1973-06-08

ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is my duty to advise the House that an objection signed by the hon. members for Bona-venture-Iles de la Madeleine, Montmorency, Montreal-Bourassa, Gaspe, Temiscamingue, Saint-Maurice, Lac Saint-Jean, Berthier, Lapointe, Matane, Lotbiniere and Pontiac has been delivered to me under section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act concerning the report of the Quebec Electoral Boundaries Commission.
[ English]
If the House agrees, I * suggest that the text of the objection be printed as an appendix to the Votes and Proceedings of this day. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second and third reports of Standing Committee on Agriculture-Mr. Whicher.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Mr. Peter Stollery (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Poulin):
That the petition of the Centre Amusement Co. Limited tabled after the delay specified by Standing Order 90 be referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills and standing orders with the fourth report of the Clerk of Petitions tabled in the House on Thursday, May 31, 1973, in order that the committee
may be in a position to make the recommendations it deems proper.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, under the provision of Standing Order 43 I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the government urge the Minister of Transport to discuss with the officers of Air Canada the advisability of making a more reasonable offer to their employees represented by the International Association of Machinists and by the Canadian Airline Employees Association, especially in view of the record profits of Air Canada and the justified request of their employees.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the terms of Standing Order 43 the hon. member's motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The motion cannot be put.


INCOME TAX
Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in response to a request from the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), I wish to table in both official languages a description of the proposed income tax regulations as they relate to manufacturing and processing profits.
Oral Questions OLYMPIC (1976) BILL

June 8, 1973


PROVISION FOR ISSUING OF COMMEMORATIVE COINS AND STAMPS AND HOLDING OF LOTTERY
Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (for the President of the Treasury Board) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-196, respecting the 1976 Summer Olympic Games.


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

[Stage Direction]


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance who will recall that at the time he presented his budget for the current year to the House in February he was about half a billion dollars out with respect to the fiscal year ending March 31 and as a result overtaxed Canadians during the last fiscal year by nearly half a billion dollars. I should like to ask the hon. gentleman whether in these circumstances he has revised his estimated tax collections for the current year and whether he is now prepared to recommend further personal income tax cuts or cuts in sales tax for the current year?


John Napier Turner: I do not
accept the substance of the preamble to the hon. gentleman's question. I have explained to the House that the variation had a good deal to do with the House of Commons being unable to enact some of the legislation upon which these forecasts were based. As a result I do not believe the rest of the hon. gentleman's question demands an answer from me at this time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Since the estimates of tax collections for the current fiscal year as presented in February were based upon an assumed rate of inflation of not more than 4 per cent, since the minister has now admitted he expects the rate to be 5 per cent, and since this will produce a vastly greater increase in government revenues than in government expenditures because of our progressive tax system, does the minister intend to recommend further tax cuts or does he insist upon collecting this year probably as much as a billion dollars more from Canadians than he forecast at the time of his budget?


John Napier Turner: Here again, I do not agree with the hon. gentleman's forecast. He knows, of course, that if there is any change in the fiscal stance of the government it will be announced in the proper and appropriate way.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Well, I thought this might be the proper and appropriate way. I am not asking the minister to agree with my forecast. I am asking him to face reality, however.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the excessive tax collections last year and expected this year in light of what I have alluded to, can the minister give us any reason at all for his insistence on increasing the rate of taxation imposed on most small companies this year compared with last year?


John Napier Turner: When it comes to realism, I hope the hon. gentleman will recall the insistence of himself and his colleagues in demanding that, despite a tremendously expanding economy, the deficit should be twice as large as was forecast in the budget. He and his friends wanted a deficit of more than $4 billion in spite of the expansion taking place in the country. If he is talking about realism he ought to read some of his older speeches.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the number of strikes now taking place against Canadian National Railways and in view of the fact that a major element in the strikes is dissatisfaction with the proposed new pension arrangements, will the Minister of Transport have appropriate talks with Canadian National officials in the hope that these pension arrangements can be improved?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt I have opportunities to discuss all these problems with the management of Canadian National Railways and I will certainly do so again. I was not sure that this particular one was the main issue at stake at the moment but if the hon. gentleman tells me that it is the most important one I will surely look into it because I think the employees should have satisfaction in that field.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether I could ask the minister to note that my question referred to the pension arrangements as being one of the major issues. In view of his agreement that this is something that should be resolved, I thank him for his offer.

[ Transla tion]


FINANCE
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
June 8, 1973

Further to my question of May 29 concerning the income tax of Bell Canada, and considering the fact that provincial Crown telephone companies do not pay federal income taxes, could the Prime Minister indicate whether the government would be prepared to transfer to the province of Quebec the income taxes paid by Bell Canada and which come from that province?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the province of Quebec remains free within the Constitution to levy the taxes it wishes. That is also the position of the federal government. If the province of Quebec wants to levy larger taxes on a company, it is free to do so without the authorization of the hon. member or of myself.
*
*


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON NATIONAL POLICY
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Now that Ontario has announced its provincial energy policy, as the province of Alberta did several months ago, when will the federal government state a national energy policy or does the nation simply have to wait for further white papers, discussions-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -and possibly eight more provincial policies to be set first?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that it might be useful to have discussions on a subject that has been recognized to be a matter of complicated jurisdiction. The hon. member suggests we should proceed unilaterally, but that is not my approach.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: While the nation waits for the formation of a national energy policy by the federal government, would the minister at least indicate if the government is willing to allow the construction or extension of a two-way oil pipeline between western Canada, Quebec and the Mari-times, as suggested by the government of Ontario and which the government of Quebec requested some time ago?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member should know, construction of any such line is open to any applicant under the law passed by parliament. This question has been considered repeatedly over the last dozen years and rejected both by the private and public authorities involved. But we would be glad to consider any application that came along.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In short, would the minister indicate whether he is willing to review the Ottawa valley line policy, and when will he make a statement on government policy?
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in the debate a little over a week ago, we intend to make the energy studies public and have a public discussion with the affected governments. The government of Alberta is, of course, opposed to any extension of the Montreal pipeline but some other governments favour it. Obviously this is a matter that must be settled by arriving at a consensus among the governments, if possible.


POSITION PUT FORWARD BY GOVERNMENT TO VISITING UNITED STATES SENATORS AND OFFICIALS
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of conflicting statements made by members of the United States congressional delegation which met with the minister and with his colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, last weekend to discuss energy matters, could the minister now clarify exactly what was said to this delegation, since not only Canadians but now Americans are totally confused by the statements that are being made?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, discussions took place over a period of three hours. As I pointed out yesterday, there were both protagonists and antagonists of the Alyeska pipeline, and each drew from the conversations what he wanted to draw and has made it public.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question which I will direct to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In his talks with the American delegation did the minister make it clear that before any development takes place in the Mackenzie corridor public hearings regarding a right of way under the Territorial Lands Act must be held, and that the granting of the right to construct a pipeline is not automatic?
[ Transla tion]


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I told them, naturally, that public hearings would be held before granting a right of way to the companies that might be interested in building a pipeline along the Mackenzie River. They know that there will be public hearings; each interested party will be able to bring in representations for or against the granting of a right of way.


SUGGESTED URGENCY OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF NATIONAL POLICY
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: My supplementary question arises from the answers of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources this morning. Does the minister not appreciate the urgency at this time of announcing and proclaiming immediately a national energy policy for Canada so as to clear up once and for all what routes the government would prefer for gas pipe-

June 8, 1973
Oral Questions
lines, crude petroleum pipelines and any bothersome constitutional questions prior to any litigation being commenced by one or more provinces of Canada leading to further aggravation of energy demands, supply and price?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. gentleman that national energy policies have been in effect in all areas for many years: for example, with regard to eastward transmission of natural gas by Trans-Canada, westward transmission by West Coast, eastward transmission of oil under the national oil policy, the ownership and control of the uranium industry and the export or nonexport of electricity. In each of these areas there is an existing policy. The real question is, should any of the policies be changed? That is the purpose of laying the facts before the Canadian people by way of the energy studies and, on the basis of discussions following those facts, to arrive at what, if any, changes may be necessary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Calgary North, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands and the hon. member for Edmonton Centre on supplementary questions. I hope there will not be too many. After the hon. member for Edmonton Centre I hope we can move to the next subject.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact the United States has made up its mind in respect of an Alaska pipeline and tanker route, does the minister not feel at this time there is urgency for a clearcut statement by him on behalf of the government to prevent any situation that could develop on the west coast resulting from wreckage of tankers carrying natural gas, liquified gas or crude petroleum?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Sir, and I will repeat the statement again. Our distinct preference is to have a Mackenzie route, subject, however, to an application being made under the law which has been passed by this parliament. The United States administration, of course, insists on handling its own resources in a different way. We have made clear to the United States the possibilities of a Canadian route, but I do not think we are really in a position to direct them as to how they should dispose of their resources within their jurisdiction.


POSSIBILITY OF NEW NATIONAL POLICY NOT BEING ANNOUNCED UNTIL 1974
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the minister has repeatedly promised to bring down a national energy policy-first it was by wintertime, then by late winter and then early spring, and it has not come yet-may I ask him whether the cabinet has now postponed the bringing down of such a national energy policy until 1974?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would correct the hon. gentleman. I indicated I would bring forward studies on the question of energy which are now being printed in both official languages and I hope will be available within a matter of weeks.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the minister had better go back and read some of his statements with reference to that.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I think he would blush.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Perhaps you had better go back.


PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE- OPPORTUNITY FOR DISCUSSION BY MEMBERS BEFORE ANY APPLICATION HEARD
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In light of the statement just made by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, may I ask whether or not the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources can assure the House that before any hearings are held in respect of a Mackenzie Valley pipeline an opportunity will be given to the House to discuss the benefits if any, which would accrue to the Canadian people?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have already pointed out to the hon. gentleman that if he and his colleagues had been interested they could have discussed the guidelines which have already been laid down with regard to the Mackenzie corridor. We on this side would be quite prepared to discuss the entire question of guidelines, environmental, economic, social and otherwise. If the hon. member wants to take advantage of the present committee hearings, or is interested in propounding an order of reference for further hearings, for my part I would be delighted to have the forum in which to speak.


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the importance of guidelines and policies regarding pipelines and the export of gas, oil and coal, is the government going to follow this week's precedent by introducing its guidelines in the form of a resolution for parliamentary approval and/or a matter of confidence?

[ Translation]


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Labour.
Can he tell us whether his department has ordered a study to be made on the reduction of the work week to four days for employees under federal jurisdiction while maintaining the same number of hours as at present? If so, can he tell us if the study is concluded and if he has reached a decision?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the study has not been completed. I might indicate that we are looking at the implications of a compressed, modified or shorter work week. That, as I say, is under inten-
June 8, 1973

sive study at the moment but there are no final results as yet.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North rises on a question of privilege.


Mr. Coates:: Mr. Speaker, there have been quite a number of questions put to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources about Canada's energy problems. While I appreciate that the original question and the supplemen-taries were by many members from both central and western Canada, we also have a problem regarding energy on the east coast of Canada. I do not think it is really fair for members from central and western Canada to have an opportunity to ask questions of the minister about the lack of policy, which becomes more and more apparent every day, without our also having some possibility of asking questions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. While I appreciate the point made by the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North, the hon. member will also appreciate the position of the Chair when after we had had a number of supplemen-taries we try to move on to another subject. I think it would make the task of the Chair impossible if the Chair were called upon to try to ensure that every province and every part of the country have a chance to ask supplemen-taries on each subject that is brought up. Hon. members, including the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North, will have an opportunity to ask supplementaries during the question period. The competition is not as numerous this morning as perhaps it is on other days, so I can assure the hon. member that he will be recognized in a short time.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Would the minister indicate to the House whether he has reached a decision regarding the appeal by the provincial government of Newfoundland and the citizens living within Gros Morne National Park to be able to hand over the property and land they own to their successors?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have set up our policy in this regard. I met the minister this morning; we did not discuss that matter in particular, but I think we are in the process of solving all the difficulties which could have existed at the two levels of government.
Oral Questions


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that yesterday morning Mr. William Teron was reelected to the board of directors of the St. Maurice Capital Corporation and in view of the importance of removing all possible doubt concerning potential conflicts of interest since he has been recently appointed as the new head of CMHC, I would like to ask the Prime Minister two questions. First, did Mr. Teron subsequently yesterday resign from his position on that board and, second, would the Prime Minister inform the House of the precise manner in which Mr. Teron intends to divest himself of his financial interests and property holdings and the exact nature of the trust arrangement proposed for that?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on the question of directorships and so on the arrangement is that Mr. Teron will divest himself of any directorships which are in any way of a commercial interest in the area in which he will be operating. I believe there are some exceptions. For instance, I believe he is and will remain a director of the Ottawa Football Club and perhaps will keep his connection with the National Arts Centre. There are exceptions such as these. I have no knowledge of the election to which the hon. member referred in his question. I am certain that either it is not a fact or not a relevant fact because it is a fundamental part of the arrangement with Mr. Teron that he will resign from such directorships.
As to the other arrangements referred to in the latter part of the hon. member's question, there will be a divestment of property which will be either complete by sale over a reasonable period of time or there will be a putting of property into an arms' length trust composed of a decent part of a well-known public trust and an engagement on Mr. Teron's part to have no input at all into the management of the affairs of the trust.


ACCEPTANCE BY GOVERNMENT OF RECOMMENDATIONS IN WILLIAMS REPORT-ESTABLISHMENT OF RULES RESPECTING TRUSTS AND SUPERVISORY MECHANISM
John Edward Broadbent: I hope that in the Prime Minister's busy schedule he will find time to check the relevant facts in this case.
I should like to ask him, on the important question of conflict of interest, whether the government intends, in the Prime Minister's promised legislation and guidelines on conflict of interest, to follow the recommendations in the report of Professor Jeremy Williams submitted to the government in 1969 and, further, whether he intends to establish rules concerning the nature of such trust arrangements to which he has just referred for cabinet ministers and other government appointees as well as an
4572

June 8, 1973
Oral Questions
independent supervisory mechanism to ensure the proper administration of such trusts?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: To get an answer in detail to that question the hon. member will have to wait for our statement in the House and the paper which will be presented by the government suggesting how we propose to deal with matters of conflict of interest not only with regard to members of parliament but for cabinet ministers, members of the public service and, hopefully, eventually also for order in council appointments. The arrangement will be based on a long series of studies, including those to which the hon. member referred, and take into account procedures in other democratic countries. An effort will be made by the government to reconcile the very real desire of the people of Canada to have people of eminence in their service, either as members of parliament or in the public service, with the important principle of avoiding a conflict of interest situation where such a person would serve his own personal interest in serving the public.


John Edward Broadbent: Would the Prime Minister assure the House that we will have the promised legislation before the summer recess?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the statement is intended to be made before the recess for this summer.


An hon. Member:: What summer recess?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I want to remind the hon. member that I have not promised that legislation would be passed. We would like to table in parliament the proposals of the government for resolving this problem of conflict of interest by members of parliament, perhaps not only in the form of a paper but as a draft bill. We hope it will be possible for all members of parliament in all parties to improve it, if possible, and certainly to look critically at the suggestions made by the government. If any improvements are suggested, we will probably want to take them into account in bringing in similar improvements to the guidelines for cabinet ministers and public servants.
[La ter.]


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might supplement an answer given by the Prime Minister to a question from the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, on the basis of information just handed to me. While Mr. Teron was appointed to the board of directors of St. Maurice Capital Corporation yesterday at its annual meeting, the ballots had been sent in before his nomination as President of CMHC and subsequently, after his election, he resigned from the board.


REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION OF ALL STUDIES
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. Does the right hon. gentleman think that a discussion of this serious topic would be helped if not only the report of Professor Williams but the other studies that are going on in the office of the President of the Privy Council could be made public? Surely these documents are

not internal documents, and it would help not only in responding to the government's belated initiative but would enable us to respond positively and quickly.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that seems to be a worth-while suggestion. I will consider the studies that have been made and see whether it is in the public interest to make them public.


Mr. Speaker:: I see that practically every hon. member to my left is rising. We have spent quite some time on two questions only. I think we have lost the advantage we had earlier this afternoon by spending so much time on two questions. Many members will be disappointed again. The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Duncan M. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. In light of the fact that Air Canada faces the imminent danger of a complete shut-down of air services as a result of the gathering momentum of the machinists' rotating strikes, can the minister tell the House whether he is going to take any personal steps immediately to try to settle the dispute and, if not, why not?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I have taken note of the various suggestions emanating from the official opposition. Let me assure members of the opposition and in particular the hon. member that the government will take every possible action that we think is constructive to resolve this dispute.


ROTATING STRIKES BY MACHINISTS-MEASURES TO ENSURE SAFETY OF PASSENGERS
Duncan M. Beattie: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. In light of the fact that unqualified persons are often working on some of the vital services connected with plane travel, can the minister tell the House what special procedures his department is taking to ensure the safety of persons still travelling on Air Canada?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we have increased the surveillance. We have more inspectors and we have taken steps to see to it that the safety of passengers is assured by Air Canada. As the hon. member knows, Air Canada has an operating maintenance manual which reflects the standards of security of the Department of Transport, and we are ensuring that the instructions in the operating manual are followed by Air Canada.
June 8, 1973


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister in view of the fact that the Minister of the Environment is not present today and there has been no notification of an acting minister. In view of the fact raw sewage is being dumped directly into the Ottawa River from the new headquarters of the Department of the Environment in the Fontaine building in Hull, when does the government expect the sewage system in the new building will be in operation and this direct pollution of the Ottawa River will cease?


Mr. William Rompkey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take that question as notice and bring it to the attention of the minister.


STEPS TO ACHIEVE NATIONAL GRID-RE-EXAMINATION OF REPORT ON FUNDY TIDES
Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is it the intention of his department to initiate new moves to try to secure a national agreement on the development of a national power grid as well as bring about a conclusion to the re-examination of the programming board report on Fundy tidal power?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in the last several months we have already made offers, particularly in the Atlantic provinces, to achieve closer co-ordination of power facilities there. It was helpful to find out that with the proposals in Ontario there may be some prospect that their very large semi-autonomous facility will be co-operating in national policies.
With regard to Fundy tidal power, I should like to tell the hon. member that we have not had the report of the programming board which is at the moment considering the matter.


PROSPECTS FOR AGREEMENT WITH MARITIME PROVINCES ON ALLOCATION OF POSSIBLE OIL ROYALTIES FROM OFFSHORE DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the confusion that reigns in Altantic Canada at present over the lack of policy with respect to the allocation of possible royalties from offshore development, and the fact that this indecision could well lead to a delay in developing our oil potential, will the minister
Oral Questions
indicate to the House whether any possible agreement has been reached with the four provincial premiers concerned with regard to this thorny problem?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, actually the five easternmost provinces are involved. No agreement has been reached at the moment, although I share the optimism of at least one of the provincial premiers that by the end of the summer there may be an agreement. We have had extensive discussions at the official level, and I think it is fair to say that there is some difference of position in the case of at least one provincial premier, but we hope to bring him around.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. With respect to the report of a recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease in northwestern Europe, specifically in Austria, can the minister confirm the accuracy of this report and will he comment on the implications of this cattle disease outbreak with respect to current Canadian import permits about to be announced this month?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is irregular to ask a minister to confirm a report. However, we might assume that the question has been asked directly in order to give the minister an opportunity to reply.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the fact that there is an outbreak of hoof and mouth disease, particularly in Austria. Naturally we are enforcing all the regulations that we customarily put into effect when there is an outbreak of this disease in any part of the world from which imports come into Canada. We are also asking for restrictions to be placed on tourists coming from that area to Canada. As a matter of fact, we had some difficulties just last week with a plane load of them who came to Montreal.


MANPOWER
Mr. Elias Nesdoly (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Would he indicate to the House whether it is the policy of his department to favour private corporations to the detriment of Crown corporations when it comes to giving grants under the training on the job program and the training in industry program?
4574

June 8, 1973
Oral Questions


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, it is generally the practice of the department to favour improvement of the conditions of employees, and that is the basis for giving grants for training on the job to any employer. Generally speaking, there are a great many more such grants and contracts entered into with private corporations than with Crown corporations.


Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: In view of the fact that since 1968 the well known corporation of Mr. Roman, Dennison Mines, has received six grants from the Department of Manpower totalling almost $300,000 for the purpose of training its work force, whereas our Crown corporation, Eldorado Nuclear Limited, received only $9,000 for the same purpose, would the minister agree to look into this matter and make a statement clarifying this very peculiar situation?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to look into it, but I can assure the hon. member that there is certainly no political patronage involved.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

[ Translation]


HARBOURS
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Since the Quebec Minister of Industry and Commerce expressed yesterday serious concern about the statement made by the Minister of the Environment that it was ridiculous to think of building a port for giant tankers on the St. Lawrence River, and since the Prime Minister said at the beginning of the week that he was not aware of that letter, could the Prime Minister say today if the statement made by the Minister of the Environment reflected the policy of the government, or whether discussions in that regard are still going on as he suggested earlier this week?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, discussions are still going on. The Minister of the Environment, in this case as in others, does his job as Minister of the Environment of drawing the attention of the public and governments on the dangers of pollution, for the protection of the environment of certain developments. His advice has been always taken into consideration in the decisions of the government, together with other advice we receive from the Departments of Regional Economic Expansion, Finance, Transport, Industry, Trade and Commerce, etc. Each minister plays his part and the discussions are not over.


PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF SUPERTANKER PORT ON ST. LAWRENCE-DISCUSSION WITH QUEBEC
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister informs us that the discussions are not over, could he assure the House that he is prepared to

consider the representations made by the Quebec government in that regard?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.


PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF SUPERTANKER PORT ON ST. LAWRENCE-GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION IN SHARED COST PROJECT
Mr.   Jacgues-L. Trudel@Montreal-Bourassa: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the right hon. Prime Minister.
Has he received a request to the effect that the federal government help or participate in a joint project, under which the private industry, the provincial government and the federal government would build a super-harbour in the Gulf of St. Lawrence?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I know that such questions are in fact discussed and proposed. I cannot say that that question has been submitted to me, personally, but I understand that it is discussed by some ministers of the federal government with ministers of the provincial government.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that diethylstilbestrol, commonly known as DES, has been banned as a growth stimulant for cattle because of its carcinogenic properties, although certified as safe for use for almost two decades, can the minister assure the people of Canada that the new growth stimulant, ralgro, now licensed for use in Canada, is indeed a safe drug to use for this purpose, so that some time in the future it too will not be banned because of insufficient research?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I have been assured by the scientists who were associated with the research done before official consent was given for the use of ralgro in Canada that it is safe. I can only go by what they tell me.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would hope there would not be too many supplementaries because we are now just about at the end of the question period.


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: Now that many countries are again accepting our beef exports because of the banning of DES, can the minister state with assurance that these countries will still accept our beef exports if they have been previously treated with ralgro?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge that they would not be.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Frank Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Further to a question I asked his parliamentary secretary about two weeks ago relating to the acute shortage of railway rolling stock for the lumber industry in British Columbia, can the minister today tell the House if his discussions with the provincial government have resulted in a solution for this very serious problem?


Jean Marchand: Is the
hon. member referring only to the discussion on boxcars or to the whole discussion with the government of British Columbia?


Frank Oberle: I am referring to boxcars which are in short supply for the lumber industry in British Columbia.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, discussions are being carried on not mainly with the government of British Columbia but with the Americans. This is where our boxcars are and the CNR and CPR are trying to get back as many cars as they can.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Norval Horner (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the fact the cities of Saskatoon and Regina are designated as special areas in Saskatchewan under DREE and that this policy discourages and practically prevents industrial growth in all other cities and towns in that province, would the minister consider changing the policy to eliminate these two cities as special areas and put all towns and cities on an equal basis?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, a question along these lines has already been discussed at considerable length with the government of Saskatchewan, and a working party is now considering how the objective outlined by the hon. member can be achieved, that is, to make incentive grants and other assistance under DREE available over a wider area, not only in Saskatchewan but in other provinces.


NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of State for
Oral Questions
Urban Affairs. In view of the growing concern with respect to waste management disposal problems in the national capital area, can he say whether it is true that the National Capital Commission has notified municipalities within the area that dumping on its lands will be prohibited in 1974 and, if so, what is the cut-off date for that order?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please, I will take just one second of the time of the House to suggest it is not regular to ask a minister to confirm a statement which is made outside the House. To save time, we will assume that the question has been asked directly.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take notice of the question and report back to the hon. member.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. What action, if any, is being taken by our Canadian representatives at the United Nations to protest the proposed French nuclear tests in the south Pacific?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we have made direct representations to the French government on this question on a number of occasions and I am very happy to say that on the last occasion I was able to transmit the views of this parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member on a supplementary, and I believe the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate and the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles de la Madeleine have supplementaries to previous questions.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer my question. The question was, what action had been taken at the United Nations level by the Canadian representatives? In addition, may I ask whether the Canadian government has considered any further action at the international level in protesting against these proposed nuclear tests?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think the position of the Canadian government on these tests is extremely well known and, if there had been any doubt about it, we had the full support of the House of Commons. I can think of no stronger protest.

June 8, 1973
Oral Questions


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the fact that two months ago the committee on DREE unanimously recommended that RDIA maps be replaced with maps showing an undisputed boundary between Quebec and Labrador, can the minister indicate what steps he has taken to have the improper maps replaced?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for calling this to my attention. The fact is, of course, that the line that is drawn does not indicate or is not meant to suggest that it is a disputed boundary. It is simply an unsurveyed boundary. However, I have had some exhaustive discussions with my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and it is our intention in future to make it abundantly clear just where the ownership of Labrador lies.


John Howard Lundrigan: In view of the fact the maps the minister's department has put out as late as today still show that the only boundary in Canada which is unsurveyed or disputed, whatever the appropriate term may be, is that between Quebec and Labrador, can the minister assure the House that this map will not be sent out to applicants in future and that proper maps will be designed immediately?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be quite improper or unfair to people who are looking for maps when we have a large number on hand. What we will do, if it is necessary before new maps are printed, is to put a qualifying note along with the maps to indicate what the position is.


PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF SUPERTANKER PORT ON ST. LAWRENCE-CONSIDERATION OF ECONOMIC FACTORS OVER POLLUTION
Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-Iles de la Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the right hon. Prime Minister.
Concerning the decision that the government will have to take concerning the establishment of a super harbour at Gros-Cacouna, will priority be given to the economic welfare of the population of that area rather than to the effects of pollution?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we will give proper weight to that particular consideration, but I am quite sure no one in this House would feel that the environmental factor should not be taken into account.


MANPOWER
Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
With reference to the answer he gave me yesterday that his officials would review the possibility of extending local initiatives projects in hard-up regions, can the minister assure the House that the North Shore projects in the field of recreational activities will be duly re-assessed and approved, as requested by his own officials in this region?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will look into that particular application but, as a general rule, I think I have to repeat that not all projects, not even those projects which are considered eligible for extension, will in fact be extended. There will be, unfortunately, a selection process applied, even in areas where unemployment exceeds the national average.


Steve Eugene Paproski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker- [Translation]


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I apologize to the hon. member for Charlevoix-

The hon. member for Edmonton Centre rises on a point of order, after which I will return to the hon. member for Charlevoix.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I regret rising on a point of order. One week ago last Friday I asked a question of the Prime Minister because the Secretary of State for External Affairs was out of the House. It reads, as reported on page 4346 or Hansard:
In view of the fact that the Minister of Finance for Tunisia has been in Canada to negotiate a loan, would the Prime Minister advise the House whether the loan to Tunisia has been completed and, if so, in what amount?
There was a little discrepancy in what the Prime Minister said, as recorded on the same page:
I am not sure that the hon. member is talking about the right country. There is a matter of a loan being discussed-but Algeria, Tunisia; who cares.
We do care and 1 should like to know, and I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he can please explain whether the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is debate on a question asked. The hon. member rose on a point of order, and I cannot see that there is a point of order. I regret that there are only 40 minutes in the question period. The hon. member for Charlevoix, although he was recognized for a supplementary, did not have the opportunity to ask his question. Perhaps this matter might be noted by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and answered on another occasion. The Chair will recognize again the hon.
June 8, 1973

member for Charlevoix, then the Leader of the Opposition, and then call orders of the day.
[ Translation]


Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
In view of the unemployment rate in this region and the recommendations made in respect of the projects, as well as the fact that only two projects there have been granted extensions, does the minister intend to consider seriously the applications from that region?
[ English]


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will always take seriously the representations of any region and, of course, those of the hon. member as well.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. It was to be a question for the Prime Minister who has slipped out, but I am sure the Acting Prime Minister can take care of it. It arises out of the statement of the President of the Treasury Board on December 14 that once the discussions with regard to the so-called Drury guidelines were terminated %the council would publish the directives set out to guide departments with regard to the application of the principles. I ask the Acting Prime Minister why these directives have not been published, particularly in view of the assurance in the statement by the President of the Treasury Board on April 12 that they would be tabled at the time of the debate on the Prime Minister's resolution relating to bilingualism?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I am not able to answer that question unless I look into the undertakings and what the intention of the President of the Treasury Board may be. Certainly, we have nothing to hide in this matter and it would be our desire to make our position completely clear not only to members of the Public Service but also to the members of the House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.
Post Office



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris) moved:: That this House regrets the drastic deterioration of the postal service in Canada during the past six years: including the closure of rural post offices; the reduction of urban service from six days to five days; the head-long costly rush to automation and computerization leading to job insecurity and low morale among employees-all this in the face of sharply increased postal rates which have seriously affected smaller Canadian publications, forcing many of them out of business; and urges the Government to take the necessary action to restore this fundamentally important communication system to its former excellence.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in view of the widespread interest on the part of members in this important subject, I wonder if there could be agreement to limit speeches following those made in the first round to 15 minutes?


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, next to the Unemployment Insurance Commission, I believe that the department of government that has been most seriously disorganized and that has been of the most concern to the public in recent years is the Post Office Department. Hon. members, when they heard this debate was coming up, all wanted to speak, because there is not one who has not found in recent years that the time of a member of parliament has been taken up substantially, every day, in acting as ombudsman for unravelling the confusions, disorganizations and uncertainties relating to Canada's postal service. As the motion indicates, I will make some positive recommendations toward the end of the debate, but at the outset I want to review briefly why I feel that the postal service, during the past six years, has deteriorated and degenerated so rapidly.
The destruction of the Post Office Department began some six years ago under the direction of the then Postmaster General, Eric Kierans, who has gone to other places and other activities. He was one of a succession of Postmasters General who wrestled with this problem. There have been almost as many Postmasters General in the past six years as there have been years in that period. However, I think the low water mark began with the tenure of that office by the hon. gentleman to whom I have already referred.
We now have a new Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet). He is questioned from time to time in the House of Commons. A standard answer is all that is in the past, everything is now wonderful in the Post Office Department and it is the dawn of a new day as far as efficiency is concerned. He gave that answer as recently as on the late show last night when the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) brought some specifics before the minister. The minister's reply in part was as follows:
I would like however to point out that it is somewhat unfair to judge the whole postal service by a few isolated cases.

June 8, 1973
Post Office
I would interpolate that these are not isolated cases as the Postmaster General will learn as he hears from various members during the course of today's debate.
It may happen sometimes that Canadians find that their mail has been delayed.
Even the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) discovered that on April 3 when he said everybody knows that the mail delivery in Canada is slow.
Out of 100 letters which they receive, one or two may be late. This does not mean that the postal service is bad. It means that twice out of a hundred times delivery has been delayed.
The Postmaster General has been described as a very affable and efficient sort of fellow. Perhaps he hopes to diffuse the continuing disorganization of the Post Office Department with a veneer of affability. However, a smile will not drive away the deeply rooted problems that are a part of our once efficient and adequate postal service.
I am going to review some of the difficulties that all members of parliament encounter. Other spokesmen will be specific on each of the points that I raise. I wish to point out to the Postmaster General there are real problems that have to be dealt with in a forthright manner. I suggest the reason for the decline in the efficiency of the Post Office Department in recent years came about as a result of the managerial approach or the approach of managerial expertise.
There have been many studies and analyses by various consultant groups in Canada. So many of these analyses and reports contradict one another that I am sure the Postmaster General does not know which way to turn. There has been change for the sake of change, as was the case with the Unemployment Insurance Commission which is now trying to put Humpty Dumpty together again by re-opening local offices that were once closed and trying to get the operation of the Unemployment Insurance Commission on a more intimate and efficient basis.
This change for the sake of change has been disruptive, traumatic and, in many instances, counterproductive. The Postmaster General must realize that something has to be done. We do not want a change in Postmasters General, as we had with Manpower and Immigration in order to get the mess sorted out. The Postmaster General must come to grips with these problems with more than a smile and an optimistic assurance that all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
Outside management was brought in from the world of business. I think this is one of the difficulties. The post office service used to operate quietly and efficiently. The people of Canada were happy with it. The letter carriers who met the public on a day-to-day basis were smiling. It is much better that they smile than the Postmaster General because they are in touch with the public on a day-today basis. The letter carriers are no longer the smiling, happy work force they once were.
The Post Office Department is a public service. When Mr. Kierans laid down the edict that it must pay its way, the fat was in the fire. I wonder what would happen if the same edict were laid down for the CBC, which is another form of communication, although not nearly as basic as the postal service, which is the medium of communication that really holds the fabric of the nation together.

Mr. Kierans said the Post Office Department had to pay its way. In order to accomplish this, he began closing rural post offices with wild abandon. No matter how many protests there were, Mr. Kierans was not slowed down in his objective of saving $1,000 here and there. He used to boast about it. He closed down the post office in Little Snoring and saved the Canadian taxpayers $1,000. Out of the other corner of his mouth, he was talking about the $100 million in public funds he was going to expend on building a satellite system that would be the most impressive breakthrough in satellite technology in modern times.
Mr. Kierans failed to realize that when you close a rural post office, the very existence of that community is threatened. This is the trouble of management that is out of touch with the realities of a government that is primarily engaged in serving the public. The rural post office is generally located in the corner store. With the additional revenue gone, the corner store closes. The town begins to disintegrate further. This disastrous phenomenon of urban rural drift that all governments are concerned about at the moment goes on with increasing speed, aided and abetted by the actions of members of the government of Canada.
The amazing thing was that while Mr. Kierans was decreasing the efficiency of the service, he was increasing the postal rates in all categories by a rather alarming amount. He was aware that this would have a deleterious effect on small Canadian publications, such as church and professional group publications and weekly newspapers. Weekly newspapers, like the ethnic press, find it almost impossible to meet the sharp increase in rates in that category which amounts in some instances to as much as 1,000 per cent. It must be pointed out once again that these publications are the real grass root publications by means of which a sense of belonging, of national unity and Canadianism is promoted. We know now what has happened. Many of these publications have gone out of business with highly regrettable consequences.
The solution to all these difficulties was to have been mechanization, computerisation and automation. Canada's mail was to be handled on the basis of coding and computerisation. But the managerial experts forgot that machines will not function successfully unless they are properly monitored by employees. And when the post office set up a wage category for this work which was lower than that applicable to postal workers engaged in normal sorting procedures-$2.90 an hour as compared with $3.64-it automatically created a source of discontent which has resulted in a sad decline in the morale and efficiency of the work force. These are all shortcomings to which attention has been called many times, Mr. Speaker. The minister tells us now they are all in the past and that solutions are forthcoming to all these problems.
I should like to point to one or two current incidents which suggest that his optimism is a case of whistling in the graveyard, and that he is still in great difficulty as far as complaints about the postal service are concerned. Service in the post office is still erratic. Only the other day the following letter appeared in the Edmonton Journal:
I should like to draw to your readers' attention the folly of the new postal code which we have been asked to adopt. I used it recently when writing to a correspondent in Raymond which is
June 8, 1973

only some 20 miles away. The letter took two months to arrive, and it went via Japan. It apparently landed up in the Japanese capital because the postal code for Raymond is TOK 1Y0. I wonder whether other communities across the nation are having like problems.
The letter is signed by Ernest Mardon of Lethbridge. Other hon. members will be speaking about the postal code.
Mechanization is all very well but, as the Unemployment Insurance Commission discovered, computerization and mechanization can give rise to problems; unless properly programmed, these devices can confuse the situation rather than relieve it.
Employee morale in the post office is still low. This is what an employee of the department says, writing in the Communications magazine for May, 1973. The employee is from St. John's, Newfoundland, and he says, in the department's own publication;
A new look has arrived at Canada Post with the introduction of Telepost, etc. The employees of the post office can now feel a sense of pride in that they are now part of the finest post office in the world.
I think he is quoting there from one of the speeches of the Postmaster General. He goes on to make this comment. Refreshing, isn't it? The new look does exist but not entirely in the perspective of the above paragraph. Postal workers are not rejuvenated but still dejected and defiant against management.
Publications are still going out of business in consequence of the almost punitive increase in postal rates. Most of the mail which reaches my desk nowadays seems to consist of complaints about postal services. As an example, let me quote part of a resolution which was forwarded to me by the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees on May 26. It reads:
WHEREAS our brotherhood journal, labour newspaper and the Canadian Railwaymen, along with other labour publications and periodicals of non-profit organizations and threatened by ruinous postal rate increases; and
WHEREAS the postal rate increases which face us, far higher than those applying to commercial publications, would wreck our vital means of communication with our membership through publications which, unlike the commercial press, have no advertizing revenue and few outside subscriptions, and are financed entirely by membership dues-
There are a few other "WHEREAS" clauses, and then the conclusion-
RESOLVED that we continue to press the issue with the Canadian Post Office Department whenever appropriate to seek a more equitable postal rate for the Canadian Railwayman.
A large number of similar journals have also been affected, and the organizations concerned have expressed their continuing concern in almost the same terms. This is why we on this side are bringing up the matter once again today.
The punitive increase in postal rates, as well as the decline in the efficiency of the service, has resulted in a loss of business. On February 12, a reply was tabled to a question in the name of the hon. member for Southwestern Nova (Mr. Haliburton). It indicated that revenue from first class, second class and third class mail has declined continually since 1967-68. Now, how can revenue possibly go down when there have been increases in rates such as I have described, other than because the Post Office Depart-
Post Office
ment by its unwise managerial experimentation has driven potential business away from itself?
If members will examine the yellow pages of the Toronto telephone directory they will discover listed there no fewer than 85 private messenger services which are in business competing directly with the post office in parcel post delivery and even letter carrying services. No wonder the deficit of the post office account continues to escalate. Problems in connection with mechanization continue to exist and new difficulties are arising on the labour front, some of which I shall refer to briefly this morning. It has been brought to my attention that recently, in the city of Toronto, a new module system of work organization has been established. Judging from some of the comments I have heard from employees involved, it is not likely to enhance the morale or the efficiency of postal workers. Here is a comment by one of the employees:
The unit leaders and cell members have been selected for each of these modules. Each cell consists of 20 or more employees.
He goes on to refer to Professor Martin Moore's book "Methods of Work" in which Professor Moore describes the module system as a pressure system similar to that used by the Nazis in their slave camps at Dachau, Belsen, etc. How on earth the management of the post office feels that this is going to increase efficiency is beyond comprehension. It is almost as bad as arbitrarily closing rural post offices, as the government did to the tune of about 2,000 within a very short period of time in order to save a dollar here and a dollar there.
The Canadian Union of Postal Workers bulletin of April 17 deals with the introduction of the module system, and here are some of the complaints they make about it:
You can see that we are reduced from five levels on our staff to three. The most interesting point here is that P.O. L7 will be equivalent to a P.O. L6.
I guess that stands for "postal operator".
Best of luck to APOC in justifying that to their members.
They anticipate that there is going to be a great kickback from the employees as a result of the decrease in the number of employee levels. Then, the bulletin goes on in great detail:
Approximately one year ago your education committee published an article on management by objectives (M.B.O.). Reduced to its simplest terms, this horrendous system works by establishing a goal or standard and when the person or group "Module(?) reaches the objective then a new, higher, objective is established. When you link M.B.O. with another of management's favourite procedures-"accountability"-then Ivory Tower Theorists start rubbing their hands together in glee. "Accountability" means each level in the supervisory hierarchy is responsible and required to account for the performance of his subordinates. In other words, each module supervisor would be "accountable" for the performance of his little group (module) of employees/workers. The next link in the chain is to measure production. It is already being done! The basis is group work measurement and does not measure an individual but rather a group (module) of employees on an operation. The unit of measurement is pieces per hour (PPH) and applies to magazines, circulars, letters, etc. . . .
How do we react to all this? The answer is simple-Don't! If you are doing a good day's work now, why should you change your manner of working because management makes changes? If you are not considered a poor worker now then why change? Don't let the so-called team (module) method of playing off one group
4580

June 8, 1973
Post Office
against another get to you. Remember individual work measurement.
If morale was low among post office employees before this, you can just imagine, Mr. Speaker, how deeply morale is going to plummet in face of this sort of ad hoc trial and error experimentation with the lives of postal employees who at one time were the best and most enthusiastic of any group in Canada.
Another problem concerns decentralization. Regional areas are being used for the purpose of experimentation in managerial extravaganzas, such as the module system I have referred to, and one region is played off against another. Again, this affects the morale of the employees. As they say when you talk to them, it is like being in a three-ring circus, only in this case there are four rings and each is doing its own thing so there is bound to be disruption in the over-all efficiency of postal employees.
In addition, casual workers are being employed more and more. This was disclosed in the reply to a question to which I have already referred; the number of permanent employees is going down while the number of casuals is going up. Question No. 1544 put on the order paper by myself asked the following:
1.	What is the estimated saving to the Post Office Department from the installation of the new postal code?
2.	What are the reasons for this saving?
3.	How many postal employees have been replaced by the automated system?
The first answer was as follows:
1.	Savings over 17 years (beginning in 1971) were estimated at $134,000,000 (discounted dollars).
That sounds like the accountability of the UIC when it was going off into the wide blue yonder.
2.	Savings will occur as a result of changes in future hiring patterns and increased efficiency in the department.
The future hiring patterns refers to the increased tendency to hire casuals who will not have their positions confirmed and it will be easy to get rid of them when the time comes. The answer to part 3 was "none". But just wait until automation gets underway. This is the sword of Damocles that will be hanging over the heads of the postal employees and which accounts for the low morale that is all too evident.
Another point I suppose I should make is that the post office is still insisting on operating on a pay-as-you-go basis. The estimates for 1973-74 gives this as the objective of the Post Office Department:
To provide postal services to the people of Canada at reasonable rates and at a standard of service adequate to meet their needs without incurring subsidization from general taxation.
That is to be found at page 19-6 of the estimates.
The Auditor General gets into the act, of course, when a department is as badly disorganized as thiz one. He refers in his report to attempts by the Post Office Department to deal with its deficit position. He reminds the Postmaster General in paragraph 176 of his report that the royal commission on government organization recommended that "an annual grant be made by parliament in an amount sufficient to cover the costs of the post office in handling second class mail", and of the recommendation by the public accounts committee that "the Post Office

Department or Parliament immediately find ways and means of covering the loss of the Post Office Department in handling second class mail". Then he reminds the Postmaster General that these recommendations have not been acted upon. In other words, there is no recognition that the Post Office Department, like the railways, satellites and all the other means of communication, are basic to the well being of Canada as a whole.
His report also deals with the excursion of the Postmaster General into the realm of private enterprise. In paragraph 177 he refers to the fact that, as well as carrying on philatelic and other postal business in many post offices, the Post Office Department, hoping to make an honest dollar and to account for the deficit arising from the loss of legitimate postal business, sells coin sets, commemorative spoons, art prints, Canadian handicrafts, picture postcards, etc. It is almost becoming like a department store.
The Auditor General reminds the Postmaster General that there is no established policy in this regard, and that there is no accounting in relation to this source of funds. Consequently the Auditor General does not know whether it has been profitable or not, but he says it is questionable whether the sale of non-postal items falls within the powers granted to the Postmaster General under the Post Office Act, Revised Statutes of Canada chapter P-14. He feels that this matter requires an opinion for the Department of Justice. I am sure that many members have been receiving complaints from private businesses about this invasion of their field of business. As the Auditor General says, the Postmaster General is acting without authorization in a desperate attempt to meet the deficit of his department, and in so doing is incurring more and more antipathy from the people of Canada, whom the post office is supposed to serve and whom it had served efficiently down through the years until the last six years.
To bring these matters to a conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I said I would wind up on an optimistic note. I suggest that what we need to deal with complaints in the post office is a complaint department similar to that set up by the Unemployment Insurance Commission. This would allow the minister to keep in closer touch with the public and the facts, which I suggest are known at grass root levels.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps I should interrupt the hon. member at this time to bring to his attention and the attention of the House the fact that his time has expired. The hon. member may continue with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: have experienced another postal strike last fall as a result of the high handed manner of the Treasury Board in negotiating. Let us listen to the employees' complaints. Let us bring the post office department back to the service of the people. This can only be done if the Postmaster General will abandon his ivory tower attitude, communicate with the people and listen to members of parliament. I am sure he will hear plenty from them today.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the resolution we are discussing today is, to a great extent, the result of the failings and shortcomings of the postal system in Canada. I intend to deal specifically with the problems listed in the resolution, namely "job insecurity and low morale among employees". It seems obvious to me that any person in Canada, not just members of parliament, could hardly avoid noticing the difficulties we have experienced in the postal department in the past 10 years. Let me go over that list of difficulties very briefly.
In 1965, we had a wildcat strike on the part of postal employees. In 1968, we had a legal strike and in 1970 we had a rotational strike. I suggest the reason for this difficulty lies in the fact that the government would not accept the recommendation of the chairman of the conciliation board. This year we almost had another strike, and the reason for that was that the conciliation board members brought in three different recommendations followed by another recommendation by the chairman. The unions accepted that recommendation.
In spite of repeated representations by employees and members of parliament of various parties, the government insisted on misinterpreting the recommendation of the chairman of that board. Only after the government realized the employees would call another strike did they agree to an earlier proposal of the union to go back to the chairman of the board to have him clear up what he meant by his recommendation. When that was done it became obvious, even to the government and its negotiating team, that the interpretation by the union of the chairman's recommendation was correct and the government's interpretation was wrong. That is the record for the last 10 years.
What are the reasons for these strikes which give a clear indication that the employees in the postal department are unhappy? I suggest there is low morale among this group of employees. The fact that this situation leads to difficulties in mail delivery should be obvious to everyone. I suggest that this low morale is the result of a suspicion on the part of employees that they cannot get satisfaction from the minister and senior officials of the Treasury Board during negotiations. There has not been one single, genuine or generous offer made by the Treasury Board or the minister's officials in the past six or eight years so far as postal employees are concerned. Everything the postal employees have been offered has been offered in a grud-ing, stingy and parsimonious way. Nothing has been offered voluntarily with the result that postal employees, both letter carriers and clerks, know they must fight whenever they want a change. I suggest this suspicion on the part of these employees is well founded.
Let me put on the record what these employees have received as a result of difficult negotiation with the government, two strikes and the threat of more. Let me
Post Office
compare the attitude of officials of the Treasury Board in respect of postal employees with their attitude in dealing with other employees who do not enjoy the benefits of the Public Service Staff Relations Act, and others who do not enjoy the rights of collective bargaining. Let me compare the way in which the Treasury Board deals with senior officials in the postal department and other departments with the almost incestuous way it deals with senior officials in the Treasury Board.
In 1968, the median pay for letter carriers was $5,751. By 1972 that had gone up to $7,701, an increase of approximately $2,000. The pay rate of an E.S.l, that is a starting economist, working for the government in 1968 was $8,280. By 1972 that had gone up to $14,192, an increase of almost $6,000 in those few years. The gap in median rates of pay for a letter carrier and a starting economist had increased by $1,100 in those few years. In 1972 the gap had widened to $2,353. For an ESA, a senior economist, the pay was $12,000. In 1972, it had jumped to over $16,000, an increase of more than $4,000. Let us compare a letter carrier with an SX 1, a branch director. In 1968, the SX 1 officer had a salary of $13,751 and by 1972 this had jumped to $16,777, an increase of over $3,000.
Then, we might compare a letter carrier with a senior assistant deputy minister in the postal department. In 1968, the gap between their median salaries was $21,000 and by 1972 it had increased to well over $28,000. Or we might compare a postal clerk and the ES 1. The gap between them in 1968 was $822 and in 1972 it had increased to $2,600. Next, we might compare the postal clerk to the ES 4. In 1968, the gap was $11,700 and in 1972 it was almost $16,000. Then, when we compare the postal clerk to the SX 1 we find that the gap in 1968 was $13,400 and in 1972 it was $16,480. In comparing the postal clerk to the SX 4, we find that in 1968 the gap was $20,700 while in 1972 it was $28,486. What does this indicate? It indicates a scale of values on the part of the minister in charge of the Treasury Board and on the part of those he appoints to do the negotiating which indicates that those who have shall get, and that those who have been poor will continue to be poor.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Or lose what they already have.


David Orlikow: Or, as my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre says, lose what they already have. Let us look at the number of employees in the operational side of government and the number of employees in the senior executive and professional staffs. The figures I have come from Statistics Canada. The number of people in the operational category who work for government, which of course includes postal workers, according to Statistics Canada has increased, from the year 1970 to the year 1972, by 0.8 per cent. That is 8/10 of 1 per cent. However, if you look at the number of employees in the executive, scientific and professional categories the number has increased from 1970 to 1972 by 2214 per cent. Then if you look at the number of senior people in the administrative and foreign service groups, the number has increased by 20.8 per cent.
4582

June 8, 1973
Post Office
Let us for a moment look at the Treasury Board, the board which is given responsibility by the government of negotiating with the postal employees. As I have already indicated, this board is tough when it deals with the postal employees. It seems to want to protect every penny the people of Canada pay to the postal employees and to see that there is no waste and no generosity. The Treasury Board wishes to keep our taxes down. Let us look at the situation in respect of the Treasury Board. In January 1970, it had a staff of 443. By January of 1973 it had a staff of 590, an increase, as I make it, of about 25 per cent. In January of 1970, the Treasury Board had 185 people on staff who were earning $15,000 a year or more. In January of 1973, that salary had increased to $18,000 a year: So, allowing for the increase in the cost of living and the inflation about which we are all supposed to be worried, there were 261 people in that group, an increase of 50 per cent. I point out that almost every second employee on the rolls of the Treasury Board was earning over $18,000 a year and that every sixth employee, of which there are 104, was earning over $25,000 a year.
So, Mr. Speaker, you see the picture. Because the employees of the post office have shown they are a militant group they have collective bargaining. They have to be tough. They have their fears and they become involved in long drawn out and constant negotiations, because if they want anything they must go on strike. What about management? I have already indicated the kind of increases management has received which I would say are very substantial, completely unjustified and completely indefensible. Do these people have to go through the process of collective bargaining? No. They could not dirty their hands in that way. They do not have to go to collective bargaining. They are dealt with in a different way. For them, we have an advisory committee which looks at their salaries.
This advisory committee supposedly consults with private industry and makes recommendations to the government concerning what should be done. The advisory committee obviously has done very well for the senior officials of the postal department and other departments, particularly the Treasury Board. Who are some of the people on the advisory committee which suggests to the government what it should do? The first chairman was Mr. Clyne, a former chief justice in British Columbia. At the time he was the chairman of the advisory committee he was also the chairman of the board of McMillan, Bloedel, one of the largest companies in British Columbia, if not in all of Canada. Mr. Clyne has been noted for the speeches in which he has called on governments and employers to watch costs and not be too generous with employees because if the employees are allowed to have large wage increases we will have inflation and will price ourselves out of world markets.
Well, he certainly was not very tough with senior civil servants employed by the Government of Canada. Who is a recent appointee to this advisory committee? Well, it is Mr. DeGranpre. Who is he, Mr. Speaker? He is the President of Bell Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Orlikow: When Bell Canada increases its rates which the people of Ontario and Quebec must pay, it must make an application to the Canadian Transport Commission. What does that commission do with it? I presume it sends that application for study and analysis to its employees. Its senior employees who will be making the recommendation are the very employees who have been dealt with so generously by an advisory committee of which Mr. DeGranpre is a member. They are supposed to be impartial; they are supposed to protect the public interest, and yet the salary increases they will get in the next year or two will depend, to a large extent, on the advice that the government receives from Mr. DeGranpre.
I suggest to you that there is a conflict of interest there. I suggest, that, to say the least, it is immoral and improper for the government to appoint a person who has the stake that Mr. DeGranpre has in decisions made by a government agency and who has a great deal of say with regard to the salaries and working conditions of senior civil servants.
I say to the Postmaster General that if he wants to improve the role of the post office, to improve the service, and to improve the morale of the postal employees, which has, I am sure he will agree, not been very high in recent years, the best thing he could do would be to go back to his cabinet colleagues and insist that the responsibility for the bargaining which must take place between his department and its employees should be taken away from the Treasury Board. The Treasury Board has failed significantly in dealing fairly with the employees of the post office so responsibility for bargaining should be given back to his department because, despite its failings in the past, of which there are many and this is not the time to talk about them, there is no possible way in which his department could do the completely inadequate and disastrous job which the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) and his senior officials have done in recent years.
I say to the minister-and I say this in a sincere way and wishing him the best-that if he wants to be remembered as a good Postmaster General, the best thing he can do is to get back the right to conduct the negotiation so his employees can be dealt with fairly, honestly, and in a friendly way, rather than in the antagonistic and miserable way in which the Treasury Board has conducted negotiations in these past number of years.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I was a little anxious; I had hoped that the member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) would have been a little more voluble and would have continued his speech until one o'clock. I wonder if the House would agree that I call it one o'clock so that I do not have to begin my remarks and stop them right away.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume its sitting at two o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 2 p.m.
["Order, please. It being five o'clock it is my duty to inform this House that, pursuant to Section (11) of Standing Order 58, the proceedings on this motion are deemed to have expired and terminated. This House stands adjourned until two o'clock Monday afternoon.\nAt 5.01 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order."]
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, it has been quite some time since the House had the opportunity to scrutinize the postal services. That is why I am grateful to the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) for providing us with this opportunity today.
The motion contains several elements and it will be rather difficult, in so short a period of debate, to consider fully all the points it raises. However, I am interested in some of them as they relate to some problems I have come up against.
In the first part of the motion, it is said, and I quote:
That this House regrets the drastic deterioration of the Postal Service in Canada during the past six years:. ..
I have been able to find such a deterioration of the postal services in my large constituency of Abitibi which can be regarded as a rural one. There are some small towns of 8,000, 10,000 or 12,000 inhabitants, but there are also a great many villages, rural parishes, where mail delivery is rather slow and sometimes delayed.
I would like to call again the attention of the minister to some examples I have in mind to prove that some unexplainable delays have occurred, and I refer to those which took place not so long ago, since the beginning of the year. It is said that the deterioration of the mail service has occurred during the last six years. If we go back further, when the mail was carried by the Canadian National Railways, we will remember that we could then receive in Abitibi a piece of mail at most 24 hours after it had been mailed in cities such as Quebec, Montreal or even Toronto.
A lot of people in my area come from around Quebec City and they would like to get the daily papers from that city. But as it is almost impossible to get those papers in time, they cancel their subscription to those dailies because the news come too late. They get their paper only five or six days after they have been published, three of four issues at the same time. So it is an unacceptable solution.
Mr. Speaker, I have in mind a few examples of delayed mail. I have here a letter which had been forwarded from Nipigon, Ontario on November 30, 1972 and it reached Authier, in Abitibi, on December 7, 1972. I believe it took quite a long time to deliver a letter for which an 8-cent stamp had been paid. A parcel sent from Sackville, New Brunswick, on November 27 to the same person arrived in Authier, on December 7, 1972. This parcel included parts to repair a furnace and everyone knows that in Abitibi by the end of November or early in December, it is most important that a furnace be in proper condition. That undue delay in the distribution or movement of mail riles custumers, taxpayers.
I will quote parts of the letter I received from that taxpayer on that occasion:
Dear Mr. Laprise:
For your information, I repeat that the movement of mail since the CNR abandoned it is nothing short of most rotten as far as we are concerned in Authier. I do not blame the postmaster for it.
Post Office
1 receive my Quebec newspaper the L'Action a couple of times a week, etc.
We are not all millionnaires and we cannot all live in cities.
Does the right to live in rural areas in this big country still exist? Practically speaking, no.
What the signer of that letter, Mr. Adrien Lambert, of Authier, meant is that in recent months, particularly in recent years, it has been considered more important to provide reasonable service to people living in cities and people living in rural areas have been neglected, and they find that quite unpleasant.
I have here a letter addressed to the Department of the Postmaster General and dated January 16, 1973:
Dear Sir:
Today, January 16, I received a parcel that I had been waiting for for at least three weeks and which was sent on December 12.
I cannot understand a service so rotten on the part of your department. Those pieces were very important and caused enormous prejudice-
La Sarre Enr. Farm Agency, R. Lauzon
The Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) investigated that case and gave me an answer after I brought that complaint to his attention.
Here is the reply from the Postmaster General, dated March 29, 1973:
I am being told by our regional representatives that they conducted an inquiry but cannot explain the delay exactly.
They conducted an inquiry without any results, since they could not find anything.
Except for registered mail, we do not keep any record of mail items. So it is seldom possible to find the cause of an irregularity of that kind. Furthermore, Mr. Lauzon told the postmaster in La Sarre that the parcel's wrapping had been destroyed. The wrappings of delayed articles often show marks that enable us to tell how the item was handled and why it was delayed.
However, labour disputes in the Post Office in December 1972 and in early January 1973 might explain the delay.
So the responsibility is shifted on to the postal workers. Simple and easy enough, isn't it?
I keep quoting from the letter:
As you certainly know, we signed about a month ago a labour contract with the union which represent about 30,000 out of our 45,000 employees. However, after the negotiations reached a deadlock, management and the unions had to resort to conciliation. In spite of that, a few workers decided to object to such a measure, and there was some slackening down and a few stoppages in many postal service centres.
That is an explanation. We know that there has been work to rule. But it is rather simple and easy to blame only the postal workers. And the minister adds:
Moreover, bad weather did not help either and transportation services were delayed,-
It depends on the weather now. Cloud seeding may have caused unusual rainfalls or snowfalls. It does not say. Attempts are made to find all kinds of reasons except the real ones.
I shall mention another case which, I think, is not caused by the rotating or not rotating strike, because there was no strike at the time. A parcel mailed by H. Fortier Ltee from Montreal on March 16, 1973 was received in La

June 8, 1973
Post Office
Sarre by the Librairie Regent Enregistree on April 3, 1973, that is 19 days later, and there was no strike.
Mr. Speaker, it is true that distances are long in remote regions, like Abitibi, but such delays virtually never occurred when mail was carried by railway but ever since mail has been carried by truck or by air, there have been similar delays nearly every week, or every month.
Mr. Speaker, I think there is room for improvement and I draw the minister's attention to this in order that service in rural centres might become as rapid as in cities. Taxpayers of our rural centres pay the same rates for mail as taxpayers who live in towns. I think we have a right to ask for the same services.
In the second part of the motion, the closing of small rural post offices is deplored. Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I do not entirely agree with the motion. It is true that small post offices have been closed, but one must indeed realize that when a parish or a community of people is set up somewhere, they ask for postal services; a post office and its related services are then brought in. But when this same parish or community becomes deserted, after all one cannot ask the department to keep a permanent post office when there are practically no more families living there.
In my area, we cannot complain too much since the few post offices that were closed down have been replaced by other kinds of services, and I think the people get the service they are entitled to.
As for the reduction of urban service from six to five days, it created many more problems because small businesses mainly were affected.
Earlier this morning, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), in reply to a question of mine, said that he had ordered a study on the possibility of reducing the workweek to four days in federal services.
If in services such as the postal service the work-week were reduced to four days, two shifts of workers would have to be used to ensure services throughout the week, which would probably entail high expenses. I do not know whether the minister considered this, whether he consulted the Minister of Labour in this connection nor whether the latter consulted him as he did other ministers; but, in my opinion, it is a serious question which will have to be weighed carefully to make sure the post office users do not suffer from whatever decision of Minister of Labour makes following the studies.
I also have another complaint which I find most important and to which I drew the minister's attention last fall. I take this opportunity to bring it to the House's attention.
I am speaking about the delivery of parcels containing valuable objects which are a temptation to thieves. In fact, a jeweller of La Sarre, on September 7, 1972-and this was not the first time it happened to him-mailed two parcels of jewels to Montreal. Those parcels were shipped from La Sarre to Rouyn by postal trucks then transferred later on for transportation from Rouyn to Montreal by Air Canada. In this regard, I had the following question put on the Order Paper under No. 189 and I quote:

1.	What was the date of Air Canada Flight 556 between Rouyn and Montreal where the disappearance of postal bags was discovered?
2.	Was an investigation carried out and, if so, how long did it last?
The answer of Air Canada was given in the House by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Guay), and I quote:
Mr. Speaker, in answer to question No. 189, Air Canada has not discovered any disappearance or loss of postal bags from Flight 556 between Rouyn and Montreal. Provided with more details, Air Canada might make a more detailed investigation.
This answer was given on February 21, 1973, but earlier, the former Postmaster General (Mr. Cote), who is now a senator, informed me by letter as follows:
We reached by telephone our regional officials in Montreal who informed us that the inquiry is going on this regard. Mr. Giasson's registered items were sent from La Sarre to Rouyn by truck, was forwarded to Montreal by flight 556. According to records, these items were duly received in Rouyn but never reached Montreal.
The parcel disappeared between Rouyn and Montreal. Since the department got in touch by telephone with its regional officials in Montreal, I assume that they had inquired at Air Canada and, on February 21, Air Canada's official informs the House that they were not aware of it. Either the answer given by Air Canada was wrong or the Post Office Department did not carry out a thorough inquiry to find out what happened to this mail bag.
Mr. Speaker, when this mail bag containing these items sent by registered mail arrived in Rouyn and was transferred, from the truck to the plane, someone must have signed to accept responsibility for it. I suggest that it should be quite easy to trace these items and find out who was the last person who signed for these parcels, and that it would also be interesting to know how come mail bags are stolen only when there are valuables in them, and who informs those make those valuables disappear from the mail. Everything indicates, Mr. Speaker-and this suspicion, in my opinion, is justified-that someone takes it upon himself to notify others that valuables are in the mail, and then they are stolen.
Mr. Speaker, I asked another question-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the 20 minutes allotted to him have expired. He can, however, continue with unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unamimous consent.
[ Translation]


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I am indebted to the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) for having raised the issue of the Post Office today, because it allows me to make my maiden speech in the House as Postmaster General.
Many times since last December have I had the opportunity of speaking on the problems concerning the Post Office, either by answering questions during the oral
June 8, 1973

question period or by way of clarification during what is known as the late show. But this is the first opportunity I have had to speak as minister, and I want to take advantage of it to mention how often, through my visits across the country, I have had the occasion of realizing the devotion and the competence of all postal employees all over the country. I noted that dedication and competence at the national level here as well as in areas where thousands of Canadians work, often in difficult conditions, to ensure the best postal service possible to Canadians. And I am pleased to point out today in this first speech that in most cases, I have met and discussed with people who are proud to work with the Post Office Department, who are unhappy to find that often our operation is criticized in an irresponsible or irrational way and to find that, in many instances, the complexity and difficulty of such a postal service are not understood.
Mr. Speaker, I read as other members the resolution moved today by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) who charged the Post Office Department with such a multitude of sins of commission as well as omission that I could not help remembering that big hit movie "Play it again Sam".
Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, that the charge made by the hon. member is nothing but another far-off echo of a series of charges made periodically by the Post Office Department itself for several years as everyone who is interested in Canada's postal service realizes that such an institution must absolutely be modernized. Indeed every postal administration of the world must face the same problems. The increase in mail volume, the facilities, the system itself that has become obsolete, the social disorders and the ever increasing deficits contribute to a reduction in the quality of service and bring criticism upon us.
But the important thing, Mr. Speaker, is that the Canadian Post Office has set out to work energically in order to remedy this situation and is doing everything possible so Canadians can again enjoy a postal service which they can rightly be proud of.
We have two alternatives: on the one hand, the Post Office Department could refrain from bringing basic alterations to its organization. Then, the quality of its service to the public would deteriorate and its annual deficit would surely reach $500 million at the beginning of the 80's. On the other hand, the department can set itself an aim which would surely not be easily achieved, whatever the line of action, and become a stable and modern organization providing to the Canadian people an essential service at reasonable cost while giving interesting work conditions for its employees.
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that the Canadian postal service has chosen the second solution and that it is becoming, in spite of the comments of some members opposite, a modern and dynamic organization. Moreover, the list of changes anticipated for that purpose is as important and impressive as long. In its endeavour to provide more efficiency to the postal service, the department has dealt with the first-class mail, which accounts for more than half of the five billion pieces of mail handled each year in the country.
Post Office
We first provided an assured mail program for first-class mail. The efficiency of this service, with regard to delivery the day following mailing has now reached 95 per cent; quite recently, I read, as every Canadian could have done, in a week-end newspaper, the findings of an independent investigation made by a Canadian newspaper which showed beyond any doubt the efficiency of the assured mail program, which efficiency is over 95 per cent.
I am pleased to announce to the House that, effective next Monday, the Assured Mail Delivery Service will include, in addition to the service already offered at the national and regional levels, a third and last category of service, that is, local delivery.
Therefore, this means that we are trying, through this Assured Mail Delivery Service, to give next-delivery-day service to everyone in about 60 Canadians centers. In order to enforce this Assured Mail, we have a quality control service program. This program provides us with all sorts of extremely interesting data. Yesterday, in reply to a question from an hon. member from Alberta, I spoke in the House about the service provided to the province of Alberta. Since this motion was presented by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), an Alberta constituency-


Some hon. Members:: He is not even here.


André Ouellet: Some of my colleagues are saying that the hon. member is not in the House. This morning, while commenting those remarks, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris told us that a multitude of members opposite wanted to contribute to this debate. I would say that if postal service efficiency is proportional to the number of abstentions across the way, I am convinced that we have an excellent postal service.
I wanted to say that our assured postal service in Manitoba, represented by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris who introduced this motion, is as follows: Our domestic service, namely the letters to be delivered within our borders, has reached an efficiency level, for the period ending May 25,-and I would ask the hon. members to listen carefully-of 100 per cent; with regard to the regional service, the level is 99 per cent, and the local service, 98 per cent.
Obviously the department is taking numerous steps to improve this service. Of course, it is not perfect. Several hon. members can, I am sure, mention hundreds of delayed deliveries but I would ask each hon. member to recognize that, even if out of let us say, 100 letters mailed, one, two or three letters are late, that does not mean that our postal service is bad, since 97 pieces reached their destination on time. I wish our hon. friends of the opposition would realize that.
I would add that the department is preparing a set of standards applicable to third and fourth class mail for, admittedly, there is considerable need for improvement with regard to third and fourth class mails. We are now in the process of developing new standards and new techniques to improve this service.
Besides, the marketing branch of the department has developed a wide program of relations with our clients, in order to solve all those postal problems which can create

June 8, 1973
Post Office
difficulties in the business world. We are striving very eagerly and aggressively, in co-operation with the business concerns using the post office to a large extent, to find solutions designed to improve that service.
Assuredly it is not possible to bring about overnight substantial changes to the whole postal organization, which comprises more than 50,000 employees in Canada and which spreads out in all parts and all villages of the country.
Naturally it is more difficult still to bring about changes while an adequate level of service has to be maintained day in and day out. I have admitted quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, that there have been problems; problems still exist, but I must add that I am extremely proud of the way both the administration and the employees of the department have responded to the challenge and are working eagerly to solve those problems.
I would like to mention briefly what is probably the most important part of our program to improve the postal service, namely the mechanization of our operations and the implementation of the postal code.
I think that all Canadians will agree that the introduction of the postal code was probably one of the most important decisions ever taken by the Post Office Department. I am convinced that this code will do much to improve mail service. In fact, the code has already been put into service in many regions of Canada. It is already being used in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Ontario and most of Quebec. It will be introduced in metropolitan Montreal in September, in the Atlantic provinces in early October and finally, in British Columbia towards the end of the year so that by the end of the year, all Canada will have been coded. Several persons have asked us why we need a postal code. I think that the code is one of the first steps, probably the most important, towards the implementation of our automation program.
The new code is in a way a new language that will be read by machines, which will help improve and speed up the handling of mail.
The volume of mail has increased so much during the last few years that it is now almost impossible to sort it by hand. Canada being one of the last industrialised countries to resort to the postal code system, we should be in a position to have an excellent code.
We will of course profit by the experience of other countries-such as Germany, the United States, Japan- which already use this code and we will be able to improve it as well as the system that these countries have implemented, so that our code will enable us to meet not only our present demands but our needs until the end of the century.
When we started the implementation of this postal code, we tried to get the opinion of hundreds of Canadian senders, the most important users of the postal service, in order to ensure that the code would not go against the smooth running of business in Canada. Thus, most customers' accounts are logically distributed according to the geographical situation. Therefore, we took care to introduce these data in our code.
(Mr. Ouellet.]
We also tried to keep the position of figures and letters in order to facilitate computer processing and checking of mailing lists. When we developed our code, we felt that it should meet our long term needs.
By a combination of these elements, we can obtain over 10 million codes. This is a hundred times more than the 100,000 possibilities offered by the United States ZIP Code. In this regard, Canadians are ahead of Americans since our system is more flexible than theirs.
And, precisely, our objective in establishing the Canadian code was to facilitate mechanical sorting for the smallest sections of residential streets, large mail boxes, residential buildings, commercial enterprises and government departments.
Therefore, we largely provided for growth in order to be able to keep pace with the unparalleled expansion of cities and the exodus of people from the country to the cities.
Mr. Speaker, I can assert that our mechanization program is now entering its stage of intensive realization. Last year, we installed mechanical sorting equipment in Ottawa; we will now proceed to the installation of an identical system in 14 other important post offices in Canada, in such a way that we will be able to provide all the large cities of this country with modern facilities to accelerate substantially mail sorting, and that with one precise goal in mind, namely to improve the quality of the postal service.
The motion before us states that the postal service has experienced a drastic deterioration, but the author forgets that the Post Office Department is taking extremely important steps to improve the quality of the postal service.
Mr. Speaker, we must not forget that this program of coding, modifying, up-dating and mechanizing involves even more sizeable investments to build new establishments for handling mail. The new techniques and equipment used for handling, transporting and sorting mail require spacious and modern premises. The new centres we will build will meet these criteria. It is on these premises that the mail will be handled in bulk as well as the parcel posts addressed to metropolitan areas or mailed from these, and that the mail will be sorted out by the latest techniques and that we will insure quick delivery to our clients.
Large postal centres are to post offices what factories are to a retail store. Toronto and Montreal already have what is commonly known as a large postal centre. In Mississauga, we are now building what may be the largest centralized mail processing centre.
Another centre is also under construction on Eastern Avenue in Toronto. These two centres will be in operation by the middle of 1974 and, with the new centre in Scarborough, they will be able to process all the domestic mail from and to Toronto.
We also intend to build similar centres in Montreal. And I may mention that another large centre of this type is under construction in Calgary where we intend to provide western Canada with a service comparable to what is provided in Toronto and Montreal.

Thus, through this extensive program of new postal buildings, we want to be in a position to meet not only present but also future needs.
Mr. Speaker, it must be kept in mind, when we talk about this program, that regardless of the plans and the programs designed for mechanization on a very large scale, no full time postal worker will lose his job.
And so I must say to the hon. member for Brandon-Sou-ris when he suggests that automation and the use of computers cause job insecurity, that there is no job insecurity in the Post Office Department, because in the collective agreement which we have just signed with our employees, we have guaranteed job security and income security to all our permanent employees. In my view, to state that in a motion, the hon. member is probably mistaken or misinformed.
All the decisions that we made at the Post Office Department concerning working conditions, salaries, social benefits, job descriptions and related matters, not only affect the Post Office Department as such, but also the whole public sector. With a work force of 50,000 employees, it is inevitable.
The work environment and the young people joining the labour market today are very different from what they were only a few years ago. Constant and rapid change is particular to our technological era in which the search for greater efficiency and improved production, results, of course, in a more and more sophisticated technology. So it is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the young worker thinks that management tends to make jobs as meaningless, as non demanding and as dull as possible.
It is estimated today that roughly 50 per cent of workers are under 30. In other words, the wide gap between the average age of workers today and that of only a few years ago means that more than half the labour force in Canada belongs to a generation whose attitudes and style of living generally are quite different from those of the previous generation, the one which now holds the reins of politics and the economy.
That is a strength that will have to be reckoned with from now on. I think that leaders must be receptive to the needs and aspirations of the new worker and adjust their attitude to meet those new needs. Work must be revalorized and better means of communication between management and labour must be found. Those are great challenges that the administration of the Department of the Postmaster General will have to take up and that the leaders of any modern business in the public or private sector will also have to take up. As an employer and as a government department the Post Office wants to-and I say so without hesitation-and will show leadership in this new context of staff relations.
Even if it is true that we have new duties to fulfil to satisfy the worker's needs, it is none the less true that we must also fulfil our duty towards the people of Canada. Canadians depend on the Post Office Department to get a quick, reliable and especially inexpensive service.
As far as I am concerned, I shall do my utmost to provide a regular postal service and promote just and fair
Post Office
labour relations within the Post Office Department. However, we must not forget that the department faces the same social problems as private enterprises as far as workers are concerned. It has the same problems to solve when it negotiates with the unions. It is thus unrealistic to expect that the Post Office Department will be able to give the unconditional assurance of an uninterrupted service; no other enterprise can give this guarantee either.
I think we can avoid labour conflicts and come to fair settlements if management and unions stick to the four following guidelines in their negotiations, namely: begin early, do not refuse dialogue, know what you want and what you are ready to give up, and finally, negotiate in earnest.
I did not hesitate, Mr. Speaker, immediately after my appointment as Postmaster General, to go across the country and visit thousands of employees on the spot. I always wanted to keep that kind of dialogue and my talks with the Post Office employees last December were extremely beneficial to me. I keep in touch with union representatives and it is always in a spirit of sincere cooperation that I talk with them. All hon. members surely know that we signed a new collective agreement at the beginning of the year with the Council of Postal Unions. It was, Mr. Speaker, the first time an agreement was signed without a national strike. That agreement will provide us with a climate of understanding during the next two years. I already said, and I wish to repeat it, that it is a profitable agreement. Now that this question has been settled, I am convinced that our employees will cooperate with our officials so as to give Canadians the quality service they are entitled to.
I should like to deny categorically the assertion made this morning by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris that the department's policy is intended to promote an increase in the number of casual employees. On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, we recognized that the casual employees' status must be changed and that far from increasing their number, we wish to reduce it to a strict minimum. Besides, I am happy to report to the House an agreement that was just signed:
[ English]
Following a series of meetings with the Council of Postal Unions, we have now finalized consultation on our corporate policy on the usage of casual help in the postal operations group.
This policy is as follows:
The usage of casual help is to be reduced to a minimum. Accordingly, the usage of regular full-time and part-time staff is to be adjusted to a level which will maintain service standards for predictable volume and absence situations.
Bearing in mind the terms of the relevant collective agreements and consistent with the above, and in order to meet situations which are unforeseen or where there is not a continuing full-time or part-time requirement, casual help may be used, where this best meets service needs.

Mr. Speaker, that means not only that we recognize the need to reduce the number of casual employees but that we are going to take the necessary steps to do so.

In closing, I should like to say that some of those people who consider that our deficit is too high should realize

June 8, 1973
Post Office
that the reason we have such a deficit is mainly the result of putting a vast amount of money into the building of new facilities, the very substantial amount of money expended in mechanizing our operations and the larger sum required to pay our employees better salaries. We have done all this without-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet), but his allotted 30 minutes in accordance with Standing Order 58(13) has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for allowing me to conclude with a few brief remarks.
We have made these substantial expenditures without increasing the tariff. One should realize that in Canada a letter which travels from one part of the country to another does so at a cost of 8 cents, and that is pretty cheap. If we compare that rate with the rates existing in other countries we must realize that Canadian rates for postal services are low, and much more reasonable than in many other industrialized countries.
I have said, and I repeat again today, that it is not our intention to increase the rates. Quite the contrary; we want to keep these rates and we will try to increase our revenues by performing other services or expanding existing ones.
[ Transla tion]
This is why, Mr. Speaker, we will do our utmost during the next few months to enable our Marketing Branch to be more aggressive and test other services yielding new revenues and profits. In order to balance our budget, we will ask our Marketing Branch to make additional efforts to make new revenues, but I must sincerely admit that I do not expect the Post Office Department to become a profitmaking undertaking in the near future. I think that the Canadian postal service will still show for several years an appreciable deficit, especially as a result of the mechanization of our current operations and that deficit could even substantially increase as early as next year and still further the year after.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that some measures that we are now taking should have been implemented 10, 15 or even 20 years ago. Had those alterations been carried out 10 or 15 years ago, the Canadian postal service would surely be in a much better financial state and would surely be in a position to assure to the Canadian people the service which they expect.
In spite of that, we will spare nothing to improve the service and I am convinced that we will succeed in giving Canadians the service which they expect and deserve.


Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by commending the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) for his contribution to this debate. I wish also to say that I appreciate very much the courteous and co-operative attitude he has shown in respect of the

inquiries I have brought to him on behalf of my constituents. I regret that I have had to bring so many to him, but I have always been glad of the reception I have received.
I also would like to join the minister in paying a compliment to the people in his department. He may know them at the top executive level, while the ones I know are the letter carriers and those employed in the local post offices, and so on; but I have always been impressed with the way they have undertaken their work. At a time when there is such a great amount of technology, much of life is rather impersonal and I have always appreciated the personal approach taken by those who are employed by the postal department.
I rise in this debate to speak especially on behalf of those who pay so much to their government and get back so little, the urban dwellers who comprise what has become the largest single community in our society. In terms of the Post Office they have become its number one user. In the three major metropolitan centres of Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver alone, 14 million pieces of mail are handled every day. Montreal and Toronto process 80 per cent of the advertising mail of this entire country. What do we find the people of our cities and towns saying about their postal service? Let me quote one of them for the special benefit of the Postmaster General. While this person is not an expert on the Post Office, he has many qualifications that will commend his judgment to the head of our postal services. He is from Montreal, he is a Liberal, he is the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and he has told the House, "Everyone knows the mails are slow in this country".
The Prime Minister was never closer to the truth, and on this point he could find such agreement he might think he was back in those halcyon days of 1968. Time after time I have been approached by constituents who wonder why it must be that, while they have to pay more for postal service, they can get only less of it. Pay more, get less, is the policy this department has followed. However much the government may try to divert the public with resolutions on language rights, they will find it is this incredible combination of increased costs and decreased services the people will remember. A typical inquiry from a businessman in my constituency asks why it takes four or five days for mail to travel a distance that should take only two to two and a half hours.
Another constituent wonders why mail between Montreal and Toronto takes a week, and why within Toronto itself it may take three days. A third protests her surface mail between Britain and Canada taking just under two months and her airmail between Britain and Canada taking 17 days. One could speculate that it could have been rowed across the Atlantic faster than it came by mail. All of us appreciate that it has been necessary to increase the price of postal service because we cannot reasonably expect the Post Office to be an island of price stability secure from the turbulent sea of inflation around it. On this point we seem to have the statement of even the Deputy Postmaster General, Mr. J. A. H. Mackay, who was quoted in the press as saying:
We knew our service wasn't what it should be, but we were perhaps inclined to blame it on weather conditions and inability of airlines to fly from point to point, thereby delaying our mail.
June 8, 1973

What we found instead was that the weather was a very minimal factor . . . Failure within our own processing system made up by far the majority of our breakdowns.
Even the Postmaster General will agree with that logic because he himself has written to me that, while Canada once had the best postal service in the world, the Post Office knows it has a long way to go to regain that position. I know the minister is committed to regaining Canada's former excellence, but while I do not question the extent of his achievement, although he may cite surveys which show that 90 per cent of the mail arrives on time, or even 95 per cent. I know he likes statistics; all members of the government do. I remember when the Prime Minister would cite statistics to prove that there was no inflation in this country.
Now we have statistics cited to prove that the mail is not as slow as people from coast to coast are saying it is. I would say to the Postmaster General that he should listen more to the people than to the statisticians. He might begin by listening to the Prime Minister, who said that everybody knows the mails are slow in this country. He has spoken about the complexity of the problem, and I agree that it would be foolish of the opposition to pretend that there is an easy solution, but it would be equally foolish of the Postmaster General to pretend there is no problem.
The solution will not come about by the government trying to substitute a shrug for a solution, or by preferring scorn for the opposition to co-operate with its critics. When the cost of this department is mounting so steadily-its deficit this fiscal year will exceed $100 million-the public has a right to demand that efficiency mount with it. That deficit represents $20 per home and the people have a right to get their money's worth. The minister may ask, "Tell us how?" I would answer that we could begin by examining the recommendations of the Samson, Belair, Riddell, Stead report on postal transportation systems. The minister has refused to table this report. When it comes to dealing with affairs in Viet Nam the government follows an open-mouth policy, but when it comes to looking after Canada it warps itself in secrecy. The report cost $239,473. Surely we should be able to read it. Of course, we have a chance to at least read about it because if one cannot read the report in parliament he can read about it in the press.
Documents seem to leak out from the cabinet and appear in the press. We find from the press that money is being wasted on taxi rides for letter carriers, that airlines are overcharging and underserving in respect of airmail, and that postal distribution services should be contracted out to private firms instead of being carried out by the department at greater cost. Indeed, there are many who wonder if what the report recommends for distribution services should not be done more as a part of the department's program.
This is still enough of a free enterprise country that the government should be searching for ways by which more of its activities could be hired out to competitive businesses which would have to provide service equal to the price they charged. There was a time when the postal service seemed the one enterprise the government should manage, but it may be the time has come for the ultimate
Post Office
revolution-the placing of more of the postal service work into private hands. Certainly the present failure of the government cannot long continue uncriticized; it must either succeed or give place to others who can. We say to the Postmaster General that he should match the higher costs with better service or get out of the postal business and make room for those who can put it on an efficient basis.
In the interests of improved public service I request door-to-door mail delivery for the hundreds of families moving into the Malvern housing area of Scarborough. An official of the Post Office has informed me that July 9 is the target date for this service to begin. I urge the Postmaster General to hit that target. In terms of the quality of service I wish also to speak about another facet of this problem, the need for better regulation of mass distribution mail which has multiplied to an extraordinary degree in the last few years. I ask the question: Cannot steps be taken to prevent the indiscriminate gathering of names for mailing lists? It seems that if a person replies to one advertisement he may find his name on the mailing lists of other companies. This is not only a form of invasion of privacy but can have other consequences.
In my constituency, for example, an 11-year old child was solicited by a sex encyclopedia which clearly labelled itself an adult publication and was certainly unsuitable for the child. Yet into his hands, through no effort of his, through the mails came a lurid, lascivious brochure which was more titillating than educating. While none of us would want to censor what adults may choose to read for reasons good or bad, there should be some safeguard against this kind of indiscriminate mailing to children. Parliament will soon consider the need to control television commercials shown during children's programs, and equally parliament should recognize the need to regulate commercial mail sent to children. Without such regulation an 11-year old can be subjected to sex material which he has not requested and which his parents do not desire.
The present regulations may not authorize the Postmaster General to put this right, but let him seek the authority he needs and he will find the majority of parliament and the people supporting him. We are rightly aware these days of the danger of physical pollution of the environment. We must be increasingly conscious of the danger of the moral pollution of our psychological environment, and the mails should certainly not be a passive instrument of this kind of moral pollution.
Members of this parliament are saying to the government, not on their own behalf but on behalf of a large number of people across this country: You have attempted a reorganization of the postal service. We recognize the sociological changes that have made that kind of alteration necessary. What we are demanding is that the results prove the worth of the effort and the price.
That is the challenge of this debate, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have an opportunity to speak in this debate on the motion of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) concerning the Post Office service in this coun-

June 8, 1973
Post Office
try. I, like the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. Stackhouse), would like to compliment the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) on his speech and also on the way in which his department has tried to provide service to Members of Parliament. I do not believe that any member of parliament who serves a rural area such as my own can help but have a great deal of contact with regional post offices, and I would like to say how helpful I have found them to be in my constituency, especially the one located at North Bay. The officials there are very conscientious and deserving of praise for the manner in which they handle the problems of northern Ontario.
The motion before the House suggests that there is a drastic deterioration in the postal service. After reading the motion on the order paper this morning I glanced down at the letters which had just been put on my desk and decided to do my own survey of how long it had taken those letters to come from the various locations. I saw that I had a letter from North Bay dated June 7-the date was on the letter, not stamped on the envelope-and it arrived here today. Likewise, a letter from Gore Bay dated June 6 arrived here today, two days later. A letter from Sheguian-dah, a small outlying post office in my constituency, dated June 6, arrived today. One from Desbarats, Ontario, dated June 7, arrived here on June 8. Likewise, a letter from Ottawa, dated June 7, arrived in my office today.
I suppose it is rather significant when letters coming a distance of 500 miles arrive within 24 hours. Also, I had a letter from Sault Ste. Marie, dated June 6, which arrived at my office today. Another one from Bruce Mines in my constituency was dated June 5 and arrived in my office yesterday. It travelled a distance of 470 miles. I think it is especially valuable when we see that letters come from small outlying areas to the nation's capital within one to two days. To say that the whole system does not work is an unfair and unreasonable criticism, especially of people in the postal service who work so hard.
The hon. member's motion goes on to cover many other aspects of our postal service. He mentions the reduction of the urban service from six days to five days. In my constituency, which is rural, we have the full six-day delivery rather than the five-day delivery.
I was interested especially in the comments of the hon. member for Scarborough East. He referred to a statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on April 4 and suggested that the Prime Minister was making at that time a serious statement that everyone knows the mail in this country is slow. So I looked back at Hansard for that day and noted that the Prime Minister on that occasion was jousting with the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and, as he often does, came out none the worse for wear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That is a matter of opinion.


Maurice Brydon Foster: The right hon. gentleman, I believe, was trying to determine at that time if there was any plan for an election in June because election equipment had been sent out in April in time to prepare for a June election. The right hon. member for Prince Albert was obviously trying to get information from the Prime Minister, and the

Prime Minister in reply made this offhand remark more in jest than seriously.
I think the point is well made in the article from which the hon. member for Scarborough East quoted. The article points out how well the mail service operates. The hon. member mentioned that it contains an excellent pictorial outline of a letter being mailed in Pouch Cove, Newfoundland, and being delivered to Vancouver. The total distance is 3,244.9 miles, and it was covered in 34 hours and 10 minutes at an average speed of 95 miles per hour. This article points out the vast number of people who have to handle a single letter. It mentions the person in the post office where the letter is mailed, the person who has the stage service and who takes the letter from Pouch Cove to St. John's, the sorting that goes on there to other parts of the country, the journey by air to Vancouver and the sorting that takes place in a large post office in Vancouver. It mentions that 31 people have to handle a single letter. I think it is significant that the headline reads: "What 31 people will do for a lousy 8 cents".
I think it is very easy for us to criticize the mail service; it is almost a way of life even though only two or three letters out of 100, or 2 per cent or 3 per cent, are not delivered exactly on time, as my straw poll of the letters that came to my office this morning indicated. The vast majority of the mail arrives on time, but it is always good sport to talk about the letter that does not arrive. Certainly members of parliament can be forgiven for being very critical of the mail service because the only letters they hear about are the ones that do not arrive on time. With a vast complex of at least 100,000 people, wfth the changeover to a mechanized system and considering the vast distances involved, distances with which those of us who represent large rural ridings are familiar, it is not surprising that the occasional letter does go astray.
The one point of the motion before us today with which many members like myself are sympathetic is that dealing with the closure of post offices in large numbers-I believe 2,000 rural post offices-in 1969 and 1970. As I say, we who represent rural constituencies know the concern this caused people living in small communities. At one time the typical, small community had a church, a school and a store. Within recent years the school and the church were closed down so that on one hand larger central schools could be built and on the other hand so that declining church congregations could be amalgamated. Then often the post office was lost to the small community, resulting in the general store having to close because it depended to a large degree on the general business attracted to it by virtue of the fact that it housed the post office.
I, along with many other hon. members, fought long and hard to preserve many rural post offices, acting as true representatives of our constituencies and trying to assist all groups within them. But on occasion the loss of the rural post office actually meant an improvement in service with the establishment of a rural delivery route reaching from a larger community a few miles down the road. As a result, people had their mail delivered to the door and did not have to drive four or five miles to pick it up.
June 8, 1973

To a small hamlet the loss of its post office meant it ceased to exist. There was no longer a postal mark for it. Invariably, it was not an organized community and nothing was left of that hamlet which to previous generations had been an important community, a place which they called home. I recall that at the time of the post office closings many delegations from my constituency met the then postmaster general, Mr. Kierans, to seek improvement in rural route deliveries. We were able to get a six-day delivery for the rural routes instead of three or four-day delivery. This is one example where the number of deliveries on some of these routes was improved, whereas in the cities the number of days for delivery was reduced.
As I say, I think we can all sympathize with that part of the hon. member's motion. He seems to be suggesting that we should go back to the good old days, but anybody who looks at matters realistically cannot think of going back to the good old days in face of the volume of mail which is passing through the postal system. In 1840, 133 years ago, mail arriving from England was transported once each month from Halifax to Quebec City. When the mail arrived at the Quebec City post office even the accountants had to become mail sorters. In that era large volumes of mail were the exception rather than the rule. Very simple mail handling methods could be used for such temporary needs.
However, in 1973 and in the years for which we must plan now, enormous volumes of mail arrive every day. There has been a change in the workload, and the Post Office Department is changing too. One part of the attempt to draw the best possible good out of the inevitable change was the postal code which was introduced during the last couple of years. Urbanization and the population increase have resulted in further complications. For example, our 15 largest Canadian cities account for 85 per cent of all the mail. Montreal and Toronto alone account for 44 per cent. Every day Canadians mail about 15 million letters and parcels. In one year this adds up to 5 billion pieces. When this mail is sorted by hand, a letter can be handled up to 21 times between mailing and delivery. It is obvious that the Post Office must change its ways in an attempt to accommodate all this.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Like the government.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Just calm down, I say to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield).
We have all seen great changes in Canada in the past few decades. Technological advances, especially in the field of communications, are radically altering our way of life at an ever increasing rate; and this trend will continue. No organization, and the Post Office is no different from any other, can afford to ignore the technological, demographic and sociological changes that have occurred. The Post Office has to keep up with technological change or it will become an expensive, archaic anachronism, out of step with the times and irrelevant to the needs of Canadians. While some may think that the updating of postal operations is proceeding too quickly, large numbers of the public have the impression that it is changing too slowly.
Post Office
In response to this challenge, and in order to provide Canadians with a postal service that will meet current demands, the Post Office Department is introducing a national program of coding and mechanization. This afternoon the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) has indicated that this reorganization will result in an efficient and cost-effective system for sorting the mail, particularly in our larger centres.
A recent survey indicated that Canada's population will reach 26 million by 1985. The existing trend toward urbanization will continue, to the extent that 22 million of those 26 million people will be living in our cities and larger towns in just over 12 years from now. Canada is not the only nation adopting new methods for handling mail. The United States, Great Britain, Japan-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, having listened to this debate I can say that if mothers in the city of Ottawa were having difficulty putting their babies to sleep between eleven o'clock this morning and one o'clock this afternoon, they ought to have brought them to the House of Commons. I was also struck by the fact that we Canadians always have one good whipping boy, and that happens to be the Post Office. Of course, the difficulty is that at times there is considerable justification for whipping the Canadian Post Office.


Norval Alic Horner: Let's sell it.


William George Knight: One honourable reactionary from the province of Saskatchewan probably wants to sell it back to private enterprise. To the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Horner), private enterprise is God. I have never heard anything so ridiculous. We set up the Post Office as a public service and took over that service from private enterpise; now he wants to go back three or four centuries.
In his speech, the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) showed enthusiasm for his job and for the continued improvement of postal service in Canada. For that I commend him. Like the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. Stackhouse), I hope the minister will persist in his attempts to solve the problems that exist, including those affecting my constituency of Assiniboia. What surprised me was the mention of 95 per cent efficiency. I should like that explained. Efficiency, I think, should be discussed under two headings. First, how efficient are the new machines that are being used in post offices such as the one in Ottawa? I know that technical and mechanical difficulties have arisen in the sorting of mail in the Ottawa post office. I have listened to postal workers, and according to what they tell me-this they have learned from other postal workers across the country-only certain types of letters will go through the machine: letters of the wrong size will throw off the whole machine. This is the result of our investment of millions of dollars!
Second, how efficient are the new postal codes that we are using? Judging from the mail that comes to my office,

June 8, 1973
Post Office
the new postal code is nearly useless. The Postmaster General has not shown evidence that it is any good. The hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) mentioned a letter which ended up in Tokyo because the postal code resembled the word Tokyo. So apparently difficulties have arisen over the use of the postal code.
Because I represent a rural and urban area I am concerned about rural post offices and the situation of rural postmasters. On a number of occasions I have raised this matter with the Postmaster General; he is aware of it and intends to alleviate the situation, or gives the impression that he intends to alleviate the situation of rural postmasters in areas such as Assiniboia, Saskatchewan. The hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Orlikow) has shown how top heavy is the Post Office Department with management personnel. The salary levels of these people increased considerably between 1968 and 1972. He showed that the guy who works directly with the public, that the postie who walks the beat, that the rural postmaster who deals directly with his neighbours has not done as well as people in management. The salary increases of people at lower levels, in percentage terms, have been smaller than those of management people in the Post Office Department.
I have put over 40 questions on the order paper relating to salaries in different departments and to salary increases. For instance, I have asked the following questions of the Post Office Department: How many full time employees were there as of January 31, 1970, in the Post Office Department? How many of these employees were earning more than $15,000 annually, distributed according to $1,000 intervals? How many full time employees were there as of January 31, 1973, in the Post Office Department? How many of these employees were earning more than $18,000 annually, distributed according to $1,000 intervals?
Similar questions were asked of every other department on March 5. Every other department has answered my questions. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) is present today. I believe it is correct to say that the number of employees earning over $18,000 in his department, compared with the number of employees earning $15,000 in 1970, has increased in the neighbourhood of 40 per cent. The Post Office, however, has not yet answered that question. I am interested in seeing the answer and in seeing if Post Office management is top heavy. I suspect it is. On the other hand, I believe that those at the lower level who directly serve the Canadian public have not in many ways been as fairly dealt with by the Post Office and by Treasury Board. My colleague for Winnipeg North adequately dealt with this matter when he cited figures.
In my constituency the local, rural post office is the backbone-or a joint in the backbone, if you like-of local rural communities such as Dahinda, Scout Lake, Brom-head, McCord and Beaubier, which are small with populations of less than 200. The people in those post offices work 40 hours per week at low salaries which seem to be below the minimum wage paid in some provinces. They serve the local community. When they are sick or go on holiday and have to be replaced by someone else, it sometimes costs more to hire the replacement than to pay the absent employee.

I hope my meaning is clear. These people have written to me about this situation. They have sent me dozens of letters about it and I am glad they have informed their member of parliament because it is a difficult problem. I hope that in the present round of negotiations the Post Office will improve the salary levels and working conditions of our rural postmen. The Postmaster General has said he is aware of these problems and will look into them. I believe if the department can come to a just settlement with these people it will be a feather in the cap of the Postmaster General. The local post office people will be pleased if their salary level is raised substantially. I am pleased the minister has taken the time to listen to me, and I look forward in the coming months to his attempts to solve these problems.


Norval Alic Horner: Mr. Speaker, I want to use my time to impress upon the minister the plight of the rural postmaster, especially the so-called revenue postmaster. For some reason this government is determined to move people into large cities; no doubt that serves its socialistic tendencies.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Norval Alic Horner: The people are more easily served in large cities. The government is trying to centralize service in cities such as Saskatoon and Regina. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), who is in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, has been talking to experts and trying to convince people that they do not need elevators and the removal of elevators will not affect their communities. He tries to say that rail lines can be removed, that the people do not need the railroad. It seems to me that is the kind of attitude we are now getting from the Post Office Department. The government is trying to discourage the rural postmaster; it hopes that revenue postmasters will be phased out. If that postmaster goes, the people will be left without service. The people be damned-that seems to be the policy of this Liberal government.
Let me say a word about rural areas and the people who are served by revenue post offices. Many people living in rural areas travel ten miles for their mail. If the revenue post offices are removed, or if you encourage revenue postmasters to quit simply by not paying them adequate salaries, if you ask people in the rural post office to work ten hours a day six days a week, or 60 hours a week, they will quit and then the people of the area will be forced to drive 20 miles or more for their mail. The fellow in the city works 36 hours a week and has all the time in the world to get his mail, yet he has it delivered to his door. That is the kind of injustice from which our rural people suffer. These are the people who are raising the cattle and growing the wheat upon which much of the employment of the city dweller depends. Instead of providing rural people with the decent mail service to which they are entitled, we seem to be making them scapegoats.
I have here a public service poster advertising for a postmaster in the town of Hoosier. It offers a salary of $1,660 a year. This post office must be open 24 hours a week. According to my calculations, that works out to
June 8, 1973

$1.35 an hour. In addition, the 24 hours must be spread over 5t4 days. How many city people would be tied to a job 5 Vi days a week for the glorious salary of $1,660 a year? In view of that kind of offer I do not think the government is serious about providing postal service in that area.
What is even worse is the fact that the rental allowance is $150 a year, which works out to 40 cents a day. I do not know how many members in this chamber would like to turn their home into a post office and have people going in and out for 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for 40 cents a day. In that area in the winter, whatever you earn would be gone before breakfast because of the door opening and closing. The government expects janitor service, a building, heat, light, and so on, for 40 cents a day.
I wish to cite a typical example of the treatment received by people in small towns. A veteran whose health was affected while serving in the army worked in the post office for 20 years. He erected a building and rented it to the Post Office Department for $1,800 a year. One day a work unit survey was conducted and he was advised that this post office was not providing enough revenue and it was changed from a class 1 to a class II. This man was informed that after a certain date he would have to provide the premises, as this was a fair sized town, but they would pay only $480 a year for the rental.
As a condition of employment these people must provide the premises. I do not know how many businesses or city people would put up with that kind of deal. I understand that there are now discussions under way to provide constituency offices and secretaries for members of parliament. It is estimated that this will cost $200 a month for each member, yet the Post Office Department will allow only $480 a year to rent a post office. In some cases people who have been operating post offices for 20 years have received letters stating that because they were now revenue post offices their salaries would be frozen and they would no longer qualify for sick benefits or any of the other benefits they received for years as employees of the Post Office Department. In many cases this involved large families with dependent children. Their post offices have been reclassified and they have had to provide their own premises even though, with inflation, their costs are rising all the time.
In his speech the minister spoke about job security and better salaries. Job security and better salaries for whom? It is certainly not for people in the rural areas. The object seems to be to completely discourage anyone who dares to live in a rural area and tries to carry the rest of the country on his back. I suggest that the minister give serious consideration to a minimum rental allowance of at least $50 a month, $600 a year, to anyone who assumes the responsibility of operating a post office, handling government money and all the rest of it. If the Post Office is going to rent facilities from its employees, it should be prepared to pay a lot more than $10 or $20 a month. Also, the salary of these people should be the minimum wage of the province. In Saskatchewan this is $1.75 an hour. The present situation is ridiculous. If the postmaster hires someone during a period when he must be away, he must pay the minimum wage of the province; but the federal government will pay him only $1.35 an hour, or less.
Post Office


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, the motion now before us deals with an issue which has been, for a long time and indeed since the very beginning of the Confederation, much important in daily lives of the Canadian people. The postal service is one of the first public services which was established in Canadian communities.
I do not agree at all with the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) who asserts, in his motion, that the Canadian postal service has deteriorated during the past six years. I will not speak as a government member but as a Canadian who knows perfectly well the Post Office Department for having worked there during three years.
Mr. Speaker, the motion covers six different points; it would take too long to deal with all these matters but let me make a few comments about the closure of small rural post offices.
This program was initiated in 1965 in the Gaspe Peninsula which was used as a pilot region, and in the ridings of Gaspe and Bonaventure alone more than 80 small post offices were closed. Thanks to this program, the Department of Public Works built in the riding of Gaspe alone 26 small offices-


Albert Béchard: In Bonaventure as well.


Alexandre Cyr: -and in Bonaventure, as my colleague points out, and this grouping of post offices provided a much improved postal service in the Gaspe Peninsula.
Before this grouping, the postal van had to stop every two or three miles to deliver the mail, but since 1967 it stops only every 10 or 20 miles and the mail coming from Montreal or Quebec City or even Ottawa is now delivered 15 hours earlier than under the old system.
Early this year, I tried to find out what was the real situation within the postal service in Canada and I dispatched two series of letters to 37 postmasters throughout Canada. Mr. Speaker, the results clearly show that Canada has the best postal service in the world.
Mail sent from the Commons' post office to Moncton, Winnipeg, Gaspe, Murdochville, Sept-!les, Rimouski, Mont-Laurier, Chicoutimi, Riviere-du-Loup, Sudbury, was delivered within 20 hours and in some cases within ten. However, it should be noted that the letter I sent the postmaster in Hull, and mailed at the Commons' post office, took exactly three days to cross the Ottawa River.


Mr. Isabelle:: It is still the same thing now.


Alexandre Cyr: That well shows the excellent mail delivery service in Canada, even if there is still room for improvement in the service in large centers like Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto and Winnipeg.
The Post Office Department knows that there is a lack of discipline in the larger post offices, and it is not easy to solve that. Outside those large centers, the mail is sorted out more carefully and it seems that the employees of small post offices and rural service centers do a better job than those in the large urban centers.

June 8, 1973
Post Office
I know, through a personal experience, that a letter from Gaspe to Sherbrooke is delayed three or four days if it is dispatched to the Montreal Post Office for sorting. This is why, Mr. Speaker, I recommend that the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) open distribution offices outside the larger centers, in order to accelerate the sorting of the mail from rural areas. The sampling method I used has established that delays in mail delivery occur only in the larger centers.
As to the sharply increased postal rates, I must say that paying $0.08 to send a letter, let us say, from Gaspe to Vancouver via airmail is not too much. Thanks to the means of transportation available today, a letter can be delivered from Montreal to Vancouver in only eight hours. I am amazed at the idea that a mere $0.08 stamp can send a letter so quickly and over such a distance, which is the result of the establishment of a domestic service called "All-Up". Canada is the first country ever to offer such a service to its citizens.
Today, the Canadian Post Office has everything it needs to operate at the accelerated pace of life in a modern world. While, thanks to modern techniques and science our geographical boundaries are disappearing and we find ourselves at the crossroads in our history. Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) and his department are meeting the challenges of the 1970's. Never in the history of the Post Office Department, have so many innovations been made over such a short time.
I think that, to a very large extent, the challenge which the Post Office will have to meet will be in the field of marketing. Our Post Office Department will have to offer services and products approved by their customers and from which we will benefit. Those customers should be treated with efficiency; they should be told how the Post Office will meet their needs which, in an increasingly competitive climate, are becoming more and more important. I know that the Postmaster General and his department are doing their best to achieve this objective.
All the postal administrations in the world are faced with price increases. The Canadian postal service is trying to overcome this problem through realistic planning while trying to meet the ever increasing requirements from its staff.
It goes without saying that uprating requires heavy investments. The request for new services from the postal service's customers should be met but we should never forget that a one-cent increase for a first class letter creates general protests throughout the country.
In closing, I wish to commend the Postmaster General for his good work and tell him that we encourage him to keep it up.


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to speak on this motion moved by my hon. friend from Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale). It gives me an opportunity to tell the government that my constituents are fed up with excuses, maladministration and mismanagement. They want, and have a right to expect, the kind of postal service they had become accus-

tomed to until the present government took over the operation of the Post Office Department.
There was a time when the Canadian postal service was one of the most efficient in the world. That time is not too far in the past. Now we have a postal service which is so badly administered that it has become the object of jokes, cartoons and outright ridicule. It is easy to make up jokes about how long it takes to have a letter delivered in Canada today, but it is no joke to people who depend on the mail to conduct their business. It is not a joke to those who rely on the mail to keep in touch with friends and loved ones. We all pay dearly for the postal service, and if there is any good reason why we cannot expect to receive dependable mail service in Canada it is time we were told that reason. It is also time we were told what we must do in order to get the kind of mail service we enjoyed in the past.
I am sure in my own mind that these are serious problems in the operation of the Post Office Department. Everyone is sure we have problems-everyone, that is, except the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet). He appears to be more concerned about the possibility that the Conservative Party will form the government in the near future than he is about running the Post Office Department. That is not new, however, Mr. Speaker; the last three postmasters general have had more pressing things on their minds than their portfolios.
The present Postmaster General spends his time condemning our ties with royalty and accusing the Conservative Party of being anti-French Canadian. If his remarks were effective in clearing up the problems in the Post Office Department, we would be willing to accept them. However, he only succeeds in bringing to mind a former postmaster general, Eric Kierans, who spent his time trying to run the finance portfolio while the Post Office Department fell into disrepair and disrepute.
Mr. Speaker, the cost of operating the Post Office in the fiscal year 1970-71 was $343,837,000. The projected cost for the fiscal year 1973-74 is $573,263,000. We are getting close to doubling the cost involved in operating the department in just three years, and during that period our postal services have continued to deteriorate. Everyone in this House and, indeed, everyone in Canada is aware that postal rates have almost doubled since the present government has been in power. The Canadian people have accepted this increase as the cost of getting service, just as they have had to accept increased costs in every other area of government operation. But while they accept the reasons for increased postal rates, they certainly do not accept greatly reduced service from the Post Office Department.
In spite of these greatly increased postal rates and the elimination of certain types of cheap, bulk-rate postal services the Post Office operates at a considerable deficit year in and year out. This House has not been unduly harsh with the government or the Postmaster General for not being able to operate the department without a large deficit. However, when at the same time we are afflicted by one of the world's least efficient postal services, when we find a serious morale problem among employees in the department, and when we are obliged to suffer total stoppage of mail service every year because there is a serious
June 8, 1973

breakdown in employee-employer relations, then it is our right as well as our responsibility to press the government for answers. And, Mr. Speaker, I mean answers, not excuses.
Over the past couple of years we have seen mail service in rural Canada discriminated against in favour of providing better service for the large urban centres. The urban mail service has not improved and we still suffer from a greatly downgraded service in rural communities. Rural post offices have been closed in the name of centralization. We were told this would improve rural mail service. It has not improved the service in rural Canada, Mr. Speaker: on the contrary, it is worse today than it has ever been.
Mail service is vital to people living in small towns and on farms, just as vital as it is to Canadians who live in large cities. In fact, Mr. Speaker, all of us who have spent our lives in small communities know that communications play a major role in our lives. At the time the government announced it was planning to close hundreds of post offices in small towns and villages across the country, it was pointed out to the Postmaster General that these post offices were more than just places to send or receive letters. These post offices, often run in conjunction with a general store, were places where people could get together socially. There are hundreds of places in rural Canada where distances between towns and farms are so great that the only time some people can see their neighbours on a regular basis is at the post office.
I know that the Postmaster General can make a good case for not being in business to provide social centres for rural Canadians, but I can make just as good a case for the government being in power at the will of the people, and these rural Canadians are people. They have every right to expect the government to provide mail service that is readily accessible and also mail service that is personal.
We have been told that the main reason, if not the only reason, for closing down rural post offices was to reduce costs so that the Post Office Department could provide better service without incurring a deficit. Well, postal service is worse than it has ever been and the deficit for this fiscal year is higher than ever. Is it any wonder that Canadians, especially rural Canadians, are not inclined to believe the government any more?
The government is now in conflict with the Canadian postmasters' union over the great disparity in the rates of pay for postmasters in different areas of the country. I think it is safe to say that the postmasters will lose this round, as they have lost others. All the government has to do is close down the rest of the rural post offices and put the postmasters out of their jobs. In that way they not only settle this dispute; they would ensure that the rural postmasters would not be around to bother them in the future.
In some areas of the country people are required to travel many miles daily just to see if there is any mail in their boxes or to mail a letter. This is one of the results of the new policies of the Post Office to increase efficiency. There are examples every day of letters being delivered two days after being mailed, over a distance that can be travelled in 30 minutes. This is commonplace today. It
Post Office
often takes two to three days for letters to be delivered in the city in which they are mailed.
The government is presently engaged in a multimillion dollar program to automate mail handling, and I am very much afraid that we are again on the verge of a major confrontation between the Post Office Department and the unions. As in everything else, the government has failed to plan properly for this major innovation. I am already hearing reports that the unions are not happy with the way negotiations are progressing with respect to issues such as job classification and job security. This is an old story, and while we should be used to it by now, we certainly should not have to take the same nonsense year after year.
I think it is time for the government to appoint a postmaster general who will take his job seriously. We have had enough of the government's policy that uses the postmaster general's portfolio to reward frontbenchers for good service, or as a means of demoting ministers without actually throwing them out of the cabinet. It is a department that requires a minister who is capable of running it; it requires a minister who is interested enough to give the job his full attention.
We have already seen how much importance the present minister attaches to the Post Office Department and to his portfolio. He would be well advised to start thinking and talking about the Post Office Department and to stop worrying about who is going to form the next government. The Canadian people will decide who forms the next government, Mr. Speaker. I can appreciate the minister's concern that my party is going to form the next government, because there is every indication that this will happen in the not too distant future. But until then the minister has a responsibility that he should start taking a bit more seriously.
The latest gimmick introduced by the Post Office Department is the postal code. We have been told that this is one of the answers to restoring adequate postal service. This new device has already cost millions of dollars and we are now told that it will be several years before it is in full operation throughout the country. We do not know yet what we will get for those millions of dollars, but we know that the mail service is still poor and that there is no reason for the Canadian people to be optimistic about the future prospects for better mail delivery.
The government appears to be determined to operate departments with the same yardstick in spite of the fact that it has been proven to be ineffective over and over again. In the case of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, the government instituted the same policy of centralization as they have in the Post Office Department. The UIC is a shambles, and last year the cost of operating that department was almost a billion dollars more than the forecast deficit.
In the case of the Post Office Department, centralization has increased costs and decreased the quality of postal service. All the post offices that were closed in rural Canada in the interest of efficiency and economy might better have been left operating. The level of service would have been better, many poastmasters would still have jobs and the people would have been far happier.

June 8, 1973
Post Office
Reduction in the number of mail service days in the week, cut from six to five, was carried out in the interest of the same things, Mr. Speaker-efficiency and economy. Do we have more efficiency and reduced costs? No, we do not. All we got out of it was reduced mail service. It would appear to a reasonable person that even this government would learn in time that their policies are not working and that it is time to change their whole approach to the operation of vital government services. This would not reflect against the intelligence and the integrity of those who are charged with running government departments and services: it would have the opposite effect. If the government should indicate in even a small way that it is aware that it has been on the wrong track and is willing to heed good advice, then it would begin to look responsible. I doubt very seriously, though, that that will ever come to pass.


Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):: Mr. Speaker, we are well on into a Friday afternoon. I am sure that while all of us in this House share a real interest in, and concern for, our Post Office and the job that it does in keeping communications open amongst our people, the businesses of our country, as well of course as our international business, we are also anxious to get home to our constituents and constituencies and to the work at hand. Therefore, I will be brief. It is important, I think, as a government member to rise and speak in defence of our postal department and of what I think is the outstanding job it has done, especially in recent years.
As I see it, the motion strikes at four or five particular areas. It is suggested that there has been a deterioration in the Post Office Department during the last six years. It expresses concern about the closing down of rural post offices. It is always a concern, I am sure, of any member of this House when services to constituents are cut back. The motion discusses the reduction of six-day service to five-day service, and suggests there is a rush to automation that threatens the morale and job security of employees. It then points out that we have had increased postal rates, that these have been to the detriment of the postal service and have imposed a burden upon the public. I should like to discuss those points one by one.
On the issue of the reduction in rural post offices, I must first admit in all honesty that I do not have extensive personal experience in the matter, but when such criticism is put forward in this motion one or two things come to mind. While it should never be taken that this is a reason to cut back a service if it is vital to our people, no matter what numbers are involved, there has been a reduction in rural population and a massive growth in urban population. To some degree, as long as a basic and good service is provided in rural areas, when you are talking about the economy and government, realizing that any service put forward by government is paid for by the taxpayers, you must realize that some reductions in rural service may well be justified so long as the basic standard is maintained. We have better roads, better transportation and better means of moving around in our rural areas, and the service of the Post Office has improved considerably in

that transportation has become much more rapid in recent years.
Taking all these facts into consideration, and realizing the necessity in all areas of government to consider the economy, I haVe yet to hear any argument which can offset the need for reduction where it is justified. It is very easy to stand in the House, as has happened during the question period from time to time, on this issue of the Post Office and its services and ask the minister to explain why a letter took three and a half weeks to arrive at its destination. Nobody is more of a whipping boy than the Post Office Department, Bell Telephone or the Income Tax Department. These are the easy departments to get at because, in fact, they are vital to our communications and to the function of government with respect to the Income Tax Department. They all interrelated in the ability of one Canadian being able to communicate with another and business sectors being able to function; but they are also easy departments to knock.
During my experience of five or six months as a member of the House of Commons representing the constituency of York West, I have received less than a dozen complaints about the postal service, in spite of the fact that my constituency is one of the largest in Canada with a population of 140,000. The complaints I have received, I have dealt with frankly because I think nothing can operate on a 100 per cent perfect basis.
I have sent correspondence to the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) which must have arrived quickly because I have received expeditious replies. In fact, any inquiry I have made, be it about the need of a senior citizen for a post office box closer to his home, or why it was moved, and complaints about mail being delivered to the wrong address, has been answered quickly. I received a prompt reply from one of my local post offices regarding a sincere investigation, not only from the Postmaster General but from the local level as well. There was co-operation and sensitivity, and the reply was fast. That not only suggests to me sensitivity in the Postmaster General's department but also a properly functioning Post Office.
There are many other areas I might use as an example of the difficulty of achieving 100 per cent efficiency in any service involving people. I am sure if I asked other hon. members in this House whether they had ever ordered goods from a large department store via a mail order catalogue, had they dealt with a credit card company, had they checked the tapes they received with their groceries after they had done their shopping every week and searched for mistakes, they would tell me that there is always evidence of mistakes being made. This is something we must always watch for. We must always be on guard and we must demand a sensitive Post Office Department, even as I realize that in the private sector and in business there is frustration and that in dealing with somebody like Eaton's on a mail order basis there are faults.
There are faults-but the question is, are they answered and are they corrected?
When we consider this resolution and the accusation about the deterioration of Post Office services in the last six years we must face up to the complications and problems of modern technology, our rapid rate of advancement
June 8, 1973

and just where we sit in the twentieth century. Change not only means disruption; it means tremendous disruption. It also means the need for people to be adaptable. The twentieth century is synonymous with change. "Future Shock" describes the terrific complications that exist as advances become more and more rapid.
I gather from this motion a suggestion that we should deny automation; we should deny this kind of progress and we should go back to the good old ways. But the good old ways were not good at all. The postal service was bad, not good as it is today. Can you imagine one saying: "Let us remain the same"? I do not take it as an acceptable argument that we should continue to have folksy spots in the country where people can go to communicate and where we do not have automation. This would be to deny recognition of all the problems we face as a government today.
Can you imagine the situation if that attitude were adopted, as apparently the official opposition suggests? Can you imagine the terrible situation we would be in a decade from now with our post offices? We simply would not be able to keep up with the demands of modern business.
We must realize that today there must be changes no matter how disruptive they may be. If we do not do that we deny the ability to cope with tomorrow because we cannot imagine what technological advances tomorrow may bring in the way of changes that will improve our situation and assist our people, yet will bring confrontation in respect of the number of people employed, and services. Having regard to the problem of reduced postal service from six days to five days, I think everybody on both sides of the House had some regret when that decision was made. When you look for your mail at a particular time, as each householder does, no matter how good the service you are still inclined to complain and blame the Post Office for not providing the service to which you are accustomed.
I know that people were unhappy when they could not go on Saturday and collect their mail. There was a reduction in service. There were problems in developing workloads when you had a build-up of business mail which hit the Post Office heavily on weekends, making a heavier volume of mail for delivery on Monday. I would like the parliamentary restaurant to open at five o'clock every day. I would like my secretarial staff to be available in the evening when I am here and could dash up to my office to do some work. However, we must be realistic about things.
We are talking about economics and we are talking about a modern society. We are talking about changes that must be made even when there is some regret in making a change that might in a way reduce service which we enjoy. When it is better economics to reduce that service, have it highly efficient and work over a shorter period, then surely that is facing up to the responsibility of making decisions in government that are in the best interests of the people and providing the best economy, particularly when government costs soar as they do these days.
When we talk about increased postal rates this goes back several years to the days of a former member of this House, Mr. Kierans, to whom I think the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott) referred a few moments
Post Office
ago. It is true that costs have gone up considerably, but one of the greatest problems I face today, as I am sure other members do, is trying to make my constituents understand who is responsible for what, and what money they pay in taxes goes where. I am faced with the whole confusion of pinpointing where the money is being spent so that I can say whether it is being spent well or poorly.
We do not get extra revenue in the Post Office Department by charging so much for stamps so that we can pour off that money into another department. In fact, even though those rates have gone up the fact remains that the full cost is not covered by moneys that come in from the sale of stamps or the delivery of mail. A sizeable part of the funds still comes out of tax revenue. But surely that is how government should operate. It is important to me that as more and more we are able to identify for the taxpayers where their dollars are being spent so they can decide whether it is worth while or not, the better off we are.
It is all very easy to go out, as I said, and attack Bell Telephone because you had trouble with one particular phone call, or to attack the Income Tax Department because it is not a pleasant department, or to attack the Post Office because you have sent mail for years and have had no trouble but finally you wrote a letter to Aunt Marne and it did not arrive on time, but postal rates were increased to help match the increase in cost of providing this service today. No one is so nai\m as to imagine for a moment that costs have not risen generally-and so have the costs of providing our postal service.
The postal department is still very much labour-oriented. It has a great many employees who have demanded better wages. The government was responsible for paying their wages and giving them increases, and this has increased the cost. Transportation costs have rapidly increased, and surely that must be faced up to and reflected in the price of the service. I think it is folly to pretend that services are not expensive. Increased postal rates reflect the increase in costs, and it is wrong to suggest to the public that it will not have to pay for these costs in higher postage rates, because it will. If it does not pay in postage, it will pay in some other way. If the public pays partially in the form of postage, then at least the people who are using the service will pay the increased costs.
Over the last six years, during my time in the media when I received a great deal of mail and also sent a great deal of mail, and now, when I am especially involved in receiving and sending information quickly and trying to deal with situations, I have come to the realization that we do have one of the most efficient postal systems in the world.
If we are to keep up, we must be innovative. The Post Office has been very innovative. It has tried to keep up, restructure, regroup and not begin something without following through during the period of months or years which sometimes is involved in some of its plans. Along the way it has said that it must move sensibly and quickly and that it must make adjustments. I think in the last couple of years-I have experienced this as a newsman covering some very serious confrontations such as the strikes we had five, six or seven years ago, especially in

June 8, 1973
Post Office
Toronto with the postal employees-there has been a very great development in consultation and sensitivity as between labour and management.
The government has kept a very close eye on this department in the realization that there must be sensitivity and that many people who are employed are not skilled workers and have great fears about innovation and new technology. The government realizes that these people must be dealt with, that it must understand the situation, that they must be cared for and paid a decent wage.
I think the minister's initiative since he has taken over this portfolio speaks well for him as a representative of this government. I know he has travelled across this country and has spoken not only to management but also to the postal workers. I do not think I can accept what the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton said a few moments ago about the minister being interested in other things. The hon. member made an attack on the department as being a place where someone could be shoved down in cabinet seniority or as a place which could be used for the purpose of paying someone off. We do not think of it in that way. He may have those suspicions. I am surprised he has that idea in his mind.
One of the most important means of communication in our country is being carried out responsibly. I believe the minister's record is one of real involvement with and sensitivity toward the people. We have seen consultation develop as never before. We have seen real innovation. We have seen a minister involved with both management and labour. We have seen new methods. We have seen new centres developed. We have even seen the introduction of stamps to promote Canada. I do not see that as a threat to the monarchy-and no one could have a more British background than I have. I have great pride in our heritage and in our country. I think it is time we all recognized this.
The real demand upon modern government is to cope quickly. We do not have time to stand back and give total reflection. We do not always have time to try something for a year and then do it: we must move quickly. I do not think anyone who takes on the responsibility of running government today would dare say we can do it perfectly or that we can be sure we are doing it properly. I do think, however, that we can say this is a direction we want to take, that we will try it and when we make mistakes we will correct them.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, we have just heard a prolonged Liberal apology full of paradoxes. The hon. member for York West (Mr. Fleming) said it is easy to knock something, and I agree. He seemed to spend a good deal of his time knocking the opposition. However, I do not remember him making any suggestions concerning how the postal service could be improved. On the one hand he said that the service had deteriorated, and on the other hand he said it is the best in the world. Then he went on to portray the usual attitude of his government, of complacency and self-satisfaction in telling the Canadian people they should get used to the situation because they cannot have everything they want. The suggestion is that the people must be happy with the difficulties they are experiencing. The government deals with this situation in the same way it dealt with the unemployment situation,

by saying that because of the difficulties in this country it is impossible to improve things and people must live with the situation.
I do not think that is what we want members on the government side to tell us. We want them to tell us what they are doing in an effort to improve services for the Canadian people, services which are costing the Canadian people more. With this in mind I shall discuss a particular area of difficulty in respect of postal service. I have in mind the isolated communities of northern Canada, such as the northern part of my province, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon territory. I believe the vastness of my riding is fairly typical of the northern regions about which I wish to speak.
In his remarks the minister spent a good deal of time bragging about the tremendous new machinery in the Post Office, such as automatic letter sorters, automatic secretaries and automatic everything. However, he did not impress me very much because these automatic things are in Toronto, Montreal and other large centres. Places such as Peerless Lake, Graham Lake, Red Earth, Little Buffalo or similar places in the north still have not reached the pony express stage of postal service. As a matter of fact many of these areas do not have any postal service at all. I find some humour in hearing members from Toronto or Montreal say that they do not like having the postal service reduced from six days to five days a week, when a place like Peerless Lake does not have service on any day of the week. This is an area which I believe really requires attention. However, it has not been receiving attention.
The motion before us deals with the deterioration of postal service. I am sorry I cannot talk about that matter in respect of the areas I have mentioned because there was no postal service to begin with; therefore it cannot deteriorate. I shall try to convince the minister that he should introduce service into these isolated communities so that the people there would at least be in a position to communicate with him through the mail. These isolated settlements are separated by great distances. In some areas there are post offices from place to place, but in most cases part of the problem is that there are no roads or very poor roads. Another problem in these regions is that there are very few motor vehicles. In many cases the people still use horse and wagon or, if you like, ponies.
Places like Peerless Lake, Graham Lake and Red Earth are about 200 miles north of Lesser Slave Lake. About two years ago there was no post office in that area. One was set up at Red Earth. That post office was to serve the whole region, covering a radius of about 100 miles. The minister in a letter to me recently said with great pride that the post office had been set up at Red Earth, that it was tremendous and that it served the people of the whole region. It could be, in Toronto, Montreal or in any of the other areas where people have motor vehicles and paved highways, that having to travel 20, 30 or 40 miles to mail a letter or pick up mail might be acceptable; but in an isolated community with no roads and with horses for transportation the situation is very different when one wishes to pick up mail, mail a letter, send a postal money order or carry on any other postal business.
When the minister tells me that his department is now modernized, I say to him that this does not impress me. He
June 8, 1973

should take a serious look at some of the isolated areas and see the very real problems which exist. I suggest to the minister that he spend a month with me at Peerless Lake this summer. I will set up a nice little teepee and have some moose meat dried and waiting for him. I would like him to try to conduct his business from there for a period of a month by means of the mail service his department provides. If he did so, I do not think he would be so quick to pat himself on the back about the greatness of the service of his department.
I would invite him and any other minister or any other member on the government side who is dedicated to speaking as an apologist for the government to go to these areas for a month or so to experience what the people who live there experience all their lives. I am sure we would have fairly speedy action if ministers took the trouble to go down there and look at the situation.


An hon. Member:: Such as what?


Paul Yewchuk: Such as setting up regular post offices and a postal service. It is a very simple solution. Another service that is provided in some of these places such as, for example, small trading posts-this is the best that the minister can do-is simply to have a mailbag which is filled up with letters to people in an isolated settlement picked up by whoever happens to be going that way at some time during the month, and dropped at the store. Then everybody who happens to wander by, scrambles through the mailbag to see whether or not he can find a letter there. That is supposed to be good postal service.
Just imagine what would happen if the people in Toronto had to harness a team of horses and go 40 miles to pick up their mail every day. I wonder if the minister would permit a postal service in Toronto which would consist of a mailbag being delivered to a grocery store at the corner of the street and people within a ten-block radius having to dig through the bag to get their mail.
What I am trying to impress upon the minister is that just because people live in small numbers in isolated areas is no reason for ignoring them and depriving them of services which in southern Canada are considered a necessity, not a luxury, and are taken for granted. This is not the case in northern portions of our country. I would like the minister to spend a little time on that problem. I agree that he always sends back polite letters, but that is not what I want from him. It is the content of the letters that I would like improved. I would like to read in these letters that the minister will do something about the problem. I do not want to see letters in which the minister says he recognizes there is a problem and thanks me for bringing it to his attention; he will see what can be done. That is not good enough.
The minister may be a polite man-and everybody appreciates politeness-but that is not what the job of running the Post Office Department is all about. The minister should concern himself with providing the best possible service to all the people of Canada-and we in the north have not had it. I think it is time a complete reassessment of the mail service to isolated communities was carried out and speedy action taken to correct the
Post Office
problems which I have described. It is time the minister got out of his comfortable chair and visited some of the more remote areas, talked to the people there and asked them whether they are happy with the services he is providing. The fact that, as he stated, he went across the country to various cities, and the people to whom he spoke all seemed happy and seemed to be working, does not absolve him of the responsibility to people in isolated communities in the north, because the picture there is entirely different.
The solution is to establish a series of small post offices a reasonable distance apart so that people can travel on horseback and get their mail in an hour or two. I realize that this would increase the cost, based on the income which would be derived from these post offices, but it seems to me that the rest of Canada should be willing to pay for increased cost of mail delivery to the northern regions because the rest of Canada is benefiting a great deal from the resources in the north. We have all types of resources-timber, oil, minerals and furs. Thus, the northern parts of Canada are contributing a great deal to the country as a whole. In return for that contribution they are entitled to reasonable postal, telephone and transportation services which those in the south have come to take for granted.
The other subject which I would like to speak about for a few minutes relates to the changes that were made in the postal rate, and the reclassification of certain professional journals and newspapers which has taken place in the past three or four years. I will describe the problem by using a particular journal as an example, namely, the journal of the Canadian Medical Association. I am glad to see a member of the medical profession here. I hope he will listen carefully. Perhaps he will be able to influence the minister, because I doubt I will be able to do so. I should like to quote from that journal a few sentences written by A. D. Kelly. I think he is a doctor; he has a British degree and I am not quite sure what it means. I assume he is a medical man who also happens to be the editor of the Canadian Medical Association journal.


Mr. Railton:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Dr. A. D. Kelly graduated from the University of Toronto with the degree of MB. That was the degree at that time.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will give me an extra 30 seconds at the end of my 15 minutes to compensate me for lost time. Dr. Kelly wrote:
My equanimity has been disturbed, my sunny disposition has been clouded-
That was back in 1969.
-my faith in the Just Society has been shaken and, to put it briefly, I am up tight.
That means he is rather tense over the whole situation.
I am managing editor of Canadian Medical Association publications and things have become unmanageable.
That is his assessment. He goes on to say:
For fifty-eight years the CMAJ has enjoyed statutory second-class mailing privileges and our postal rates were low. We are not alone in this because I understand that 5,200 other Canadian publications are similarly classified. I have been aware that the Post Office was losing money and I expected that an increase in

June 8, 1973
Post Office
rates for all classifications would be initiated. I really can't say that I feel it essential that our postal services make money or indeed break even, particularly when I am aware of the very substantial subsidies provided for radio and TV, industry, agriculture, education and social services.
In other words, many areas require assistance from the government, and the Post Office should be no different. Because of the decision that was made in 1969, the Canadian Medical Association journal which was published weekly now can only afford publication twice a month, or 26 times a year.


Mr. Cullen:: The doctors can afford it.


Paul Yewchuk: This is not a remark worthy of tbe hon. member. I hope he will not try to sidetrack the issue by stating that the doctors can afford it, because that is a ridiculous statement. In any case, the changes which were made by the Post Office Department at that time meant a fourfold increase in the cost of mailing some journals and newspapers. The publishers of other magazines, such as MacLean-Hunter which publishes a paper entitled the Medical Post, and other commercial publications which publish competing magazines or periodicals such as the MD or the Canadian Doctor continue to enjoy second-class mailing privileges. This is not the case so far as the Canadian Medical Association journal is concerned, and the reason given by the Post Office as to why it must pay these high rates-


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


Mr. Charles E. Haliburton (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to give a portion of my time to the hon. member who has just sat down. My remarks are very general. The Post Office Department is one of the spheres of government that comes into contact with every Canadian person on a regular basis. Therefore, it is one of those activities of government which should set an example to others in terms of efficiency, courtesy and service. Unfortunately, our Canadian Post Office over the past number of years has arrived at a position where it fails to establish those things in the minds of the Canadian public. Rather, it establishes in their minds a public service which is bureaucratic, inefficient and unresponsive to the needs and wishes of the public.
The Canadian people are no longer willing to accept the exorbitant postal rates which they have to pay for minimal services. This is the crux of the postal crisis in this day and age. Each year, in spite of growing postal rates, the Post Office records a deficit. For the fiscal year 1971-72 revenues increased $71.3 million to a record level of over $500 million, while costs increased $47.9 million, leaving the Post Office again with a deficit of some $77 million. This situation is intolerable, but it does not look as if it will change very radically or very rapidly.
Essentially, the Post Office should be concerned with providing a service to the Canadian public. I submit, Sir, that the stature of the service being provided at this time is not satisfactory. Only a few years ago one of the Liberal

cabinet ministers charged with the responsibility of looking after the Post Office determined that he was going to make it a profitable institution. I submit that the Canadian public is not so concerned about whether the Post Office can operate profitably as it is concerned that it should serve the Canadian people in an efficient and proper manner. The Canadian public is prepared to subsidize the Post Office to a reasonable degree. I am not suggesting that the Post Office be given carte-blanche, but the people of Canada would be happy if it provided rapid service, with efficient mail delivery on terms that are convenient to the public, even if it has a deficit.
Here I am thinking of businessmen dealing in large sums of money or in matters which are of extreme urgency and importance. I am thinking, for instance, of doctors sending prescriptions by mail, of drugstores sending drugs by mail, of lawyers sending orders to the courts to be approved by mail and of persons involved in property transactions where large amounts of money may be transmitted by mail. I am thinking about this matter in terms of the cost of sending money and in terms of human suffering where drugs are being sent by mail. These are much more serious matters to the Canadian people than the Post Office suffering a reasonable deficit.
While I am speaking of drugs, I am sorry that I do not have with me a clipping from the Halifax Herald. A few weeks ago it carried a story relating to the drop in efficiency of the Post Office in the area of New Caledonia, which is one of the few inland areas of Nova Scotia some 30 or 40 miles from the sea. Between that area and Barss Corner traditionally over the years there had been same-day delivery service. The result was that a physician in one of the centres could prescribe drugs for a patient and the prescription could be sent by mail and the drugs delivered on the same day. But now, even with modern technology, not to mention all the consultants' reports with respect to the Post Office, delivery is not less than four days and generally takes five days. Mr. Speaker, in this case the distance to be covered is approximately six miles.
Another place where there has been a drop in service, which hopefully will be rectified in the near future with the establishment of a new post office, is an area in the Annapolis Valley. It is not in my riding and perhaps I should not be concerning myself with it, but it did gain some notoriety in the newspapers. Minas is a village, approaching the status of a town, which in fact is five or six miles in length. It now takes four days for a letter to get from one end of that village to the other end. The reason is that the mechanism for mail collection and delivery results in a letter having to travel from one end of the village to a sorting centre, from there to a second sorting center and from that second centre back to the other end of the village. That is a ridiculous situation, something which could not have happened in Canadian postal antiquity, which could not have happened back in my childhood when mail was carried by train and the sorting was done during the course of train travel.
I have here a quotation from the Globe and Mail of November 16, 1972, which I believe reflects the general attitude to the service being provided by the Post Office. In one paragraph it reads:
June 8, 1973

There can be no doubt that almost every innovation, announced with fanfare as an important measure to increase efficiency, decreased efficiency.
The assured mail program about which we have heard so much is one such scheme which has been very seriously overrated. In order to obtain assured mail service it is necessary to post a letter before eleven o'clock in the morning, then you are assured that it will get to its destination some time the following afternoon, from certain selected centres. Years ago anybody posting a first-class letter considered that there was an assurance of that sort of service. Certainly, in the province of Nova Scotia we considered ourselves assured of that kind of service.
But what in fact does it mean, if it is necessary for a person to post a letter before eleven o'clock in the morning? It is difficult for any business office to arrange to have a letter dictated, typed, signed by the person sending it and deposited in the postal repository by eleven o'clock in the morning. In fact, that situation pretty well eliminates getting a letter dictated and sent within one day. Of course, the next day, if the letter arrives after three o'clock in the afternoon, it is difficult to have it dealt with effectively, particularly if federal government offices close at four o'clock in the afternoon. It is pretty difficult for any government office or business office to deal with a letter meaningfully in an hour or so with such a deadline imposed.
Again, there is the question of five-day service. I recognize that it was not trumpeted by the postal department, but I wonder what will happen now, since there is talk that the unions are putting on a drive for a four-day work
wpplf Will WP hp fa PpH uri tVl O fru I r*_H OO rlnliir^r-.i . 

 . 

 - 

~-* V** ~ *-'-'**'*'	""J	J '-'gj. dill .
As I understand the situation at present, when one posts a letter from central Canada to Winnipeg, if the letter is sent from Ottawa on Wednesday it may not be delivered in Winnipeg until the following Tuesday. If it is handled here on Thursday, by the time it is sorted and reaches Winnipeg it will be the following Monday. But the five-day week in Winnipeg is arranged so that Monday is not worked. This means delivery takes place on Tuesday. Such variations in the five-day work week across the country bring results such as that.
The five-day delivery program is one aspect of the matter, but the five-day work week is another aspect in terms of handling, transmitting and sorting the mail. It compounds the difficulties and increases the restrictions placed upon people in attempting to deliver mail at a particular time. I am sure the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) has heard informed people talking of letters being sent from one place to another and taking an unduly long time to be delivered. I shall not deal with that, although I might mention a couple of interesting examples.
There is another aspect of Post Office activity with which I want to deal. It concerns non-postal activities of the post office. If I understood correctly, the Postmaster general has serious doubts about whether the Post Office is legally authorized to carry on certain non-postal activities. Certainly, the people in my riding have serious doubts about the propriety of these activities. The book stores are concerned about them and the knick-knack
Post Office
shops are concerned, because the Post Office is in competition with them. The Post Office is established with public funds, yet employees, presumably in their spare time-I suppose it is spare time, because when they work they are supposed to work for the Post Office Department-engage in these activities.
Presumably, the spare time of postal clerks is used in selling, say, special spoons, wrappers for packages, labels, commemorative coins and that sort of thing. They do that when they are free from their necessary duties. At the same time, they do not pay overheads but are in direct competition with private individuals who are in business and trying to make a profit from the sale of similar commodities.
The same might be said about the philatelic service. There has been controversy over the postal service being involved in the philatelic service. It is said the department does not compete fairly with others in that service, that post offices need not pay postage while private individuals attempting to cater to their clients must pay postage. There is also a certain amount of disappointment on the part of philatelists with regard to the efficiency of service, which I am informed leaves much to be desired. I am informed of instances of funds having been held back for a considerable length of time and stamps which have been requested not being supplied. There are instances involving wrong stamps being issued and the miscounting of stamps.
Because the Post Office Department has gone into this sort of business it has been subject to a good deal of the criticism that perhaps a private individual might expect in the normal course of business. That is one kind of criticism which the department need not invite, and it is one area of activity in which the department need not be involved.


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, while listening to the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) talk about places in the country where apparently there is no postal service or mail delivery, I recalled a similar discussion (# a few years ago involving one of the minister's predecessors who was later elevated to lieutenant governor of the province from which he came and who was, I was going to say, on the mat. As a matter of fact, he was on the mat, because we were debating item 1 of the estimates of the minister and instead of being able to sit here placidly and appear to listen, the minister had to answer our questions on the spot.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


Thomas Speakman Barnett: It seems to me that that debate concerned the level of postal services in this country. In such debates we tend to concentrate on the postmaster general and consider postal services, as it were, in a vacuum without considering some of the basic facts with which I have become familiar as a result of representing a coastal section of Canada which according to some is one of the most difficult places in the country to serve. I am referring to the means of transporting mail. I suggest we cannot consider postal service and say whether it is good, bad or indifferent without also considering transportation services in this country. Then we were bragging about ours

June 8, 1973
Post Office
being the first country to go all "up" with regard to first-class mail, whenever such carriage would speed its delivery. This brings me to another question.
I think this House increasingly has become trapped in the philosophy enunciated and proclaimed, as it were, in the preamble to the National Transportation Act. Overwhelming emphasis is put on the idea of user service charges. I make this comment in view of the remarks of the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Halibur-ton) who spoke about subsidizing the postal service. My reaction, having listened to this sort of debate when members of the official opposition were on the other side of the House, as well as on other occasions, is that that remark shows the kind of trap into which Liberal and Conservative members have fallen. When they think of transportation, the Post Office, or mail delivery, they do not think of these things in terms of public utilities and services.


Paul Yewchuk: I talked about transportation.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: They keep harping back to the same theme, that somehow the Post Office or the transport system is essentially competitive in nature and is part and parcel of what they like to call the free enterprise economy and similar in principle, although different in operation, to other aspects of the free enterprise economy, such as a multiple number of retail outlets or a multiple number of plants making lumber. That is why some of the criticism I have heard about the postal service seem to me artificial and shallow.
The Postmaster General, perhaps as a result of circumstances, is playing a rather low-key role. Some of our debates on this topic may have been more exciting a few years ago when one of his predecessors was in office. I would bring to his attention and ask him to look at the preamble to the National Transportation Act which was piloted through this House by the former member for Bonavista-Twillingate who was later elevated to a position from which he could oversee our transportation systems. Then he might examine some of the day to day problems relating to the effective and efficient delivery of mail. Then if he will take a little time to think about it, he may be able to exert pressure on the thinking of his colleagues in the government in a way which may help to resolve some of the problems that many of us mention to him from day to day. In some ways they have become more severe and in other ways, perhaps, there have been improvements.
I think there has been overemphasis on technology in urban centres because many areas of the country are still in the horse-and-buggy days. I think I only need mention, in closing, some of the representations he has been receiving from revenue postmasters to indicate what is in the back of my mind.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being five o'clock it is my duty to inform this House that, pursuant to Section (11) of Standing Order 58, the proceedings on this motion are deemed to have expired and terminated. This House stands adjourned until two o'clock Monday afternoon.
At 5.01 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.