his position. It is useful to hear the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Southam) repeat the position he adopted in leading off the debate. I thought he took an eminently sensible position. I was surprised at the extent to which colleagues of his representing other ridings, and perhaps not as much associated with the agricultural community as he is, departed from that position in suggesting that the view of producers was well known and that they were so clearly against this measure that there was no point at all in consulting them. I invite him to check the record and confirm that many of his Conservative colleagues adopted that position.
Of course, I was saying that it had been my view that this is an area in which it is particularly up to the producers to decide. In order to examine this question fully I set up, over one year ago, a committee composed of two producers and a distinguished member of the Rapeseed Association. It was to examine the question of the marketing systems available for the oil seeds in particular, although rye is now included in the amendment to the bill. This committee, in analyzing the problem, reached the conclusion that the producers did not have at the present time sufficient information in their hands about the way the marketing systems operate to make a clear and responsible decision about this question. They suggested in their report that after more information was obtained and put in their hands, a plebiscite should be held. I indicated immediately that I agreed with their view that the producers deserve additional information to understand the system. Indeed, it was my view that the atmosphere has changed to some extent with regard to the marketing of these grains and that the producer organizations deserved a further opportunity to examine the marketing system.
Canadian Wheat Board Act
I asked the committee to continue its work on developing the necessary information and I hope that, before very long, the results of their labours will be available to the producers of this country. They will have in their hands a fully documented analysis of the present marketing system, problems relating to it and possible improvements to it, as well as a documentation of some of the alternatives which may be available if producers choose them. It was my view that, at that point, the views of the producers should be obtained. My only hesitation, as I pointed out at page 6021 of Hansard with regard to spelling out a plebiscite in the bill, was in relation to the question of voting rights in regard to such a plebiscite. I have a formula for the plebiscite which I suggested to the committee and which I should like to put before the House. In my view, no change should be made unless there is clear support on the part of producers for such a change. I said that particularly because these things, once done, cannot be easily undone. In that case a mere shadow of a feeling in favour of change may not be enough. The clear and substantial support of the producers is required.
In this area the question is complicated by such questions as, who is a producer? This must be asked in order to determine what form of plebiscite should take place. Is a producer one who produces for one year, or for two years or three years? Is some weight to be attached to the size of acreage in production of the respective producers? Again on this point, Mr. Speaker, I have a formula which gives some weight to the size of production and which gives some weight to the persistance of participation in the growing of rapeseed. This may be developed and then incorporated into the legislation itself. Certainly, it is some such form of consultation that I had in mind right along. I want necessary information to be available to producers which will allow them to understand.
I have been surprised by the heat of the debate regarding the pros and cons of the situation, since no information that is appropriate has really been set out. The arguments of hon. members tended to be, "Let's do it because the producers want it," or, "Let's not do it because producers do not want it." I suggest that that was not very helpful. The best decision, of course, would be one recognizing that some further discussion through farm organizations and across the prairie region is needed in the next number of months. Then, some further, final consultation with producers will need to be held to determine how many wish to continue the existing system and how many are against it. If their clearcut choice, made evident at that point, is for adopting a different system, we would do so. We would then be in a position to do so with the proper machinery required to protect their rights as producers and marketers of this grain. Since hon. members have supported the generality of the amendments in this bill, and since two prominent spokesmen for the Conservatives now repeat their view that such a plebiscite should be held, I welcome the support of all hon. members for these amendments to the Wheat Board Act and am pleased to move the second

May 31, 1971
Canadian Wheat Board Act
reading of this bill and its reference to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I should like to ask the minister a question. In considering the pros and cons of bringing rye, flax and rapeseed, all three or any one of them, under the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board, has the minister taken into account as an important factor the support forthcoming over a number of years by way of resolutions from the membership conventions of the wheat pools, the Federation of Agriculture and the National Farmers Union, support which has been forthcoming for as long as 20 years?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, it has certainly been considered by me. It was one of the factors which led me to undertake an inquiry into the marketing system. I notice that in recent years some of these organizations have delicately shifted the tone of their recommendations toward favouring consultation with producers; their position is less rigid than the one they took earlier. However, I do not wish to get into an argument about that, since the difference appears to be really one of tone. I have also been inpressed by the fact that the rapeseed associations, that is to say, the associations composed of the rapeseed producers themselves, were obviously far less sure than were those other organizations about the issue. I hesitate to say they were against the proposal but the tone of the communications I have received from these associations suggest they welcome the notion of a plebiscite-that they have no real objection to the amendments if a plebiscite among rape-seed producers is clearly part of the legislation, and I have been giving them assurances in that regard.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I appreciate there are some differences when one considers rapeseed as opposed to rye and, to a lesser degree, flaxseed. Would the minister agree that there might be an argument in favour of bringing one grain at a time under the jurisdiction of the Board? Less difficulty arises in connection with rye than with flaxseed or rapeseed.


Otto Emil Lang: I would agree that these three grains ought really to be talked about separately because of the possibility that important differences might exist in each case. Certainly, if producers clearly took the view that rye should be placed under the board's jurisdiction, this could happen ahead of the time the other grains were considered.


John Leroy Skoberg: Could the minister tell us whether he will be in close consultation with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) who has expressed doubt as to the wisdom of placing all these three grains under the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board. What kind of consultation is he carrying on with the Minister of Agriculture in this regard?


Otto Emil Lang: There is very close consultation indeed. My colleague is fully in agreement with me that this subject requires further discussion with, and understanding by, producers. On this matter, as is the case in connection
with other matters with which he has to deal, he believes the will of the producers with regard to the conduct of what is, essentially, their business, should prevail.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the motion agreed to?


Stanley James Korchinski: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister without Portfolio):: moved 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.
He said: In discussing this bill of major importance to the Canada Post Office, I wish to speak first, in general terms, of the present situation. The Post Office finds itself confronted with mounting costs for wages, transportation and materials. Many of its buildings are obsolete, overcrowded and unsuitable. The Post Office deficit reached a new high for the fiscal year just ended. In short, we are faced with formidable problems which are difficult to solve. Hon. members may say that these words are familiar, that they have been said before. It is true, the situation I have outlined is not new to the Canada Post Office or indeed, to any postal administration in the western world. Nevertheless, these conditions must and will be improved.

In speaking of what is being and will be done, I must first express my appreciation and, I am sure, that of all hon. members, to the more than 50,000 men and women throughout Canada whose efforts provide a postal service which is among the best in the world. We depend upon and need their support and co-operation in coping with the problems we face.
Among the specific problems, one which concerns me greatly is the loss of public confidence the Post Office has experienced in recent years. As I have said before, this confidence must be restored if the Post Office is to be able to continue its vital role in Canadian society. To this end, we are moving to improve services through major reforms.
We have instituted a new approach in our organization, that of decentralizing the administration. This is intended to put responsibility and accountability in the region and districts where the action is. At the head of each of the four regions is a general manager. Headquarters, on the other hand, are now deeply involved in systematic long-range planning. Emphasizing management commitment and contribution to corporate goals, this planning is providing valuable orientation and cohesion to the many operational reforms.

May 31, 1971

The Post Office is relying heavily on marketing principles to determine the needs of customers and to tailor services to meet these needs. The effect of this is reflected in the recently-announced assured mail delivery program, made possible by radical transportation and mailprocessing changes, and by a general tightening up of internal operations. Accompanying this program are major efforts to improve productivity. Statistics from a comprehensive quality assurance program designed to monitor all mail services, show that vast improvements have already been effected.

We have long-range plans to replace inadequate mail processing facilities in major cities with up-to-date plants, in which working conditions will be second to none. The recently-announced facilities for Toronto launched this program. Montreal will be next. These plants v/ill contain the mechanized mail processing equipment necessary to make the national postal code operate at maximum efficiency. As you know, Ottawa is the pilot area for the code, which will be introduced to the rest of the country over the next two years.
At the same time, the Post Office is giving urgent attention to its retail outlets. Tangible evidence of the new approach here is the postal boutique opened at the Fairview Mall in Willowdale on March 1. Plans call for more such outlets, which among other things, will provide other government departments and agencies with the opportunity to disseminate information and sell their products. A program to improve the service and the appearance of small offices is scheduled to get underway in July.
These, and associated improvements, will, I am certain, result in better service. Post Office management consults with the postal unions at each step in the introduction of a new program. This atmosphere of consultation, together with the improved working conditions that these programs encompass, will, I am sure, bring about better relations with the unions.
In order to reap the full advantage from service improvements, and to enhance the image of the administration and the postal worker in the eyes of the public, we are placing more emphasis on public relations.
I have no doubt that this new presentation, the improvements in service, the new retail outlets, and the greater use of outlets by government organizations, will enable the Post Office to project more effectively the federal presence throughout the nation.
To all concerned-observers and those whose task it is to bring about the changes I have just mentioned-a question constantly comes to mind: Can the Post Office meet its costs? I am convinced that it can, given the fact that the services it provides are, for the most part, of a commercial nature. It would therefore appear reasonable to assume that the Post Office, given the authority to act in a commercial environment, would be able to break even on its operation.
Government has to decide if the taxpayers of this country should subsidize services whose main users are business and industry. Approximately 80 per cent of Post Office volumes are in fact derived from business and
Post Office Act
industry. Given this, the principle of successive operating deficits, to be supported by general taxation, would appear inequitable.
On the other hand, we must bear in mind that the Post Office provides a service which is essential to many Canadians, particularly those who live in far away communities. That is a reason why rates for first class mail are uniformly applied across the country, whatever may be the distance travelled by this mail. Our country being so vast, it is understandable that deficits should occur in certain areas.

I have nevertheless learned during recent visits to Britain and the United States that postal administrations are confidently planning to achieve financial self-sufficiency within the foreseeable future.
With the assured mail program, the Post Office is hoping not only to recoup revenues and business lost during the labour turmoil of last year, but to attract new business and, correspondingly, to increase revenues. It is with this in mind that the deficit for 1971-72 is estimated at about $113 million, a reduction from last year, which is encouraging. This is the deficit we expect without any increases in the postage rates. Obviously, we must look to such increases if the gap between revenues and postal costs is to be narrowed significantly.
For 1971-72 the basic losses will occur in letter mail and second and third class mail. Although we anticipate a deficit of some $30 million this year in providing service to the newspapers and periodicals, we are not now recommending any increase in these rates. This does not mean that we are not concerned with the substantial deficit. On the contrary, an in-depth study of the second class mail service is underway. In view of the historical concepts that have governed the fixing of rates for these publications in the past, and the fact that the last part of the phased-in increase in these rates took effect only a year ago, we are deferring the question of any further rate adjustments until our study is completed.
This year's loss on third class mail is expected to be just about $38 million. This category covers printed material of various sorts, such as advertising circulars and catalogues, Christmas cards and small packages of merchandise that do not weigh over one pound. The postage rates for this class of mail were last adjusted in November 1968.
As you will have noticed in the bill, an increase to be phased in over two calendar years is proposed on letter mail up to one pound. In terms of the purchasing power of the dollar, the basic increase of seven and eight cents is actually lower than the four cent rate which came into effect in 1954. On very much the same basis, the new rates represent a lower charge to Canadians for the service provided than what the people of other countries, such as Britain, Germany, France, Australia and The Netherlands, must pay.


Mr. McCleave:: May I ask the minister a question?
6218

May 31, 1971
Post Office Act


Mr.   Coie@Longueuil: At this point?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Will the minister allow a question from the hon. member?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Does not the third class rate also embrace solicitations by charitable organizations?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: It depends on how the solicitations are made. If it is by sending circular letters to people, then that kind of mail is included.
The effect of the rise in postage rates on the general public would be marginal. The department estimates that the average cost per person per year would increase approximately 25 cents on July 1, 1971 and 50 cents on January 1, 1972. We are seeking the hike in two stages to lessen the impact of increased mailing costs on business.
The new letter rate schedule, because it calls for reduced charges per ounce for successive weights up to one pound, better reflects the relationship between our prices and our costs. The facts are that the Post Office's costs of handling lightweight letters do not increase in direct proportion to their individual weight. The new rate structure reflects our intention to move away from traditional concepts and to orient our rates towards more realistic market and economic considerations. As hon. members will notice from the bill, the increased rate for letters weighing over seven ounces will be slightly smaller.
In the case of the letter packets over one pound, cost do rise in proportion to the weight and distance over which such items are conveyed by air. In this regard, we are asking for the authority to regulate the rates for letter mail over one pound. I am convinced that a zone rate structure would bring greater equity in the rate levels for these heavier letter items, and would afford those who wish to use air service the same advantages they enjoyed before air parcel post was abolished in 1969, that is, more equitable rates which take distance into account.

It is estimated that the proposed adjustments in our domestic rate structure will yield some $37,140,000 in the current fiscal year and $80,720,000 in the 1972-73 fiscal year.
You will have noted that we are seeking authority to provide rate incentives to large customers who are willing to prepare their letter mail under conditions which would reduce our costs. In brief, what we are proposing is simply an extension of the rate incentive principle introduced in 1964 for quantity mailings of third class articles.
To be eligible for the incentive letter rates, the mailer would have to comply with clearly defined conditions and standards of mail preparation and mailing procedures, including the posting of mail at times which would reduce Post Office costs by helping to level out production peaks and valleys. In no case, would the benefit to the mailer exceed the net reduction in costs to the Post Office. Details of this program, as it applies to first class mail, will be announced later following further consultation with regional and district office management as well as with the postal unions.
I trust that what I have said has given you an insight into the nature and objectives of the changes in the Post Office Act proposed in this Bill. In concluding, I wish to stress that, if the Post Office is to maintain its present level of contribution to the Canadian economy, the only solution to our adverse financial position, lies in a better correlation between postal rates and costs of providing postal services to the people of Canada.


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively to the minister's statement, explaining why his department feels it must increase postal rates in Canada.

The reasons given by the minister for the increase in rates do not satisfy me, and I am sure they do not satisfy members of my party. The highlights of the bill include an increase in the rate for first class mail and the establishment by regulation of the rates for letter mail. Let me say to the minister that if he could assure the House this surcharge on industries and private individuals would be used to restore the reliable postal services once enjoyed by the Canadian people, I am sure most Canadians would accept it. Until such an assurance can be given, it is unjustifiable for the government to come to Parliament asking for an increase in rates. If the increased revenues are to join the millions of dollars in the bottomless pit of Post Office deficits, then again we are opposed. While there are frequent airline services between most Canadian cities, I am opposed to such increases.
As long as first class mail takes several days to get from Toronto to Montreal, from Saskatoon to Calgary and from Halifax to Moncton, or from one city to another in this country, I am opposed to this increase. This is what is happening. Mail leaving Ottawa addressed to my riding in Nova Scotia took two days when I first came here. In order to have people receive mail in my riding on Tuesday I must post it on Wednesday afternoon of the preceding week. This is absolutely ridiculous. Until Canadians receive the type of mail service they deserve, the government has no right to come to Parliament asking for an increase in rates.
A recent device has been advocated in relation to posting mail before 3 p.m. This is one of a number of gimmicks adopted by the postal services. This is a manipulation by the public relations branch of which the minister spoke so highly. He suggested this procedure would give improved service and, in turn, improve public relations. There never was any need to post letters before

May 31, 1971

3 p.m. in order to obtain service. Only within the last couple of years has this been the case.
It seems to me that 24-hour mail service is possible and absolutely necessary between large cities. We have direct flights between these cities. Surely, it is possible to have 24-hour service for letters to be delivered within the bounds of a city without the necessity of all these gimmicks. After looking at the debates which took place in March of this year, it seems to me that current deficits have been stated to be the result of increased costs of labour, transportation, mechanization and modernization. I suggest that the current deficit is the result of inefficiency in the last couple of years. The Post Office has been inefficient in respect of these fields of transportation, labour, mechanization and modernization. That is why this type of bill we are considering today is required. This is the case in respect of not only the postal department but other departments of government. All these departments are lamentably lacking in morale.
Since the new minister assumed office there has been an improvement in the morale of postal employees. For this I respect the minister and give him credit. He has attempted to restore morale. The general record of this government in respect of labour costs, transportation, mechanism and modernization has been absolutely incredulous. The government can talk about increasing costs but we will never be convinced that an increase in the rates will help solve present problems. Such an increase will not improve efficiency. Perhaps this bill might have been more acceptable had there been a government policy statement that the increased rates would result in increased efficiency.
I repeat that the postal service is not such as to encourage anyone to give a blank cheque in respect of an increase in the rates. Questions must be answered regarding the post office. Are we to have an increase in postage rates and continue to have a decrease in postal service? This is a question which has not been answered. Has the delivery service been accelerated? It has not been in respect of parcel mail. In many cases a parcel will not reach the coast of British Columbia in ten days and sometimes longer. This is another question which has not been answered by the minister this afternoon. There would appear to be a difference between the 1970 deficit as stated in the annual report and as mentioned by the minister in his statement of March 29 in the House. The annual report states that the deficit is $52 million. On March 29 in a speech the minister said:
I should like to make a few remarks regarding the point raised by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock. The Post Office deficit is not $52 million. Last year it was $120 million and this year we forecast a deficit of $113 million.
I cannot understand why the annual report would show the deficit as $52 million and the minister would state that the deficit is $113 million. This is another question which was not answered in the past and which has not been answered this afternoon.
We might take a look at some of the clauses of the bill. On page one, for example, in the first clause we see 24107-43J
Post Office Act
there is to be an increase in the commission of agents selling postage stamps. This commission is to be increased from 2 per cent to 5 per cent. We might ask what prompts this increase. Will we have better service as a result of doing this? The argument the government uses in respect of the increase is that it is needed to improve the service. In subclause (3) of clause one, we see that the Postmaster General may delegate certain powers and functions to departmental officials. Again I ask whether this will bring about more efficiency. What is the minister's responsibility to be now? So far as I am concerned, he must be responsible for the Post Office Department.
Then we see in clause 2, that the Postmaster General is to have the authority to change rates by regulation. The Postmaster General is to be given the power to tax without representation. The power to tax without representation is always risky no matter what department is involved. We have asked what is the volume of mail. This question has not been answered. We have asked about the income from this class of mail. We wonder what part of the business will be effected by these changes. Clause 3 is the clause which allows the increase, in two stages over a six-month period, on letter mail to eight cents. The present rate is six cents, as was pointed out by the minister, on one ounce for a first-class letter and this is to be increased to seven cents in July and eight cents beginning next January. Again, we have not been given any valid reason for this. Perhaps this type of increase might be justified if the government had proven itself in respect of the labour problems in the post office, in respect of transportation and so on.
The minister announced that once the bill is passed the government will increase third class mail rates. The minister will have this power. An increase in third class rates will affect many organizations. Other members I am sure will wish to speak on this. For example, charitable organizations are now paying five cents and this rate will be increased to six cents. Charitable organizations have a different enough job at the moment without being charged an additional cent for each piece of mail sent out. We might say that one cent is not much, but it is quite a bit. Again, we complain about the service deteriorating and at the same time are faced with an increase in rates. In the 1970 annual report we see that the volume of mail in 1988-69 was 4.9 billion pieces and in 1969-70 it was 4.8 billion pieces. It has gone down. The department has become very inefficient and the increase in rates will not deal with this problem. The mail must move. It moved before 1968, that is before the government started reorganizing things and I suggest it could still move.
There is no doubt that the service could be improved between cities, within cities and everywhere across the country. Many rural post offices have been closed. This practice has been stopped by the present minister but the damage has been done. If the confidence of the people could be restored in our postal department, then the government might have a right to come before us and say that since there is to be an improvement in service there should be an increase in rates to make the system a bit more viable. The minister stated that there has been a

May 31. 1971
Post Office Act
vast improvement. I ask him how he can talk about a vast improvement. How can he make a judgment such as that. Certainly, I would judge improvements by the service given. The service is absolutely lousy. "Lousy" is not a strong enough word. I judge improvements not by increased rates, not by the promotion of certain gimmicks, but by the service given the public.

Mr. Speaker, the minister said he would try to bring about further improvements in the service. That is just what we have been trying to achieve for the past three years. With all deference to the minister, I would ask him not to allow himself to be led by his officials, by the same people who have been in charge of reorganization for two years.

That is completely unacceptable to the Canadian public because service is what the people want. The minister asks whether the post office could pay for itself. Sure, it could pay for itself. I am not against a move along the line of trying to make the post office pay for itself. We can continue to raise the rates and decrease the service, but after a while there must be a balance point. Surely, there is a limit to how much the Canadian public can take and how much we have to pay for the movement of a letter from one place to another. One reason for the decrease in service in rural areas is that the service in these areas does not pay for itself. I suggest to you that we pay taxes in this country to make sure that those parts of the service which pay for themselves will help to cover the deficits in those rural places where the service does not pay for itself. We pay taxes in this country to make sure that these places have a postal service. We contribute through our taxes to the operations of the Post Office Department because we want letters to move on a 24 hour basis, we want letters to move from one city to the next, to move within the cities, and from one rural village to the next.
The public would not mind increases in the rates if improved service came with them, but with the type of inefficiency we have it is totally unacceptable for the government to come to us asking for an increase in rates. The Canadian public does not have to put up with this. In view of all this, and in view of the reasons given to us by the minister, I suggest that the bill should not be read a second time now, and that the minister should explain some of the matters I have raised with respect to the service. The minister should make an honest assessment and tell us what he plans to do to improve the service. Only then will we be able to give the government and the minister the right to increase rates. I suggest that the bill should not now be read a second time, in fact that it should not be read at all. Therefore, I move:
That all the words after "that" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"This bill be not now read a second time but be read a second time this day six months from now".


Mr. Speaker:: I assume the hon. member will allow the Chair to have a copy of the amendment, or perhaps the original. I might suggest to the hon. member that, although there is no difficulty about the procedural aspect of the amendment, it might not be a bad idea to give consideration from time to time to following the accepted form in this kind of amendment, normally referred to as a six months hoist. The wording usually adopted is that the bill be not now read a second time but this day six months hence. This is a detail and I do not want to make an issue of it in any way, but there are accepted forms and perhaps it might be better if we were to respect these forms. The motion has been put.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Mr. Speaker, in this discussion I think it might be useful if we took a brief over-all view of the Post Office in order to gain a better understanding and perspective of what is involved in its detailed operations. The Post Office is probably the federal service which touches more people more frequently than any other. It is a vast service. It handles close to five billion pieces of mail per year. It serves five million doors. It operates 9,000 post offices, and it employs close to 50,000 people. I think it is fair to say that, despite its problems and recent troubles and disruptions as well as the curtailment of service, the Post Office provides a very good service. We should remember that our Post Office provides part of a global postal service, a part of 132 such services in as many countries. It is a splendid example of what can be attained by cooperative action for the common good.
In my view the Post Office should not be regarded, as it so often has been by both of the older parties, as a place of some importance to which sometimes transient ministers going from post to post are appointed. We have had-and I believe this figure is accurate-11 postmaster generals in the last 14 years. In my view, the Post Office and the public it serves deserve something a good deal better than that. We would not tolerate 10 or 11 head men for, say, Air Canada in 14 years. We should not tolerate it in the case of the postal service. I cast no reflection on the present minister responsible for the Post Office but I suggest to him, to the House and to the country at large that if anyone is going to do a good job any place, any time, anywhere, he must have a longer period of time to study the problems and to get acquainted with his job than postmaster generals have had until now. I do not know whether it is the intention of the government to shift this minister to another post but I do not think it is fair to him or to the country, nor do I think it would be fair to the new minister who would replace him. In this respect we should demand of governments better and more consistent management, and whatever the future holds for the present minister I hope it will not be a shift of this nature.
In my opinion, whether efficiency is achieved by making the Post Office a Crown corporation rather than a department of government in some other manner, we need to look upon the Post Office a good deal more seriously than has been the case so far. We need to improve its long range planning, its costing procedures

May 31, 1971

and its stability. Having made these introductory remarks, I should now like to turn to the details of the legislation before us.
May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie)-External Affairs-East Pakistan conflict-Discussions with Indian and Pakistani representatives-provision of relief supplies; the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Sko-berg)-Airports-Toronto International-method of letting contracts for skycap services; the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave)-Post Office-last daily pick up of mail in cities.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give consideration to the advisability of introducing legislation to amend to Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act and the Medical Care Act to provide (a) that the imposing by any province under its own hospitalization and medical care plans of deterrent or utilization fees upon recipients of these services, or (b) that the failure by any province to make legislative provision that all funds received from the federal government shall be used only to cover costs of its hospitalization and medical care plans will disqualify such province from receiving any share of costs from the government of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion has been on the order paper in my name each session of this parliament. Until something is done about the subject matter of the motion it will remain on the order paper for as long as I am a member of this House.
I spoke on this subject in October, 1968, in the first session of this Parliament, and I will repeat some of the remarks I made then because they are as valid now as they were at that time. But I also have some additional evidence to support my contention that measures must be taken that will effectively prevent provinces from implementing deterrent fees to be paid by the recipients of medical care and hospitalization services, and will effec-
Use of Medicare Funds By Provinces
tively prevent provinces from making any other use of funds received from the federal government for their hospital and medical care plans. The motion asks the government to consider a method that would effectively accomplish the purpose stated in it, namely, that when a province decides to implement deterrent fees or to use funds received from the federal government for some other purpose, it would no longer qualify for any share of costs from the government of Canada.
Universal public hospitalization and medicare plans in theory imply, and in fact require, that the total population prepays the cost of hospital and medical care benefits that any citizen may incur in the event of illness. In spite of organized opposition from some individuals and groups, the fact is that the overwhelming majority of Canadians wish to participate in a collective way to protect themselves and their families from being faced with large financial obligations at the time of illness, or immediately after illness strikes. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the consumers of medical and hospital services decided through their governments to prepay the costs of their hospital and medical care needs. Underlying these measures is the principle that good health is a right, not a privilege, of every citizen of this country. It is a basic tenet of such public programs that regardless of financial means or station in life, the right to good health and treatment for illness shall not be denied to any citizen because of financial barriers.
The intent and purpose of universal hospital and medical care plans are to provide full and equal access to the best possible health care for each citizen regardless of his station in life, financial means, race, colour or creed, or his place of residence. They are a way of spreading the cost of health care over the entire population, and of removing the financial burden of hospital and doctor bills from the patient. The great majority of citizens have decided, through their democratically elected governments, that they wish to pay in advance for their hospital and medical care through yearly premiums, through income tax and sales tax, and other similar measures. Premiums, of course, are a fixed charge on every citizen. Income and sales taxes to a larger or lesser degree are based on ability to pay. This then brings me to the purpose of this motion. Experience has shown and is showing that some provinces are imposing additional charges that completely negate the intent and purpose of public hospital and medical care plans, including the federal Medicare Act and the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act.
The imposition of so-called deterrent fees, or utilization fees, or co-insurance fees on a patient is, in fact, an extra tax on those who become sick or injured. It means that people who have already paid for their hospitalization and doctor care through their premiums and taxes, must pay again as soon as they are sick. Such charges, I submit, fly in the face of the intent of our national Medicare Act, and are perpetrated because of loopholes in the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. The effect of deterrent or utilization fees is, in fact, to deny reasonable access to medical and hospital services to the poor, the chronically ill, the aged, and those with

May 31, 1971
Use of Medicare Funds By Provinces
large families. Section 4(1) (b) of the Medical Care Act is most explicit on this score. It says that medical services are to be provided for insured persons and that nothing, directly or indirectly, whether by charges or otherwise, shall impede or preclude an insured person-mark those two words-impede or preclude an insured person from access to such services.
Those who support deterrent fees can argue that deterrent or co-insurance fees are not specifically mentioned. Well, they are not, Mr. Speaker. In fact, however, the federal act discourages such charges which could have the effect of impeding reasonable access to insurance services by insured persons, since these fees are not considered as a cost to be shared by the federal government. In fact the federal government, the Parliament of Canada, says in the act that the provincial plans must provide for the furnishing of insured services upon uniform terms and conditions to all the provinces in accordance with the various tariffs, etc., set out under the law. That service must be provided upon a basis that allows for reasonable compensation for insured services to medical practitioners and, I quote, "that does not impede or preclude, either directly or indirectly, whether by charges made to insured persons, or otherwise, reasonable access to insured services by insured persons."
To further strengthen the point, I want to call for my witness the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) himself, and I am sure that hon. members on the government side will agree with me that he is an ideal, unimpeachable witness. I would refer you, Mr. Speaker, to the minutes of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, issue No. 24, of Thursday, April 1, 1971. As recorded at page 13, I asked the minister if the government considered the use of deterrent fees by any province with respect to its plan, in any way flies in face of the principles laid down in the Medical Care Act. The minister replied, and I quote:
As a general principle, in our dealings with the provinces with reference, say, to medicare, we generally have tried to discourage the type of deterrent fee structure set up by the provinces. We have argued that it is an inhibitor to accessibility, and that we would like It discouraged.
Note that last sentence, Mr. Speaker. The minister says "we"-meaning he, the department and the government have argued that deterrent fees are an inhibitor to accessibility and that they would like them discouraged.
Further, as recorded at page 14, the minister said in response to my questions, and again I quote:
It may appear that I am contradicting myself in the sense that we regard it as an inhibitor against accessibility, and at the same time the studies would indicate it has not had too much effect. Of course that is the trouble with deterrent fees. Once the principle is inaugurated there can be a tendency for them to become a greater and greater proportion. Of course I think it is inevitable, especially with the people these programs are designed to assist, and I am talking about the lower-income groups, that sooner or later it is going to inhibit the accessibility of those people.
In a further reply recorded at page 15, the minister said:
Generally, I would like to see it discouraged. You are not going to get much argument from me in the philosophy you are expounding now.
Surely, it is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the effect of these kinds of charges must be to inhibit-to use the minister's word-or impede, or preclude-to use the words in the Medical Care Act-reasonable access to medical or hospital services. Surely, this is most apparent in the case of the poor, the aged, the chronically ill and those with large families. These deterrent fees are being imposed in more than one province. In particular, they are being imposed in my own province of Saskatchewan. There, the deterrent fee is $1.50 per call on a doctor, $2.50 per day for the first 30 days in hospital and $1.50 per day for the next 60 days.
Surely, deterrent fees must inhibit or impede or preclude reasonable access to medical services since it is possible to pay the $1.50 deterrent fee four or five times in a single day, because it can be charged by each doctor the patient might see for the same illness. You could go to a general practitioner with, say, a stomach ache. He would charge the deterrent fee and refer you to an internist, who would charge you a deterrent fee and turn you over to a radiologist, who would charge you a deterrent fee and then refer you back to the general practitioner who would prescribe medicine. You would be charged the fee for consultation. Even though you have already paid for your medical care through your income tax, your sales tax and your premium payment, you will pay again when you are sick. In addition, the fee is charged for every single office and house call for the same illness or injury, no matter how often you must go to the doctor.
The chronically ill, and more particularly cancer patients, are victimized because of the number of times they must visit their doctors, or the number of times the doctors must visit them in their homes. They are victimized also because of their numerous hospital stays, some of which are very lengthy. Someone unfortunate enough to be ill with cancer has enough trouble, I submit, without being saddled with these various additional unfair and unjust costs. Someone sentenced to death by cancer and forced to lie for weeks or for months in a hospital bed, should not, at such a time, be burdened with extra costs which an unconscionable government, either provincial or federal, has imposed on him.
The problem of deterrent fees imposed on treaty Indians has still not been solved. It is quite clear that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the federal government feel that the exaction of these fees would prevent Indian people from receiving reasonable access to health services, and they decided to pay the fees on behalf of the treaty Indians in Saskatchewan. Surely, this is further evidence that the government believes deterrent fees violate the intent and purpose of the hospitalization and medical care acts.
What about the Metis people, whose income in many cases is as low as, if not lower than, the income of the Indian people? Is it not logical to suppose that these fees will affect them adversely, too? What about other classes of people with similarly low incomes? We hear it said that no one will be turned away. But anyone who goes to

May 31, 1971

a hospital at ten o'clock at night in an emergency and does not have the required $25 deposit will not get in, and no bureaucrat will be able to convince me that anyone can get $25 from a social agency at that hour of the night.
The deterrent fee in connection with hospitalization is equally vicious. At $2.50 a day for the first 30 days, and $1.50 a day for the next 60 days, a total extra tax of $165 is imposed on a sick person who has the misfortune to be hospitalized for 90 days. The reason most often given to justify the imposition of deterrent or utilization fees is that they serve to curb abuses of the hospital and medical services. This is pure baloney. In fact, the baloney is no longer pure. It is old, it is bad, and it smells to high heaven. Abuses by whom? Where, when and how is there an abuse? Not the slightest evidence has ever been researched or presented to indicate that there is any significant amount of abuse. The infinitesimal number of people who might be considered hypochondriacs should not be deterred either, because they are sick, too. They may be a little bit sick in the head but that does not mean they do not need a doctor. They need a psychiatrist.


Edmund Boyd Osler: We are all here.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I know there is one here from Winnipeg and I hope he can get to his psychiatrist real fast.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier)!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: To suggest, and some people have been stupid enough to do so, that deterrent fees will correct abuses of the use of hospital beds is to ask us to believe the unbelievable. No patient can admit himself to hospital or stay in a hospital one day longer than his doctor says he can. If there are abuses in the use of hospital beds, charging a patient extra for something over which he has no control is both callous and unjust. If there are any abuses of hospital admissions and length of stay, they can be laid entirely at the door of the doctors and the hospital administrations, not at the door of the patient.
The Hall Royal Commission, appointed by a Conservative government, came out strongly against deterrent or co-insurance fees which their report stated would simply deter the poor and have no effect on the unnecessary demands in the middle and high income categories. Such a policy would mean Canada was simply continuing to ration health services on the basis of ability to pay. This position was subsequently endorsed by the Canadian Welfare Council.
I submit that this principle was accepted by the federal government on the day in 1966 when the Medical Care Act was passed. The criteria then established included comprehensiveness of medical service, universal coverage, administration by a public authority, and portability between provinces. Surely, the imposition of deterrent fees negates two of those four principles. Surely, it negates the principle that provincial plans must be universal, that the provinces must make health services accessible to all without regard to financial circum-
Use of Medicare Funds By Provinces
stances. And surely it negates the principle of portability, when someone from a province which does not have deterrent fees has to use hospital or medical services in a province that does, and thus has to pay an additional tax. Surely that inhibits, impedes and precludes the principle of portability. In giving effect to the medicare plan, the federal government is rightly accepting responsibility to see to it that every citizen in Canada, no matter where he might reside, will not be denied the basic right to reasonable access to hospital and medical care. According to the act of 1966, reasonable access means financial access.
I said earlier that there is not the slightest evidence that there are abuses in hospital use by patients, nor do I think there are abuses of the doctor's time by patients. If there are, the doctor is fully free to turn the patients away. But I believe there is evidence to prove that deterrent free do in fact impede, or inhibit or preclude people from having full and reasonable access to hospital and medical care services under the national and provincial plans. I know that the minister has given grants for studies to be made on the effect of deterrent fees, and I believe he knows there is evidence already at hand, probably in his office, to prove this statement.
May I ask the minister what other studies are being carried out? What further plans does he and his department have to carry out more investigations? What is he doing? I believe there is evidence that the imposition of deterrent fees reduced the costs of the total plan to the province of Saskatchewan in 1968 by 6 to 7 per cent. Although they may claim it reduced costs by as much as 10 per cent, I suspect the books have been cooked a little bit. I know that there is evidence that the reduction of costs resulting from the imposition of deterrent fees has been transferred to the patients and that transfer of those costs has fallen most heavily on certain categories. It has had very little or no effect on middle and high income groups, and as much as 25 per cent of certain families have been adversely affected. The worst effect of all is on the large families, on the aged, on the chronically ill, and on the low income groups. I believe there is evidence to force a conclusion that the imposition of deterrent fees has caused, and is causing, a reduction in service to these groups. Surely, the principle of medical care and hospitalization plans is to reduce the disparity in medical and health services available to people. Surely, it is apparent that deterrent fees fly in the face of that principle.
I believe investigation will turn up evidence to show that there have been many changes in the way doctors function since deterrent fees have been imposed in various places. For example, I will bet a dollar to a hole in a doughnut that investigation will show there has been a marked increase in total examinations. This is only logical. When a patient who only needs an arm or a leg examined, comes to see the doctor the fee for this is $4. After deducting $1.50, the doctor can only bill the medical care insurance plan for the remaining $2.50 and hope to get the $1.50 from the patient. If the doctor conducts a full examination, which pays $8 or $10, he can deduct the $1.50 and then bill the plan for the balance. This is

May 31, 1971
Use of Medicare Funds By Provinces
logical and the doctor could not be blamed for it. The deterrent fee has made the doctor misuse the service.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please; I regret to interrupt the hon. member. I do so to advise him and the House that his time has expired.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, may I continue for a few
minutes?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member may continue if he has the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The matter is bound to get talked out, in any event.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member is the one talking it out.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I am trying to be helpful to government members, none of whom know anything about this and none of whom are prepared to speak to this matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The example I gave the House involving partial and full examinations is merely one of many examples I could bring forward regarding the unfortunate change in procedure that deterrent fees have forced both upon patients and doctors as well as the hospital staffs.
Each province has the right and jurisdiction to establish whatever kind of hospital or medical care plan it wishes. If a province wishes to, it may establish deterrent fees. If it chooses to do that, if it chooses to implement a plan that is unfair and unjust to the consumer of these services, it should not be aided and abetted by the resources of the federal plan. The effect of this motion, if passed, will be to ask the federal government to consider making changes to legislation in this field.
The second part of the motion, which I will not dwell on, has to do with what I consider is the misuse by at least one province of the share of funds allotted to it by the federal government. During the last year the province of Ontario had an excess of revenue over expenditures in connection with its OHSIP plan. The surplus in OHSIP figures for the year 1970-71 was $32.9 million. It is estimated that the surplus in 1971-72 will be $3.6 million. These additional funds are being generated at the expense of places like nursing homes. These funds should be used to meet the costs of medical care and the hospital services plans but they are being syphoned off into other plans. No wonder premiums in Ontario are so high. Federal funds are being misused and misappropriated by governments such as that in Ontario.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I think hon. members on the government side fully agree with that part of my motion. I hope

they will pass it so that the government may reconsider the legislation in this field.
The result of amendments would be that provinces like Saskatchewan, for example, would have one of two choices. Such provinces could charge deterrent fees if they wish; they could choose to collect $7 million worth of blood money from the sick each year or they could obtain $15 million from the federal government under the national medical care legislation. That is the choice open to them. I submit that the government of Canada should not, under the federal legislation, aid and abet such provinces in the charging of deterrent fees.
I hope hon. members on all sides of the House will agree that amendments to the federal legislation ought to be made so that this unjust and callous treatment of the poor, the chronically ill, the aged and of those with large families will no longer be meted out by provinces which wish to share in the federal medical care and hospital insurance plans.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join in the debate this afternoon on the motion moved by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) concerning deterrent fees and utilization fees. The hon. member mentioned that a similar motion in his name has been on the order paper since 1968. I recall a motion like this being debated several times.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Only once, I think.


Maurice Brydon Foster: As I recall, part (b) concerning the use of funds by a provincial government for purposes other than medicare was not included in the original motion. I think this certainly is a sore point with regard to the province of Ontario, and I am glad to see that that part has been added to the motion which is before the House today. I should like to review for a moment some of the background of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act, which came into effect on July 1, 1958, and the Medical Care Act, established in 1966. I think hon. members will have a better understanding of the intent and purpose of these important pieces of legislation.
The Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act provides for federal contributions to participating provinces for a specified share of costs incurred by provinces in respect of public hospital insurance programs which they administer. The federal share of costs represents 50 per cent of sharable costs for all Canada, although the share to any individual province may be slightly more or less than the 50 per cent figure. This share is calculated on the basis of 25 per cent of average national per capita costs, multiplied by the eligible insured population in each province.
The act specifies that insured services shall include the standard in-patient services provided by hospitals, as well as out-patient treatment and diagnostic services provided. Excluded from cost sharing are t.b. hospitals and sanatoria, hospitals for the mentally ill, and institutions that provide custodial care, such as nursing homes and homes for the aged. The federal government enters into agreements with the provinces and these agreements
May 31, 1971

cannot be terminated or amended unilaterally by the federal government except by giving five years notice.
The Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act is subject to the "interim arrangements" legislation which provides machinery for "opting out". So far, however, only the province of Quebec has exercised this authority. Recent statements by the treasurer of the province of Ontario and, to some extent, by the new premier as well, give us cause for wondering whether that province will be exercising this machinery for opting out at some time in the future. I certainly hope that will not be the case, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me that if major provinces with a large percentage of the population opt out of the federal plan, the overriding value of the program will be diminished.
The act, in its present form, permits provincial hospital insurance plans to make authorized charges directly to patients for insured services, but excluding charges by way of premium or other sum not related to a specific service, and these charges are not cost sharable by the federal government. Moreover, authorized charges are not acceptable to the federal government if they exceed 10 per cent of the cost of services. Variations, Mr. Speaker, exist in provincial hospital insurance plans because the act was designed to establish basic minimum levels of coverage; to allow provinces freedom to choose the method of raising their own share of costs; and because of the "opting out" feature of the legislation. Several provinces levy co-insurance and deterrent charges, but in all cases provision is made by these provinces for the payment of authorized charges on behalf of persons who would otherwise not be able to pay, or would be financially embarrassed by such charges. In other words, Mr. Speaker, no Canadian is denied necessary hospital care because of inability to pay.
The Medical Care Act establishes a grant-in-aid program whereby the federal government is empowered to make financial contributions to those provinces which operate acceptable medical care insurance plans that meet certain minimum criteria related to comprehensiveness of services, universality of coverage, portability of benefits and standards of administration. Federal funds became payable from the first of July, 1968, and are based on the national average per capita cost of insured services, excluding administrative costs, multiplied by the average number of insured persons in each province. With the exception of the Yukon, all provinces and territories have introduced provincial plans; and it is expected that the Yukon will have introduced an acceptable plan by the end of the current fiscal year.
The Medical Care Act, Mr. Speaker, embodies only four basic principles which must be incorporated and reflected in provincial medical care insurance plans. The reason for keeping these conditions few and simple is to avoid the necessity for entering into complicated signed agreements with each province, a feature of the Hospital Insurance Act. These principles are:
Use of Medicare Funds By Provinces
1.	Comprehensive coverage for all medically required services rendered by a physician or surgeon, and there can be no dollar limit or exclusions except on the grounds that the service is not medically required. Mr. Speaker, there must be no financial impediment or preclusion of service to an insured person that would deny him needed medical care. Provinces also have the latitude to include additional health services in their programs should they desire. And if there is a consensus among the provinces, additional health services may be added to the national program.
2.	Universal availability. Coverage must be available to all eligible residents of all participating provinces on equal terms and conditions. Moreover, in establishing a plan, coverage must be available to at least 90 per cent of the eligible population-a figure that went up to 95 per cent from April 1, 1971. This feature ensures access to coverage by all residents and prevents premium discrimination on grounds of previous medical history, non-membership in a group or other considerations. At the same time, subsidization in whole or in part for low-income groups or individuals is permitted.
3.	Portability of benefits when the beneficiary is temporarily absent from his own province or when moving from one participating province to another. Portability ensures that coverage is not lost as a consequence of moving from place to place within Canada.
4.	Non-profit administration. Public authorities administering medical care insurance plans are accountable to the provincial authority for all financial transactions.
Because the conditions have been kept simple, a province may qualify for shared federal financial support by reaching a federal-provincial understanding as to the nature of the particular provincial plan that is appropriate and acceptable for federal cost sharing. This gives each province considerable leeway to develop its own plan in the manner that best meets the particular requirements and circumstances of the province while still meeting essential national criteria. While it is true that the Medical Care Act does not preclude imposition of a utilization fee, the act clearly specifies that any such charge must not impede or preclude access to insured services by insured persons. In other words, no feature of a provincial medical care plan may deny insured services to the Canadian public.
I would add that the federal government does not especially favour utilization charges because we do not believe that such fees effectively control costs in the long run. However, provinces have the right under the Medical Care Act to determine in what manner the provincial share of medicare shall be financed and federal contributions under the act are made regardless of whether or not utilization fees are levied, providing the four essential criteria I have mentioned are met. For the information of this place, only one province has seen fit to levy utilization fees under its medical care insurance plan.
I turn now, Mr. Speaker, to the benefits to Canadians resulting from the hospital care and medical care acts which puts Canadians among the best medically cared
6226

May 31, 1971
Use of Medicare Funds By Provinces
for people in the world. Our health coverage is universal, of a high standard, administered publicly, not by private carrier, and is portable virtually throughout Canada. These plans ensure that the less endowed provinces receive the same basic standards of coverage as the more affluent provinces and ensure that hospital and medical care is available to all Canadians. If I may refer again to the deterrent or utilization charges referred to in the hon. member's motion, as I have already stated such charges are allowable under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act and I do believe that these form the raison d'etre for the motion before the House.
Concerning medicare, the federal government does not favour this method of provincial financing because we believe it can cause undue hardship to persons having only limited financial means and who as a group have greatest need to unfettered access to medical care without hindrance of any kind. Unless such charges are set at a level high enough to hinder or deter access to services, they are of little consequence. If such fees are high enough to deter, then they are self-defeating. In this regard there is no evidence to suggest that in the long run they naturally affect the level of utilization of service or the total cost of care. All they achieve is a transfer from the paying agency to the patient at the time when the patient is least able to afford such charges.
It is on the principle that a utilization fee will deter persons from running to the doctor for the most trivial matters that such fees are imposed. This reasoning is based on the false premise that only the poor make unnecessary demands on the service; the deterrent is seldom high enough to deter the more affluent user. I would quote Mr. Justice Hall, in a speech delivered in Saskatchewan in 1964, as follows:
Stripped of all sophistry and regarded in their naked application, the so-called deterrents are a tax on the poor predicated upon the fallacious assumption that it is only the poor that would ask for frivolous services.
In 1968 Saskatchewan introduced deterrent charges. Initially this resulted in a decline in utilization of medical care services. However, today utilization now exceeds the previous level of use. It is too early to determine whether this fee has deterred anyone from seeking or receiving needed medical care, but studies in this regard are being conducted. I would also like to mention the peculiar backlash that can occur when utilization fees are imposed. Once over the initial shock, many of the general public increase their use of services, feeling that as they have to pay directly for the service they might as well use it at the slightest provocation.
I should, in fairness to the Saskatchewan plan, mention that the province has agreed to pay the utilization fee on behalf of those receiving public assistance, that it pays the fee for patients receiving "statutory benefits" for cancer, tuberculosis or mental health care and that any citizen may apply for special assistance to meet the utilization fee should his circumstances require it. Additionally, doctors and hospitals are encouraged to report to provincial authorities patients not in receipt of public assistance who could be embarrassed by the fee.
On this basis, Saskatchewan has introduced a family ceiling of $180 for combined utilization fees for hospital and medical care. The fee per doctor's office call is $1.50, and for a doctor's house call or hospital emergency visit $2. The hospital insurance fees are $2.50 per day for the first 30 days, $1.50 per day for the next 60 days and no charge after 90 days. A charge of $1.50 is also made for each outpatient physiotherapy visit. Other provinces also charge hospital utilization fees which on the whole are quite nominal.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, with respect to part (a) of the hon. member's motion, the federal government's position regarding utilization fees is consonant with the hon. member's intent. The federal government certainly does not favour such fees being imposed under the Medical Care Act. However, it is our belief that experience with utilization fees will shortly lead to their abandonment because they do not achieve the purpose for which they were intended.
With respect to the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act, generally speaking payments by the federal government to the provinces for hospital insurance are in the form of advance payments and final payments. Monthly advance payments are based on 25 per cent of the provincial disbursements for the previous month and 231 per cent of the estimated national per capita costs applicable to the number of insured persons in the province at the end of the month. Under this arrangement, advance payments have always been much less than the provincial disbursements already made, usually approximating 50 per cent of the provincial disbursement of the previous month. Final payments under hospital insurance are made approximately two years following the actual disbursements by the province. It would therefore appear that the proposed amendment concerning the application of federal moneys by a province would not be appropriate in so far as the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act is concerned because the objectives of the amendment are already, quite clearly, being achieved.
With regard to part (b) of the hon. member's motion, this would, as I say, seem to be aimed at Ontario where the level of premiums set may be sufficient to carry the plan's costs from October 1, 1969, through the entire fiscal year 1970-71 without using the federal contributions at all, when one takes into account provincial funds previously being spent for insured services and which were still presumably available for this purpose. However, if the premium level were to remain unchanged, within several further years the accumulated surplus would be gradually used up. While one might disagree, as I do, with Ontario setting the initial level of its premiums as high as it did, it would seem clear that the people of Ontario are at least ensured that there will be no need to increase the premium level for some years.
I recall that when this step was taken in 1968 the share of the federal government amounted to over $170 million a year. I thought it rather unusual that at the same time the province of Ontario raised the premium level from

May 31, 1971

what was only $10 a year to $20 a year. It was a great revelation to those of us in Ontario, in view of this tremendous amount of money coming in from the federal government, that the premiums were raised. I think everyone living in the province at the time expected premiums to drop by one half, because supposedly the federal government was paying one half of the cost. As I say, instead of that the premiums were increased.
The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre indicated in his remarks a few moments ago that there was a surplus, I believe, of $30.9 million in the fiscal year 1970-71 and that in this fiscal year under the OHSIP program there will be a surplus of $7.6 million. I would join with hon. members in commending the hon. member for his motion; there are many aspects of it with which I agree.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker I have no hesitation in commending the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) for introducing this motion. From experience I have gained in one section of this great nation of Canada, I can state there should be no deterrent fees of this sort and that everything should be done to help those in need, regardless of the cost.
I understand there may be some constitutional problems and I hope that at the next federal-provincial conference, soon to be held, the minister will use his influence to overcome some of the existing anomalies under the Medical Care Act and the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act in order that we have a universal plan that will provide care for all those in need.
I have some figures regarding the cost of health services which it might be worth while quoting. The cost under the health services program is $7 million, under the health insurance and resources program over $1 billion, under the medical services program $49 million, and the cost of the Medical Research Council is $36 million. I understand that deterrent fees are used in the United Kingdom to prevent over-use and abuse of the program there.
I hope that a motion will be put forward soon seeking to reintroduce under the health resources program legislation to provide funds to establish medical centres, hospitals and other services, and to induce doctors to visit our more remote and isolated communities. People living there are not worried about referral and deterrent fees, because they cannot even afford to travel vast distances in order to see a doctor. This is a ridiculous state of affairs.
Let me give the House an example of what I mean. Three days ago when visiting a community in my area I met a fisherman who over the years had built his own home with his savings. His wife had suffered a heart attack and was paralysed. He went to the welfare department to get some help in order to employ a girl or somebody to look after his wife while he was out fishing, and his application for assistance was refused. As a result, he had to build himself a shack right on the beach, bring his paralysed wife to the shack and leave her in bed while he went fishing for an hour or two. He
Use of Medicare Funds By Provinces
would then have to return ashore after a couple of hours' fishing to see how his wife was. And this sort of situation exists in a great, affluent country like Canada!
Let me give another example. I know of a child who had to wait for one year for spectacles. When he finally received them, they were no good to him because his eyesight had deteriorated even further in the interim. I also know of the case of a lady who had no legs, heart trouble and high blood pressure and was confined to bed; but because she had been cared for by her family, her social assistance payments were reduced. I suggest that situations like these should be given attention and that we must steer our efforts in this direction.
Since it is obvious that all members who have spoken are in favour of the motion, and since the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre has mentioned that the minister is in agreement with his motion, I fail to see why we should speak any further on the matter. I just want to put in my two cents' worth by saying the government of Canada must realize that we need medical care centres and more doctors and services for the needy who cannot provide for themselves, such as the blind, the incapacitated and the undernourished. More attention must be paid to such people. Without keeping the House any longer, I commend the hon. member for his motion and hope the government will agree to amend the act in order to make provision for the kind of care described by the hon. member.


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (St. Boniface):: May 31, 1971
Use of Medicare Funds By Provinces
level of service they would provide for their residents. However, this method of providing assistance to the provinces would leave the door open for equalization payments to be used for any function of provincial governments.
The second method of equalizing health care services would be for the federal government to operate a health insurance plan limited to collecting taxes and making payments in respect of insured services. However, provincial governments have jurisdiction over the most important elements of the provision of hospital and medical services such as the operation of hospitals, provision of health personnel, organization of services, quality of care, and so forth. It can readily be seen that a federal insurance plan which had no control over matters such as I have just mentioned would be largely ineffectual in meeting the basic goals of ensuring that insured persons received high quality care at reasonable cost.
A third method of equalizing health care services for Canadians is that taken by the federal government in respect of hospital and medical care insurance programs, namely, through the medium of providing federal financial assistance under certain conditions to the provinces to help them operate their own programs. You can see that this method not only recognizes the constitutional realities but also the varying abilities of the provinces to finance necessary health services. This alternative, at the same time, effectively ensures that the provinces establish and maintain relatively uniform health insurance plans across the country. In my opinion this is the most practical approach to the problem of health care in the Canadian context.
In a country as large as Canada with highly mobile population, health and medical care must be available for Canadians should they move from province to province. To achieve portability of benefits, hospital and medical care plans must be integrated as far as possible so that the individual citizen, should he move, would retain coverage until he could obtain comparable protection in his new province of residence. Only through federal participation in hospital and medicare programs is portability made possible.
There is one further aspect of federal involvement in the health of Canadians which bears mentioning. In essence, this relates to the fact that research and technology related to the provision of health care transcend provincial boundaries. The advances being made by medical science must be available to all levels of government, and much of the responsibility for ensuring that high standards of health care are available for all Canadians falls on the shoulders of the federal government which carries out or sponsors research in the health field. Moreover, the federal government assists the provinces financially in their efforts to achieve this very desirable goal.
In respect of the patient making any direct financial contribution to the doctor on the grounds that there should be no financial impediment to anyone seeking medical advice, there has been some objection. This case
would be stronger if the doctors were bound to accept the amounts paid by the plan as payment in full. This is not the case. For example, the Ontario medical association believes 40 per cent of doctors charge their patients directly an amount equal to 10 per cent of the Ontario Medical Services Insurance Plan payment even though no so-called deterrent fees are in force. The public naturally prefers not to pay anything in the way of an extra bill, a deterrent fee or a deductible. These methods are therefore somewhat politically unacceptable, except perhaps for specified limitations.
I have not made any reference to the task force, which I thought I might have time to do this afternoon. I will refrain from doing so. In conclusion, it is my opinion that the motion before the House-presented, I am sure, with the best intentions-is, when the facts are understood, unduly restrictive and constraining to the provinces. Indeed, it is sad that the valuable time of the House should be spent debating this matter, because I feel that had the hon. member looked into his proposal more closely he would have realized the intent of his motion is covered by existing legislation.
If the hon. member is of the opinion that needed hospital or medical service is being denied Canadian citizens through the imposition of utilization fees, he should be prepared to bring these cases to the attention of the federal or provincial authorities, whichever the case may be.


An hon. Member:: We can't go to Victoria.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: If you cannot go to Victoria, I suggest to the hon. member that Mr. Schreyer is making this information available not only to his own members but to members of the opposition. Perhaps the member could consult him. As I have stated, the federal government does not believe utilization fees associated with medical care programs achieve their objective. We believe that experience with these fees will cause the provinces imposing them to arrive at the same conclusion.
The public airing of this matter will, I am sure, achieve the effect desired by the hon. member. I would remind the House that the method used to raise the provincial share of the cost of hospital and medical care is a decision for each provincial government to make. We in the federal government make clear to all Canadians the amount the federal government contributes under each cost-sharing program with which it is concerned. It is the responsibility of each province to explain to its citizens and justify the taxes or premiums required to cover the provincial share of these programs.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.
At six o'clock the House took recess.

May 31, 1971



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Cote (Minister without Portfolio) 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.
Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Mr. Speaker, at five o'clock while discussing Bill C-240, to amend the Post Office Act, I suggested that no arm of the
government or no department of government could be expected to do a good job when the minister was being shifted around from this department to that and when ministers were steadily coming and going from the Post Office. I do not think it is fair to the Post Office to be downgraded in this fashion or to expect any minister to do the job required in this department when there is so much shifting around. I suggest to the minister and to the government that if they are to do the necessary job in reorganizing the Post Office Department or in just running it properly, this practice should not continue and there should be some consistency to allow the minister to develop the expertise required in running the department.
The main thrust of what is proposed is a further major increase in the first-class ordinary letter rate. Three years ago local first-class letters were handled for four cents, while onward letters were handled for five cents. These rates were increased to a flat six cents. This was a 50 per cent raise in local first-class rates and a 20 per cent raise in onward rates. This was accompanied by a major reduction in service to the five-day system.
It is now proposed to again increase this rate of a flat seven cents and, further, to increase it once more to eight cents by the start of next year. This will represent a 100 per cent increase in the local mail delivery rate of ordinary letters and a 60 per cent increase in the onward letter rate in four years.
No increase in rate at this time is proposed for second-class mail.
I was interested to hear the minister say that a study on this subject is under way. I do not want to be critical and say whether these people should pay more or less at present, in view of the fact that the minister thought it worth while to make a study. Obviously he is doing something in this regard and I would be willing to leave this matter until the study is completed.
Post Office Act
With the exception of this comment, we have indicated in this House or have had indicated to us time and again that Time and Reader's Digest get by very easily here and that we might pick up $1 million or $2 million if we were to put them on a special rate. I would recommend to the minister that he take a hard look at this matter. Over the past 10 years this category of second-class mail has caused a loss to the Post Office Department of $200 million and it is forecast to lose another $30 million this year. Of the second-class mail, the loss of only $2.3 million was attributable to carrying rural weekly newspapers the circulation of which is under 10,000.
Over the years the Post Office has done quite well with first-class mail. In 1969-70 the loss on that mail was only $360,000 out of a total business of approximately half a billion dollars. In the main this mail is paying for itself. One might argue that it should continue to do so, but if this is the case why does the minister not consider that other categories of mail should not do the same? The projected loss for 1970-71 has soared to $35 million. This immense increase is due to business interruptions because of labour disputes, and salary increases beyond the 1970-71 estimates. An estimated loss of $35 million equals approximately three cents per week per Canadian.
A deficit of $33 million is forecast by the Post Office Department on third-class mail, some of it junk mail, in
1970-71. No increase in rates for this class of mail is proposed. The minister indicates that I may be mistaken. I will be happy to listen to him again. I listened fairly carefully the first time he spoke, but if I find I am in error I will be happy to apologize. When we are talking about second-class mail, at least there is a study of what should or should not be done with regard to it, but I did not hear a case put forward by the minister as to why there should not be an increase in third-class mail rates. The next time the minister speaks I should like to hear him make a case on why third-class mail should not pay its way. I would recommend that he explain to us why it should not.
I oppose a further increase in first-class mail rates. The great bulk of first-class mail is in the form of bills from or cheques to telephone, hydro, oil companies and other businesses. It is consumer mail. If the first-class mail rate is increased again, these concerns will undoubtedly pass that increase in their costs on to their customers. Hence, ordinary letter writers using first-class mail will be paying more for their stamps and will be charged more through bills for utilities and other services for which they are billed through the mail.
A further substantial raise in postal rates affecting consumers should be opposed as inflationary. The present loss on first-class mail is but three cents a week per capita. It can be argued that the basic Post Office service to Canadians using first-class mail, and to some extent second-class mail, is part of our communications media and cannot entirely be priced on a specific dollar and cent basis.
In my opinion there is a good case to be made for assistance to non-profit, health and cultural societies the

May 31, 1971
Post Office Act
success of whose efforts depends much upon their ability to communicate by mail. There is a case to be made for their receiving, if they qualify, a certain amount of federal financial aid earmarked to pay for the margin between what the non-profit societies can pay and what the Post Office should have in revenue so as to avoid being unfairly charged with carrying mail at a loss. I commend this thought to the minister and to the government. We have the examples of the Canada Council, the National Film Board and the CBC by which to judge whether, without loss to the Post Office, non-profit public or semi-public services can be assisted.
I think we must take a new, hard look at second and third-class mail. As I have indicated, I am willing to leave second-class mail rates as they are in view of the study being made. No increase has been proposed for these classifications at present. They are both, to a certain extent, services carrying profit-oriented, business or promotional mail and both these services lose the Post Office a great deal of money.
I think it is interesting to look at third-class mail and to realize that business can be profitable if mass mailing and handling can be organized. It is a fact of life of the printing business that the major cost is in the first or smaller number of pieces. If a greater volume is involved and it is handled efficiently, the unit cost of third-class mail is reduced and the revenue is increased. In my view, much of the third-class mail is not wanted by the mass of Canadians. It is mail which the business houses want to get in the letter boxes. It is mail that may be desirable for the Post Office to encourage because, properly processed and handled, it can make money for the Post Office or at least reduce the cost.
However, we find that the anticipated loss on third-class mail in 1971-72 will be no less than $38 million. Why should that be? This is, or could be, to a large degree profit-oriented mail. Why should the third-class rate not be increased to the point where it will at least more nearly pay for carriage of this mail? We should press for renegotiation of the international postal agreement which has involved losses for Canada in carrying U.S. mail, much of it printed. The international agreement does not take into consideration that Canada and the United States exchange, free of charge, mail handling services while one country has a population ten times that of the other.
I also urge an examination through a commission or special inquiry of the various subsidies and charges borne by the postal service in order to bring out the facts of costing and to provide a clear picture showing who pays for what. The purpose of this would be to rectify the outmoded system still in vogue whereby the Post Office provides free services to some departments while other departments provide the Post Office with very valuable services such as free accommodation in buildings.
If the minister is not satisfied with what I have said relating to some of these items, I would be happy to have him tell us that the Post Office does operate under a proper cost accounting system: I should like him to prove

to the House that this is the way in which the Post Office is run. Myself and many other Canadians, I am sure, are not absolutely certain that this is the way it is done. If we are in error, we would be happy to hear from the minister.
We want to know the findings of the body which studied the value of turning the Post Office into a Crown corporation rather than continuing it as a department of the government headed by a minister. This question has been much debated. If the government decides to turn the department into a Crown corporation, we want advance information on such studies before deciding whether or not we agree.
We urge modernization of equipment, procedures and administration beyond what has been achieved so far. In this regard the Post Office is in the same position as the telephone companies were a few years ago before they made their operations as automatic as possible. It is possible to end the physical distribution of old age pension and family allowance cheques, totalling scores of millions of letters a month, by using an electronic mail service, with the value of the cheques being deposited in the banks by electronic impulse. While pressing for efficiency we must seek to preserve and extend the gains made by postal workers since they attained collective bargaining. Phase-outs of jobs in certain postal categories must not be made at the expense of the employees. For instance, while the new sortating procedure is estimated to improve efficiency and reduce per unit handling costs by means of greater speed, it should not result in lay-offs of employees over the next several years.
What I am saying is that, hopefully, any modernization of equipment within the Post Office will be achieved on a basis that will cause the least possible damage to the employees involved. When we consider that there may be
50,000	people working for the Post Office, we can see that this department affects a great many people. We oppose the increase in first class mail rates and for this reason we will support the amendment of the official opposition.


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity Bill C-240 presents to discuss not only the amendments to the Post Office Act but also matters in regard to the general operations of the Post Office. I am very happy to see the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing) in the chamber tonight, because for two years he and I have been trying to arrange a mutual visit to the beautiful little village of Elora where two years ago he was kind enough to stop the building of a new post office. In that connection I hope the Postmaster General will talk to his officials and ask them to take another look at the building and at the accommodation required, because we had a local architect look at it, a man who has designed many good buildings in Toronto, who felt that with some modifications and changes it could be retained in accordance with the wishes of the people.
May 31, 1971

Elora is a beautiful little village situated on the banks of the Grand River. A great many of the homes are built of stone. Some of the churches are built of stone. It is in the centre of the area through which the Elora road went up from Guelph. In those days it was, shall we say, a watering place. It has that background of stability which you find only in the smaller villages of Ontario. If the Minister of Public Works cannot make the trip that he has promised to make to the village, I sincerely hope the Postmaster General will have his officials meet with the officials of Public Works and agree on modifications to make this building more useful to the people who work there.
I am not one who always looks for change. I see some of the new post offices that have been built in communities, replacing old ones cast aside a few year ago- beautiful, red brick post offices which were subsequently bought by the local communities and used as municipal buildings. Those old offices could still be functional as post offices. In light of that experience, I think the officials of both departments should take a second look before deciding to demolish old post offices and erect new ones. Mr. Speaker, you and I know that many of the older buildings will still be standing when some of the new buildings being put up today will have outlived their usefulness. The present post office in Elora could be modernized without destroying its architecture.
Now I wish to say a word about this bill and in support of the amendment moved by my colleague objecting to postal rate increases. This is the second time within a very few years that we have been faced with a postal increase; and it is the same old story, that the administration needs more money for labour and renovations. In his remarks the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Cote) indicated that within the past year they have been able to reduce the postal deficit. I believe that implementing some of the programs he has initiated and introducing more efficient means of handling and distributing mail will result in the deficit being brought down a great deal more.
When I first became a member of this House, Mr. Speaker, the Post Office used to have a surplus. That was quite a few years ago. I remember criticism being made of the then Postmaster General because the postal service was so poor. People today are still complaining about the postal service. In light of a question I asked the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) last week with respect to the census, we can only wonder about the efficiency of the postal service. As recorded at page 6075 of Hansard, I asked the minister:
In connection with the census which begins on June 1 can he explain to the House and to the people of Canada why all Canadians will not be allowed to send their returns directly to the department as will be done in cities?
In reply the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said:
Mr. Speaker, I have a note from DBS which says that either the mail-back or pick-up system by census representatives assures confidentiality, but the pick-up system is employed in localities where, for instance, the mail service is insufficient-
Post Office Act
My riding is made up of small rural and urban communities. I think I get as good postal service as do people in the cities of Ottawa and Toronto and I can see no reason why the people of my area should be treated differently, with respect to the census, from people in Ottawa and Toronto. As was indicated by my colleague from Wellington (Mr. Hales) today, the census-taker may be your next door neighbour. He is supposed to discuss your census problems with you. In such a case there is not complete confidentiality. I plead with the Postmaster General to plead with his colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, to have an advertisement appear in all newspapers across Canada telling people in small communities that if they want to put their returns into envelopes and send them by mail to the DBS, they are free to do so. That could still be done even though tomorrow is census day.
I see no reason why people in small communities should be treated differently from city dwellers. They should be allowed to return the census form to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics by mail. There is a lot of criticism across the country on this matter, so I hope the Postmaster General will get in touch with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and work something out.
Referring to the amendment proposed by my colleague, it is interesting to note that the Postmaster General has indicated that 80 per cent of postal revenue is derived from business and industry. The last time postal rates were increased I remarked that it would have an inflationary effect, and now the government is doing it again. We all know that in the end the consumer pays. Although the rate for first-class mail may only be increased by two or three cents, business takes that increase into account in its profit and so we have another inflationary trend.
I wonder if the Postmaster General discussed this bill with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) before it was brought in. Does it mean that we will have another round of inflation and another round of deliberate unemployment to stop it? The increase in the third-class mail rate applies mostly to throwaway mail and catalogues of the type issued by large department stores. It is a vicious circle; the catalogues are used to promote business, but in the end it is the customer who pays for the increased cost of doing business and this, of course, includes the postage on the catalogues. I object to the proposed increase in postal rates because we have had enough inflation and enough of the unemployment that was created in an effort to curb it. I do not think that the people will stand for this again.
A previous speaker mentioned the low morale of Post Office employees. Maybe the Postmaster General has improved the morale a little, but he has a long way to go. As morale improves, efficiency will improve. He should work toward this end. This government has brought in many phasing-out programs, starting with the small post offices. In many villages the store with the post office was

May 31, 1971
Post Office Act
the hub of the community. In many cases the closing of the post office has meant that business has ceased to be profitable and merchants have had to sell out and move to the cities to try and find other employment.
The government also talks about phasing out the textile industry, and it is phasing out the farmer. Pretty soon they will be dictating how everybody in Canada may earn a living. These programs are neither fair nor just-people are being injured and ways of life are being destroyed by them. We sincerely hope that before this bill is passed the Postmaster General and the government will reconsider it. It might even be withdrawn or held back. As I have pointed out, there should be some means of controlling the deficit other than by increasing postal rates.
Another point that bothers me is that residents of small communities must pay rent for a post office box. There is door to door delivery in some rural areas and in the larger towns, but in small communities it costs $5 or $10 to have the mail put in the box. Even then it is sometimes impossible to get into the post office after hours for one's mail. I am also a little disturbed by the delegation of authority. Clause 1, subsection (3) reads:
Section 5 of the said act is further amended by adding thereto the following subsections-
There is provision for delegation of powers to assistant deputy postmasters general, regional general managers and directors of the Post Office Department. When the minister speaks in this debate I should like him to explain why these powers are delegated to non-elected officials of the Post Office Department. "Governor in Council" appears in a lot of other legislation, so I should like to know what powers are being delegated to these officials throughout the country.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say again that I do not think these postal rate increases are necessary, because they will be inflationary and we have had enough of that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin).


Stanley Howard Knowles: For Kootenay West (Mr. Harding).


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, members who come from British Columbia are not anxious to move further east; we prefer to remain in our own province.
I should like to speak briefly on this bill and to endorse the amendment moved by the official opposition to give the legislation a six months' hoist. I believe a number of valid reasons for this have been given by various speakers and it is not my intention to repeat them this evening. Just two years ago we had a very lengthy debate on Post Office problems. That was when rates of all description were increased rather sharply. A great deal of damage was done to a number of publications in Canada. As yet, hon. members of this House have not been given a full or extensive report of what actually happened in
that connection. This should be given to us prior to our again increasing sharply postal rates on first-class mail.
Although several points have been stressed by other speakers I will refer to one or two of them again. I might say that the Public Accounts Committee discussed matters along these fines. I raised these points with officials of the department. They said they were looking into one or two matters which I will again bring to the minister's attention. I hope that the points raised will be taken care of in legislation. One of these points may sound like a small matter for people living in cities but it means a great deal for people who come from rural areas. In a city, so long as there are 2,000 postal drops there is free mail delivery. The postman comes to your home and delivers the mail through a slot in the door; it is delivered to you in your house.
In smaller communities with less than 2,000 postal drops-I happen to five in one and would not move to a city just to get the additional mail carrier service-people are charged rent for a post office box. There the postman puts the mail in the box and you must go down, collect the mail from the box and take it home.
I have raised this point before and I raise it again. This is rank discrimination against Canadians who live in rural areas. There is no escaping this fact. People of our smaller communities must take the time and incur the cost, quite frequently, involved in driving several miles or they must walk a considerable distance to the post office. Once there they are given the privilege of renting a post office box unless, of course, they desire general delivery.
I suggest to the minister that the rental charged for post office boxes be done away with. The least the minister can do is give residents of these small areas the right to obtain their mail free of charge from a post office box. In the cities, as I say, the postman comes to your door and drops the mail right at your home. Surely the least we can do is provide a box for the rural homeowner so that he may go and pick up his mail whenever it suits him. The rural dweller incurs the additional cost of having to go the the post office under his own steam, by car or by any other means he may choose. The cost varies with the distance he must travel.
I have received a number of letters on the subject and I am sure that the minister and the department have also received letters. I received a letter the other day from an individual in Fruitvale which is in my riding of Kootenay West. The writer points out that he must pay $15 a year for a certain class of post office box. If he lived in a larger centre the mail would be delivered to his home free of charge. I do not think anyone can demonstrate to me the logic in loading an additional charge upon those who live in rural areas. I have protested against this charge before and I do it again now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Randolph Harding: If any group of residents in Canada deserve to be subsidized with regard to mail service or

May 31, 1971

any other service, it is our citizens who live in rural areas and who quite often are without many of the amenities of life. These amenities are concentrated in the big cities. It seems that the services of almost any department of government are more expensive in rural areas. Rural dwellers are stuck with these additional costs. In this instance we are talking about the Post Office. I again suggest to the minister that this is one of the topics which ought to be put on the agenda for discussion. He ought to talk it over with the staff of the Post Office. People in rural areas ought to be shown this consideration. I have no hesitation in making this suggestion although I know that if it is implemented the department will lose revenue. That is beside the point, however.
A good argument for subsidizing-if you want to call it that-rural post office boxes stems from the fact that two years ago when we were dealing with Post Office costs we found that Reader's Digest, an American magazine, was subsidized for delivery in Canada to the extent of $800,000, and that Time magazine was subsidized to the extent of $721,000. I do not think that situation has changed. These two magazines are being subsidized to the extent of $1,521,000. The money comes out of the pockets of taxpayers, including those who live in the rural areas. I say it would be far better to use the $1,521,000 to help those in rural areas obtain better mail service than to subsidize these two magazines.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, but they are Liberal supporters.


Randolph Harding: Yes. At least, they have been on occasion. They have supported this government. But that is beside the point.
Let us look at the rates that will come into effect under this new piece of legislation. We find that first-class rates will be primarily affected. They will be affected seriously. The effect on individuals will be serious. The increase will constitute a truly inflationary cost with respect to the mailing of letters. On July 1, 1971, just over one month from now, first-class mail rates will increase to 7 cents a letter. Six months later, just after Christmas, this Liberal government will tell the Canadian people that, for a New Year's gift, they will be charged 8 cents for every first-class letter mailed. I say that this rate is excessively high.
Let us examine the first-class mail rates which the minister is trying to initiate with this new legislation. The 8-cent rate which will be implemented at the end of the year will cover only those letters weighing one ounce or less. For letters weighing more than 1 ounce- and many letters weigh slightly more, tipping the scale at l\ ounces-the mailing rate is to be 14 cents per letter. As you go up the scale you find that the rates increase fantastically. Perhaps I should put them on the record because some hon. members may not have examined them.
I will take the rates which will apply on January 1, 1972. These are to be the rates: 8 cents for any letter weighing 1 ounce or less; 14 cents for a letter weighing more than 1 ounce but not more than 2 ounces; 20 cents for a letter weighing more than 2 ounces but not more
Post Office Act
than 4 ounces; 32 cents for a letter weighing more than 4 ounces but not more than 8 ounces; 44 cents for a letter weighing more than 8 ounces but not more than 12 ounces, and 54 cents for a letter weighing more than 12 ounces but less than 16 ounces.
If this is not an inflationary method of increasing costs to the Canadian public, I don't know what is. I suggest to the minister that he look very closely into this question of postal rates. He should find out how these rates have affected the small weeklies and periodicals which used to circulate in abundance two or three years ago. Hundreds of them from one end of Canada to the other have been forced out of business because they could not afford the excessive increase in mailing costs. Some may say the Post Office must pay its way. But many of these little publications were part of the Canadian way of life. Many of them had their own peculiar outlook, if I might put it that way, and brought a different perspective to events which took place in various sections of Canadian activity. I believe we have lost culturally and in other ways through these papers being forced out of circulation.
We should think in terms of providing subsidies. Hon. members may ask why papers of this kind should be subsidized. But if we are to get into a discussion on subsidies, one might well ask: Why subsidize anything? A story which appeared in the Toronto Daily Star a couple of weeks ago indicated we were subsidizing the mining industry to the tune of more than $300 million. In the northern regions of Canada most of the mining firms receiving these subsidies are foreign-owned and controlled; they ship Canadian products out of the country after we have plowed a subsidy into the operation.
I say that a type of subsidy which gives something to the people of Canada is far better than giving something to a foreign corporation which exports raw resources from the country for fabrication elsewhere. The point might be debatable and the minister might wish to debate it, but I am using it by way of illustration. If he is looking to save dollars he should not be trying to whittle a little more from the average Canadian citizen who will be forced to pay excessive postal rates in many instances. The minister should be looking elsewhere for his savings.
I may be wrong, but I understand there is to be a postal convention in July at which rates are to be reviewed. I hope this is so. I made a note to the effect three or four weeks ago when we were discussing the Post Office estimates in the Public Accounts Committee. If there is to be a postal convention I suggest it is a good reason for holding over this legislation. There are a number of points which the minister should raise at the convention. If they are raised and if changes are made, he might be able to tell us that certain modifications can be made in connection with this legislation.
Here are a few facts I gleaned during one of the committee's meetings. In 1969-70 the Post Office lost $27.9 million. Of this, $3.9 million represented the loss on the mailing of daily papers. Another $2.3 million was lost on mailing weekly papers. Some of these papers, as hon.

May 31, 1971
Post Office Act
members know, can be mailed free of charge within a 40-mile radius of their place of publication. In connection with the mailing of magazines and periodicals, there was a deficit of $13.6 million of which the delivery of foreign publications mailed in Canada accounted for a loss of $2.7 million. A loss of $5.4 million was incurred in dealing with incoming United States mail.
One of the oddities of the postal structure is that although the delivery of foreign publications mailed in this country costs $2.7 million, it would have cost $5 million if it had been mailed in the United States. This does not make sense. In the circumstances, it is a good thing for Canadian taxpayers that these publications were mailed in Canada or the Post Office would have lost double the amount it did. It seems to me the whole mailing cost structure needs revision. These things should not happen. It is for this reason I say the legislation should be held over until the convention has been held and we know exactly what rates will be charged for handling mail by other nations and ourselves.
The provision of Post Office facilities is not dealt with in the bill before us but it will certainly be affected by the new regulations which are laid down. We have been promised that certain new postal facilities for Castlegar will be ready by March of next year. I believe the department should press forward with this work as quickly as possible. A new postal walk system will be started in the area, the point having been reached at which there are more than 2,000 postal drops. Let the department complete this new facility and get the new postal walk system started. I believe a number of small communities just outside the area of Castlegar, Kinnaird and Robson should also be included in this service. This would do a good deal to improve the mail service in the area, and the people there certainly need it.
While I am dealing with local matters I wish to draw to the minister's attention the fact that delivery of second and third-class mail is extremely lax in my constituency. Daily papers are sent to me and I am lucky if I get them ten days after they have been posted in Nelson. It is not unusual for me to get them two weeks or 16 days later. This is not good enough. We were told at the time rates were last revised that the mail service would improve. It has not improved; it has deteriorated. I was receiving second and third-class mail much faster than I do now. There must be some kind of tie-up somewhere that the department should investigate.
We have complained about this sort of thing, but service does not seem to improve. There is a hold-up somewhere along the line after second-class mail gets to the post office. Whether it is because the mail is slow leaving the post office of origin, or the transit of the mail is slow, I do not know; but it should not take from ten days to two weeks to send a weekly or daily paper from Nelson to Ottawa. A donkey could walk across Canada faster than that. There is no reason in this day and age to put up with a mail delivery service of this nature.
In closing, I urge the minister to hold over this legislation at least until the fall. By then we will have had a
better chance of looking into many of the points that have been raised and, I hope, will be able to make some meaningful amendments to the legislation.


Mr. Cliff Downey (Baffle River):: Mr. Speaker, I think previous speakers have outlined many of the problems of the present day postal service but I have a few impressions that I should like to put on the record this evening. Several clauses of the bill are laudable, particularly the one that provides for the free delivery of mail to the blind. This is a very good step to have included within the postal regulations. Further, some economies may be possible as a result of the provisions of proposed new paragraphs (u) and (v) of sub-section 1 of section 5 of the act under which postal customers who prepare their mail in a manner that creates less work for postal employees will pay reduced rates. One cannot argue with the merits of these two provisions of the bill.
There are, however, very few members of this House who would agree with the increase in postal rates at this time. Some time ago I read a comparison of the cost of mailing letters and making telephone calls. Although the comparison was of the situation in the U.S.A., I think a parallel can be drawn in Canada. When telephones were first introduced into the United States you could mail something over 13,000 letters for the cost of one telephone call across the continent. Although I forget the exact figures, today you can only mail several hundred letters for the cost of one telephone call, giving a ratio of something like 20 to one. I suppose we have seen some improvements made in the field of transportation since that time, but it does make one wonder where one is going in view of the way costs between these two methods of communication have increased inversely.
Government has become involved in many ways both in the private and the public sector and a great many people disagree with this. If one were to conduct a survey across the country on whether to put departments of government on a pay-as-you-go basis, there would probably be more support for subsidizing the Post Office and postal services than any other aspect of the economy that is subject to government interference, or perhaps I should say government intervention.
There are many areas in which we are conscious of maintaining Canadian content and culture and of keeping Canadians aware that they are Canadians. As the previous speaker pointed out, some periodicals in Canada have been very useful in promoting culture, both locally and nationally. Many of these periodicals have had to go out of business, having become part of our daily life. Some of them, as it were, were institutions in themselves. By making postal rates prohibitive and causing these publications to be discontinued, we are that much poorer. We pour money into the CBC in an effort to portray the Canadian scene. Perhaps we would do better to withdraw funds from such organizations and use them to subsidize postal rates.
Comparisons have been drawn between rural and urban postal services and some of the glaring inequities have been referred to. Many communities have had to suffer a cessation of postal services. True, the population

May 31, 1971

of these communities was not great but in several cases in my own constituency the alternative means of mail delivery, while not nearly as effective in the community, often cost more than the original postal service. In many instances post offices were housed in old buildings, and while they may have been substandard they did provide a living to members of the community and gave better service than alternative mail services.
I do not think there is one member of this House who has not received letters from his constituents about the cost of post office boxes compared with general delivery costs. This has been another glaring anomaly. People pay for these boxes at additional cost, yet they do not have the service received by those on rural delivery or obtain better service than those on general delivery. The present rate structure pertaining to post office boxes can only discourage people from renting them, thus putting a greater load on the general delivery service.
Obviously, pride of workmanship in the Post Office is disappearing. There used to be a slogan that the mail must go through, though this has not been evident in recent years. I remember that five or six years ago it took about two days, and sometimes less, to get a letter from my own riding to Ottawa. Today it takes a week. Sometimes it takes only four or five days, but often two weeks. One can sense a loss of pride of workmanship in postal services in the last few years.
We all used to subscribe to a daily newspaper in my home town. I still have such a subscription. That paper was delivered by the postal service to my box one day after publication. This I can understand. There must be certain economies in the postal service and in a small rural community it may not be possible or practical to have same-day delivery. The situation today is that the paper comes in by bus, it is picked up by a delivery boy the same evening and at a cost of $5 per year less than the cost of mail delivery it is delivered the same day. I am not exaggerating the situation. If this situation exists in my community it must exist in a great many others across the country.
The rates envisaged in this bill will phase out the use of the Post Office Department. It is time we looked at this system with a view to overhauling it. There has been a gradual deterioration of mail services. There is only a fraction of the number of letters written in Canada today as were written years ago. This is a deplorable situation. If we intend to subsidize other means of transportation to promote culture and communication in Canada, the postal service should be at the top of the priority list.
The minister must be aware of a brief submitted by War Amputations of Canada. There is nothing in this bill which will have an effect on third-class mail, but many organizations such as the one to which I have referred are doing their best to be self-sufficient in carrying out an effective role in Canada. They have had difficulty because of increased postal rates. If we do not look after these organizations in some way in relation to lower postal rates, the government will be faced ultimately
Post Office Act
with an additional expense to offset their costs. Surely a lower rate is the best way to take care of this situation.
I shall not take any more time to deal with postal rates. Other members have made their points very capably. Surely, as a result of the briefs presented to the minister he is well aware of the situation. The time for talking has passed. The minister should approach the postal service situation with a view to working out a viable service in Canada of which we can all be proud.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments before this bill to amend
the Post Office Act is referred to the committee for further study. I know the minister does not officially occupy the position of Postmaster General until his ascension under the government reorganization bill, but I should like to congratulate him as the Postmaster General. I know he is very sincere in his efforts to do a good job in this position. He is faced with great responsibility in getting the Post Office service back on the rails. Had he been Postmaster General for some time perhaps this department would not find itself in the position it is today.
This bill contains several worthy amendments. Clause 3, on page 2, suggests that the Postmaster General may delegate all or any of the powers he holds. This will add greatly to the operations of the Post Office. I have in mind one incident discussed by members of the Public Accounts Committee not long ago. One postmaster in Canada accepted bulk mail at the wrong rate; it was later found that a higher rate should have been charged. The ensuing dispute ended up in the Department of Justice which ruled that the local postmaster did not have the authority to set the postage rate which should be charged on this particular type of mail. As I understand this bill, that situation will be covered.
Hon. members of this House appreciate the clause in the bill which allows Members of Parliament free postage on four bulk mail deliveries per session. There is also a clause which provides that those operating sub post offices on behalf of the department will receive 5 per cent of their sales rather than 2 per cent. I am sure the people affected will be grateful to the minister for this change. Blind people will appreciate the changes made in the bill in respect of their mail in Canada.
The rest of the bill is comprised of increases in rates with a few other consequential changes. I am at a loss to understand why the Postmaster General has brought in increased rates for two different dates, July 1, of this year and January 1, of 1972. Perhaps he thought the changes would be easier to swallow if they were made in two separate doses. I am sure the people of Canada would much prefer to have one increase.
There is nothing in this bill which will increase the efficiency of the operations of the Post Office. This seems to be where the trouble lies. Let us consider how long it takes for a letter mailed in Ottawa to be delivered in Montreal. Two weeks ago a letter was posted on Friday night instructing the recipient to phone when the letter

May 31, 1971
Post Office Act
was received. The return phone call was not made to Ottawa until Wednesday, because it took from Friday morning to Wednesday morning tor the person to receive the letter containing the phone call instructions. Over such a short distance as from Ottawa to Montreal a person could have taken the message a lot faster on a bicycle. I cannot see anything in these amendments which will clear up such a situation.
Also, I do not see anything in the amendments to correct the situation in respect of householder mail delivery. I had a recent experience in this regard. I have bulk mail deliveries for which I pay on a per pound basis. As an example, this mail left Ottawa on May 20 and was not delivered until May 28. Another batch of mail was mailed from here, received at the local post office on Tuesday and carried by the rural mail carrier in his car from Tuesday to Saturday morning without being delivered. This type of thing must be corrected in the Post Office operation.
The Canadian office of the Shorthorn Breeders Association is located in my area. This association publishes a monthly magazine. It is taken to the post office a few days after the first of the month. The delivery of this magazine is taking as long as three weeks. The delivery service in respect of this magazine is so poor that the advertisers have threatened to withdraw their advertising unless better mail service is provided. I do not see anything in these amendments to take care of next-day delivery. I know there has been an attempt in major centres to have various boxes labelled so that if you post mail in those boxes before a certain time, next-day delivery will be guaranteed. I hope this situation will be taken care of by the regulations the department will be instituting. Previously we had next-day delivery practically anywhere in Canada, but it is now a very rare occasion on which there is next-day delivery no matter where one lives. There is nothing in these amendments to take care of such a situation.
There is a situation which was brought to the attention of the Public Accounts Committee. This is a reflection on the personnel involved, those on whom the minister depends for administration. In 1964 the Post Office Department published Christmas stamps. This was the first time it had been done. The bottom of the stamp contained the inscription "1964". The number of stamps that would be sold was overestimated to the extent that when Christmas 1964 was over, $16,000 worth of printed stamps were on hand. Nobody wanted to use 1964 stamps on their 1965 Christmas cards; therefore the department decided the only thing to do was to scrap the whole lot. The Post Office Department scrapped $16,000 worth of printed stamps because of an error on the part of those responsible for the purchase of stamps.
That surely should have been lesson enough for the Post Office Department. But no. In 1970 they again overestimated the purchase of Christmas stamps. If they had merely printed a Christmas stamp without the year on it, it could have been carried over to the next year. But, no;
they did it again. In 1970 they had about $8,000 worth of Christmas stamps left. You can go into almost any post office, ask for a 1970 Christmas stamp and obtain it. I received an Easter card saying "Happy Easter" and the envelope bore a Christmas stamp. These stamps are still being sold. This sort of thing is going on in the Post Office and it is the responsibility of the people working in that department. Unless the Postmaster General, through his deputy, sees that the people who have responsibility execute that responsibility the Post Office and its service will never improve and become efficient.
We have only to think of the sale of trucks during the strike of the Lapalme drivers in Montreal. The Post Office Department decided it should get into the business of delivering mail and therefore purchased the trucks from, I believe, Rod Service. They took an inventory of so many trucks. However, the people in the Post Office Department, in adding up the number made a mistake involving $16,000. If we are to have this type of operation by personnel in the Post Office Department we will never have an efficient service; the people of Canada will never have the service to which they are entitled.
I do not see anything in the bill to improve our stamps. I believe Canada has the worst postage stamps of any country in the world. They have no lustre, no colour, brightness or attractiveness. All one need do is receive a stamp from a country such as Jamaica and Antigua to know that our stamps are not as attractive. The Postmaster General shakes his head; he does not believe this statement. If he were to write a letter to the stamp collectors' organizations across this country and ask their honest opinion concerning Canadian stamps, I believe what I have said would be borne out to be fact.
There is no mention in these amendments of a very important point. I do not know how the minister will reconcile charging the people of Canada an increased postage rate when he is not giving them good service. I am not holding this Postmaster General responsible; he was not the Postmaster General when the situation arose. What happened in respect of the last increase is that the people of Canada were charged a higher postage rate and received less service. This is what is likely to happen again.
I believe the minister would have been smarter had he given the people real service and efficiency so that he would have just reason for asking for increased rates. The Postmaster General has no right to increase postage rate until he gives the people of Canada better service and more efficiency in the operation. The only way in which I believe he will be able to do this is to return to the six-day delivery service. Canada is the only country in the world which has tried a five-day delivery service. It has been tried long enough for us to know it will not provide service to the people of Canada.
The example I spoke of concerning a letter taking from Friday to Wednesday, over a holiday weekend, to go from here to Montreal was partly a result of the five-day delivery system. There was no delivery on Saturday and

May 31, 1971

no delivery on Monday because it was a holiday weekend. When this happens the mail piles up, cannot be handled on Tuesday and does not go out until Wednesday. Until we return to a six-day delivery system we will have this situation. I do not see how in these circumstances the people of Canada can ever be given the service this increase in price demands.
The counter service in the post office was withdrawn for many months. If you went to a post office on Saturday you found a couple of men who handed out parcels or general delivery mail, but if you wanted to buy a money order or stamps they would say, "I am sorry, but we are closed today". This is quite asinine. It might be compared to going to a department store and approaching a jewellery counter which is closed, or going to the men's department and finding it closed although the whole store is open. If you are going to run a post office, for goodness sake run a post office; don't run a half show and have the counter half open or half closed. I am glad to note that since this minister took over he has restored the counter service on Saturday mornings. I think that the next step should be to open it all day on Saturdays as it used to be, so that the people of Canada can have the service which they deserve.
The minister has a public relations job on his hands. It seems that he must get a well organized team which will work together, pull together and adopt the theory that the mail must go through. He must not try to think up excuses why it did not go through. Unless he obtains that co-operation within his organization, he will not succeed.
I must congratulate his predecessor on going out into the business field and hiring men from industry. He picked up some top-notch men who were outstanding in the business community and he transplanted them into the Post Office Department. They are now in positions of authority in the Department and I am looking for great results from this type of reorganizaton in the Post Office. I am sure that under this minister's direction we will get it. I think this minister will treat men as human beings and not as machines, as was the case before. Having made some of these changes, I have every hope that the minister will get the Post Office back on the rails so that the people of Canada will be able to say that we have as good a postal service if not better than anywhere in the world.
Now I would like to say a few words about rural post offices, some of which are in a deplorable condition. This is not really the fault of rural postmasters. The problem is that they have not been paid well enough to keep a decent place, to paint it and to make of it a respectable post office. After all, these places represent Her Majesty's mail service and they should be show places. They should be tidy, neat and a credit to Canada. I should like to say that in my community our post office is one of the show places on the main street. It is always clean and there is always a flag flying from its rooftop. It is a well operated post office. I hope we will find similar ones all across Canada.
Post Office Act
May I say in conclusion that there are many problems facing this minister and I know he will do his best to correct them. I am sure he knows that if he does not increase the efficiency of the delivery service to which the Canadian people are entitled, he will have no right to increase the rates as outlined in the amendments to the Post Office Act.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, it is like old times to be discussing the Post Office Department, but I can hardly tell you how much I miss the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans) in these discussions. However, I have a feeling that perhaps the Post Office will remember him even longer than I will, because he who was so excellent in many other activities and has such a great contribution to make to the understanding of the economic problems of this country could not have been more unfortunately miscast than by being placed in charge of the Post Office Department. I never quite knew whether the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) did this deliberately.
However, I am hopeful for better things from the present minister but not as hopeful as I was a few months ago, because I think he has not shown too much energy in throwing off the regrettable habits, attitudes and postures of his predecessor, these things which brought about such a decay in the service and such a multiplication in the deficits. Neither of these situations is something which a conscientious Canadian parliamentarian or postal patron would welcome.
I seem to remember that in another Parliament this same minister had a little trouble in getting through an extra soaking of the Canadian public for postal rates. Perhaps history will repeat itself.
I am sorry that this minister, for whom I personally have great affection, should be presenting a major piece of legislation the chief ingredient of which is yet another increase in the cost of postage to the people of Canada. As my colleagues have said, if this by any stretch of a partial imagination could be correlated with improved service, there might be some justification for looking upon the proposed increase with dispassion. But this is not the case. No one would talk with much enthusiasm or conviction about an improved postal service. The problem is the result of a series of costly fiascos in the administration of the Post Office Department, fiascos which have diminished the respect of the Canadian people for this important department of government and curtailed the use by the people of Canada of the Post Office Department, thereby diminishing the revenues which should flow from the public use of the department.
It is well known-and I quite agree with my colleague who has just resumed his seat-that the most egregious error under the previous Postmaster General was the cessation of service on Saturdays. He was warned that in a country of such vast distances as Canada this could not possibly be anything but a stupid and retrograde step. The events have proven the wisdom of this sad prognosis. Much of the problem of the delayed mail delivery comes from the fact that there is a blackout between Friday

May 31, 1971
Post Office Act
and Monday and that a good deal of the mail which is brought in on Friday does not move until Tuesday.
Another result is that patrons of the Post Office Department in the parcel post field are using alternative means, and daily we hear on radio the advertisements of the bus PX service. It is apparently cheaper and more efficient to use other means of transporting parcels than Her Majesty's mail. So as costly fiasco follows costly fiasco, as there is a diminution of the usage of the postal department by the people of Canada, the natural result is that those who still use it-and there are many millions who must-will have to pay more. So up goes the price of stamps yet again.
The white paper-it is a mistake to say "the" white paper-one of the plethora of white papers has forecast stamps that would cost 26 cents. We are moving toward that, Mr. Speaker, with a very unpleasant and unwelcome speed. Time was when we had five-cent stamps and six-day delivery. Then the shift was to five-day delivery and a six-cent stamp. But that is not good enough. We have to raise the ante; we have to increase the cost of stamps. No one can point out that this is in any way likely to be connected with increased service because alas, Mr. Speaker, we find that under the present jurisdiction the same old problems of employee unrest seem to plague the Canadian postal service.
Only today we hear of very serious protests from union spokesmen in the Post Office here in Ottawa; charges of far too numerous employment of casuals and charges of something even more serious, that there is a degree of nepotism involved. All of this, of course, is very disturbing to the morale of the Post Office and it seems to be a repetition of the old, old story that things are not going well in this department which was established at the time of confederation, one of the old established departments of government which, if experience should mean anything, would be expected to be a very efficient one.
I agree with those who point to this particular bill and find it inadequate in dealing with the important issues. A few months ago we were told that the guttering prospect of the estabhshment of a Crown corporation was not far away and that this was the answer. How many hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent on how many costly, elaborate and lengthy studies into the efficacy and efficiency of a Crown corporation? Now it seems that the idea, like the studies from which it was produced, is gathering dust and no one mentions the Crown corporation any more.
It seems that the only innovation we can get out of those in charge of the Post Office is something new like a new price of a stamp, and it is always a higher one. This is the thing that is most disturbing to all of us. I fear that it will turn the people of Canada still more against this department. We would like some assurance from the minister that things will be done. I think if he would stand up and say that the five-day week was a mistake and that he will see it is corrected, that would do something in itself to get across to the people of Canada that there would be some improvements. I wait and hope that he will take this opportunity.
I hope that we will get a little more efficiency and a little less tendency to reach for a bigger stamp cost. I hope we will have no more regrettable performances such as that which we are reminded of every day when we see the Lapalme workers parading around the Parliament grounds. History says, perhaps somewhat mythically, that a certain queen of France lost her head for telling the people of that country to eat cake. What the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) advised these poor workers to eat is far less appetising than that, and this is hardly the view of an enlightened employer toward people who have grave difficulties in working for the people of Canada.
So I look upon this legislation with feelings of regret. I wish that this minister could have produced something more than yet another appeal to the people of Canada to pay more for their postage stamps. There are so few governmental services which are given to the people of Canada at low cost that it is too bad the art, the capacity of communicating one with another should be taxed ever more heavily. Therefore I do not welcome this piece of legislation, nor do I commend the minister for his actions in bringing it forward.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is a disposition to reach the point tonight at which a vote on the amendment could be ordered. My remarks will not interfere with our reaching that point. However, I should like to add to the comments that have already been made by my colleagues, the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson) and the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding), by saying very clearly that we shall support the amendment for a six months' hoist and that when the vote on the second reading of the bill com.es, if it does come, we shall vote against the bill itself.
As has been pointed out several times today, it is only a few years ago that people could mail first-class letters in the city for four cents and anywhere in Canada for five cents. By next July, if this bill goes through, that four cents will be doubled to eight cents and the five cents rate will become eight cents. That is an increase that I think deserves the word "unconscionable" when one considers what even a few cents mean to many of our people, particularly those whose pensions were increased last December by only 42 cents a month.
This is not a justifiable increase, and we shall oppose it. However, Sir, there are a couple of other things I would like to say. The hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) referred feelingly to the remarks that were given some publicity today, remarks made by representatives of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. As I recall it, the representatives of that union said-and they said it on the background of the experience they have had-that it is not their business to improve the image of the Post Office; that it is their job to get the

May 31, 1971

best possible deal for their members who work for the Post Office.
One cannot quarrel with that position taken by the unions, but I think it ought to be a challenge to the soon-to-be Postmaster General. He belongs to a government which has mouthed the phrase "participatory democracy." I suggest that those words from the union are a challenge to him to establish the kind of relationship with the workers in the Post Office so that they will feel not only that they must secure better wages and working conditions for themselves but that they will want to help improve the image of the department as a whole. You cannot expect them to do that unless they are presented with an opportunity or a challenge. I suggest that the ball is in the court of the soon-to-be Postmaster General.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: He will strike out.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to comment briefly on the changes proposed by this bill with respect to mailing services which presently are free. I notice that a number of changes are being made. There is one particular complaint which I have received many times in recent weeks. A number of correspondents have asked why they must pay postage when mailing their income tax form but not on the census form. The official answer is that the taxation data centre in Ottawa to which income tax returns are sent has been designated as a field office, not the head office of the Post Office Department, and therefore a postage stamp is required. Apparently, because the census return involves statistics it is possible to send it to field offices all over the country without postage.
It looks as though there is another explanation behind this, Mr. Speaker. Citizens know that if they do not file an income tax return they will be in trouble, and so the government charges what the traffic will bear. There is not the same element of compulsion with regard to the census return. I know there is a penalty for non-return, but people do not seem to fear it and in order to induce them to send the return to Toronto, Winnipeg, Calgary or any other centre there is no charge for mailing.
The reasoning behind such decisions is not commendable. If census returns can be mailed postage free, I suggest that the same should apply to income tax returns. Although we are speaking of only a few cents it is another form of regressive taxation. For the wealthier people, the millionaires, another 6 or 8 cents for postage on an income tax return does not mean anything, but to the old age pensioner on the guaranteed income supplement the fact of having to pay postage on a tax return is adding insult to injury. The bill makes it possible to have some reconsideration of the question of what can or cannot be free. I hope common sense will prevail when the bill gets to the standing committee-that is, provided it gets there.
The essential feature of the bill is to increase the postage on the first ounce of first-class mail to seven
Canada-Finland Income Tax Act, 1971
cents on July 1, and to eight cents on January 1 next. This party is against this being done, so we shall vote for the six months' hoist, and if we get to second reading of the bill we shall vote against it.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the amendment to the main motion. All those in favour will please-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I think there is agreement that this vote be deferred.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps there will be no vote. All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I believe, as has been mentioned by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) there is agreement that the division on the amendment will be postponed until tomorrow. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might call it ten o'clock, as it is so close to being that time.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I wonder if I might prevail upon Your Honour and the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) to deal very rapidly with item No. 79 on the Order Paper. I think there is agreement to deal with this. It is the Canada-Finland tax agreement. If there is disposition perhaps we could deal with it in the next two minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CANADA-FINLAND SUPPLEMENTARY INCOME TAX CONVENTION ACT, 1971 MEASURE TO APPROVE SUPPLEMENTARY CONVENTION

Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: that Bill S-18, to implement a supplementary income tax convention between Canada and Finland, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


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


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I think there was agreement that we should refer the bill, rather than to the standing

May 31, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion committee to committee oi the whole. Could that matter be dealt with as well?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Honey in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the bill carries, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance what he is going to do with the speech he had prepared?


Mr. Mahoney:: If anyone shouts "Explain" very loudly, I shall read it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Carried!
Bill reported.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave, now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

['Mr. Speaker, I have already partially answered that question as it was asked by the hon. member the other day in the House. I can add to that answer that the frequency of clearances of street letter boxes varies at each assured mail centre, but generally boxes located in residential areas are cleared once daily in the morning and striped boxes located on main thoroughfares and in business areas are cleared at least twice daily, in the morning and in the early afternoon, Monday to Friday, and once in the morning on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. Times shown on both types of boxes reflect final clearance deadlines for assured next delivery day service to designated centres.\nA final early evening clearance is made from striped boxes only at most assured mail centres, Monday to Friday. This mail is processed in the normal way, and\n\nMay 31, 1971', 'although we are able to give a good portion of it following-day delivery in certain areas it is not guaranteed next delivery day service.\nThe need for a later pick-up of mail after assured mail collection deadlines will be determined on the individual merits of each area where the assured mail program is implemented. That is why we are still having difficulty with the program. As I say, we might have had better box clearance in some areas. All we were doing in many instances was merely accumulating a large volume of mail in the post offices during the night which meant that\nProceedings on Adjournment Motion more employees had to work on the night shift without providing better service.\nSo we hope after a period of adjustment to have a more assured mail program. If the people of Canada will bear with us a little longer, I believe I can assure hon. members and the public that in a short time, a month or two, things will be stabilized to a large degree and the service will be very much better than it is at present.\nMotion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.', 'Tuesday, June 1, 1971']
Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, on May 4 I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) about Canada's role in providing relief supplies for the victims of the cruel war in East Pakistan. Regrettably, Sir, the question still has painful relevance today. News items from the India-East Pakistan border tell of terrible suffering on the part of vast numbers of people. A despatch from New Delhi today declares that over four million East Pakistanis have fled from East Pakistan since martial law was imposed. The Indian Labour and Rehabilitation Minister, R. K. Khadilkar, is quoted as saying "What the eventual figure will be is
anybody's guess. It may be five or even eight million." Reports of cholera epidemic add tragedy to an already deplorable story of mass human suffering. Crowded living conditions have fostered other diseases.
The minister already quoted accused Pakistani troops of pursuing the refugees across the frontier into India. Alluding to the possibility of India taking defensive or preventive measures, he said, "Nobody wants war but if they start hot pursuit, as they are now doing, in such a situation can one keep absolutely mum and just protect?" Thus the prospects of international military action are very much and very dangerously present. So, along with a gripping story of fearful human suffering we have here a grave threat to world peace.
As I said in the House on Friday, I welcome the government announcement regarding the $2 million contribution to relief funds. Certainly the whole burden must not be borne by India. It is a matter of international concern and should also be one for international action. So far I have not noted any Commonwealth interest or initiative. I wonder what, if anything, Canada has been doing to have this matter discussed in a Commonwealth context.
The initiative of Secretary General U Thant is welcome. The visit of the three-member team from the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was also a proper step. But the need for international inspection on both sides of the border is compellingly urgent. I think none of us here enjoy seeing Pakistan become the object of widespread and sharp criticism from the thoughtful and sensitive in the international community.
There is obviously a very serious situation in Pakistan, and while that country may well assert that the political aspects are not the subject of international scrutiny or concern, the humanitarian aspect is one which should prompt the government of Pakistan to welcome the good intentions and efforts of people from many parts of the world.
I hope that Canada will not rest its case with the $2 million contribution or desist from its efforts to broaden the base of aid and enlarge the scope of the assistance which so many people across the world desire to extend to the victims of this grim, human tragedy. I hope that we will continue our aid program through the approved channels. We should also use our good offices with Pakistan, a fellow Commonwealth state, to open the doors and remove all grounds for criticism that political considerations are standing in the way of maximizing aid to an unhappy people.
Mr. Ray Perrauli (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Labour): Mr. Speaker, since May 4, when the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) asked for more elaboration on the situation in East Pakistan and particularly whether the authorities there would accept relief supplies, it can be said that some progress has been made toward providing relief assistance for the victims of the Pakistani conflict. As you are aware, it was announced on May 28 that the government is providing $2 million to help meet the immediate needs of the refugees crossing into neighbouring states of India from

May 31, 1971

East Pakistan. Included in the Canadian contribution will be foodstuffs, medicines, medical supplies and a cash donation. This is, of course, additional to the earlier contribution of $50,000 to the Canadian Red Cross, supplementing its gift of $10,000 to the Indian Red Cross for relief to refugees.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) had earlier indicated that the government of Pakistan was reluctant to accept relief assistance or to permit relief administrators into East Pakistan, considering that their own resources were adequate to meet immediate needs. This situation has now changed and the government of Pakistan has recently indicated that assistance from abroad would be welcome.
Our High Commissioner in Islamabad has been in contact with officials of the Pakistani government who have indicated that external assistance will be required in two categories: (1), humanitarian relief and (2), reconstruction and rehabilitation. The government of Pakistan has appealed to the United Nations and to the world food program for assistance in the first category. With regard to reconstruction and rehabilitation of East Pakistan, the Pakistan government has prepared a list of priority items which is now receiving scrutiny of the appropriate governmental authorities.
The Secretary General of the United Nations has appointed a co-ordinator of United Nations relief activity and it is expected that he will visit East Pakistan in the very near future. Canada has already indicated that any assistance which the Canadian government may give will be closely co-ordinated with that provided through the United Nations.
Assurances have been received from the government of Pakistan that any assistance given will be used only for rehab.litation and relief, and the co-ordination arrangements to which they have agreed would appear to be adequate to ensure proper distribution for the purposes intended.



John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, on May 18 I directed a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) which hon. members will find reported in
Hansard in the following terms:
I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the report that a United States firm has displaced a Canadian-owned company at the international airport at Toronto, involving the majority of airport skycaps, would the minister indicate the method by which such contracts are let?
Mr. Speaker indicated he doubted whether the question was in order and suggested it might be considered at the time of adjournment. I agree with him 100 per cent.
First, I should like to say we are extremely pleased to learn that in this corner of the House there is to be one more member, from the constituency of Brant. He was elected with a majority of about 5,000 and he will probably be in a position to speak forcefully for the people in that area when he enters the House very shortly.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
With regard to the question I asked, it appears that Consolidated Fueling Services of New York took over the skycap contracts at the International airport in Toronto for all but two airlines. They are Air Canada and Canadian Pacific Airlines. At that time Consolidated Fueling Services agreed verbally that they would hire the people who had been laid off by Airline Services, who previously held the contract, thus enabling men who had spent years of service at the airport to retain employment.
However, this was not the result of the takeover which is really effective as a result of agreements between the airlines involved and the people employed as skycaps. It would seem that the situation involved in this so-called contract at Toronto airport is similar to that which arose in Montreal not long ago. The men concerned in that affair, the Lapalme drivers, are still marching in front of the House of Commons day in and day out. Someone else took over the contract to provide the services which they were providing and the displaced workers are still expressing their concern.
The same thing could happen in Toronto unless the Department of Transport undertakes to do something about the type of contract they let at so-called public expense airports. For the department to wash its hands of the whole affair is not in the Canadian interest. We are well aware that in Toronto, Consolidated Fuelling Services of New York, a strictly U.S.-owned firm, did not employ the people that they had undertaken to employ and as a result the airline services which did employ labour for Air Canada and CP Air had to lay off, according to my information, some eight people at the terminal.
I am asking whether or not the government, although the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Duquet), would indicate to the House this evening why a United States firm has been allowed completely to take over services at the International Airport at Toronto that were not put out to tender; why it has allowed independent airlines operating into Canada to employ skycaps without tender; why it has allowed air services which would hire skycaps to employ people off the street rather than engage labour that was fully qualified; and why the Department of Transport claims it is interested in providing services to the people when there are two groups of skycaps at Toronto International Airport meeting cabs that arrive at the airport and asking the passenger whether they are travelling by Air Canada or CP Air, thus causing a nuisance to the travelling public.
The people of Canada are entitled to know whether or not the employment of skycap services in this country is going to be commensurate with the demand. They are entitled to know whether these services are sufficient to serve the travelling public. Although the people who were picked off the street may well have been Canadians, in my humble opinion this is another case of union-busting. Consolidated Fuelling Services of New York do not hire union labour or have certification with any labour union in Canada. To say the least, it is a disgrace that

May 31, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion while we have airline services in Canada today which hire labour from the Canadian Brotherhood of Railways, Transport and General Workers Union, the company to which I have referred, unhindered by the Department of Transport, is allowed to hire people off the street who are unqualified or inexperienced, which in turn results in the lay-off of long-term employees who themselves have to walk the street.


Gérard Duquet: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) raised this question on May 18. Since that date I have had an opportunity to make inquiries with officials in the Department of Transport who are familiar with the detailed operation of the International Airport at Toronto. I am informed that the skycap service is handled directly by the airlines and not by the department. The reason for this is that it is felt that the service is one that can be directly attributed to the passenger and that the airlines are in a better position to provide this service.
The hon. member is aware that up to a short time ago the skycap service for the majority of the airlines at Toronto was provided by Air Terminal Transport Limited. Recently the contract expired, and although Air Canada extended the contract the other airlines preferred to solicit bids from other companies in this type of business, including Air Terminal Transport. As a result of the bids a contract was awarded to Consolidated Aviation and Services, the Canadian subsidiary of Allied Aviation Services.
The hon. member has made a number of observations which I have noted. I will, of course, bring these to the attention of the departmental officials who are directly concerned with this subject, and if there are additional points which have not been mentioned this evening I would be pleased to receive them.


POST OFFICE-LAST DAILY PICK-UP OF MAIL IN CITIES
Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, once upon a time at this hour the House used to ring with welcome over the great exchanges between the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) and the former Minister of Communications and Postmaster General, the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans). So great was the excitement produced by these exchanges that the National Centre for the Performing Arts had to time its evening breaks and its performances in order that people could rush up here for 10 or 15 minutes to hear what went on. We all know what happened to the former Minister of Communications and Postmaster General.
In inviting our friend, the soon-to-become Postmaster General, here this evening I promised him I would not, and do not want to, perform in the role of the hon. member for Hillsborough. I should like to clear up one question in my mind. Broadly stated the question is, does the government serve the people or do the people exist to serve the government? More specifically, did the government or his department really have to change the timing of afternoon mail collection from some time after five
o'clock to around three o'clock in our great Canadian
cities?
The minister, his department and his staff in various parts of Canada have received correspondence in respect of this early mail collection. I should like to quote from two letters. The first is from a Mr. Paul D. Silver, president of Silver's Agencies Limited of Halifax. He states in part:
For some unexplained, and in my opinion completely unfounded, reason business "boxes" are only cleared once daily (Monday to Friday) and that at 3 p.m. or two hours prior to the close of normal office business.
Delivery to Montreal/Toronto, on 5 p.m. mailing, would therefore require 38 hours as against the previous 18 hours.
Local deliveries, within the city, also come on a 38-hour delivery basis.
Is it anticipated that, for a whim of Ottawa, every company should reorganize to mail before the 3 p.m. deadline or should we all direct our staff to the post office, after 5 p.m., causing traffic tie-ups, diverting people from their normal home routing and adding to their expenses?
The other quotation is from a letter written by Mr. Byron D. Anthony, director, labour-management bureau at the Dalhousie institute of public affairs, Dalhousie University. It was written to the postmaster in Halifax and in part states:
To be more specific, mail posted in a city mail box at 5.20 p.m. Friday, May 14th addressed to 15 separate addresses, at noon today, Wednesday, May 19th had been delivered to only four recipients.
That gives an idea of the magnitude of this problem and the fact that people still have their normal office routines to follow. Having regard to the question I posed last week, the soon-to-become Postmaster General was really telling us that the mailing habits of Canadians should be changed. Perhaps the habits of the new Postmaster General and his department should be changed back to what used to be the case. I ask the Postmaster General to assess this new time in light of experience, and should the resistance of the public be greater than its acceptance to the new hours will a change be made back to former hours?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, I have already partially answered that question as it was asked by the hon. member the other day in the House. I can add to that answer that the frequency of clearances of street letter boxes varies at each assured mail centre, but generally boxes located in residential areas are cleared once daily in the morning and striped boxes located on main thoroughfares and in business areas are cleared at least twice daily, in the morning and in the early afternoon, Monday to Friday, and once in the morning on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. Times shown on both types of boxes reflect final clearance deadlines for assured next delivery day service to designated centres.
A final early evening clearance is made from striped boxes only at most assured mail centres, Monday to Friday. This mail is processed in the normal way, and

May 31, 1971

although we are able to give a good portion of it following-day delivery in certain areas it is not guaranteed next delivery day service.
The need for a later pick-up of mail after assured mail collection deadlines will be determined on the individual merits of each area where the assured mail program is implemented. That is why we are still having difficulty with the program. As I say, we might have had better box clearance in some areas. All we were doing in many instances was merely accumulating a large volume of mail in the post offices during the night which meant that
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion more employees had to work on the night shift without providing better service.
So we hope after a period of adjustment to have a more assured mail program. If the people of Canada will bear with us a little longer, I believe I can assure hon. members and the public that in a short time, a month or two, things will be stabilized to a large degree and the service will be very much better than it is at present.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Tuesday, June 1, 1971