1976-05-21

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to put forward a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43. In the light of an apparently unique opportunity to benefit egg producers through reduced producer levels while simultaneously benefiting consumers through lower retail prices by the alternation of egg import policies, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. McKinley):
That the government designate the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency as the applicant and first receiver of all imported eggs.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 can be presented only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!


TRANSPORT
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of utmost importance to Western Canada, that being the recent order in council of the federal government which will increase freight rates applicable to the movement of rapeseed products and which will in turn have the effect of curtailing one of Western Canada's most promising industries, namely, rapeseed processing. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith):
That the Ministry of Transport refrain from any such move until thorough consultation can take place between the affected parties in Western Canada and the question of rate structures can be examined in detail by the Standing Committee on Transportation of this House.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43 the motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion concerning a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that French is one of the official languages of Canada, that it is even the primary language of work in Quebec, considering that French-speaking pilots request the authorization to use French in air-to-ground communications, at least within the limits of Quebec, and that it has been shown that the use of French can sometimes become an important security factor, as indicated in the statement by Arvida pilot Marcel Deschamps who could save his own life, that of a passenger and his aircraft thanks to the cooperation of the military air controller at CFB Bagotville and of the captain of military helicopter 08 who both agreed to speak French, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
That the House unanimously approve the use of French in air communications over Quebec territory.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; therefore the motion cannot be put.


René Matte: I did not hear anybody say no!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to raise a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The Ukrainian historian Valentyn Moroz who for a number of years has been in a Soviet prison, has recently been transferred to a psychiatric institution for later transfer to a prison psychiatric hospital. His wife has made an appeal to the West to

May 21, 1976
Olympic Games
prevent this transfer from occurring, since she believes he is not mentally ill.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather):
That the Parliament of Canada, through the office of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, make a representation to the Soviet authorities on humanitarian grounds with a view to preventing Mr. Moroz from being incarcerated in a psychiatric institution.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 cannot be presented to the House in the absence of unanimous consent. I might add that, in line with the ruling I made last week I have some serious misgivings about the jurisdictional aspect of this proposed motion-


An hon. Member:: No!


Mr. Speaker:: In any case, there not being consent, the motion cannot be put.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I rise to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity relating to irregularities in the sale and distribution of Olympic lottery tickets and also to the fact that, in the second to last lottery draw, there were 980,000 unsold tickets which remained on the computers, thus reducing considerably the chances of winning of ticket purchasers across the country. For the sake of public protection I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That this House instruct the Solicitor General to look into the aspects of irregularities relating to the sale and distribution of Olympic lottery tickets and confirm whether or not members of the RCMP are in fact investigating these irregularities, particularly the case relating to one Marcel Lambert of Montreal-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto John Jelinek: -not to be confused with the illustrious member-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think we have to exercise caution that the content of a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 is sufficient to expose the urgency of the matter without embarking upon a debate of any sort. I think the hon. member has developed sufficient information to demonstrate the urgency of the motion.


Otto John Jelinek: Then, may I reword the motion, Mr. Speaker. I move that the Solicitor General look into these irregularities-
-and further obtain from the offices of Samson, Blair and Associates in Place Victoria in Montreal the records of the last lottery draw in order to determine the actuarial soundness and fairness of the Olympic lottery program.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 can be presented only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hort. Members: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HUNGARIAN PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
Mr. Speaker:: Before beginning the oral question period I know all hon. members would want to join with me in briefly calling attention to the presence in our gallery of a very distinguished group of visitors, namely, a delegation from the Hungarian National Assembly, led by their very distinguished Deputy Speaker, Mr. Janos Peter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development but in his absence I will direct it to the Prime Minister. It relates to the statement of policy on the proposed petroleum and natural gas act and the new Canada oil and gas land regulations tabled Wednesday afternoon by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that the new policy is a joint statement by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and there is no reference whatever to northerners, in particular to the native people, and in view of the fact that the policy is one of exploitation of the north and northerners for southern needs without an over-all strategy for development of the north, would the Prime Minister not agree that this policy will prejudice responsible land claims settlements in the north?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker.


John Robert Holmes: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Notwithstanding the fact that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development have skated around this most important issue, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether there is any provision in the new policy for the advancement of royalties to native people and, if not, will such provisions be included in the proposed legislation that we are to see at a later date?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, these matters are being discussed in various forums, some of which I described a few days ago. In particular, they are being discussed at the
May 21, 1976

present time in direct negotiations with the peoples of the north, particularly the natives of the Yukon.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, I have some supplementary questions for the Minister of the Environment which arise out of this statement, together with the statement of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development entitled "Land and Environmental Control", which unfortunately does not seem to have been prepared in consultation with the Department of the Environment. In view of the statement of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development that public hearings will accompany new development in the north, would the Minister of the Environment tell the House whether or not in his view oil and gas exploration licences and agreement require public hearings before their issuance?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the hon. member wants to have a legal opinion or is asking for one right now on the morality aspect under the rules. I do not know what you have in mind.


William Herbert Jarvis: A moral opinion will do.


Jean Marchand: I have no objection to Northern Affairs issuing the permits. I know this is done in co-operation with all departments concerned. I have been consulted and that is all I need.


METHOD OF CONTROLLING ISSUANCE OF LICENCES FOR OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION
William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to find out what consultative provisions there are. In view of the fact that the great bulk of resource development in the north will occur in the oil and gas sectors, will the minister tell the House how he or his associate, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, intend to control development in light of the fact that oil and gas regulations will come under the supervision of the resources management agency which, in my view, has no input from either his department or the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development? How does he intend to control the issuance of the licences?


Jean Marchand: I think the best example we have of this is what happened in respect of the Beaufort Sea. The department was consulted all the way along and the decision was made by cabinet after consideration of all aspects of the situation. I think it is the role of the department to bring to the attention of the cabinet all of the environmental aspects of develop-
Oral Questions
ment in the north, and I intend to keep doing that. I think it is the normal process.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, I quite agree with the Minister, but there are no regulations that ensure this. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development used the words "environmentally insignificant exploration activities". I should like to ask the Minister of the Environment what he considers as environmentally insignificant exploration activities and where these activities are potentially likely? I have used used the words of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, but what do they mean to the Minister of the Environment?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be proper for me to interpret what the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development meant by the expression quoted. I think the hon. member should put the question to the minister who can tell him exactly what he meant by it.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Considering that just about a week ago his department took steps to initiate a study on passenger rail transportation in the Quebec-Montreal area on the one hand, and the Toronto-Windsor area on the other, and that this study is supposed to be completed by July of this year, will he explain the extraordinary announcement which involves $30 million as a gift to the CPR for expanded rail services at this time in the Quebec-Montreal area? Will he tell us why the money was given to the CPR now before he has the results of the study, and can he say why it was given to the CPR when the CNR already has much better service in the area? Finally, can he tell us if this has anything to do with the beginning of the public advertising by the Liberal party in Quebec for the next provincial election?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, let me dispose, first of all, of the last suggestion which, of course, is completely ridiculous, and I say so straightforwardly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: The study that has been going on of the sections of tract in the Quebec-Windsor corridor has been on much longer than just the week to which the hon. member referred. It is our intention to see progressive improvement on the whole section as, indeed, in other parts of railway sections throughout the country as passenger service is committed to them in line with the new policy of more complete compensation. I think the hon. member made something of a mistake in thinking of the $30 million as a gift to the CPR. It is a part of the over-all program which will have us bearing certain parts of the

May 21, 1976
Oral Questions
cost where upgrading and improvement in services are planned.
Of course, in the particular case of choosing one line, it will be that line where the expenditure will be made. What is really involved is that in the case of the Quebec-Mont-real section, it has been our judgment that the particular rail line on which passenger services will be run efficiently in the future with new trains happens to be the CPR line.


William Herbert Jarvis: Why?


Otto Emil Lang: Because it is our judgment that this is the best line for that service. We will in fact be selecting lines in that fashion throughout the country, and we hope that the actual operations of passenger services will in fact be under the management of one joint company, and not particularly the CPR. No doubt the CNR will have the greater part to play in it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSSIBILITY CROWN AGENCY WILL RUN RAIL PASSENGER SERVICE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the minister said it was not a gift, but I remind him that it is a 100 per cent subsidy, so he can call it what he likes. My supplementary question refers back to the Liberal party's campaign promise in the 1974 general election in which it was asserted that a new Crown agency of some sort was to be established to take over existing CPR and CNR passenger services. I put this question to the minister: Does the government still intend to go ahead with this plan or does this announcement by him in an ad hoc way mean the government is planning to abandon that proposal or when it implements it will we buy back from CP the $30 million gift we are giving it?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I really find it extraordinary that the Leader of the New Democratic Party has not seen in this announcement the simple continuation of what was clearly indicated in my policy statement to the House of Commons in January. This simply is an implementation, which was indicated at that time, of one phase of the over-all program. I indicated at that time that whereas initially we had thought in terms of a new corporation to operate the passenger service which might be a direct government Crown corporation, we had judged at that point in time that it might be better to have a company which was really formed by CN-CP, much like the telecommunications operation, rather than come in with our own. But we do believe one company has to be operating passenger rail service in this country in order to have efficient and good passenger service. We will fall back upon our own creature if that is required.
This $30 million is not a transfer of money but will be compensation for a specific cost outlay in passenger service. Again in the policy statement it was made clear that we believed it essential to move to a total compensation system in order to have a good rail passenger system. The alternative simply is that the railways have to find cash by taxing other goods or they run down their service. We

believe that if there is good rail passenger service in this country it must be paid for by the passengers or the taxpayers. It is as simple as that.


REASON FOR DEALING WITH PASSENGER SERVICE ON PIECEMEAL BASIS RATHER THAN AWAIT COMPLETION OF STUDY
John Edward Broadbent: The CP has
been systematically dismantling its service for 15 years. That is as simple as that. I do not know why the minister did not bail out the CN instead of the CP.
My final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, is: Given the obvious intention of the minister's department to now dismantle on a piecemeal basis a good deal of the passenger service-and I am thinking in particular of western Canada which should be of some passing concern to the minister-could he tell us why he is proceeding on this piecemeal basis with the decision in Montreal when he has a report just initiated, I repeat, a week ago which is not due until July covering that area and before he finally presents to the House of Commons an over-all integrated national transportation system.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party once again talks about piecemeal style. I presume he would want us to fix a particular point in time when all the tracks that are to be lifted and replaced are moved simultaneously, otherwise, it is a piecemeal program. That is nonsense.


John Edward Broadbent: It is not nonsense.


Otto Emil Lang: The announcement yesterday indicated that we were progressively moving in relation to all rail areas in Canada where passenger service is justified. We propose to do that. Indeed, in the very announcement yesterday, it was indicated that the tender call would be a request for prices on up to ten new trains, of which only three would be in the Quebec-Montreal corridor. If it should turn out between the time these are in and we have made our evaluation that we can go for the larger number of trains, we will do so and be that much further ahead in terms of service. The announcement also indicated that we did not expect a delay in improvements in rail passenger service in other areas but that that could proceed progressively. It is our objective to have good rail passenger service in this country wherever we can afford it, but it is also our objective to recognize the interest of the taxpayers in not maintaining service where good alternate service is available.



OLYMPIC GAMES


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
May 21, 1976

In answer to a question I put to him with regard to the discrimination, boycotting or segregating that may exist in the participation of athletes in the Montreal Olympic Games, the minister said that in all cases brought to his attention he had not found a single incident based on discrimination. Here is my question: Is the minister aware of the three articles published in the newspaper La Presse on May 6, 7 and 8 last, signed by Francois Beliveau and dealing with this subject, and more specifically has he looked into the case of the national handball team made up mostly of Quebecers which team, until recently, received no government subsidy because it was not representative enough of Canada, that is, because it was more representative of Quebec?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I had a quick look at the articles in question, but did not have the opportunity of looking into the case any further. Should the hon. member want me to do so, I should be pleased to meet his wishes but, to my mind, it does not necessarily constitute a case of discrimination. However, if more specific details are given, I shall have a closer look at the point brought up by the hon. member.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Transport. Having in mind the very timely and appropriate words of the Official Languages Commissioner as used in the press release earlier this week to the effect that the only sensible language of aviation is that of safety, and taking into account the discussions which the minister had with the controllers on Wednesday of this week, I believe, can the minister now clarify for the House and the country the terms of reference of the public inquiry into safety in the air space over the province of Quebec and tell us whether and in what respect the terms of reference have been broadened?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, while negotiations are going on I do not think I would want to add to the words I have already used about the general direction. Of course, I can say to the hon. member that I, myself, have said a number of times something similar to what Mr. Spicer has said, indicating that safety had to be pre-eminent. Indeed, our whole procedure in moving toward the use of French and English in air traffic control in Quebec was dictated with safety in mind, that is, in going to the two languages for visual flight at the first five airports. Also safety is the pre-eminent watchword in the development of procedures as we move forward with that program.


Donald W. Munro: May I ask the minister then what long range plans he has in mind for ensuring that air traffic controllers will not have to vote again on a
Oral Questions
walkout in order to be heard on matters affecting air safety. In other words, what steps are in hand to ensure that confrontation is replaced by consensus?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, they certainly do not have to resort to any vote in order to be heard. Indeed, we have been consulting with them constantly and any absence of consultation has only been on occasions when they were unable to attend a meeting. Certainly, they have been fully involved in preparations at each stage and in each task force. I have agreed that they will participate in the simulation experiments, for instance, but they have not attended at this time because they were busy with negotiations and not for any other reason.



AIR CANADA


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday I informed the minister that War-nock Hersey Limited of which Yves Menard, a former Air Canada vice president, is a director owed Air Canada for 400 air tickets. Last Friday, the day after I raised the matter in the House, a bank transfer for $44,000 was received by Air Canada in Winnipeg to pay for the 400 missing tickets, but this has presented another problem. The Warnock Hersey account is missing and Air Canada does not know where to apply the money. Will the minister now reconsider and have the Auditor General's department conduct an immediate investigation and establish a proper account system at the Air Canada finance branch in Winnipeg?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it is my basic belief that the management of Air Canada should be left to the management of Air Canada, and I am sure they will do a good job.


An hon. Member:: Mismanagement.



REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION OF FINANCE BRANCH AT WINNIPEG AND ASSURANCE BRANCH NOT MOVED TO MONTREAL

A. Daniel McKenzie: That certainly is not my belief. I would like to address a question to the Prime Minister in view of the fact that the Minister of Transport is not prepared to take any action. I should like to point out to the Prime minister that, since there are no longer any enforced controls on travel agents reporting ticket sales and, as of October, 1975, there were an excess of 96,000 unreported travel agent ticket sales, which represents a minimum of $2,208,000 unpaid for transportation, will the Prime Minister launch an immediate investigation and also give an assurance that the finance branch will not be moved to Montreal? Will he also check to see when the lease expires in the Richardson Building in Winnipeg?


An hon. Member:: What building?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the very question, which is a mishmash of various questions, is proof positive that the government should not

May 21, 1976
Oral Questions
be trying to run one of its Crown corporations from the floor of the House of Commons. I note that the hon. member does not agree with that view, but if he wants us to start interfering with the management of Crown corporations, he had better stand up and say that that is his party's policy, and then we will consider whether it is worth taking seriously.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Since when did you ask our position on anything?


A. Daniel McKenzie: We are talking about public money and taxpayers' money, and I would like to point out to the Prime Minister that at the present time there are employees sitting in the offices doing nothing.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member was permitted a rather strong representation as a preliminary to his second supplementary. In this question I wonder whether he would go directly to the question.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Yes, I can go directly to the question. Air Canada is paying outside contractors $6 per hour to do ticket sorting while ticket sorters are sitting idle in the offices of the Winnipeg finance branch, and I think the Prime Minister is going to have to take some responsibility here to get this mess cleaned up.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The only responsibility I will take at this present time is the one which the Minister of Transport properly took in answering the question. We will refer the concerns of the hon. member to the Crown corporation and trust it to deal with them properly. If the Crown corporation does not deal with them properly, surely that will be brought to light by the report of the accountants who audit the books of the corporation. The hon. member shakes his head, but this is the principle of Crown corporations. They should not be managed on a day to day basis by the government, even upon representations in the House of Commons. For instance, frequently representations are made about the CBC. The hon. member, and certainly his party, would not like us to interfere with the management of the CBC, in spite of the representations they make. We refer these questions to the Crown corporations and trust that they will be dealt with fairly.



REQUEST FOR CONSULTATION WITH UNION REPRESENTATIVES CONCERNING DANGER OF CANCER CAUSED BY BLUE FIBRE ASBESTOS

Hon. Martin O'Connell (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the government reached any decision regarding the banning of the import into Canada of blue fibre asbestos? I ask this question again in view of the

danger to workers of a fatal cancer caused by blue fibre asbestos. Will the minister undertake to consult, with respect to this danger and this request, with the unions representing workers at the Johns-Manville plant in Scarborough?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, a while ago the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and myself announced our intention to proceed to the banning of blue fibre asbestos. There have been consultations with the firm involved after it made further scientific representations. We have since examined those further scientific representations. We have come to the conclusion that those representations were not of such a nature as to change our original intention. My colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, intends to make an announcement shortly on this subject, and I think he should be the one to answer with regard to this particular aspect.
As far as the latter part of the question is concerned, I am pleased to receive the representation of the hon. member with regard to the unions concerned. I will instruct my officials to make themselves available to the union officials, at their convenience, and to make available to them the scientific information we have on this particular subject.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the area between Windsor and Toronto is the most densely populated area along the entire length of the proposed corridor and that the CPR has been permitted over the years to evade its responsibilities by discontinuing passenger services totally in this area, despite the fact that it has the best operating line which does not need any subsidy, can the minister assure the House that it is his intention to restore CPR passenger services in that area and to integrate the CPR lines, which are the better lines, with the CNR lines? If so, when will he have an answer?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the representation from the hon. member that we might consider which line is indeed the better line for service between Toronto and Windsor as between the CPR and the CNR and not just automatically choose one over the other on some a priori criteria. I will certainly be glad to make a thorough re-examination of the question of the communities involved and the type of service which would be involved on the two lines.


Max Saltsman: In view of the great importance of the restoration of passenger service in many areas of southern Ontario, and into Bruce peninsula as well, will the minister assure the House that he will invite representations from the affected communities so that they can put their cases to his department in order to get the CPR to restore its services?


Otto Emil Lang: I will be very glad indeed to receive representations.
May 21, 1976



SUPPLY AND SERVICES


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Supply and Services. Yesterday on a point of order raised by the hon. member for New Westminster the minister undertook to table a letter of agreement dated March 31, 1976 and articles of a negotiated draft contract referred to in the letter of agreement involving the contract dealing with the Orion, but earlier in the question period he indicated that he would not table the unsigned contract. In view of what he said after the preliminary question by the hon. member for Victoria, has the minister considered his position, and would he reconsider his position and table the original unsigned contract requested by the hon. member for Victoria so that the House may have all the documents with respect to the matter.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, the rationale behind tabling the letter of agreement is that it constitutes an authorization of payment, and I said that I was also going to table the articles related to the letter of agreement because this was the whole contractual agreement we had with Lockheed. Otherwise, there is no contract as such, and I cannot table in the House an unsigned document.


Walter David Baker: I am sure that with the unanimous consent of the House the minister could table anything. In any event, the reason the question is asked- and I think the minister should know this-is that there may well be more to this in terms of public examination which should take place than merely the authorization of payment, terms and condition and a number of other things which were in the contemplation of the parties. Would the minister please reconsider and table the unsigned document, so that the House and not the minister alone can make a judgment with respect to what is contained in that document? Otherwise, the minister is withholding, perhaps, some information, and I wish he would reconsider the matter in that regard.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: This is totally untrue. As a matter of fact, I stated in the House that I was going to table the contract in the eventuality of the signing of the contract, so that would have then become public. We had nothing to hide. However, the problem is that now there is no legal obligation, according to this proposed contract, so why should it be tabled? In the event there is another contract, of course, it would be.


Walter David Baker: The minister asked why it should be tabled. The reason that these questions are being asked is that there are reports that Lockheed and the government may have been discussing matters yesterday, and in order to consider the results, if any, of those discussions I think it is fair and important to hon. mem-
Oral Questions
bers and to the country to know the original basis of discussion so that judgments can be made. In view of that would the minister consider again-he can consider it overnight-tabling this unsigned contract, in view of the reports that negotiations are continuing with Lockheed? How can we make a comparison?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: I am sorry to say, Mr. Speaker, that the arguments of the hon. member have not changed my mind.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion but no doubt the acting minister can handle it. It concerns the recent report of the Atlantic Development Council, a body established by the minister's department and is in regard to the effect of the Regional Development Incentives Act upon the economy of Atlantic Canada. Considering the depressing and discouraging findings of the council, can the minister advise if consideration will be given to new programs and planning which might actually improve the Atlantic economy and reverse the slowdown which the report notes?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Acting Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of my colleague, as acting minister I shall be glad to convey the representations to him on his return.



NATIONAL GALLERY


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State in his capacity as the minister responsible for lending assistance to the arts. It arises out of the resignation of the director of the National Gallery. What consideration is being given to a restructuring of the National Museums Corporation and its relationship with the National Gallery as the search for a new director of the gallery begins?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, that is not being contemplated at this time. As the hon. member knows representatives of the National Museums Corporation appeared before the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts last year. They spent some time discussing the structure and answered most of the questions put by members at that time. I have reread the testimony and have the impression that there was some support for the structure. We should not lose sight of the fact that in the years since the corporation has been in place we now have 25 associate museums established across Canada which did not exist as such before and we have 30 new national exhibition cen-

May 21, 1976
Oral Questions
tres. I think the record of the corporation has been quite commendable. I am not minimizing the fact that there may be problems, but in terms of the over-all thrust of the corporation, in my judgment it has served this country well.



CONTRIBUTION OF DR. BOGGS AS DIRECTOR-POSSIBILITY NEW DIRECTOR WILL BE A PROFESSIONAL

Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I too have a question for the Secretary of State. I wonder whether he could say something about the contribution made by Dr. Boggs to the cultural life of this country and whether her successor will be a professional?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, the question asked previously was about the corporation. I have said many times that Dr. Boggs' contribution not only to the National Gallery but to the cultural life of this country has been exceptional. It has been at the very highest level. I think the legacy of Dr. Boggs is found in the gallery today in the level of curators and research staff we have there as well as the obvious thrust toward the purchase of Canadian art. Everyone in the government, and on the other side as well, would, I am sure, want to join with me in saying that she has made a marvellous contribution to Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Hugh Faulkner: I can also confess that certain efforts were made to try to make her stay.
On the question of a successor, Mr. Speaker, a search committee has been formed and the decision by the chairman of the board of trustees is to make that search as wide as possible to cover all areas of interest in the gallery- artists through museum directors, etc. It will be a wide comprehensive search with the fullest possible participation.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Fortunately, the action taken by the British Columbia government yesterday has given a 21-day cooling off period but I should like to ask the minister what plans the government has to guarantee uninterrupted service to the hundreds of war veterans in hospitals in Vancouver in view of the prolonged hospital workers' strike in that province which has spread to seven of the hospitals in greater Vancouver?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we have had no problem in British Columbia or many other provinces up to this time. In the past when we have had interruptions as a result of profes-

sional people going on strike, sufficient people have usually been retained by law to look after our veteran patients.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the minister's concern and I should like to ask if he will ensure-even though they have had no problem until now-that the service will continue uninterrupted in the event of the resumption of this strike?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, we are always very close to the situation. When our transfers are completed there is always a guarantee in there for care of patients. We have people situated in those hospitals who are responsible for the care of veterans. I can assure the hon. member that my department will be checking this. As of today, we will look into the situation.



FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR PRE-OLYMPIC BASKETBALL TOURNAMENT AT HAMILTON

Mr. Gus MacFarlane (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I wonder whether he or someone in his department could say whether there has been any confirmation of financial assistance to the pre-Olympic basketball tournament which is to be held in Hamilton? The people of Hamilton are quite interested in this in view of their recent wonderful experience in Montreal when the Hamilton Finn Cups won the memorial cup?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have received numerous representations on this particular subject. I am pleased to confirm that I have approved a subsidy of $30,000 for the holding of these games.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. About a month ago I asked a question regarding joining together Canada Manpower centres and unemployment insurance offices. At that time the minister said he had previously answered that question. I looked back in Hansard and found that in fact he had put off the answer. Now that he has had a couple of months' respite, could the minister indicate to the House if he intends to join the function of the Canadian Manpower Centres and the unemployment insurance centres?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated that we are seriously examining this option. If and when a decision to do so is made, it will be made public and in this House.
May 21, 1976



OIL AND GAS LAND USE REGULATIONS-FEDERAL JURISDICTION OVER OFFSHORE LANDS ON EAST COAST

Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources but in his absence I shall direct it to the Prime Minister. The question relates to the proposed new Canada oil and gas land regulations and their application to offshore lands, particularly on the east coast. Since jurisdiction over the east coast offshore land is claimed by the provinces concerned, can the Prime Minister inform the House of the nature of its agreements with these provinces which allow the federal government to unilaterally set the land use regulations for these lands?


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister for Energy, Mines and Resources answered this question in the debate that ensued after the oil and gas regulations were announced earlier this week. He indicated that he was very hopeful that an agreement could be reached between the federal and provincial governments with regard to the royalties accruing to the government on the offshore oil and gas.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, is the parliamentary secretary able to offer any assurance to the House that any such agreement will precede the introduction of the land use regulations so that prior to asking the House to debate the subject of these proposed regulations members can be sure that a firm agreement has been reached with these provinces?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can give that assurance. I think we will go ahead with the legislation this fall and hope that a suitable agreement can be reached between the two levels of government.



STABILIZATION PROGRAM-ALLEGED INABILITY OF GOVERNMENT TO FULFIL FINANCIAL COMMITMENT TO PROGRAM

Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the fact that the minister has been trying to sell the western grains stabilization program to producers for a considerable time, even as late as a month ago on a tour through western Canada, may I ask if he was aware at that time that the government would not be in a financial position to fulfil its commitment this year to that program which, according to the minister's figures, could be up to $100 million?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the fact that at this point in time an actual accounting item has not been put on to the books of the stabilization plan has no impact whatever upon the plan. In terms of the cash transfer, the money is owed to the plan and is earning interest. Notwithstanding the actual delay in payment, it will be made at any time a payment out of the plan is
Oral Questions
needed, or earlier if that meets the fiscal framework. I would hope the hon. member would not try to discourage anyone from joining the plan. Surely, he should realize that the plan is to the great advantage of each and every producer.



RATE OF INTEREST ON AMOUNT TO BE TRANSFERRED TO STABILIZATION FUND

Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. Minister that I am trying to encourage people to enter the plan. Since producers are compelled to meet their commitment under this program to make a fund available for federal government use-which suggests that they are helping the government instead of the government assisting them-is the minister aware that more than double the financial burden of payment and interest will be placed on the federal treasury next year, which could create financial difficulty? The question is, will provision be made for it and can the minister inform the House what the interest rate will be for the outstanding amount as a result of this so-called sneaky trick?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the interest is the same as it would be if the amount were transferred, so that there is no difference whatever. It is not a trick. It is a matter of fiscal framework and the only time that the actual availability of the cash is important is at the time of the payout of the fund and that is assured.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications, although I recognize that this is an area that falls under multiple jurisdiction. It arises from press reports that Bank Americard, the American counterpart of Chargex, is moving in selected markets toward an electronic funds transfer system which would eventually replace most cash payments. Apparently Interbank, which issues Master Charge, is looking into a similar system. The initial steps involve use of a card which would allow merchants to get electronic access to a customer's bank account and to make withdrawals from his account without the issuing of a cheque. Has the minister been following what has been taking place in the United States, and can she tell the House whether she is aware of any plans by financial institutions to introduce such a program into Canadian markets within the next year or two?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is referring to the matter of privacy in the future use of computerized data. We have developed a plan for our own operations inside government departments whereby we will protect the privacy of individuals with regard to the data we have on them in the

May 21, 1976
Oral Questions
sense that one department will not be able to transmit to another information it has on a particular person. We hope that private companies in Canada will emulate what we are doing in our departments. However, we are following, and this is the question asked by the hon. member, developments in the United States in order to see how we in this country can protect the privacy of the individual in light of the developments in the computer industry.



TRANSPORT


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, in the statement issued by the Minister of Transport with regard to improved corridor rail service, he indicates that the present rail time between Montreal and Toronto is four hours and 50 minutes and the possible improved rail time will be about four and a half hours. Does he hope to improve service to the point where it will take only 20 minutes to get from Montreal to Toronto or that the time will be cut by only 20 minutes? If so, does he consider that enough change to affect rail travel between Montreal and Toronto?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that service between Toronto and Montreal is now really quite good and is attractive to passengers. The kinds of things that can be done with a reasonable amount of money will only make a marginal difference, but will still be justified. This is the very reason we have selected other parts of the scheme between Windsor and Quebec City for more dramatic action. In those cases, trip times can be improved rather significantly, particularly when new equipment is added which is as good or better than the Turbo equipment operating on the Toronto-Montreal line.



TYPE OF EQUIPMENT TO BE USED TO IMPROVE RAIL PASSENGER SERVICE

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Have the Department of Transport and the railway companies made firm decisions with regard to the type of equipment they consider ideal in the circumstances or is this still a matter of research? In other words, has the government decided the optimum equipment for this run or is this still subject to research?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there have been some decisions about the numbers of trains in order to justify certain frequencies of routes. The exact type of train will be judged finally after the tenders have been received from various possible suppliers. Naturally, we have made some preliminary judgments about advantages and the like, but clearly cost will enter into it. We will make a final judgment after the bids have been received.



CANADA CUP HOCKEY SERIES-REQUEST FOR WIDER TELEVISION COVERAGE THAN IS PROVIDED BY CTV NETWORK

Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare as minister responsible for the federal role in sports. Recently, the minister announced that the CTV network has been accorded the right to broadcast the Canada Cup hockey series next fall. Will the minister take steps to ensure that all Canadians, including those not living within the CTV viewing area, will in fact be able to see the broadcasts of the Canada Cup games?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the organizing committee proceeded on a negotiated tender basis between the two main networks in Canada. I have drawn to their attention the importance of having the widest possible coverage. It is true that the combination of the CTV English and French network will not have the same broad coverage as the CBC. Again, let me say that I have drawn this to the attention of the organizing committee. I am advised that discussions will likely take place between the CTV and CBC in the near future on this subject.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Yesterday the minister announced he would be spending millions of dollars on improving intercity service in central Canada. Will he assure us today that he will shortly be announcing the establishment of intercity service in the prairies?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I previously announced our intention to start to improve all services in the west as well as in the Atlantic. Hearings now going on before the CTC will give some preliminary indication about which services can be justified and are desirable. It is our expectation that as soon as those decisions are made as to what service can be maintained, investment will be made as required for track and equipment to improve the services.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Will the minister give assurance that there will be an intercity passenger service in the prairies which in effect we do not have today?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that there will be good passenger service in the prairies. The exact nature of it and whether it would be classified as intercity as distinct from transcontinental really awaits the decision of the CTC. I expect there will be intercity links as well as transcontinental service.

May 21, 1976



HOUSING


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, I will direct my question to the acting minister because it is urgent. In light of the new housing regulations which, according to knowledgeable people in the field, have completely destroyed a co-operative housing program pioneered over a 40-year period by the Extension Department of St. Francis Xavier University, indeed one which has been an example to all of North America, and because of the urgency to provide much needed housing for low income working families, will the minister have these new regulations investigated and eliminated?


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of the question, look into it immediately and report to the hon. member.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
Considering that there is a possibility of a strike by air traffic controllers, has the minister considered a mechanism to avoid this strike which would undoubtedly affect the whole country?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations are continuing, but there has been no settlement at this point. Therefore, the threat of strike remains.



ALLEGED BREAKDOWN OF NEGOTIATIONS WITH AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS-GOVERNMENT ACTION

Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. Can the minister confirm or deny rumours within the past few hours that negotiations have in fact broken down between Treasury Board and the air traffic controllers? What is the present situation? If this is so, can the minister advise what possibility there is for renewed negotiations within a matter of hours or days, keeping in mind the vital importance of this to the whole country?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, following the meeting between myself, Mr. Livingston and a couple of his colleagues the day before yesterday, there was a meeting yesterday with the bargaining teams to discuss the specific terms of remuneration under the contract. It may be that no progress of any note was made at that time. I asked Mr. Livingston to meet me again this afternoon to discuss further the question of the terms of reference and so on, because I would like to bring that to a
Oral Questions
conclusion. We made some real progress in our previous discussion and really had very little disagreement. I thought that issue could be cleared out of the way. Mr. Livingston indicated that he is not able to meet with me, but I do not call that a breakdown in negotiations.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Minister of Supply and Services for coming back into the House. My point of order has to do with the answers he gave to my questions today. My question arose out of a question put to the minister yesterday by the hon. member for Victoria. It referred to the original document which was called an unsigned contract in the course of the question and the answer. In the course of his answer to the hon. member for Victoria, the minister said-and here I am quoting from page 13698 of Hansard:
The document in question has not been signed by the parties and as such it simply does not exist, legally speaking.
Today I asked him to table a piece of paper which is an unsigned document, according to him, but I am wondering whether that is the case. I am wondering whether the minister might not inadvertantly have misled the House. The fact is, at the time the Lockheed negotiations came to the crunch it was reported to the press that the agreement had been made and signed, according to my recollection, and that it had been put into escrow awaiting confirmation of the financial arrangements. If that is the case, and if the government was speaking the truth when it spoke to the people of Canada on that occasion, there is at least some question that the effect and the nature of the document was much more than merely that of an unsigned piece of paper.
If the government was telling the truth when it made the announcement to the people of Canada that arrangements had been made, completed, signed, sealed and delivered subject to escrow relating only to confirmation of the financial arrangements, then the document sets out in detail the terms and conditions of the relationship between Lockheed and the government of Canada. It therefore becomes a significant documents in terms of public discussion of the situation concerning the Lockheed transaction. Moreover, in view of press reports that Lockheed is still sniffing around for a transaction, reports which have not been denied by the government, then in terms of any subsequent contract which might be negotiated the existence of the old arrangements setting out the terms and conditions of that relationship become important. I rise on a point of order to say that in the circumstances I have outlined the minister might well have misled the House as to the nature of the document referred to yesterday by the hon. member for Victoria and referred to by myself today.
I do not want to put the minister on the spot today, Mr. Speaker, but I would ask him to reconsider the decision he has taken and table that part of the documentation relating to a transaction which, by his own admission, will cost the country $16 million and, in the opinion of others, very much more. Does he not believe this is the kind of document which ought to be tabled? I feel that the minister should reconsider his position on the basis of these submissions. My point of order is that it would be contrary to parliamentary practice to fail to do so. It would be contrary

May 21, 1976
Reports of Comittees
to the principle that we ought to be given information with respect to this kind of undertaking. I ask the minister to reconsider the position he has taken, in all the circumstances.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a point of order to the Minister of Transport since the Prime Minister has left the House. The Prime Minister stated today, in regard to my question about Air Canada's financial branch, that it is not government policy to become involved in the affairs of a Crown corporation. I should like to point out to the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It appears that the hon. member is seeking to differ from or disagree with answers given to him during the question period. Opportunities to do this are provided in the course of debate. It is not fair to allow one member to rise on a point of order to pursue objections or disagreements which are really the subject of debate. If the hon. member has a point which concerns the order of business for the day, or in general, I will hear him.


A. Daniel McKenzie: My point of order is that the Estey report, which cost Canadian taxpayers $400,000, specifically states there are problems in Air Canada's financial branch, and the government will be fully justified in dispatching an auditor there because of what is contained in the Estey report.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Eleventh report of Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections-Mr. Blaker.

[Stage Direction]
Eleventh report of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders-Mr. Loiselle (Chambly) for chairman.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago I raised a point of order. There was no response from the minister with respect to the matter, nor was there any response from the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister is in no way obliged to respond to the point of order which the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton raised. I believe the hon. member realizes that he did, in fact, make a strenuous representation to the minister, an extension of the question which had already been put to the minister three times, asking him to 
reconsider his decision with regard to the tabling of a document. If the minister wishes, he may respond, but he is certainly not obliged to do so.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, simply to clear up confusion I understand the hon. member and I would like to say that some very accurate distinctions should be made. They are not easy to make. The hon. member refers to a contract which was signed and put in escrow. It was dated April 30, 1976, but one condition for the escrow has not been met, namely the financing of the contract. It is understood that consequently the contract became null and void because the condition was not met. If we refer to March 30, we see that there was a draft agreement, a letter of agreement which continues to bind the parties and represents an obligation to pay up $16 million. This concerns the House. This document must necessarily be tabled, and I committed myself to do so when its translation is completed.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, there is confirmation of the signing of the document-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is obvious we are getting into discussion of the question itself.


Mr. Leggatt:: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order on the same subject. It concerns the minister's statement yesterday that he would table the document relating to the renewal of the option. However, he did not take the occasion today to rise under Standing Order 41(2) in order to do so. Perhaps he could explain why the document was not tabled. Surely there has been sufficient time for the translation to have been completed.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: The explanation is very simple. There are articles in the letter of agreement which we have to translate. This is not just a one-page clause in a contract; there are many pages. But the work is going on and probably on Monday I shall be in a position to table it.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: How about Tuesday?


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), I am pleased to table, in both official languages, copies of the Unemployment Insurance Advisory Committee's report on the appeal system, as well as copies of correspondence between the chairman of the committee and myself.


Walter David Baker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the Postmaster General is about to rise and make a statement on motions with respect to the operations of the Post Office which are the subject of an opposition motion today. In my respectful
May 21, 1976

submission to Your Honour, it would be a bad practice to allow the minister to make a statement in any event on an opposition day. It is bad practice in terms of the use of time on a short day. This is particularly so when the statement may very well relate to the operation of a department that is the subject of discussion and on which a vote will later be put before the House. Under the circumstances, I do not think the minister should make his statement now; rather, he should make it during the course of his representations in discussing the estimates later this afternoon.


Mr. Mackasey:: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the point raised by the House leader of the official opposition, I had the same misgivings in this regard. The postal estimates are up for examination, and it is a short day. I am not in regular communication with the Conservative party but out of courtesy I did raise the question and asked them to determine which way they wanted it. I am quite prepared to withdraw my statement and to make it during the course of my remarks. The only reason I have brought it forward today rather than some time next week is to make certain that the opposition is made aware of what it contains, so that they will have ample opportunity to comment on it in debate. I circulated the statement many hours ago, but I will follow the advice of the hon. member and make my statement later.
Change in Postal Rates
hear some representations perhaps after I have heard the statement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the principle that the opposition House leader placed before us, namely, that the government should not steal time from the opposition by putting down a statement on an opposition day.


Mr. Gillies:: Nor should the NDP, by speaking on points of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member will appreciate the fact that this point of order and the debate on it were started by the Progressive Conservative party. It seems to me that now we know about the statement and have copies of it, and since most of us know what is coming, it would be better to have a brief statement followed by brief replies, and we can do the rest in committee of the whole. If we go into committee of the whole and there are three opposition statements, and then the minister makes his statement, it is going to be a bit of a mess.


Mr. Speaker:: In the final analysis I am going to have to hear the statement and be guided at that time as to what steps should be taken. However, before proceeding I understand that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has a document to table.


Mr. Speaker:: In fairness, I must say that the Chair had a misgiving similar to that which occurred to hon. members. It has been suggested that the minister might be prepared to incorporate his remarks vis-a-vis the statement in committee of the whole and that that course should be followed. I hope that the House, when it goes into committee of the whole, will take this as an expression at least of the will of the House and that in the initial stages questioning ought to be permitted. There are 20-minute speeches in committee of the whole and the questioning process could easily be thwarted if the minister's statement is followed by a number of lengthy speeches. If, in committee of the whole members do follow the practice of immediately questioning the minister and getting in a round or two of questions, this might solve the problem much more satisfactorily. Is that agreed?
*
* *


TABLING OF REPORT ON ASBESTOS
Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I simply would like to table an English and French copy of the report by a task force on asbestosis drawn by a team of federal and provincial officials.

* *


POST OFFICE
Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to lead off with the statement, and I do not think there is any obligation on my part to do so. I am prepared to make a very short statement. There is no obligation on the opposition to answer that statement on motions. They can prepare their rebuttal or reply in the statements that they make during the course of discussing the estimates. I fully intend to participate in the debate during the rest of the day, but not necessarily as the first speaker. I think that is an option I have and which I should like to exercise.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The points have been well noted so far as the point of order is concerned. However, the minister has given an indication that he intends to make a statement. He has been called, and he has every right to do so. Under the Standing Orders, discretion is given to the Chair in regard to what steps should be taken respecting statements followed by questions, and I will


ANNOUNCEMENT OF CHANGE IN POSTAL RATES
Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I will make my statement as concisely as possible and I will read it as fast as possible. I mention that the volume of mail has increased tremendously in the last four years, from 4 billion to 5.5 billion pieces. Our surveys on service which have been taken weekly and monthly indicate that the level of service now being acheived by the Post Office is more and more acceptable to the Canadian people.
I draw attention to postal rates in other countries and to the fact that we have not increased our rates for four years. The United States is now charging a basic first-class rate of 13 cents, the United Kingdom 17 cents, France 18 cents, and Australia 23 cents. During this period of four years, costs have risen for such things as labour, fuel, transportation, buildings and machinery. The gap between the cost of

May 21, 1976
Change in Postal Rates
the service and the charge to our customers has continually widened.
More particularly, Post Office customers-and it may be of interest that 80 per cent of our mail is generated by 20 per cent of the users-have been asking us when we intend to increase our rates so that they can undertake their own planning for the future. We intend to introduce changes to the Post Office Act to deal with this whole question and our relationship with industry. Furthermore, in the interim we should like to introduce certain measures now in order to give as much notice as possible of how the Post Office is planning ahead. For this reason, using the authority under the Financial Administration Act, I intend to introduce an interim change in the basic first-class postal rates on September 1, 1976, from 8 cents to 10 cents, and a further increase in this rate on March 1, 1977, from 10 cents to 12 cents.
Canada Post Office recognizes that many of our customers were adversely affected by the recent postal disruptions. Consequently, some of the rate changes in other classes of mail will be graduated both to cushion the effect of the strike and to allow for longer range planning. As a result of strong representations made to me by my colleagues, in particular by the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) who is concerned for the welfare of the Canadian publishing industry, a 20 per cent increase in second-class mail rates will not take effect until March 1, 1977. I might point out that this is 20 per cent of the basic rate of five cents, so I am talking about a copper.
Changes in rates for other classes of mail, including the important third-class direct mail category, will go into effect on dates which are still under discussion with the appropriate parties. That is the association representing the bulk mail industry. The Post Office is planning a complete review of its rate structure in that category with the view to a more realistic determination of postal charges for the services rendered. There are some association which are currently using third-class mail for their publications, and these may warrant some form of government support or subsidy. I propose to review this question with my colleagues with the view to having certain departments assume the cost of any assistance which may be identified as a result of this review.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I want to agree immediately with the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) that there were some negotiations as to how we should handle the announcement that he has just made. When we moved into committee of supply yesterday there were discussions as to how we should proceed. We have got a little out of practise with the proper procedure in this regard.
When Your Honour indicated there were some precedents for making a statement of this kind on an opposition day, which today is going to be primarily concerned with Post Office affairs, I could see immediately that we were heading into some procedural difficulties. Now that the Postmaster General has made a statement, I will respond briefly and reserve my more detailed comments until we move into committee of the whole. The Postmaster General has chosen a rather unfortunate day to lead with his chin 
in this respect. He is an Irishman, and the Irish have a habit of doing things of this kind. There is another quality of the Irish which I think might be referred to at this juncture: they have the optimism of Finian in Finian's Rainbow.
Someone suggested, when we were discussing the announcement the Postmaster General was to make, that obviously the increased rates must be for the payment of the extended storage period required because of the continuing delay in the delivery of Canada's mail. My immediate response is to suggest to the Postmaster General that there is no evidence of restraint here. He must be having difficulty reconciling his role as Postmaster General in this respect with his new responsibility as Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
The proposed rate increase exceeds the Anti-Inflation Board guidelines and regulations. I suppose it is designed to overcome the growing deficit which has been increasing rather substantially with each passing year with the current deficit for the 1976-77 period estimated at some $630 million. Hon. members must agree that it requires a combination of sharply rising costs, mismanagement and inefficiency to run up a deficit of that size. That is a fair appraisal of the situation. The Postmaster General has frequently said there is a malaise, a sickness in the Post Office Department. We intend to suggest, during the course of the debate today, that this sickness or malaise still persists notwithstanding the optimistic note of the Postmaster General's statement this morning.
The statement was placed in an unfortunate context. The opening statement was to the effect that the Postmaster General restrained himself in announcing any increase in postal rates until the Post Office had achieved a satisfactory level of efficiency. In spite of reassuring statistics from postal officials about on-time delivery and efficiency, the public seems increasingly convinced that postal service has gone from bad to worse. I spend a good deal of my time, as Post Office critic, dealing with complaints which come in from all parts of Canada in respect of continuing problems of the Post Office Department. This will be substantiated by contributions my colleagues will make during the debate today. There is a steady stream of complaints. Everybody has heard stories of damaged, lost, stolen and delayed mail, sometimes with horrendous consequences. I am not sure I should move into this phase at the moment. Perhaps I could delay it until the study of the estimates in committee of the whole. I have a series of quotations from government departments, some as recent as March 15, which indicates they are less than happy with the Post Office Department. This has specific reference to the use of courier service. Let us have a look at the Privy Council Office complaints.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This whole process has put the Chair in a rather awkward spot. This is, again, an opposition day and it seems ironical that I should be considering restricting the time of an opposition member. There is, however, a format that has been set out. It would have been preferable had this been part of the proceedings of the committee of the whole. In any event, the minister's statement was very brief and it would have been awkward to start proceedings in the committee of the whole without the statement. It is now on the record. I wonder if I could
May 21, 1976

invite hon. members to move as quickly as possible to the committee of the whole and continue questions then.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will save that for later and conclude my remarks by indicating that the increase has been justified in part by a reference to increases which have been announced over recent years in the United States and the United Kingdom. That also was an unfortunate context in which to place the statement, because customers in the United States are curtailing their use of the mails and turning to alternate services. As the rates go up, public resistance grows more firm and volumes drop even more, creating a vicious circle. In fact, I would suggest that the postal service is making the same mistake the railroads made, and in light of the discussions that took place in this House earlier today we realize the consequences of that decision to Canada. Obviously, when rates go up exorbitantly without a corresponding increase in efficiency of service, the Canadian public, particularly the business community which is the large user of postal services, will turn to cheaper and more efficient modes of communication.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I received two statements this morning in which there was a slight change. In part of the first paragraph of the first statement it is stated:
-recent surveys which indicate that the level of productivity achieved by the Post Office is becoming more and more acceptable to the Canadian people.
This was changed in the revised version as follows:
Recent surveys indicate that the level of service achieved by the Post Office is becoming more and more acceptable to the Canadian people.
That was a very necessary change because, obviously, productivity is not one of the great achievements of the Post Office Department, as we shall demonstrate during the discussion that takes place today. It is very important that we have this discussion today, and I will not prolong its commencement further at this stage.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the debate on the Post Office estimates I will be very brief in my remarks regarding the minister's announcement. It seems strange to me that a government committed to fighting inflation should propose a 50 per cent increase in the cost of first-class mail service by March of next year. It is doubly strange to me that this proposal is made by the Postmaster General who is also the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, because in that role he should be interested in knowing what this sharp increase will mean in the cost of living of every individual who uses the mail to send letters to friends and relatives, and every company that uses first-class mail for billing and other forms of business communication. They will all be affected by this sharp increase. In the case of the business community, this increase will be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices.
The NDP does not accept the principle that each part of the postal service must be self-sustaining or, indeed, that postal services must pay their way.


An hon. Member:: Who is going to pay?


David Orlikow: We believe there are some aspects of postal service, like aspects of health and other government ser-
Change in Postal Rates
vices, which of necessity must be run with a deficit. We do not believe personal letters written to families and friends by individual citizens should necessarily cover the full cost of delivery. We believe that the reading of newspapers and magazines is so important to Canadians and the Canadian identity that the cost of this delivery service should be subsidized by the Canadian people as a whole.
In the same way, we question the good sense of increasing the cost of first-class mail at this time and it being done alone. We certainly object to the postponement of decisions in respect of the increase concerning third-class mail charges particularly when we realize that so much of the unsolicited mail-what is commonly referred to as junk mail-is moved and paid for as third-class mail. The latest figures I have for last indicate that there was a deficit of $130 million for third-class mail. It seems to us that the minister would have been much better advised to have sharply increased the rate for third-class mail, particularly junk mail before he increased the cost of first-class mail. We certainly object to that step being taken at this time.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, before commenting on the minister's declaration, I would like to thank him for making a French copy available to us.
According to his statement, the purpose of the increase would be to reduce the deficit of the Canadian post office which, if I am not mistaken, amounted to some $500 million last year. I appreciate that the minister is right in believing that this increase is justified and that in advocating it he is only doing what is expected of him, just like a good soldier obeys his superiors. The only difference between him and a good soldier, as far as obeying orders is concerned, is that the minister receives his instructions from high financial circles and complies with a system which urges him to act the way he does, namely increase the postage.
In his statement, the minister said he was trying to make up for the deficit which was incurred last year. But do you really think that this will solve all the problems? I do not think so. It may help for a while but eventually the same situation will arise, perhaps within a few years. And that is because the system is inadequate and cannot meet the needs and expectations of the Canadian people.
For many years we, the Social Credit Party of Canada, have tried with every means available to us to make the government understand that all the economic problems we are facing proceed from our financial system. If the financial system were consistent with reality, there would be no inflation, not to mention deflation, nor any price increases.
We are sure, Mr. Speaker, that Canadians would see a gradual price decline as progress would show up in techniques and production processes. What we want most of all is that the government change its goals and its legislation implementation in order that they become fair for all Canadians, and thus the situation would improve. But as long as the government will not implement what we have tried for many years to make them understand, the same

May 21, 1976
Order Paper Questions
situation will prevail and we will sink ever deeper into the economic depression we are now facing.
We believe that the situation will improve if production is pushed up. To this end we have to work harder and harder, because we are a rich country, we have natural resources, we have large quantities of raw materials, and enough manpower. What else can we ask for? Yet we are faced in Canada with an unemployment rate of 9 per cent. There are people, and they are numerous, who cannot make both ends meet, and to cap it all a new increase has just been announced today.
At the present time, Mr. Speaker, we are mere slaves of finance and corporations, of this government. I think that should the government ever respect and protect the human being instead of finance, as is presently the case, inflation will have disappeared and it will be more pleasant to live, because there will be fewer thefts, less drugs, fewer murders, and certainly more mutual aid and understanding.
I am aware that the postal strike of last fall has underlined the problem of relations between wages and prices, and that the deficit which we experienced last year and which we will probably experience again this year, if it does not grow larger, will depend partly upon that and upon inflation in general, because, faced with a constantly increasing cost of living, and also to take advantage of the material and economic progress achieved each year and each day in our country, something must be done.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In exercising the discretion given to me under the rules, I think it is obvious that it would reflect most accurately the desire of all hon. members if the House were to move as swiftly as possible to the committee of the whole and deal with these matters there.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-438, to amend the Criminal Code (sexual offences).
She said: Mr. Speaker, because of an inconsistency in the definition of the word "child", our Criminal Code appears to offer less protection to children than does most provincial legislation. The purpose of this bill is to remove this discrepancy and, by raising the age from under 14 to under 16, afford increased protection to juvenile victims of rape.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following ques-

tions will be answered today: 4,030, 4,920, 5,094, 5,257, 5,305 and 5,448.


Mr. Friesen: 1.	What percentage of the film "Sweet Movie" was made in (a) Canada (b) France and how many feet of film do such percentages represent?
2.	(a) What was the name of the company from which the cameras and equipment were rented in France (b) how much was paid to them?
3.	How many of the technical staff were from France and who were they?
4.	Is the Canadian Film Development Corporation participating in the production of a film called "The Candy Man" and, if so, how much is the Corporation investing in it?
5.	What other films with the assistance of the CFDC have been shot in countries other than Canada and, in each case, what countries?


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canadian Film Development Corporation as follows: 1. (a) Canada, 20 per cent; (b) France, 80 per cent. The completed film contains approximately the same percentage of Canadian and French material (8,616 feet).
2.	(a) and (b) This information is not available from the French co-producer.
3.	See answer to 2 above.
4.	No.
5.	"Aho .. . Au coeur du monde primitif"-New Guinea, Pakistan, Brazil. "Le sang des autres"-France. "Sept fois par jour"-Israel.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	Since the coming into force of the Small Businesses Loans Programme, has money been granted to the Constituency of Temiscamingue and, if so, in what amount?
2.	How many persons were eligible under the Programme?
3.	What is the current interest rate on the loans?


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: 1. Data respecting this program is not maintained on a constituency basis.
2.	It is not known how many persons were eligible under the program but some 38,000 loans have been made under the plan since its inception in 1961 to December 31, 1975.
3.	Eight and three quarters per cent.


Mr. Murta: 1.	What firms or individuals have received egg import permits from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce for the years 1975 and 1976 and what was the size of the permits?
2.	What criteria are used to decide who receives egg import permits and the size of the permits?
3.	What official or group of officials in the Department are responsible for administration of the programme?


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: 1. Information submitted on all applications for import permits is commercially
May 21, 1976

confidential. Therefore, statistical information on imports for which permits have been granted is only on an aggregate basis to protect this confidentiality. In 1975, import permits were issued to 17 firms or individuals to import
36,000	cases of eggs under the global quota. In the same year to supplement the global quota, import permits were issued to 10 firms or individuals to import 40,350 cases. In the first four months of 1976, import permits were issued to 12 firms or individuals to import 23,250 cases of eggs. In the same period to supplement the global quota, import permits were issued to 12 firms or individuals to import 56,000 cases. Permits are normally issued by truckload quantities, or multiples thereof, one truckload being 750 cases of 30 dozen eggs.
2.	Global Quota-Import permits for eggs issued under the global quota are allocated to importers on the basis of their historical record of imports. An allocation of up to 10 per cent of the global quota is available to accommodate new importers. Supplementary Import Quotas-If the Canadian market has requirements for eggs over and above that which can be supplied by Canadian production and the global import quota, supplementary import permits are issued following consultations with the trade, CEMA and Agriculture Canada.
3.	Import permits are issued under the authority of the Export and Import Permits Act through the Export and Import Permits Division of the Department.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	From 1966 to date, how much has been granted by the government for projects in the Company of Young Canadians programme in the Constituency of Temiscamingue?
2.	What was (a) the name of the project (b) its location (c) the year the grant was made (d) the amount granted?
3.	For each year what was the (a) total amount granted to the Province of Quebec (b) number of projects accepted in the Province of Quebec?


Coline M. Campbell: In so far as the Department of the Secretary of State is concerned: 1, 2 and 3. As the Company of Young Canadians is no longer operational all records have been either transferred, or are in the process of being transferred, to the Public Archives.


Mr. Brisco: Has the government begun negotiations with provincial government officials in order to obtain agreement as to the role and function of the proposed International Adoption Desk with a view towards facilitating the adoption of children from foreign countries by Canadian citizens and (a) if so, what is their present state of progress (b) if not, on what date does it plan to do so?


Marc Lalonde: (a) Following a study on international and interprovincial adoptions by a federal-provincial committee, an Adoption Desk was established in the Social Service Programs Branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare in October, 1975. The Desk has two components
Order Paper Questions
responsible for the co-ordination of interprovincial placements and international adoptions respectively. Operational guidelines for the Desk have been prepared and distributed for approval to the Provincial Ministers of Welfare. Policy and procedures documentation on international adoption has also been developed for distribution to Canadian missions abroad and foreign governments. Approval of this material has been received from seven provinces, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. With the co-operation of the Department of External Affairs and its missions abroad, the Desk is currently securing information on foreign adoption laws and procedures of other countries for dissemination to provincial social service departments and child welfare agencies. The Desk is presently assisting provincial child welfare authorities with a number of individual international adoption cases. Discussions are being held with private international adoption groups in Canada for the purpose of seeking their co-operation in working with government officials under established policy and procedures in order to promote efficient international adoption programs and ensure good international relations in this area. The Desk is viewed by the provinces as a focal point for contact with federal government departments having responsibilities related to international adoptions. In order to maintain effective co-ordination and liaison among these departments, the Desk has established a federal interdepartmental committee on international adoption comprised of representatives from External Affairs, Manpower and Immigration, Secretary of State, Justice, and National Health and Welfare. The Committee has played a key role in developing comprehensive documentation on the many facets of international adoption and is proving to be a valuable resource in assisting the Desk in its co-ordination function, particularly in responding to emergencies such as the recent Vietnamese and Guatemalan situations, (b) The international component of the Desk will become fully operational following receipt of approval from the provinces and dissemination of the aforementioned documentation from abroad to provincial governments.


Mr. Lawrence: Does Statistics Canada compile information concerning the gross annual income of persons who receive Unemployment Insurance benefits and, if so, in (a) 1974 (b) 1975 how many persons receiving Unemployment Insurance benefits had a gross annual income (i) in excess of $50,000 (ii) from $40,000 to $50,000 (iii) from $30,000 to $39,999 (iv) from $20,000 to $29,999 (v) from $10,000 to $19,999 (vi) of less than $10,000?


Marcel-Claude Roy: In so far as Statistics Canada is concerned the data requested is not available from the department.

[EnglishJ


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 5,005
13764

May 21, 1976
Order Paper Questions
and 5,006 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton): 1.	Has Mrs. Eva Ryten obtained from Statistics Canada or the Public Service Commission, educational leave towards a bachelor's degree and, if so, what was the (a) effective date (b) termination date of such leave and under what conditions was it granted, including pay arrangements, tuition and other institutional fees?
2.	What will be the total government expenditure for such leave?
3.	On what date did Mrs. Ryten ask in writing for educational leave and what was the reaction of her immediate superiors to such a request?
4.	What were the (a) names (b) titles of Statistics Canada officials who authorized such leave?
5.	On what date does Statistics Canada expect Mrs. Ryten to receive her first university degree?
6.	Was the leave granted in conformity with Treasury Board guidelines and, if so, how did Statistics Canada justify its requirement for university education for Mrs. Ryten?
7.	Is it Treasury Board policy to grant educational leave with pay to all federal employees, Canadian citizens or otherwise, who wish to improve their performance by acquiring a bachelor's degree?
8.	Does Treasury Board intend to restrict the right for educational leave towards a bachelor's degree only to the SI occupational category?
9.	How many public servants were granted educational leave, with pay, towards a bachelor's degree in (a) 1974 (b) 1975 and how many were Canadian citizens?
10.	Did Mrs. Ryten recently apply for maternity leave with Statistics Canada and/or the Unemployment Insurance Commission and, in the latter case, for the purpose of obtaining maternity benefits under the provision of the Unemployment Insurance Act and, if so, was such leave granted and for what period of time?
11.	Is Mrs. Ryten a Canadian citizen and, if not, did she apply for Canadian citizenship and, if so, as of what date?
12.	On what date did Mrs. Ryten commence employment with Statistics Canada?
13.	What was the (a) classification (b) salary range of the initial job taken by Mrs. Ryten?
14.	What were the (a) names (b) titles of the members of the board which selected Mrs. Ryten for the position?
15.	(a) How many candidates applied for the position (b) how many were Canadian citizens (c) how many held a university degree?
16.	Did the educational requirements of the position include a minimum of a bachelor's degree?
17.	Has Mrs. Ryten received any promotions in Statistics Canada and, if so (a) how many (b) what were the (i) job classifications (ii) salary ranges (c) what were the effective dates?
18.	Did Mrs. Ryten travel on official business for the Department since her initial appointment and, if so, what (a) were the names (b) were the locations (c) were the daily rates of the hotels in which she stayed (d) was the total cost to the government?
Return tabled.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton): 1.	Did Mr. Jacob Ryten travel on official business for Statistics Canada since his initial appointment and, if so, what (a) were the names (b) were the locations (c) were the daily rates of the hotels in which he stayed (d) was the total cost to the government?
2.	On what date did Mr. Ryten commence employment with Statistics Canada?

3.	What salary range was (a) offered to (b) accepted by Mr. Ryten at the time of appointment?
4.	What were the (a) names (b) titles of members of the board in Ottawa which selected Mr. Ryten for the position?
5.	Were any members of the board in communication with Mr. Ryten before his appointment, while Mr. Ryten was still in Paris and, if so (a) what were the names of the members (b) what form of communication was used?
6.	(a) Did Statistics Canada request the Public Service Commission to advertise the position which was subsequently offered to Mr. Ryten (b) was it advertised and, if so, (i) in what manner (ii) how many applications were received?
7.	Were all applicants interviewed by the same board which selected Mr. Ryten and, if not, for what reason?
8.	How many of the applicants (a) were Canadian citizens (b) held the equivalent of Mr. Ryten's academic qualifications of a bachelor's degree?
9.	Did the government contribute financially to the cost incurred by Mr. Ryten on the occasion of his interview held in Ottawa in October, 1968, while Mr. Ryten was travelling from Paris to Tokyo, and, if so, in what amount?
10.	Did the government contribute financially to the costs incurred by Mr. Ryten and his family during emigration from Paris to Canada via Tokyo and Vancouver and, if so, what were the costs and in what manner were they distributed?
11.	Did Mr. Ryten's previous employer OECD, contribute to these expenses and, if so (a) in what amount (b) were vouchers presented to the government?
12.	Did the Canadian authorities proceed in Mr. Ryten's immigration case in a routine fashion and, if not, what procedures were followed?
13.	Was an attempt made to have security clearance waived for Mr. Ryten and, if so, what was the (a) name (b) government function of the person (i) who made the attempt (ii) to whom such request was addressed?
14.	Was the person who made the attempt related to any members of the board which selected Mr. Ryten, or to any employee of Statistics Canada at that time?
15.	Was the security clearance waived and, if so, for what reason?
16.	Was the usual security check made in Portugal, the country of Mr. Ryten's citizenship, before the immigration visa was granted?
17.	Did Statistics Canada exercise any pressure on the Canadian immigration authorities to shorten the normal immigration procedures, especially security clearance, for the benefit of Mr. Ryten and, if so, in what manner?
18.	Was the senior Canadian immigration official stationed in Paris informed about any intervention on behalf of Mr. Ryten?
19.	Has Mr. Ryten received promotions in Statistics Canada since his initial appointment and, if so, in each case, what was the (a) effective date (b) salary range?
Return tabled.


Mr. Blais:: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
May 21, 1976



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
House in committee of the whole for consideration and disposal of an item of the estimates for the year ending March 31, 1977-Mr. Laniel in the chair.
[Stage Direction]
Post Office
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $977,488,000 be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977 (less the amount voted in interim supply) as follows: Vote 1-Operation expenditures, contributions and authorizations to spend receipts of the year for financial services and others-$977,488,000.
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, now we can get on with the business at hand for the day, after our little diversion. I trust that during the course of the day we will have the opportunity to deal with questions and answers in the committee which will raise specific issues that are concerning members of parliament from their various constituencies.
I am very happy to see the Postmaster General in his place, because I think the consideration of estimates in committee of the whole is one of the great losses to our parliamentary system. There was a time when we used to practice the basic principle of parliamentary democracy- no taxation without representation. The minister used to sit on the griddle until all the queries, questions and grievances had been dealt with, and only then was he allowed to proceed with his estimates. We are very circumscribed in the time allocation today, but at least we will have a chance to deal with specific problems.
The preamble to the estimates states that the basic function of Canada's Post Office Department is to provide postal services to the people of Canada at reasonable rates and a standard of service adequate to meet their needs without incurring subsidization from general taxation. I think we will discover today that the Post Office Department at present is meeting few, if any, of the exalted goals outlined in that statement. As we already indicated in the preliminary discussion, rates are increasing, complaints from the public are increasing, the deficit is increasing, and unfortunately the great principle that was first enunciated by the pioneers of the postal service, that it is the indispensable chain that binds the nation together, no longer has any validity.
I could go into some of the recent history of the decline of the Post Office but I will not take the time on this occasion to do that. The decision was made a few years ago to change the Post Office Department into a business with managerial expertise, to the neglect of public service and consumer and labour relations. I know the Postmaster General during his incumbency in the Post Office Department has been trying to overcome the errors that were made a few years ago, but obviously he has not been successful and he now takes the easier route of increasing postal rates in order to cover up the problems and the
Business of Supply
deficiencies of the postal service which have largely contributed to the increase in the Post Office deficit.
We need recite the fact of 24 illegal strikes in five years until 1975 to indicate where the labour relations situation stands. We can refer, and we will refer, to the marketing gimmicks that have come in rapid succession-very expensive ones-which have not dealt with the basic malaise of the Post Office Department. Indeed, many of these marketing gimmicks have led to more and more of the business fleeing to the private couriers. I wish to refer to the unhappiness as expressed by some replies to a question on the use of the courier services by government departments on March 15. Here is what the Unemployment Insurance Commission has to say. It expends some $375,000 annually in private courier service. It says:
The Post Office Department cannot provide overnight delivery between the regional offices and the district offices . .. We must use private couriers to supplement existing Post Office services.
So much for the assured mail delivery program which came out a few years ago guaranteeing overnight service within particular areas. The Privy Council Office has something similar to say, "We require, urgently, prompt services outside Ottawa-Hull within 24 hours, and this cannot be guaranteed by the Post Office Department. Letters, documents or small packages which must reach their destination within a time limit which cannot be guaranteed by the Post Office Department, we send through courier route. Regular mail services were not used because they were not available, or couriers were faster and more economical. In addition, the Post Office could not give an assurance that mail could be delivered within the time limit required."
The statement made by the minister today indicates that the volume of mail has increased. I want to pose as my first question the following: How much of this is dependent upon the promotional work of the Post Office Department for Olympic stamps and coins? I get constant complaints, as I am sure do other hon. members, that the Post Office Department is contacting almost every householder in Canada with a slick package, urging them to buy either Olympic coins or Olympic stamps and I think the postage alone for this mailing is 20 cents plus the return mail. A more recent venture in this regard is the use of the telepost which is the new marketing facility which is supposed to speed up urgent business communications in Canada. In a telepost message that went out from the minister's office to, I presume, hundreds of thousands of people across Canada urging them to subscribe, we read the following words:
As a previous patron of Canada's stamp sculpture program, you were personally informed by Mr. Mackasey of the introduction of series IV stamp sculptures. All orders addressed to Mr. Mackasey's office at the House of Commons will receive priority treatment. Olympic stamp sculptures are unique commemorative works of art and valuable items for serious collectors and investors. Minting and delivery time now just two weeks. Orders must be postmarked by deadline of May 15.
I believe a message like that costs about 75 cents each, which would account for a lot of the upsurge in Post Office business and revenue to which the minister referred in his report. One of the weaknesses of the Post Office Department has been its failure in public relations. I raised an issue in the question period some weeks ago with respect to this situation concerning the use of third class mail by
95568 -37V2

May 21, 1976
Business of Supply
the Kinsmen Rehabilitation Foundation of British Columbia. They went into considerable detail in outlining the complaint. The only action that was achieved as a result of that complaint was that the public relations people came along and said that obviously the Kinsmen had not packaged the material properly, and if they had there would have been a greater response to the appeal on behalf of the disabled people of British Columbia.
Furthermore, there is a low return on the basis of this sort of mailing. The point that the foundation was making was that they did not want a public relations exercise; they wanted a customer relations exercise which would deal specifically with the complaint, because they were contemplating sending out 400,000 mailings if there could be an assurance and a guarantee that the mailing would reach the people concerned. So I raise that issue once again with the Postmaster General. It is not public relations which is wanted; it is good customer relations.
Administration of the Post Office Department is constantly under criticism, mainly because of the increase in managerial staff as compared with service and delivery staff. Executive, scientific and professional categories have tripled from 43 in recent years to the present number of 127. In eight years over-all employment in the Post Office Department has increased fron 39,180 to 60,524, but the large percentage increase has been in the executive, scientific and professional categories. This is a complaint which comes from the letter carriers and the postal workers who are the people who really provide the service directly to the public.
There is another inquiry I would like the Postmaster General to consider. The marketing branch has been active. There has been a new marketing manager appointed who is supposed to have expertise in this regard. Publications such as the communication publication, and now the new customer publication, have obviously taken a good part of the Post Office budget. In spite of this marketing and customer relations, customer complaints increased by 16.3 per cent between 1970 and 1975, and indemnities due to loss of mail have increased by substantial percentages.
The private courier matter has already been dealt with in the House, and in response to a question I asked recently the Postmaster General indicated that the Post Office is intending to go back into the courier business, which now takes about $70 million in revenue from the Post Office Department. The Postmaster General said he is aware that when they cream off the business, they are costing the taxpayer, and that his department is going to make a pitch for all of it. Well, that is a mixed blessing because obviously people are using the private couriers because they are providing people more efficient service than the Post Office. This is why so many government departments have moved in this direction. The Postmaster General and his officials will have to see to it that they can restore the confidence of the public if they are going to move back into this market. The experience in the United States is that with their increasing costs of postal delivery and their deficit, running at $1.5 billion currently, the post office department there is losing more and more of the business to competitors. Certainly an increase in rates without a corresponding increase in efficiency in Canada will not

deal with the problem which was outlined in the minister's statement this morning.
Basic to the back of efficient services of the Post Office Department is the low morale of the employees. The strike situation points that cut, and we are hoping that there will be a happier relationship. I want to bring a few points to the attention of the minister. There is still indifference toward the human needs of the postal employees following the settlement of the contracts of last year. People are more important than machines, and I continually get the complaint that the employees at the managerial level keep talking about plugging the people into the automated system. The coder-sorter issue is still not resolved. For example, in the Vancouver post office, even though the assistant deputy minister says that the coding category must be changed to coder, sweeper and sorter, coders are still only coding. This was one of the big issues in the automation battle. The Taylor report is clear in this regard, and it was obvious that the plant managers are defying even the wishes of an assistant deputy minister at the level of Mr. Gordon Sinclair.
Consultation, which is important to human relations, is restricted to issuing an order. The National Film Board has been travelling from post office to post office doing a film on labour relations, and I imagine this will become available to the Postmaster General. I am sure he will find the comments of the employees informative in this regard.
The letter carriers raise the issue of the failure of the Post Office Department to provide house-to-house delivery to an increasing number of communities across the country. One of my colleagues will be dealing with this. This is the negative kind of restraint which does serious damage to the reputation of the Post Office Department because it fails to provide the basic services which are required.
The association of postal employees, which is in the bargaining process now, has reached an impasse. We discussed this in the House of Commons recently. They are faced with a situation where supervisors in certain categories are going to receive less income than the personnel they supervise. It has not been resolved in some categories. Now that the negotiations have reached the crucial stage it is impossible to bring the Post Office representatives back to the bargaining table because they cannot get a mandate from Treasury Board. I submit to the Postmaster General that the reason his officials are hesitating to come back to the bargaining table is that they have such a miserable offer to make, and the situation is going to be further aggravated because on July 1 there is to be a further 6 per cent increase, under the existing terms of the contract, to postal employees. The minister is aware of this.
He talks about industrial democracy. Industrial democracy requires real consultation where, as the minister himself has said, supervisors will no longer tell employees what to do and how to do it. The supervisors will ask the workers how they think it should be done, and restoring dignity and prestige of the postal employees is a huge job calling for adjustment at every level of management. As we approach the hour of adjournment, I remind the Postmaster General of those words and hope that he will be able to get real industrial democracy working in the Post Office Department. Perhaps the military posture of the Post Office is too deeply ingrained. There are still postmas-
May 21, 1976

ters around who expect their workers to come to attention in their presence. I am sure the hon. gentleman agrees that this is not conducive to good human relations. The very term "Postmaster General" has military overtones, and I trust that in his actual contacts with the employees he will not aggravate that image by the posture he assumes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: One o'clock.


The Chairman:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At 1.01 p.m. the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2 p.m.
David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, we had an opportunity today to discuss the problems of the Post Office-the delivery of mail, which is considered by many people to be unsatisfactory, the large deficit the department has experienced in recent years and will undoubtedly face in the coming year, and the announcement by the minister this morning that in an effort to reduce the size of the deficit he proposes to increase the cost of first-class mail by some 50 per cent in the next year.
Undoubtedly, part of the reason for the problems in the Post Office can be found in the very bad relationships that exist between senior officials in the department and the employees. Because I do not want to be accused of being partisan-which I am, and which I admit-let me put on the record a description of the situation in the Post Office given by none other than the Postmaster General in a letter which appeared in the Globe and Mail on April 25, 1975. I shall only read part of the letter, Mr. Chairman, but I think it describes the situation much more eloquently than I could ever hope to. In that letter the Postmaster General said:
One can make a strong case that the workers are extremely militant-that their productivity leaves much to be desired; that they have continuously taken the law into their own hands, and, on some occasions resorted to violence.
In the year or more since that letter was written the Postmaster General has told this House frequently-in fact, I would say ad nauseam-how true that statement is. The letter continues:
But one can make an equally strong case that the employer, that is, the government, over a long period of time, has been anything but a model employer. As a member of government, I accept my share of responsibility and single out no individual as more responsible or less responsible for this fact.
Inadequate compensation, work places that are a disgrace, uneven managerial policy, regimentation that at times has bordered on a military mentality, has, over the years, resulted in a slow but steady reduction in morale, in pride of association and in inevitable hostility on the part of the workers.
Later in the letter he said:
As a government, we have an obligation to be at least as good an employer as the more enlightened employers in the private sector. I believe that this is now well understood-both among my colleagues, and, perhaps more important in this bureaucratic jungle, understood by the bureaucrats.
Business of Supply
When the hon. member for Brandon-Souris was speaking, one of my Social Credit colleagues said, "I have heard all these things before". That is true, unfortunately. We have to make essentially the same speeches because the more the minister speaks, the less things change. I turned up some old files, Mr. Chairman, and found an article published in the Montreal Gazette in 1974, written by George Radwanski, in which he summarized a report made in 1966 by Mr. Justice Montpetit who had investigated the situation in the Post Office. I should like to quote a couple of paragraphs of the report of Mr. Justice Montpetit:
A large number of the Post Office employees' grievances are, first and foremost, human relations problems.
Except in one or two districts, the attitude of some supervisors and postmasters toward their employees leaves much to be desired. These people have only a vague notion of the importance of maintaining good relations with their staff . ..
A well conceived policy of consultation and of exchange of viewpoints at all levels becomes essential. The dialogue must not become a mere formality to which one has to submit and which is considered more or less a waste of time or mere idle chatter. Nor must it become a one-sided conversation.
Nothing has changed since Mr. Justice Montpetit made that report. The minister may say that things have changed. The Letter Carriers' Union, which had a much better relationship with the minister and the department than the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, commissioned a study some years later by Professor Vanderberg, a professor of economics at Carleton University. He found:
-still inadequate consultation at the root of postal employees' grievances.
Harmonious industrial relations cannot be achieved without a meaningful airing of views.
The initiative for the inauguration of such discussion on any topic logically rests with the party which is considering the implementation of a new policy.
It is the Post Office which decided to make major technological changes. It decided to automate the sorting of mail and everything else. No one in this party ever questioned, nor do we question now, the necessity of using the most modern methods for sorting and delivering mail. We recognize that sorting mail by hand would make it prohibitive, cost-wise. We realize that without using the latest techniques the mail service would be slowed to such an extent that people would no longer use it.
I do not believe that the postal workers, certainly never publicly, or their union officials have ever opposed automation. However, they have a very legitimate concern. Automation should not be brought in at their expense. Masses of workers should not be laid off. If money is saved through the use of automatic equipment, the workers should get part of the benefits. From that point of view they are no different from workers in private industry.
In the Post Office we have continual objection and guerilla warfare against these feelings of the workers. Let me illustrate very briefly. When the sorting equipment was brought in, the rate of pay for the sorters was set much lower than the rate for hand sorting. You do not have to be an expert in work procedure to know that watching an automatic sorter handling thousands of letters a minute is a lot more difficult than sorting by hand. However, the Post Office, Treasury Board or whoever

May 21, 1976
Business of Supply
makes these decisions, insisted on this. It took months of threats and strikes before the Post Office agreed to at least pay the same amount per hour to those manning the automatic sorting machines.
Professor Vanderberg and Mr. Justice Montpetit talked about consultation. The postal workers were worried about the effects of automation on their employment, and there was a bitter strike. In the new collective agreement in which this minister was involved there is a clause to the effect that there shall be discussion and agreement with regard to any new automatic equipment being brought in. Did that happen? No. Last week the union tried to take the Post Office to court, claiming that a new post office had been begun in New Brunswick without the role of the workers being worked out in advance.


Mr. Breau:: That was in Newfoundland.


David Orlikow: Newfoundland, I am sorry. The case was dismissed by the court. I do not say the workers were right in that or any other case. However, if the workers felt so strongly about not being consulted that they went to court, the bargaining process has in fact broken down. I say that even if the workers were wrong, because this should have been settled before it was necessary to go to court. I am sure there are still hundreds of thousands, and I say this advisedly, of grievance cases filed by the union. Why? Because nothing is ever settled voluntarily by the Post Office.
I know we are dealing with a union which has a reputation for being very militant. It is not the easiest thing in the world to settle disputes with a militant union, but it takes two to tango, it takes two to have a fight. I am not convinced, by anything I have seen since coming to parliament, that those occupying the senior positions in the Post Office Department do not want to fight. Why are there so many grievances? I am told that if the department loses at a relatively low stage of grievance procedure, it appeals to the ajudicator. If the decision of the adjudicator is not to the liking of the department, they take the case to court. That means delays of months or years. It costs the unions thousands of dollars. That is not the way to get co-operation and to boost morale. In addition, I am told that if a decision at any level is in favour of the position taken by the union, the Post Office Department takes the position that all that has been settled is one particular case. If there are 50 other cases of a similar nature, the union must fight each one individually.
This situation has gone on for a long time. I remember making the same kind of appeal to a former postmaster general, Mr. Kierans. I suggested to him that the almost military organization and discipline which the present Postmaster General spoke of in the letter from which I quoted no longer meets the needs of the country or the Post Office. That condition has existed since the Post Office began. I suggest it is time to get rid of that system.
If it is necessary, in order to get rid of that system, to begin by getting rid of most of those who occupy the top positions in the Post Office itself, particularly those involved in labour-management, this is what ought to be done. I made that suggestion six or seven years ago, and I
[Mr. Orlikow.)
make it again to the present minister. I say to the hon. gentleman publicly what I say to him privately-that I have a great deal of respect for him. He has demonstrated on more than one occasion that he is a friend of working people. I would have expected that he would at least have begun the job of changing the situation in the top levels of the Post Office Department, so that we could hope to see an improvement in the relationship between the unions and the department as well as between the employees and the department.
I am confident that regardless of the tens of millions of dollars we are spending on automating and renovating the system, we shall not benefit from an efficient postal delivery system until we have created a situation in which the employees are happy, proud of working for the Post Office and prepared to do a fair day's work in return for a fair day's pay. I believe they are getting a fair day's pay and I want them to do a fair day's work. I believe they will do so when they get human and decent consideration from the people who direct the work of the department.
The minister has had a difficult year. He has been through some bruising battles with the postal workers and their unions, and I want to say to him, as I have said elsewhere, that there were faults on both sides. I hope both sides can forget what has happened in the past and use their efforts to change the situation in such a way as to provide the kind of postal service of which people can be proud. I hope the minister will give the kind of leadership which most of us expect him to give, although I must say I have seen little sign of it so far.


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Chairman, I want to spend my time this afternoon by addressing a few questions to the minister in the hope of eliciting some information on a few matters which are of great interest to the Canadian public. The first aspect I should like to explore relates to a question I asked in the House a year or so ago: whether the minister and his officials had taken steps to upgrade studies which had been carried out under an earlier regime into the possibility of placing the services presently carried out by the Post Office Department under the direction of a Crown corporation. Has the hon. gentleman investigated this possibility and weighed the advantages, or disadvantages, of following such a course?
At the time I asked my question, the minister suggested I should read an article in Time magazine showing that the United States post office had experienced huge deficits after following that route and placing its post office under the control of an independent agency. Recently, too, we have read about the difficulties the United Kingdom is experiencing in this regard. Nevertheless, the fact that there have been problems in other countries ought not, in my view, to prevent us looking at the Canadian scene and asking ourselves whether a change should not be considered here.
In this connection, I would refer to the comments made by the previous speaker on the subject of the relationship between management and unions in the Post Office Department. It seems to me that if the whole organization were brought under the roof of a Crown corporation, certain advantages would follow-advantages of the kind enjoyed, for example, by Ontario Hydro and other public utilities. Management and staff could get together to iron
May 21, 1976

out their problems without being involved, for example, with the Public Service Commission, as is the case with the Post Office.
There would be other benefits. The corporation would be able to plan and build its own buildings, put in the facilities needed, without having to turn to another department of government. The analogy that occurs to me is that of the distribution of electricity in my own province of Ontario. I think it is accepted that had this service been left in the early days of the century to a department of the provincial government, our lights would still be flickering. Instead, the responsibility was handed over to a Crown corporation, and I believe most people would say that it has been handled in a most efficient manner. Management has, over the years, tended to be extremely good. Perhaps the minister would comment on this aspect.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, I did forgo my right to make a formal speech at the opening of the debate in deference to hon. members who might wish to ask questions. I realize that this is a short day. I hope to express my philosophy in more general terms when I have an opportunity to wind up the debate later.
The idea of a Crown corporation has many attractions, and the hon. member has touched on some of them. My own thinking, as Postmaster General for several years, is that the efficiency of the Post Office could be improved somewhat if the Post Office were treated not exactly as a Crown corporation in the sense that Air Canada is a Crown corporation, but if it were brought in under another schedule, like the Mint, for example. Let me explain why I say this. In a moment of frustration two years ago I said the only role I had in opening a post office was to cut the ribbon-and I did not even get to choose the colour the ribbon would be. Post offices are built, and priorities determined, by the Department of Public Works. Machinery and equipment is bought by the Department of Supply and Services. Hiring and firing is done by the Public Service Commission.
A good part of my time is spent consulting with other departments and doing things we could do with much greater efficiency were the Post Office given a special status. That need not necessarily be a Crown corporation. I could explain the reasons for my reluctance to go all the way and to set up a Crown corporation, but this would take too much time. It is perhaps related to costs and to the unhappy situation in the United States where the post office is very close to a Crown corporation but still subject to a lot of political interference in regard to establishing rates and things of that nature.
So if I may sum up my reply to the hon. member for Scarborough West, yes, I think there should be special status for the Post Office in relation to the government and to other government departments, preferably along the lines of other organizations that come under government control, but with more of a "hands off" type of approach than is now the case. Thus, the Post Office would have a greater degree of autonomy in determining the day to day operation of the Post Office without having to solicit, enjoin, seduce, coerce, or call it what you will, other departments in order to obtain what we sometimes think
Business of Supply
should be priority items for the Post Office but other departments do not.
The approach of a Crown corporation is appealing and deceptively so. Perhaps it is a little too simplistic. I think a happy medium could be found between the present status of the Post Office as a department of government and a full time Crown corporation. There are dozens of these, and I could name them all; indeed, there are a number of schedules. I think that the Post Office sooner or later-and preferably sooner than later-should be put under another schedule.


The Deputy Chairman:: The hon. member for Churchill.


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, my understanding in discussions with the Chair earlier was that it was appropriate for members to take their 20 minutes and use them by asking the minister questions if they so wished. That is the process that I was following and I had not consumed more than 50 per cent of my time.


Charles Robert Turner: That is my understanding also. The hon. member for Scarborough West.


Alan Gray Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very much encouraged by the comments of the Postmaster General in this connection. The suggestion of establishing a Crown corporation was really an expression of hope that the Post Office would move away from being a direct government department. I think the Canadian public in general would very much endorse the kind of proposal that the Postmaster General has put forward this afternoon. If we stop short of making the Post Office Department a full Crown corporation, it should at least be able to operate entirely on its own, in essence unfettered by having to go to various other government departments simply to stay in business and to render an efficient service to the people in a very basic area.
The next point that I want to make relates to the statement made by the minister a little earlier this afternoon. The Canadian public is going to be asked-indeed, it is going to be told-to face a 25 per cent increase in first-class mail rates as of September 1, followed by a further 20 per cent increase as of March 1 next year. The combination of these two increases represents a 50 per cent increase over the rates that will be in effect on August 31 of this year.
I think I understand the argument that the Post Office does indeed lose money, that therefore any increase in the rates, so long as it does not produce a profit for the Post Office, can be justified even under the guidelines of the Anti-Inflation Board. In other words, no new profit is being generated because there was never a profit in the first place, and there will still be no profit.
However, Mr. Chairman, what I find difficult to accept- and I think the people in my constituency and across the country will find difficult to accept-is the imposition by the government of very substantial increases in a service which in this particular case is, I think we must accept, certainly not quite up to scratch at the present time, for whatever reason. I say for whatever reason; they may be many and varied. Nevertheless, the fact remains this is a service the government is offering the people of Canada

May 21, 1976
Business of Supply
which simply is not up to the degree of efficiency which I think the public is entitled to expect and receive.
In effect, the Post Office is saying, "Look, we are doing our best, but we are going to have to increase our rates by 25 per cent". No company in business today is allowed an increase of that amount, and I think quite properly so under the anti-inflation guidelines. Nevertheless, the government is doing so in one particular service area. It then will compound the situation six months later by throwing at the public another 20 per cent increase.
I am sure that the Postmaster General can establish, on straight economic grounds, that indeed the Post Office is not making a profit, and that therefore we should endeavour to cut back on government expenditures that would otherwise have to be provided to finance a larger deficit. But I think we need a clearcut explanation, which we as members of parliament can take back to our constituents, of the kind of matters mentioned earlier by the Postmaster General. We should indeed examine the idea of making the Post Office a separate organization outside of government. We must do all we can to increase the degree of efficiency. It is also important that the public be persuaded somehow or other to accept this at a time when they are asked to pay more for the service.
We know that many businesses today who can afford to do so are saying no thank you to the services offered by the government's Post Office. Instead they are employing a private service. The growth of private mail couriers has been fantastic over the past few years. But the problem is that private mail services are really only available to those who can afford them, such as medium-sized and large businesses. There is no question that they are more expensive. Nevertheless, there comes a point in the business world where you have to be assured that your mail is going to arrive at its destination and that you do receive the mail that is dispatched to you, because money is involved, the basic foundation of all business.
However, individual members of the public cannot afford to switch. They must put on their 10-cent or 12-cent stamp, as the case may be, and depend on the government service to deliver their letters to the places they are supposed to go. Increasingly I am being asked whether this service is being properly performed.
I wonder whether, Mr. Chairman, I can combine my two points in a question to the minister. Would the minister in some way or other assure the Canadian public, through this House, that everything will continue to be done to improve those areas of postal service today that are still lacking? Will he continue to search out the areas of real weakness, and do so prior to the first of the new increases coming into vogue?
In addition, he might look into the matter of the private couriers, determine how much business they are skimming away, and see if there is any way in which people using the private couriers can be encouraged to return to the government service. There are two ways of cutting costs. If we get more business, which means more revenue, since a lot of our expenses are fixed the net deficit of the Post Office will be reduced. I am concerned at the falling off of business at the present time, and the signs are it is increasingly falling off. This will further hamper the ability of the

Post Office to break even or to limit its losses to a reasonable amount.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, in order to keep my answer short, I should inform the hon. gentleman that I covered a lot of these points in my general remarks this morning, particularly the point in respect of percentages. Perhaps I am kind of conditioned to percentages from my years as minister of labour. Someone the other day said he had doubled his daughter's weekly allowance. It went up 100 per cent, from 25 cents to 50 cents.
So percentages are meaningful only if they are tied to a base period, and this is one of the weaknesses of statistics. It is one thing to say that we have increased the cost of a stamp to the average Canadian by 25 per cent. It is equally true to say that since the average Canadian writes four letters a year, with this increase of two cents it will mean an increase in cost to the average citizen of eight cents a year. Assuming that we are wrong in that regard, it would mean an increase, on the average, of only 15 cents a year to the individual considering that Canadians do not write many letters, and 80 per cent of our volume comes from 20 per cent of our business community, I do not think this will have a detrimental effect in so far as inflation is concerned. I will talk about the effect on the business community a little later.
The hon. gentleman made an extremely valid point, and perhaps it accentuates exactly what I am saying. As I mentioned earlier today, even with our proposed increases, which are phased in over almost a year, ours is still the cheapest or most inexpensive first-class mail service in the world.


An hon. Member:: And the slowest.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Let us take the extreme. When we do reach the 12-cent cost, compared with the cost of first-class mail in West Germany and in other countries, which is now over 20 cents and in some cases 25 cents, with penalties for odd-shaped envelopes, and the rest of it, I do not think our service costs very much. The hon. gentleman also referred to courier service and I intend to refer to that in depth in my speech. He made it quite clear that people are quite prepared to pay substantial sums of money for courier service if they can get assured mail delivery. This is really what people are looking for. I am not as concerned about the increase, which is nominal, but rather about whether the people are going to get the service.
It might be of interest to the hon. gentleman and to other members of the House to know that most private carriers did not operate nationally during the strike. They did not make a great deal of money not because they were overloaded. They had no facilities from Toronto to Montreal, from Toronto to North Bay or to Vancouver. The reason they did not have the facilities is that they use the Canadian Post Office.


Mr. Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Chairman, it gives me pleasure to be able to speak on the Post Office estimates today. I should like to confine my remarks to northern mail service in our country. Many years ago, but as recently as 1950, people in the north were receiving their mail by a man on
May 21, 1976

snowshoes, carrying a pack. They then advanced to the use of dog teams. At least at that time they knew they were going to get mail once a year. That is not the situation now in at least three post offices in northern Manitoba, namely, Poplar River, Garden Hill and Wasagamack. This increase in the postal rates really does not affect the people in those communities. They could not care if it was 50 cents a letter because at the present time they do not have postal service at all in their communities.
Let me first speak of the community of Garden Hill. You may think this is a small community of 150 people, but there are 1,200 people living in Garden Hill. Their family allowances, their hydro bills and their old age pension cheques come in by mail. On April 1, 1976, an auditor arrived from the Post Office Department. According to the rules, I suppose an auditor can check the books. In any event, he did audit the books and found some sort of a discrepancy in the accounting procedure and he immediately closed the post office. That post office is still not open.
It took 23 days to advertise the opening of a position for a new postmaster. I am led to believe it took this long because when it was being advertised the advertisement first had to go to Ottawa to the Postmaster General in case he had someone he wanted to appoint to that job. This caused a delay. People in that community since the closing of that post office have not been receiving their hydro bills through the mail. As a result, many of them had their electric services completely cut off. Many old age pensioners have not received their cheques. They were told by the Post Office Department that mail could be picked up in Winnipeg, but that is 280 air miles away.
The community of Island Lake does not have telephone service, does not have television and there are no roads to the community. The only link the people have with the outside world is by mail. At least when the mail was packed in by a man on snowshoes they were sure of getting mail once a year. Under the present system they are no longer certain of that. Let me also point out the importance and gravity of this situation in respect of those people who are on medication. They depend on receiving this medication by mail. When the mail service was stopped many of these people had to turn to the airlines and have their medication shipped in by air express. This is a costly item for people on old age security. The same is true in respect of eyeglass prescriptions, and so on.
The irony of the situation is that if an accounting discrepancy such as this occurred in a community closer to the hub or the capital of the nation, I do not think the people would stand idly by while the Post Office Department took that sort of action. I do not know what the Post Office is trying to do. It waited for 23 days in this case before advertising for a new postmaster. Obviously, the process takes several months to accomplish. In the meantime, the department says the postmaster or the band of Indians which looked after the mail service had done something wrong so they are being penalized by not having mail service for three months.
Another northern community, Poplar River, which is 300 air miles from Winnipeg, has not had mail service since the end of February. It took the postal department from the end of January until April 6 to advertise for a new post-
Business of Supply
master. The people of this community were told in a letter that they could pick up their mail at Selkirk, which is 300 air miles away. This community also has no roads, no telephones, and so on. How do we expect these communities to operate?
When I post a letter and put an 8-cent stamp on it, or a 12-cent stamp, which will be the case in the future, it seems to me there is a guarantee that the letter will be delivered to the person to whom it is addressed. I have a number of pieces of correspondence from the people in these isolated communites which were sent out by carriers, such as a pilot or somebody who happened to be going out. They have told me they have not even been able to get repairs for some of their small outboard motors because normally the parts are ordered by mail.
The postal department has tied up these communities without any thought whatsoever for the convenience of the people. We are not just talking about 1,200 people in one community, but 400 in another, 300 in another, and right across the country. I cannot see why the postal authorities should be allowed to just walk in and close down a post office because of a discrepancy, without giving the community any opportunity whatsoever of reimbursing the post office for the loss. It has never been proven to me that there was a discrepancy; it has only been mentioned in several letters. The people of these communities are pleading for their postal services back. They are saying that perhaps something wrong was done, but they have been penalized now by a loss of service for a period of 3'/2 to 4 months; they have done their penance and should now have mail service.
The other matter I should like to mention at this time is the manner in which mail is handled throughout the north. It would seem that long-term contracts are handed out to mail couriers. These can become obsolete with the discontinuation of air service and because of a more convenient way to get mail to certain areas of the north. I have written the Post Office inquiring about this but have received no positive response other than that this has been the system for years and cannot be changed.
I would ask that these problems be looked into and that some action be taken on them immediately because, as I said before, this mail service is the vital link for all the north. Without mail service the community is absolutely dead. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, which is responsible for the treaty Indian people in these three communities I mentioned, I do not think really has taken any initiative in going to the Postmaster General to see whether this matter could be straightened out. I hope the Postmaster General is not even aware that this is happening and that it is a nightmare case that can be blamed on the regional or district office.
I do not blame this Postmaster General for not taking action if he did not know the situation existed. I mentioned, in the case of Island Lake, that I did see a piece of correspondence which indicated that the community would receive its mail from another post office eight miles away. To the people down here this distance may not look great, but to the people in the community that eight miles
13772

May 21, 1976
Business of Supply
represents a journey across water, and at breakup in the spring these people are without service for at least six weeks. At other times, if they want to get their mail they have to travel by means of outboard motor a distance of six miles. Also, that is only in respect of first-class mail. They cannot receive clothing parcels or anything like that through the mail. The people have been paying 8 cents and will be paying 12 cents. I do not think they argue about the increase in the rate, but they would like to have service. I think that is where the emphasis should be placed.
If we could guarantee service to the people in these three communities I think they would gladly pay 50 cents a letter, but they would like the privilege of being able to post a letter.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply briefly to the hon. member for Churchill with whom I have a great deal of communication because he does very assiduously concern himself with the problem of mail delivery in the north, which is a type of business I do not think private enterprise would want. We have 8,600 post offices in Canada. The people of the north deserve the best possible treatment that can be afforded them. I think philosophically we agree. On the few occasions on which he has brought matters to my attention, I have tried to act on them. I think he will agree that that is so. He said I have the right to name postmasters. It seems that I have missed out after all these years on some patronage, because I have not named a postmaster since I have been Postmaster General. I shall inquire why I was not made aware of my privileges in this regard.
I am aware of the situation at Garden Hill. If we were to defend ourselves adequately, we could cause some harm to people and I prefer not to do that. I might speak generally about this deficit. This particular community is involved in a deficit of $10,000, which is a lot of taxpayers, money, going back to 1973. The arrangement in respect of the choice of Winnipeg as an alternate source of obtaining mail in the interval while the dispute is being settled has virtually been completed. It was not our choice. It was the choice of the band. We had suggested the Hudson Bay post, which is only nine miles away. The hon. gentleman says that this is a long distance in the north. However, they opted for a distance of 300 miles possibly because of a matter of principle or rivalry, although I am not sure what the reason is.
We have an obligation to collect deficits and close the post offices which we think are inefficient. Fraud may not be involved here. It may merely be a lack of carrying out the rules. These deficits are established. The procedure is painful. We tried to find another post office and another postmaster in this area. We have agreed with the representatives of the people affected to establish very early in the week the precise amount we think is owing. We have discussed the matter with the band in great depth and hope to have a meeting very shortly. This matter, which is of particular significance to many Indian people who depend on the mail, I do not think is entirely a problem involving the Post Office. The problem is that we cannot continue the procedure which ran up the deficit which has existed since 1973. This is a deficit in the sense of money owing to the Crown or the taxpayers of Canada which has not been turned over to them. This, basically, is the prob-

lem in this particular area. Our alternative was to use the post office nine miles away, but the band preferred to use Winnipeg. I am aware of the problem. There has been continuing dialogue and discussion over the last few weeks. The matter should be resolved very rapidly.


Mr. Kaplan:: Mr. Chairman, as the members of this House know, I am a supporter of the government. I am a proud supporter of the government and in particular of the government's restraint program. However, while I support the restraint program I wish to bring the attention of this House to a decision taken by the Postmaster General which I find unacceptable. I shall ask him if he will reconsider that decision.
My constituency of York Centre in the northern part of Toronto is almost a fully built-up and occupied area. In a rather dense development a street, Blackhawk Way, is being finished on which there will be townhouses and an apartment building. At the moment there are 24 town-houses. By the time the development is completed there will be 129 homes. People have already begun to move in. In fact, there have been people living on the street for a few months. They have been unable to obtain postal service in that area. I wrote the minister about this. It would seem to me that normal postal service should be extended to an area like this inasmuch as the street is completed and people are living there. The minister replied on April 15, telling me that the federal policy of restraint on spending prevented his adding another postman in that particular area.
Surely something can be done about this problem. If the restraint program is to be applied to the Post Office, and I do not disagree with that, it should not be applied in a discriminatory way in respect of the development of new services. The people who live in this postal area are entitled to have their mail delivered in the same way it is delivered to other people in the area. I am told that although there are only 24 new households on this walk, the postmen on either side already have a full schedule of households and that under the union agreement neither of them is permitted to add even these extra 24 homes on the street and which are now occupied.
I would think that between a more equitable application of the controls program and some reasonable discussion with the postmen concerned on either side and with their bargaining representatives, it might be possible to return to doing the job which the Post Office is bound to do, which is to deliver the mail to the people living in that area. I hope that the minister will have some good news for us.
I was particularly disturbed-and I will conclude with that-to see him note in the letter that it would be necessary to wait until the limitations or restraints are removed. This restraint program is in effect for three years. Does that mean that the people on Blackhawk Way in north Toronto will have to wait for three years before they can start to get postal delivery? I would remind the minister that the Post Office, to which they have been invited to walk, is over a mile away from some of the houses on that street.
May 21, 1976


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, I will be ambivalent here. These cases come up all the time. I am quite pleased that a Liberal member asks me this question because I have been accused of favouring Liberal members. But now we have heard a negative representation from a Liberal.
The fact is that many thousands of Canadians do not have door to door delivery. Here it is a matter of lack of co-operation by the unions. It is the unions which spelled out in the agreement the number of pieces of mail mailmen can be expected to deliver in eight hours. We will have another look at this particular problem presented by the hon. gentleman, but I wish to point out in general that there are limitations on the size of the work force which were not imposed by the Postmaster General but rather by the size of the budget, the restrictions and the directives of the Treasury Board in light of the government restraint policy. This means that there are many Canadians who will be inconvenienced to the point sometimes of having to walk a mile to pick up their mail rather than having it delivered door to door.
The question is whether there should be a restructuring of the routes with the co-operation of the union, or whether by some other method we can implement door to door delivery in the hon. gentleman's riding. We will review this again, but I want the hon. member to know that there are hundreds of such cases across Canada at present and the only way in which we could satisfy every request would be possibly to hire another 50 or 100 letter carriers at a time when we do not have such a mandate. We are trying to accommodate as many people as possible by continually reviewing our route structure and the workload of the postal employees because I do agree that, as a general principle, wherever the population warrants it Canadians should have mail delivery door to door.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Chairman, I am taking part in these discussions today for many reasons which not only concern myself but Canadians from coast to coast. The primary reason of course is the general inefficiency of the Post Office as a whole, and I am glad to see that even the parliamentary secretaries on the other side are in opposition to the way in which the Post Office is being run.
However, before I begin my remarks, and in fairness to my friend, the Postmaster General, I want to take this opportunity to offer my belated condolences to him for inheriting the department in the mess in which it is in, a mess which probably the Post Office Department has never seen in the history of the mail service. He inherited it from the former minister, the hon. member for Papineau, who will probably go down in history not only as the most incompetent minister but certainly as most untrustworthy, as witnessed by his resignation as minister of consumer and corporate affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto John Jelinek: Because coincidentally the Postmaster General has acquired that portfolio as well from the hon. member for Papineau, I sympathize with him doubly. The only consolation that he can have is that the former minister was not minister of consumer and corporate affairs long enough to bring that department down to the all time low to which he brought the Post Office.	,
Business of Supply
In any case the major concerns regarding the Post Office were ably presented by my colleague, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, who so eloquently brought to light the many inefficiencies and mismanagement in the Post Office. Because of my concern regarding strikes and walkouts, particularly within the Post Office and other essential services, I would like to find out from the minister whether he or indeed the government has any long range suggestions to overcome the labour unrest which plagued us in the past.
We all know that in just five years the Post Office had a total of 24 illegal strikes around the country, causing untold inconveniences and hardships for the public and for industry. They were the cause of many bankruptcies within the segment of our economy which forms the backbone of our industrial life, and I am of course referring to the small businessman who seems to be neglected by large governments, large unions, and large multinational corporations each day. Because of the fact that he is a small businessman he is unable to do very much, if anything, on his own to overcome his problems. Yet this government, and specifically the Post Office Department, deals with these illegal and other strikes on a day by day basis as it does with almost everything, rather than establishing a comprehensive long range program to deal with matters relating to labour unrest mainly in essential services such as that provided by the Post Office. In this regard it is no secret that I, along with the majority of my constituents, would like to see the right to strike taken away from individuals and groups of individuals within areas that adversely affect the well-being of our nation, and of course the starting point could be the Post Office.
There are other general and pertinent questions which must be answered, such as the fact that federal departments, because of their dissatisfaction with the unreliable mail service are now resorting to the use of couriers, and the rising amount of theft and loss within the Post Office. I understand that the Post Office has admitted to a loss of nearly half a million pieces in the last five years alone. This is a disgrace, it is unbelievable.
Another such matter is the unrealistic deficit within the Post Office, the fact that operating expenses have increased by 24.6 per cent, a matter which is hard to comprehend when the same government under which the Post Office Department operates is advocating guidelines and controls to be applied by the rest of the country far below that level. It can be easily said: do unto others as you do unto yourself. But unfortunately this is not the case with the government.
I could go on and on about the mish-mash of inefficiencies and mismanagement within the department, not only under the minister's predecessor but under the minister himself, but, as I said at the outset, my colleagues who spoke before me today and those who will follow me this afternoon will speak in detail on these questions which should and indeed must be answered for the benefit of all Canadians.
I would now like to dwell on a more specific subject which relates to the minister's responsibility with regard to the Olympics. I am of course referring to the Olympic coins, stamps, and medallions so far as production, sales, distribution and, I hope, profits are concerned. I am certain
95 5 68-38'/z

May 21, 1976
Business of Supply
that, unlike the minister's predecessor, the Postmaster General will not in answer to my questions relating to the Olympics bring forth racial discrimination as did his predecessor on every occasion that I brought the matter of the Olympics before the House.
The minister knows very well that I am and always have been very concerned about the way in which the Olympics have been handled so far as the financing and staging of the games is concerned. He knows also that I have attempted to co-operate with the government on this matter to the best of my ability.
However, in this respect let me begin by saying that the result of the coin and stamp programs to date is a far cry from the objective the Post Office set as a goal when the Olympic Act passed through this House two years or so ago. In fact, what had been realized in net profits compared with the original projected forecast by the Post Office is a disgrace. Instead of net profits of $250 million, total sales of Olympic coins as of September 30-sales, not profit-were only $141 million, which is bad enough, but what is worse is that the net profit was less than $35 million, and even now with just months remaining before the program ceases to exist in accordance with the legislation, the forecasts by the coin department indicate that the silver coins alone will contribute $150 million toward the capital cost of the games. That is a nice fat figure, but it is still $100 million less than was originally projected. How can we trust or believe that projection when, out of the seven series, four series realized less than $35 million?
There are only three series to go, and I realize that there are still some coins from the other series yet to be sold, but certainly that $150 million goal at this stage of the game, although it is $100 million behind, is still unrealistic. We simply cannot believe the predictions, based on past performances, and when the minister gets a chance to answer this specific question I would like him to do so.
The minister and the managing director of the program, Mr. Austin Page, boast that no other company or industry in Canada has been as successful as the coin program was under the Postmaster General with regard to net profits. I can only say that no other business has the federal government printing or minting coins in that regard. It is as simple as that. I know the minister will be happy to explain these forecasts. I am sure he will explain why, with all the spending going on, such a concentrated continuation of advertising is taking place in the United States, for example.
I realize that to sell you have to advertise, but it has been proven that in the United States the program has been a disaster. Less than 10 per cent of the total sales have been made in the United States. The advertising program must be very expensive. I will wait for the minister to come up with that figure, but I doubt whether it is worth while at this stage of the game. I think it is really a waste of money.
There are other areas which we cannot understand. What about having to absorb the $1.6 million of the cost in the bank programs within the United States, or the $600,000 advertising costs which have to be absorbed as a result of the Canadian re-solicitation program? I wish the minister-and I know he has difficulty doing this, and I have
[Mr. Jelinek.l
great respect for him, but I am concerned about the programs in his department-on behalf of the program and his department would own up to the fact that there is no doubt in anyone's mind about the inefficient personnel within his department and the Olympic coin program, at least in the area of projections. There has been a total failure in projections, and we cannot continue to believe the projections at this late stage.
I also wish the minister would come clean in this regard, as he often does, and lay the facts on the table as they really are by admitting, unfortunate as it may be, that the coin program has been a big failure, and by producing realistic forecasts which can be trusted, as opposed to past performances. Once that can be counted on we can try to figure out what deficit or what part of the deficit will be able to be absorbed with regard to this coin situation.
Still on the coin side, it would be good to know how many coins are yet to be minted. These are very pertinent questions, and I would like to get the minister's attention now. I know I have been going on at length with regard to the coins, but how many coins are yet to be minted, if any, both in the silver and gold categories? What are the plans for the unsold coins, and is consideration being given to the possibility of continuing the program into 1977? The minister knows that according to the legislation the program will end at the end of this year.
I think the same questions must be answered with regard to the Olympic stamp situation as well, and more than that I understand it to be a fact that there exists a huge surplus of Olympic stamps on hand with little if any possibility of disposing of these stamps on a regular basis. It seems to me that the stamp program is in worse shape than the coin program.
It is hard to believe, but the stamp program has only raised a fraction of the $10 million anticipated by the original projection. Perhaps this is the reason why the Postmaster General saw fit to initiate his own mini lottery within the Post Office. Is the minister not concerned that such contests as the one he has established in the Post Office can result in the use of pressure tactics by wicket clerks, for example, within his department? There are enough problems within the department already without more problems. I say this because since the Post Office has had to resort to such means to sell these stamps, is the minister contemplating the extension of the stamp program into 1977 as well? I hope if this is the case that it will be brought forward in the House in the form of an amendment to the act, and I am quite sure our party would consider that.
However, going back to the mini lottery within the Post Office, perhaps the minister should consider similar contests for regular stamps, and the main prize could be on-time delivery of the winner's mail for one week. That would be something unusual in the Post Office.
The whole question of the Olympic stamp lottery within the Post Office is questionable as to its legitimacy, at least, because it definitely relates to the Olympic legislation passed by parliament-the stamp program-and yet at no time was parliament asked or even advised of this situation. An explanation by the Postmaster General must be given in this regard. The stamp program is tied in with the original Olympic legislation, and therefore nothing which
May 21, 1976

differs from the legislation can be done by the department or by the government unless it comes back before parliament in the form of legislation; I certainly hope there will be some explanation from the minister in this regard.
I would also like an explanation regarding the sale of Olympic stamps to foreign countries at discount prices, which also goes against the Olympic Act. I refer specifically to the United States where these stamps are being sold for less than they are in Canada and then are being bootlegged back into Canada with the profit going to no other than the bootleggers themselves. I realize these schemes are initiated to try to get rid of the stamps, which along with the surplus stamps on hand went unsold, but surely if the minister is going to be changing the legislation which was passed by parliament, parliament should be advised as to any changes within that legislation. Once again, these questions, should and must be answered for the benefit of all involved.


An hon. Member:: Keep to the right department.


Otto John Jelinek: This comes under the Post Office Department, and the Postmaster General knows that very well. The hon. member may not know that, but the minister does.
Last but not least is the Olympic metal stamp sculpture or medallion situation. I am sure the minister will inform us as to the quantities which were ordered, packaged, and sold, and once again, as with the coins and stamps, I am sure he will let us know what the Post Office intends to do with those medallions which cannot be sold, how long this program is intended to continue-the same as with the stamp and coin program-and whether they will go hand in hand or whether it is a separate situation.
You may recall, Mr. Chairman, that Austin Page, the managing director of the coin program, once pooled the Olympic medallion thing with the Olympic coin situation so I assume it can be taken that it falls in the same category.
You may recall, Mr. Chairman, that last October there was a question as to who received the contract to mint and package these medallions and what criteria were used in making the final decision. The reason I bring this matter forward now is because it was my understanding that Mr. Norton Cooper, president of the Jacques Cartier mint, was in fact awarded some if not most of the contracts relating to the medallions, while other reputable Canadian mints whose bids were considerably lower did not receive the consideration they deserved. I say this because the same Mr. Cooper was involved in the past with the prosecution of DREE officials in connection with substantial federal grants that were made to Mr. Cooper's other company, Silver Shield Mines, and it is puzzling to say the least that this individual continues to be favoured by the government of which he illegally took advantage.
It is my understanding that the other well known Canadian mints did not even receive an opportunity to bid on these medallions, and that some contracts regarding the commemorative medals were awarded to a Swiss firm. I am sure that once again the minister would be happy to inform us where these medallions are being produced, by
Business of Supply
whom, and who is responsible for their packaging, distribution, and sale.
As with the other Olympic coins, be they silver or gold, as well as the stamps, we should like to know whether it is the government's intention to extend this program. I think I have already made mention of the problem of unsold products.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I should like to reiterate that from the outset, and along with the majority of my colleagues, I have always been in favour of the Olympic ideal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: We have on many occasions criticized the development of the program in regard to financing and in regard to staging. The blame must clearly rest on the shoulders of the federal government which gave to the city of Montreal, to Mayor Drapeau and to COJO, the opportunity to play with matches-and in the process to burn themselves.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say, and I am sure that I speak on behalf of many of my colleagues, that I wish the Olympic games the greatest success. I hope that once the Olympic flame dies down we as Canadians can hold our heads up high and be proud that we put on a good Olympics.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. gentleman is not speaking for too many members on the other side. The only greater penalty than a poor service would be to have to read the diatribe that we have had to listen to from the member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I would agree that the hon. gentleman is not a racist. We have often discussed that and I think I have protected him against that charge in public. He knows exactly how I feel on that particular subject. It is not an accusation that I would want made against me, so it is not one that I would make lightly. The hon. gentleman need have no fear that, because he is asking questions about the Olympics that are to take place in Quebec, anybody is going to put a racist connotation on his questions. On the other hand, I think if he reads his speech he may find that he has smeared a lot of people himself, and that is not very nice.
We could start with the Olympic stamp sculpture. It was the gentlemen in front of me who issued the contract and I should protect them by pointing out that the Olympic stamp sculptures were tendered by at least three firms in this country. They were not issued to the Jacques Cartier mint. The hon. gentleman, through circumspection, brought in a Mr. Cooper who went bankrupt despite DREE funding four or five years ago, as have thousands of businessmen. The point is that the recent contract was awarded to a large firm in Toronto known as Johnson, Matthey & Mallory Ltd. of Toronto. It is a very responsible organization. I visited the plant and met with the owner, the supervisor of the plant, and the production engineer, to make sure that the metallic sculptures they were producing for us under tender were of a quality to match the first sets that had been made by Jacques Cartier.

May 21, 1976
Business of Supply
The Jacques Cartier mint ran into financial trouble so I felt it should not be included in the subsequent tenders in case it had financial problems again and would not be capable of supplying the merchandize. We took its name off the tender list and issued the contract to Johnson, Matthey & Mallory Ltd. of Toronto. I think it is important that this go on the record.
As an interesting sidelight, Mr. Chairman, that firm had a little trouble with production and the first people they went to for advice was the Jacques Cartier mint.
I do not like smears, Mr. Chairman, and I do not want them on the record even if they are unintentional. These things were tendered, the tender was won by the firm I have mentioned twice. I suspect Johnson, Matthey & Mallory Ltd. is well known in the country. It is a respectable and responsible firm in Toronto and I would imagine it would resent any attack on its integrity, as do my officials.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. gentleman has asked a lot of basic questions but it was very hard to follow because they were interwoven with a certain amount of bias in philosophy that makes it kind of hard, perhaps, to keep my temper on the matter.


Mr. Paproski:: Be nice, Bryce.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I intend to be nice but it is kind of hard in this situation. I think if the hon. gentleman is sincere he should really start with reading the Debates when the act came into this House and was agreed to by all parties, except the New Democratic Party. It specified what finances were to be placed at the disposal of COJO through the federal government for the building of the Olympics, whether they are held in Montreal, Vancouver or Edmonton is unimportant. That debate is specific and important because the official spokesmen of our party at that time, the President of the Treasury Board, stated that we anticipated raising $100 million from coins. It is in Hansard. I cannot tell the hon. gentleman any more clearly than that. They are not my words. They are not Austin Page's words. They are the words of the hon. minister when he was speaking. He said we would put a ceiling of $250 million on the revenue coming from coins in the event that coins became very popular in the venture.
His own realistic appraisal was that if we were to get $100 million it would be a magnificent effort which we damn well should not be ashamed of as Canadians. I say right now that we will reach that $100 million despite the cynicism of the hon. gentleman opposite, who is not a racist but is without doubt the greatest cynic in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I will also suggest to him-


Steve Eugene Paproski: You are speaking of a former Olympic athlete. Shame on you!


Otto John Jelinek: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Do you want me to call him an optimist?


Charles Robert Turner: The hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley on a point of order.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Chairman, I have to rise and object to the last statement of the Postmaster General when he called me a cynic. If he wants to call it pessimism he can call it that on the past figures-out of seven coin series four have already been minted and as of last September less than $35 million has been realized. I hope that the Postmaster General withdraws that statement. He may call me a pessimist but not a cynic.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Maybe I should not call him anything, pessimist or cynic. However, I do not see anything unparliamentary about cynic. If the word cynic bothers the hon. members, I will gladly withdraw it. I hope it is recorded in Hansard that I am withdrawing the word cynic and substituting the word pessimist.
I come back to the hon. member's contribution. I am not reflecting on my predecessor, who is not here to defend himself. He left the Post Office in extraordinary good shape. That extraordinarily good minister is not in the cabinet now because he had the courage to get up and talk to the consumers of this country, and he paid a pretty heavy price for it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: In case there is any doubt about the integrity of the Mallory firm, they are the ones who prepared the blanks for the Mint. That credential ought to satisfy the hon. member about the quality and integrity of the firm supplying the metallic stamp.
With regard to what will be done with the extras, they will be melted down under the supervision of the Royal Mint or by whatever authority is charged with that. The hon. member should know there will be very few since, basically, we mint them to order. If I am not mistaken, we keep a minimum inventory of metallic stamps on hand.
The important thing about the coin program is that periodically the whole operation is subject to audit by the Auditor General's department. The Auditor General has made an odd footnote where he thinks the operation ought to be tightened up in inventory of samples. There is some question about amounts of money advanced in the United States in the form of advertising. I read the Auditor General's report on the operation several months ago. He gave it a clean bill of health.
On Tuesday next I will be tabling the report. I say to the hon. member that, despite his pessimism, we will hit $100 million which the former President of the Treasury Board said we would hit; not the $250 million that Mayor Drapeau talked about, not the $250 million put in the act in order to make certain that, in the event the coins took off, we did not turn over more. However, we did say in that same speech we would put at the disposal of COJO $375 million from lotteries, stamps and coins. We are not spending here. We are just raising it through three programs. We will meet that, obviously, with the success of the lottery.
Sales through the Olympic coin program amount to over $216 million. Our profit is more than half way to the $100 million. This is one of the reasons why it is being con-
May 21, 1976

tinued. We do not think we will hit the $100 million; we think we will hit $125 million. That should remove some of the pessimism of the hon. member.
On Tuesday next the hon. member will have a copy of this. It contains all the information. I do not want to bore the House now with all the statistics to which they can have access on Tuesday. I simply want to assure him, as a concerned Canadian member of parliament, that the coin program is one Olympic program that will not be stigmatized or have attached to it any kind of scandal. The Auditor General keeps close guard on the operation. The advertising and everything else are properly accounted for. I am satisfied that the operation is being adequately run under Mr. Page.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Chairman, the minister is referring to a document which he said he will be tabling on Tuesday. It might be helpful to the discussion and the committee if he follows the ordinary rules. Having referred to it specifically, he should table it today so that we can have a look at it from the point of view of this opposition day.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I have no objection to that, Mr. Chairman. I would have tabled it earlier today had it come into my possession earlier today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You cannot do it now.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am not going to get into all the innuendoes of the hon. member. I will simply sum up by saying yes, we will hit $100 million. Yes, we will hit $10 million in stamps. We are over $50 million now. Yes, the surplus metallic stamps will be accounted for and melted down. The metal will be returned to the Royal Mint, or whatever we do, to get a credit. Yes, we are running things in a business-like fashion. Yes, Mr. Page is quite adequate. Yes, we will meet the objective which the President of the Treasury Board set several years ago.
With regard to the matter of the medallions, I do not know anything about that. Our only interest in the medallions is that they do not interfere with the coin program. They are not purchased through the Post Office. To the best of my knowledge they are not purchased through any responsibility of the Postmaster General. I will verify that later, but I am quite certain of it. It is a COJO production. They may or may not have been minted out of the country. I feel certain they were awarded to somebody on tender, but they do not have anything to do with the Postmaster General. If the hon. member wants to say that it does, this is his opportunity, but he had better be accurate. As far as I am concerned, I do not have anything to do with the medallion program and I do not want anything to do with it. I hope the hon. member reflects on the inference he perhaps unintentionally placed on the record. What I have anything to do with, I will stand behind.


Mr. McKinley:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to address my remarks on the Post Office to three separate topics. The first two are related and I will cover them together. The last is on a different matter and I will cover it separately. There may be a fourth matter about which I will raise some questions.
Business of Supply
The first matter I would like to bring before the minister is the problem of the lack of communication within the Post Office as to the exact status third-class mail holds. This problem first came to my attention in April of 1976. It seems that the agricultural representative for Huron County sent notices of a meeting to area farmers by third-class mail on April 20. The recipients of the notices did not receive them until as late as April 30 to May 3, a full ten to 12 days after they were originally mailed. As a consequence many of the people involved never got any notice of the meeting until it was over. I believe there was more than one meeting involved.
I was asked to inquire into the problem, and this is when I became aware of the lack of communication on the status of third class mail within the Post Office. The customer service person contacted confirmed that the delay of third class mail is condoned in the Post Office. He did mention, however, that the delay of ten days for delivery of a mailing in a county was unusually long. He also suggested the use of first class postage to assure delivery of notices of the meeting.
It seems evident that in the eyes of the Post Office employees third class mail does not have any status at all. On May 6 I informed the Postmaster General of this problem. I received no answer as to the status of this mail. He suggested I send him complete information and I have since done that. I look forward to the minister making a personal inquiry into the situation as he promised in the House when I raised the question. I believe this will benefit many people who use open envolopes with six cent stamps. They should be made aware of the situation. There is a conflict between Post Office employees and the general public as to the status of third class mail. This presents a serious problem and everyone concerned should be allowed to know what exactly a 6-cent stamp means.
The second matter I should like the Postmaster General to consider is the effect of the proposed increase in the cost of first class mail announced today. The hon. gentleman said there would be an increase of 50 per cent in two stages from the present rate of 8 cents to one of 12 cents. An increase of 50 per cent can hardly be justified during the present time of restraint. If the government plans to increase the rate let us make sure the business community is in agreement. If it is not, business interests might well feel they should turn to the other forms of communication. It would not be surprising if, given the Post Office's record of poor service and inefficiency, the business community were to turn to other forms of communication should they feel this latest increase is unjustified, in which case any additional revenue from the higher postal charges will be more than counterbalanced by a decrease in the total volume of mail carried. The increase announced today could be the beginning of a vicious circle. Finally, let me say that if rates are increased the department must make sure there is a corresponding increase in the quality and efficiency of the service offered to the public.
Another matter I wish to mention is of direct concern to the Department of Public Works, although it clearly comes within the purview of my responsibilities as the spokesman of my party on matters having to do with the Post Office. In the early seventies, as part of the government's

May 21, 1976
Business of Supply
policy to reorganize the Post Office, plans were made for the development of metropolitan area postal plants designed to improve the system of moving mail and to cope with projected future mail volumes. This project was referred to as the MAPP program.
The new MAPP facilities which, for reasons I shall show, are of interest to us today are those in the Toronto area, specifically the large Gateway postal plant at Dixie and Ellington Road, Mississauga, and the downtown Toronto south-central letter processing plant near Lakeshore Boulevard East at Greenwood Avenue. Both these facilities were developed by the Department of Public Works under the project management principle in 1971, and the estimated cost at that time was $80 million. The date of completion was tentatively set for Christmas mail in 1974. This completion date soon proved to be unrealistic. A progress report stated that Gateway would be ready for live mail testing in 1975. The south-central plant was also expected to begin live mail testing some time in 1975. This was the first announcement in a trend which is most revealing and one which, once understood, must be stopped.
The story in its barest form is one of delays and rising costs. As I say, in 1971 the cost was estimated at $80 million, with completion to be effected in December, 1974. In 1975 the facilities were still not completed and the cost was reported to be in the order of $140 million. Today, according to informed sources, the cost is estimated to be in the order of $160 million and it is believed the Toronto plants will not be operative until at least 1977. There is no guarantee that these figures are correct, however, and costs could quite possibly soar to $200 million with a completion date set for 1978.
There is some suspicion that irregularities exist in the terms of the contracts governing these postal plants. They take the form of contracts in which no time limitations are provided, contracts which embody no financial limitations upon contractors or sub-contractors. It is rumoured that the total consultants' bill alone is in the neighbourhood of $20 million. The contractors working on these projects have nothing to lose as long as costs keep increasing and the completion date is extended.
There have been implications, Mr. Chairman, that there is no reason why the buildings should be completed on schedule. There is some suspicion that many interested groups would like to see the projects continue, with further delays and further extra costs. It is felt there was little concern shown for time limitations and cost factors in connection with either of these projects. All this, of course, affects the Post Office and the efficiency with which mail is delivered and, as such, it should be of great concern to the minister responsible for the Post Office. In closing, I should like to ask him three questions: 1. Why have these postal plants suffered such delays and such increases in cost? 2. What will be the final cost of these plants and what are the definite completion dates? 3. What are the terms of the contracts related to the construction of these postal plants that they should allow for such delays and cost increases?
The minister told us today that the Department of Supply and Services looks after equipment and the Department of Public Works looks after buildings. It is surely in the interest of the Post Office Department to make sure

that contracts are awarded in the proper form, and that contractors do the job the Post Office wants them to do.
From my experience in negotiating contracts it is customary in most cases to put in a penalty clause to make sure that the facilities are completed when needed, or by the date contracted for. This is the normal procedure but apparently it was not followed in this instance. The question arises whether these new facilities were necessary in the first place. Perhaps they were not. If they were, is the mail being delayed unduly because they have not been put in place?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I shall be very brief, Mr. Chairman, because there are several other members who wish to ask questions. If I should fail to deal with all the point which have been raised I will attempt to do so in my closing remarks. First, let me say that all the hon. member's questions about the new facilities in Toronto are being asked on the wrong estimates. While all these questions may be appropriate, they are being asked in the wrong place. The Minister of Public Works is responsible for the building, for the maintenance, for costs, for services, for architects fees, for consultants fees, and for turning the buildings over to the Post Office. I must confess that I have not come here prepared to answer questions on behalf of his department.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Does the minister not agree that this delay-there appears to have been a delay from the start- affects the Post Office greatly? I would at least ask the minister whether he is making daily representations to the Minister of Public Works and to the Minister of Supply and Services in order to see just what is the hold-up, or does he not need these facilities in the Post Office?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we need them, and yes, we are not happy with the delay. Perhaps the more fundamental question is, is the delay deliberate? I think the hon. member might be inferring that some people would like to see this work stretched out, and I think that is a pretty strong statement. Perhaps hon. members would like me to help find out, but I am not able to do so because the hon. member who has advanced the question has offered no significant proof that this is the case. I think he would have to be much more precise.
We would like to get into the building as soon as possible. To the best of our knowledge the delays are unintentional. if the hon. gentleman has any information that the delays are intentional, then I think it is his duty as a good Canadian to bring the information forward.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Chairman, I did try to make it plain. It seems that the terms of the contract allow for this; it is not a question of anyone breaking the law or anything like that. Is the minister able to say anything about the contract itself?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, I have not seen the contract. I can only repeat that this question is best addressed to the minister in the question period or during the estimates of the Minister of Public Works. I will reply a little later to the question about third class mail, particularly as
May 21, 1976

it affects the organizations and associations in the hon. gentleman's riding.


Mr. McRae:: Mr. Chairman, I have enjoyed the debate this afternoon, particularly the remarks of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris whose speech I would describe as the decline and fall of the Post Office. I should like to take a somewhat more optimistic view of the whole scene as I see it, and I think I could probably put a title on my own speech and call it the decline and rise of the Post Office.
On the decline side I have to accept the comments of the minister. We were certainly in serious trouble, and there is no question that we still are. But I see very optimistic signs in the Post Office today and I hope that within the next year or two the situation will change to the point where we can be extremely proud of the Post Office as an institution. There is no question that in the last few years there has been very definite instability in the Post Office. Members on all sides have commented on the number of work stoppages, work to rules and so on, which have made it very difficult for the postal authorities and for the Post Office itself to move mail on schedule. There have been needless delays.
Another problem we have had concerns the employee himself. Traditionally the employee of the Post Office has been someone respected in the community who played a definite role in the community, one who in the past would be equated with a police officer, a fireman, or with people working in other institutions in the community. Over the years I think the postal employee has been downgraded. His role has been diminished, and accordingly his salary has been diminished in relation to these other groups.
Because of this instability to which I have referred we have lost some business that we might otherwise have gained. But there has not been a total loss. As a matter of fact over the last five years there has been an increase in business of 20 per cent, or about one billion pieces of mail distributed by the Post Office annually. Nevertheless there is no doubt that some groups in the community have chosen alternate methods of depatching mail or other goods that would normally be moved by the Post Office. This is one of the major problems that have faced the minister since he took office within the last year and a half.
The Minister told the people of Canada on several occasions during the last year or two that there would be no rate increase of any kind until such time as he saw some improvement in postal service. Today he announced some badly needed rate increases, increases that I understand disturb many members in view of the present period of restraint. Nonetheless these increases are legitimate, even with the anti-inflation program. No part of the anti-inflation program says that price increases cannot be made when they result from cost increases. Certainly the cost increases in the Post Office department far exceed the revenue increases we are seeking.
To return to what I was saying, the minister said he would not increase the rates until he could justify it in terms of better service. I think we are now seeing an improvement in service. Some of our larger customers are
Business of Supply
telling us they are experiencing improvements in service. A period of stability has now come to the Post Office.


Walter David Baker: What is your question to the minister? Do not waste the time of the committee.


Paul Edmund McRae: This period of stability commenced, I think, with the contract itself. We now have a reasonable contract. Indeed I think it is a good one. Once more the employees are in a position of parity with other groups in the community, and I think this fact alone will increase stability in the Post Office.
Another very important step toward better service and productivity was taken by gradual acceptance of the postal code. We now have an acceptance rate of 57 per cent. Then associated with the code and its acceptance is the whole mechanization program which is fundamentally designed to improve service in the Post Office. This program is only partially completed and some major aspects of it are not yet in play.
Mechanization is partially a fact in Toronto, Hamilton, Vancouver and London. For example, in Toronto two new plants are opening and are now working at 20 to 30 per cent capacity. Toronto, which handles approximately 50 per cent of the mail moved in Canada by the Post Office, is a very key point. We hope that the two plants in Toronto will prove to be very efficient in operation, but it will probably be the end of the year before they are functioning at full efficiency.


Walter David Baker: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


Charles Robert Turner: This can only be done with the consent of the hon. member because the time will be taken from his allotted 20 minutes.


Paul Edmund McRae: Yes, I will, accept a question.


Walter David Baker: With the improvements the hon. member speaks about in Toronto, where this great bulk of mail is handled, does the hon. member think this will shorten the time it takes to send a letter from Prescott to Ottawa, some 60 miles, which on three occasions last week apparently took seven days? Do you think that automation will help this problem in my constituency?


Paul Edmund McRae: I do not think it is going to help that problem, Mr. Chairman, and I never suggested it would. What I am saying is that this one change will help the province. Certainly letters going through Toronto will be facilitated with this new equipment. If the hon. member would just wait for a minute he will hear some of the other solutions I want to suggest.
There is no question in my mind but that one of the major areas of this problem relates to general productivity of the individual and the feeling in the Post Office, or general morale, which is something I think is more important than equipment. I hope to be able to go through all these points in the short time that is available. I agree with the hon. member that this is not a total solution. If the mail is not going through Toronto this equipment certainly is not going to make a difference or solve the problem in that

May 21, 1976
Business of Supply
particular case. However, we will try to satisfy the hon. member in terms of the other points I propose to make.
In addition to this program of mechanization we have a program designed to get more acceptance of the postal code. Incidentally we can expect a very aggressive program fairly shortly, and these plans are under way, designed to increase the use of the code, particularly among the larger business users of the mail service which make up 80 per cent of the postal load. In addition to this move toward greater acceptance of the code we have an aggressive marketing program in terms of using the Post Office and the facilities provided by it. We are particularly concerned about dealing with the larger business users in terms of how they use the mail, how they address their envelopes, how they use the code, the size of their envelopes, and so on.
This aggressive program directed to the business community will be something of which we will see a great deal more in the near future. People will increasingly see the red, white, and blue colours of the Post Office. It is hoped they will become more aware in terms of what the Post Office can do and what the users can do to help get the mail to the point of destination in a limited period of time. There is an aggressiveness which is something we have not had in the Post Office for a very long time, but I think we will see a great deal more of it in the next six months or a year. Even at this stage of the game we are seeing some success. Large and small users, individuals and businesses are suggesting that things are already improving. They are indicating a desire to support the Post Office in its program designed for improved and more efficient service.
The major criticism of the Post Office over the last four or five years has been, and rightfully so, in respect to morale. This is a more difficult problem in the sense that you just cannot buy a machine and turn this thing around, as you can when using the code and mechanization. This is a problem that is associated with people, and I think it is the major problem the Post Office has faced. It is also a major problem facing many industries in this country today. We are talking about the work place itself and the role that the individual has to play.
We are talking about individuals who work 40 of their perhaps 80 waking hours, and the satisfaction those individuals get from their jobs. It is wrong to assume that we in the Post Office and the people who work there are not basically concerned about this problem. I can assure you that there have been meetings recently with senior Post Office officials and employees to discuss this very problem, and how we can improve the service and increase productivity. Bringing management and employees together in the Post Office on a continuing basis is one of the ways we think we can improve the spirit within the Post Office, and eventually the service itself. This has to be brought down to the individual worker. We have to practice industrial democracy, and industrial democracy means giving the workers a share in some of the management decisions in the Post Office.
The other point has to do with the work on the floor of the Post Office and on the postal route. We must make these more meaningful activities and this is something-


An hon. Member:: How can you do that?


Mr. Dick:: Mr. Chairman, I was wondering if the hon. parliamentary secretary would permit a short question.


Paul Edmund McRae: Yes.


Paul Wyatt Dick: When the hon. member talks about this involvement in democracy, is he referring to something like participatory democracy? Does he hope this will have the same effect and success that the so-called participatory democracy we heard about at one time enjoyed?


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Chairman, the participatory democracy in the terms the hon. member has mentioned is very definitely a current concept, particularly when we see this week that the CLC is talking about participating as a partner with the government, with business and the whole economy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Edmund McRae: I think there is a need for some kind of participation of this kind within the Post Office. These are things we all have to learn something about, including the government. The point of the matter is that we are very concerned about the situation. Another aspect of participatory democracy, as I see it, is the satisfaction an individual gets from his job. This is another area about which we must be concerned. The two have to be brought together so that we do have that kind of participatory democracy.
If the hon. member wants an example, and this is what I think he was leading to, we are talking about a massive marketing program in terms of getting the proper use of the mails by the individual users so that the mail will move quicker and more accurately. We think our employees who are sorting the mail should be dealing with questions of this kind. We think there are roles that can be played by those individuals. We think we can make the work at the Post Office more satisfactory for the individual, and thus make the individual much more productive.
These are some of the problems we are looking at within the Post Office, and I think we are beginning to have some success toward a solution. I must remind hon. members of this aggressive marketing program in fields other than those involving the moving of mail. There is a great deal of criticism about so-called junk mail and so on. There are many areas in which the Post Office should move. We believe we have one of the finest marketing programs in existence in the country, and it is based on the concept that the Post Office Department is the last single entity that drops into almost every household in the country on a daily basis. In some way we are able to move something to the doorstep, the postal box or the point at which our customers receive their mail on a daily basis.
We are trying to find ways to provide a variety of services to the public while at the same time increasing revenue. There has been a continuous growth in mail service, as I mentioned, something like one billion extra pieces per year. It is our belief that this growth will continue. People are going to see the red, white, and blue symbol of the Post Office a great deal more on their television screens, and they are going to see postal employees moving around the community in a strong marketing way. I hope that in a year or so the Post Office in
May 21, 1976

this country will be an institution of which we all can be extremely proud, as a going business.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Chairman, we have just heard an incredible speech about how the government is going to spend more money, and perhaps increase the deficit. We are going to have the red, white, and blue symbol throughout the community and on the television screen. Since these happen to be the Conservative party's colours I hope this will be borne in mind when the news is being spread.
Let me get down to some specifics about the Post Office generally. I should like to ask the Postmaster General a couple of questions. In small communities people rent postal boxes for which they pay a charge of perhaps $4 or $6 depending on the size of the box. Frequently they ask, since they do not receive the mail at their door, why they should pay the rental fee. They say it is an extra charge and that they are being discriminated against. Each time I inquire of the Postmaster General's department I am told that when there are sufficient people in an area it is cheaper to use letter carriers than to go through the postal box routine. Perhaps the minister could explain it to me a little better.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, I am taking note of several questions which I will answer all at once. I have noted that and will answer it before the debate is over.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Of course the minister is entitled to follow that procedure. That is one matter with which I wanted to deal.
It has been stated that the department is entering a period of restraint. I do not think most Canadians disagree that there should be restraint. I believe the government should have been in restraint long before it actually got there. However, I am glad to see it is in restraint. One thing, however, concerns me. In going into restraint the postal department has broken its word.
I feel that politicians in general and governments in general are at a fairly low ebb in this country in the sense that people say politicians make promises on which they never deliver and that the government says it will do something but never does. For example, the community of Carleton Place applied for door-to-door service. A survey was made. There are over 2,000 postal drops. On October 7 the Deputy Postmaster General wrote a letter in which he said that I would be pleased to learn that the results of a recently completed survey indicate that Carleton Place now meets the requirements for door-to-door mail delivery and that this service will be established in the next fiscal year. Since the letter stated that the service is to be established in the next fiscal year, which is this year, and since it did not say "might be" or "it is hoped it will be", a commitment has been made.
When a restraint program is in effect I do not believe further commitments should be made. However, once a commitment is made I think it should be honoured otherwise politicians and governments fall into disrepute. The people say that politicians promise things and do not follow through with them. I argued this matter through the mail with the Postmaster General.


An hon. Member:: How do you get your mail delivered?
Business of Supply


Paul Wyatt Dick: This correspondence took place between October and February, so one can see that it is a lengthy process. The reply I received states:
In my letter of November 4, 1975 I informed you that Carleton Place, Ontario qualified for door-to-door mail delivery and that the service would, in all probability, be established in the summer of 1976.
In the letter the minister talks about an indefinite period and refers to the probability. I want to point out that the promise was "will be established in the fiscal year". The only doubt was in respect of the probability about the summer of 1976.
I can understand the difficulty in respect of the fall or the winter, but I think the promise should be kept. Although I believe the government should follow the restraint program, at the same time I believe it should follow the commitments it has made. During the last election the government promised that in Montreal there would be house-to-house delivery service in the urban community of St. Louis de Terrebonne where there now are 2,550 homes that are without delivery service, in the community of Mascouche where there are some 2,400 homes without delivery service and in Mascouche Heights where there are 2,400 homes without delivery service. If these promises were made prior to a period of restraint I think a government, in order to maintain its credibility and in order to appear to be honest in the eyes of the community, must fulfil its promises. I agree with restraint, but this is sort of attrition in a sense. Sometimes when it is necessary to lay off people it is nicer to do it through attrition because in that way people are a little happier. I should like the Postmaster General to refer to this area as well when he replies.
The Postmaster General made some general remarks concerning the third area about which I should like to inquire. Because of the communications I had had concerning the situation at Carleton Place I contacted the Letter Carriers' Union of Canada. I received a letter from Robert McGarry, the National President, who said that he would discuss the situation and come up with some ideas. Perhaps the best thing I can do is read his letter so that the points he makes will be on the record. He said:
I know for a fact that service could be given to Carleton Place and to the other communities meeting requirements for letter carrier delivery and the Post Office could cut back on the men-years as requested by Treasury Board and still provide this service. The problem is in the refusal to cut back and stop hiring at the executive and top level positions in the Post Office which does little to improve or provide postal service to anybody but provide employment for executive types who cannot make their way in outside industry.
The Post Office was requested to cut back in the increase of staff for next year. The Post Office did all the cutting from the only branch which provides service to the public and that is in the operational category which includes postal clerks, mail service couriers and letter carriers.
The Post Office will increase its total hiring this year by 2.2 per cent, the highest proportionate growth will be at the higher paid executive level which will increase by 9.4 per cent. The technical, administrative support and operational groups which provide the service to the public will increase by 1.8 per cent and it is this kind of planning and thinking that has caused the service to deteriorate to the level we find it at today.
The only business the Post Office should be interested in is delivering mail. The Post Office is top heavy with high priced help which does little or nothing to provide service to the public but in most cases cuts from the service budget to make more money in the budget to hire more high-priced help.

May 21, 1976
Business of Supply
The cost of three of the executive types who will be hired could pay for, if put to proper use, the hiring of the six letter carrier positions necessary to institute delivery into Carleton Place this year.
The answer to the problem in Carleton Place is one which the union has been complaining about for years. The cut back is never in high-priced help but in service personnel such as letter carriers and service to the public.
I would be more than pleased to discuss the method of giving service without increasing the deficit with any group of M.P.'s or with the Postmaster General whom I do meet on occasions.
Since he mentions that he will speak to the Postmaster General about this I think the Postmaster General should take his advice. The final paragraph I wish to quote is as follows:
The make-up of the Post Office to date is 18,000 delivery personnel, 22,000 sortation and mail handling personnel, 20,500 executive and supervisory personnel, which makes one supervisor or executive employee for each two employees who provide the postal service.
If that is a true reflection, then it is a little top heavy with supervisory and executive personnel. I think one supervisor or executive should be able to supervise more than two of the people who do actual door-to-door delivery and other services for the public.
In conclusion I would like to point out that there is a complaint in rural areas about having to pay a fee for those little boxes at local post offices. The Post Office Department always says that it does that because it is more expensive than having letter carriers. In the specific case of Carleton Place where a promise has been made, if it really is cheaper to have letter carriers, I wish they would be used.
Then there are promises for the Montreal suburban areas, and finally there is a reference by Robert McGarry, union national president, talking about the number of people at high levels compared with those doing the marching or the troop work as it refers to Carleton Place. However, in general I thank the Postmaster General.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, I do not know what the practice is. I hope to have an opportunity to wind up on an unpartisan note with some pertinent observations about the Post Office. I know there are one or two other hon. members who want to speak, so I will answer very briefly and then at about twenty to five I hope to be given an opportunity.
Bob McGarry, the president of the Letter Carriers' Union, is an excellent president. He has met with me not once but on a dozen occasions. I would be surprised if his philosophy as enunciated in the letter is any other than that all our problems can be solved by adding more letter carriers to the union at the expense of another union's membership. We have terminology whereby supervisors in the Post Office, who are really the bottom line of management, are probably the ones we depend on most to keep the mails going, are probably the most underpaid, and probably the best case for some distribution of our employees' income, which I might be able to have some time to speak about.
If Mr. McGarry wants to reorganize the distribution of the letter carrier workers in such a way that he can provide extra service with the present workers, that is fine. What is really important is that if I told the hon. member

that this summer we would look after his particular problem, then he has my word that that is exactly what will happen. I will review the correspondence, but that commitment is for that particular letter and no other. I have hundreds of requests.
I do not know what Mr. McGarry was referring to, but in 1974 which is, after all, quite a few years ago, our executive strength was 31. If we fill all our positions, and we have not, the executive strength at the end of 1977 will be 34, an increase of only three people. With regard to our scientific and professional group-and there will be more and more and these people coming as the Post Office becomes more and more automated-I think the hon. member knows that the ultimate end of automation is attrition and a shift of the type of characteristics of the people we have to hire for different skills. I will not explain that.
Obviously the hon. member understands industrial relations, but even so, in 1974 there were only 70, and we are contemplating only 93 if we fill all the scientific and professional vacancies in the Post Office.
So Mr. McGarry can make an excellent case for more letter carriers, but he does not have to do so at the expense of somebody else. I think everybody in the Post Office, from the deputy minister to the labourer in the Post Office, is equally important, as long as he does his job, and I will have a chance to talk with Mr. McGarry when he gets back from his holidays. I think he is taking a holiday right now. I hope to talk with him within a month or two. I will discuss with him which executives he thinks I should dispense with and how many letter carriers I can hire in their place.
I think the hon. member asked me about boxes. I will deal with them. The old policy of the lock box rental was at one time pretty well left to the rural areas. Because of problems of restraint and because of continued city growth and urban sprawl, if that is a good word-and we get a lot of that in some parts of the country where new housing developments grow up, which do not necessarily warrant door-to-door mail such as the 2,000 criterion which was mentioned-we have been using boxes and charging about double the price of the rural areas. This is hardly fair in this period of restraint when people have to use this method of obtaining their mail when normally they would have letter carrier service, so what we are doing is reviewing the relationship of the cost of lock box rentals-which, as the hon. gentleman knows, is not an obligation because there are free boxes available in rural areas-between rural and the urban residents, and I imagine that out of that review will probably come a more equitable relationship.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Thank you.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a couple of points and ask a couple of questions of the minister in this debate on the estimates of the Post Office Department. First, I want to congratulate the Postmaster General on his many accomplishments in the department. As a man he has some very special and unusual qualities and unusual ability in matters of labour relations.
Thinking back to the strike of last fall, which was perhaps the longest postal strike in Canada's history-I think it was some 41 days-normally with the mail tied up
May 21, 1976

for that period of time one would expect constituents to be irate and writing and complaining, and demanding that the Postmaster General or the government do something. However, in this strike the Postmaster General was able to find an equitable balance between what was fair to the postal workers and what was fair to the Canadian people. From my own constituency I think I received only two letters, one saying "Tell Bryce to hang in there", and the other demanding that the government take action to halt the strike. However, generally the response from at least my constituency, where there are many rural post offices, was that the Postmaster General was making a reasonable and fair proposition in view of all the circumstances which existed in the country at that time relating to the problems of inflation, unemployment, and the implementation of the selective wage and price controls.
In my constituency there are some 42 rural post offices. About 39 of the 42 remained open throughout the strike, and in some areas we were able to have mail service between the small rural post offices on Manitoulin Island. The Postmaster General probably had one of the most difficult times of his political career, but he certainly had the overwhelming support of Canadian people from coast to coast.
There are one or two matters which I would like to bring to the minister's attention. One relates to the provision of a letter carrier walk on the Batchewana Indian reserve, Rankin location, which is located right within the city of Sault Ste. Marie. It contains really only a few streets in a section of the city of Sault Ste. Marie. It has been trying for some time to get a letter carrier walk service there. They have had group boxes at selected places throughout the reserve, and I have made representations on behalf of the chief and band council to have a letter carrier service.
Even though reserves like this are not part of an incorporated city, if they are an integrated section of the street system of a city as this one is, I think they should be treated as part of the city for letter carrier walk service. In this case about 40 homes and public buildings require a letter carrier walk or house-to-house delivery. It only amounts to about 1,000 feet in distance. I should like to see the service implemented on this reserve, Mr. Speaker.
We usually think of Indian reserves as being located in isolated areas but in this case we have a modern subdivision within the city boundaries with sewers, water, a modern industrial park, modern homes, a new band council administrative building, and a new daycare centre is being built which is a credit to the entire band. We should do our best to ensure that a community like this is given postal service equivalent to that of the city which surrounds it. I should like to ask the Postmaster General to look at this again as it has been under consideration by his department for several months.
Another area I should like to mention is the case of the rural route carriers. I think these people are often the unsung heroes of the Post Office Department. They are really contractors, not employees. They do not accumulate a pension and their job is rather insecure as they have to tender for the contract and, of course, the lowest tender wins. In the vast majority of cases, however, the people
Business of Supply
concerned are very dependable and go out regardless of weather, regardless of road conditions. They provide a very important service to people in rural areas-perhaps one of the most important services.
A few years ago the Post Office proposed that the contracts-which I believe run on a statutory basis for some five years-be changed so that there would be a regular indexing of income. The contract involves running a vehicle as well as wages, and it is difficult to pick an index which is completely satisfactory. I think we should try to move toward regular indexing of the contracts, however, especially in days of high inflation such as last summer when the index went over 11 per cent. I am sure we are all very pleased that the anti-inflation program is working so well that it is now below 9 per cent and, as the year goes on, I am sure it will come down to 8 per cent. Even with the 7 per cent or 8 per cent that we will probably see this year we should have some sort of automatic indexing for the rural route contractor.
Another matter to be considered is the automatic retendering of contracts over $10,000 every five years. There is an automatic requirement that it be tendered, otherwise it could be carried on beyond the five year limit.
These proposals have been in the offing with the Department of the Post Office and I would welcome the Postmaster General's views on them. There are a large number of rural route carriers in my constituency and they are very important people to the communities they service.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few words concerning the philatelic section of the Post Office. First of all, however, I want to take issue with an answer given earlier by the minister when he was commenting on the eight cents or ten cents it may cost the individual in Canada to send a letter. He said most people would only send half a dozen letters per year. According to the estimates, first class postage revenues will be $400 million, and the increase the minister has announced will therefore cost Canadian taxpayers $200 million. Any way you look at it, the cost will be $10 per person in this country, not ten cents. While that may seem a small amount it is 100 times the figure the minister gave earlier.
He said that 80 per cent of the postage in this country is paid by 20 per cent of the customers. That means that business pays, Mr. Chairman. But who does the minister think pays for the business postage? Of course it is deducted to arrive at the taxable income so 50 per cent of it will directly come off the national revenue. The other 50 per cent will be passed on to customers by business. Again, the taxpayer will pay. Unlike the Post Office, business concerns in this country have to abide by anti-inflation rules. They are allowed to pass on price increases, however. I should like to hear the minister's comments on this point.
The philatelic section of the Post Office is very important, Mr. Speaker. From time to time the minister has sent letters saying he is proud of the various new issues. The fact that the Post Office has a separate section for philatelists shows that this service is regarded as very important. In a letter circulated last Christmas the minister made reference to his severest critics-the philatelists of the country. If it is true that they are his severest critics then I cannot understand why he does not pay attention to them.

May 21, 1976
Business of Supply
An article in the September, 1974 issue of "The Stamp Magazine" begins at page 60:
Not so very long ago Canada was one of the most respectable stampissuing countries, with a long-standing tradition for fine stamps, a moderate stamp issuing policy, and a wealth of fascinating classical material.
The article goes on to explain the drastic changes taking place in the world of philately and challenges the Post Office to publish the sale and cost figures for the various issues that now proliferate. I believe this challenge has been issued before but there has been no response from the minister. The article comments on the number of examples pointing out how a greedy stamp issue policy can damage the image of the country.
I assume that the Post Office believes philately to be an important source of revenue, Mr. Chairman, because those stamps do not require any service. If the Post Office continues with its present policy, however, collectors will just abandon Canadian stamps. It is a very easy thing for a collector to just stop.
As an example of the proliferation, I would point to a release issued by the minister commenting on the 1975 stamp program, in which there were to be 34 issues. Of these, 11, or one-third, were related to the Olympic program and had some significance, but there were still 23 brand new stamp issues available for the collector. Even this month there is a new issue commemorating the centenary of the Royal Miltary College of Canada. I know that time is limited. Some of my colleagues have a few words to say. However, I hope the minister will make some sort of response.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for bringing to my attention and that of the committee another very important segment of the Post Office, that of the philatelic world. I agree that I said they are the greatest critics. They are also our most constructive critics. We meet very often with representatives of the magazine industry who are dedicated to this particular group of Canadians and, in fact, people around the world who save stamps.
Naturally some collectors complain about the quality, number of issues, and number of stamps in an issue. It affects the value of the stamps, especially if you are interested in speculation. However, I am rather surprised the hon. member would object to the issue of a stamp honouring the Royal Military College.


Walter David Baker: That is not the point.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The point is that we get thousands of requests from all members of the House. The hon. member opposite is no exception. We honour the one hundredth anniversary of this or that group or this or that community. As the country gets older, we get more and more of these requests. We are asked to honour this or that event or patent. It is difficult to keep down the number of issues.
I was heavily criticized in the philatelic world for issuing a stamp honouring the Calgary Stampede. It is uniquely Canadian and I thought it deserved honour. Nevertheless, it resulted in a lot of criticism. On balance, I expect this. It is the type of field we are in.

We are asked why Calgary, not Edmonton, or why Edmonton and not another community; why a stamp for the Caisse Populaire or the gentleman who first brought into being credit unions in this country.
We have an advisory group of Canadian citizens. They determine out of all these requests what is the most appropriate design. I get as far away from it as I can for the simple reason these are people who understand the business. They are artists such as Peter Swan. They include representatives of those who produce the stamp, either by offset or letterpress.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the minister, but pursuant to Standing Order 58(9)(a) and (9)(c) I have to put the question at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Carry on.


Gérald Laniel: There seems to be some disposition to carry on until five o'clock.


Walter David Baker: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is saying, as he did last evening, carry on. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka wants to raise some matters with the minister. I wonder if the minister might consider that and answer the questions.


Gérald Laniel: Some hon. members are concerned about the possibility of a vote beginning at five o'clock. Is it agreed by unanimous consent that the debate carry on and, at five o'clock, the resolution be accepted and reported to the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Darling:: Mr. Chairman, those who participated in the debate today had parochial questions to ask, and rightly so. The Postmaster General listened to them most sympathetically. I commend him because any time I have had to contact him he has been most cooperative.
I wish to bring a matter to the attention of the Postmaster General that is not parochial. It will cause a great deal of concern to many people. It is suggested that the department is going to do away with stamping envelopes with the name of the town, village or city, and replace that with a number. I wonder whether that is accurate. That is one of the most unpopular things the Post Office Department could do. I do not know what damned idiot dreamed it up. I wish to state in no uncertain terms that I am against it. I have before me two cancelled stamps. On one, the cancellation reads;
Postes Canada Post

That indicates where the letter came from.


An hon. Member:: Is that Parry Sound?


Stan Darling: No, that is Scarborough. However, who in hell living in Scarborough would know that? Here is another example:
Postes Canada Post


V6V 3A0
[Stage Direction]
May 21, 1976
[Stage Direction]
That is the great western city of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. I have a similar stamp from the United States where I believe the same program was being carried out. However, I am informed that all hell broke loose in that country and they have since changed their ideas.
If the Canadian Post Office has any such idea in mind, it will be bombarded with letters from one end of the country to the other. If the minister thinks there was a lot of mail on the capital punishment or the gun control issue, I will tell him there will be ten times as many with regard to this. The minister should tell the official who dreamed this up that if he wants to keep his job, he will scrap this idea right away.
There is another matter. It may seem rather parochial, but it is not. I speak on behalf of the Canadian weekly newspapers. I know that the Postmaster General is sympathetic. These newspapers serve the rural people of Canada. The Canadian Periodical Publishers' Association has asked the czar of the Anti-Inflation Board to roll back proposed postal increases. I quote from their publication:
CPPA and the Canadian Community Newspapers Association joined in making a formal application to the Anti-Inflation Board for a rollback in the new international postal rates for second class mail. Effective January 1, rates jumped from 5 cents a copy to 20 cents and from 7 cents to 36 cents for magazines mailed to the U.S. weighing four ounces and eight ounces respectively. The Post Office omitted notifying publishers despite a steady stream of correspondence on other postal matters such as coding and pre-sorting requirements.
I hope the Postmaster General will look into this. I am aware there may be some increase in rates to the Canadian weekly newspapers, possibly 20 per cent. In all fairness, the Postmaster General said he will reconsider this. I certainly hope that he will. The weekly newspaper is one of the greatest assets to the country, and especially to the rural country.
Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, I was about to give the hon. gentleman from Parry Sound-Muskoka some credit. His competence and persistence in making representations on behalf of certain weekly newspapers have resulted in my decision not to include them in the domestic increase I announced today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: In so far as international rates are concerned, I think hon. members will all appreciate what we had to do, which was to take into consideration the volume of mail coming in from the United States which was subsidized by Canada, against the volume of Canadian periodicals and newspapers going to the United States and which are subsidized by the Americans. There was a great imbalance and both countries agreed to raise their own domestic rates on magazines and newspapers being sent out of the country. This, on balance, was to the benefit of the Canadian newspaper industry.
In the seven minutes left to me I should like to touch briefly on a few subjects-I shall not be able to do any of them justice in that short time. I want to say I think these will probably be my last estimates as Postmaster General. Maybe not. In any event, I want to say that as much as I love the Post Office, I take no credit for it. If I had to make
Business of Supply
an appeal to the Canadian public I would say: This is your Post Office, please listen to one or two of the statistics.
Of all the five departments I have been with there is none I have enjoyed better. It is very people-oriented. There are 52,000 people working in the Post Office, most of them career people. The gentlemen you see sitting here in front of me are not civil servants who spend their time jumping from one department to another. They joined the Post Office 20 or 30 years ago, I suspect from Scotland, most of them; they have a pipeline both into the union and to management that I have never been able to figure out, but it is there. For every Davidson on the union side there is a Sinclair on the management side.
The important thing to remember is that in this country mail is very dependent on factors outside our control. We have six time zones, and climatic conditions play a big role. The lack of an adequate train service hurts us badly. We are very dependent on air mails, and a storm in Toronto, Montreal or Halifax affects mail right across the country, whether we like it or not. Nevertheless by international standards we are considered the third best Post Office in the world.
We are moving five billion pieces of mail in a year. That breaks down the daily potential of complaints to around 200,000. It is very easy, with 200,000 potential complaints, to ridicule the Post Office-not postmasters-they come and go-but the Post Office. One newspaper carried headlines "Body Lost in the Mail". It was great. It was fun; but not so funny for the workers, you know. When you got into it you found they were speaking about the remains of a body. The story began to change a little. They were talking about the cremated remains being sent to a dearly beloved who was 40 miles away and could not attend the cremation. They were being sent by an undertaker who could not find 75 cents to insure or register the packet. It was a little thought-provoking. Where is our sense of values?
It is not my Post Office, it is our Post Office. We have an obligation to make sure that it is improved. What about the deficit? The deficit sounds very high, and it is high. We must, however, take into consideration depreciation and the rent of public buildings which is growing as we move into these new large premises. We also have to take into consideration depreciation on the new machinery which is coming on stream.
Our work force is highly paid, now; our men are adequately paid, they have complete job security, nobody is affected by automation, nobody will be laid off. The rates for working on new equipment have all been firmly established. I do not think there are many in private industry who have the benefit of collective agreements such as the postal unions enjoy. In fairness to the unions, they have withdrawn the boycott of the postal code, and as we increase the use of the postal code we increase tremendously the efficiency of the Post Office.
The rather stodgy image of the Post Office was the first thing which surprised me when I took over, because it is so unrealistic. The Post Office marketing division is aggressive. We have brought in marketing people from the outside. We notice this in the Post Office. We go out to get the business. When I mentioned that 80 per cent of the mail comes from 20 per cent of our customers, I was referring to the business community. I was not talking about the

May 21, 1976
Business of Supply
individual letters which people write and which go first class. The hon. member rightly said that the cost of mailing, in the case of the business community, is passed on to the consumer eventually. So is the postal deficit. Whatever way you want to look at it, I won't argue.
The important thing is that the Post Office is on the road to recovery as indicated by the performance charts which the department keeps, not me. It is indicated by the growing volume of mail, it is indicated by the growing volume of mail, it is indicated by our relationship with industry, particularly the direct mail industry, which is probably the largest employer of help in this country. Though I do not like the term junk mail, we have a very close relationship with them. The new rates were discussed with them in depth. As so many speakers correctly said, the point they were most concerned about was not the higher charge but how reliable are the mails. We can improve in that area. The workers must understand, however, that if the Post Office becomes more inefficient it is their jobs which will go, not mine. They have a stake in the future of the Post Office.
Talking about industrial democracy, I think the hon. gentleman made one very valid point. The letter carriers have incentives in this free entreprise system. When they finish their bag of mail, one which has been measured scientifically, one which has been the study of time studies and methodology, they can go home. When they have done, after a period of six hours, seven hours or five hours, they can go home. The inside worker needs the same type of incentive. He does not have it.
What we need inside the Post Office is job measurement so that we can share with the worker by way of a shorter work week the increase in productivity which the new equipment makes possible. In order to do this we need a
measurement device which both management and labour think is fair. The increase beyond a certain point should be shared in some tangible manner with the postal worker. Then we could get productivity out of what I believe to be a wonderful group of people, those who work in the Post Office.


Gérald Laniel: Order. In accordance with the agreement made earlier, it being after four o'clock it is my duty pursuant to section 9(a) and 9(c) of Standing Order 58 to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the proceedings.
Shall Post Office-Vote 1 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Post Office-Vote 1 agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps at this time I should call on the minister, who indicated in committee of the whole that he was ready to table the document to which he referred in his remarks. I think it should be done at this time while the House is still sitting.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Yes, Mr. Speaker. With the consent of the House I wish to table the document I referred to in the discussion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House consent to the minister's tabling the report on Olympic coins for 1976?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock p.m. this House stands adjourned until Tuesday, May 25, 1976, at two o'clock p.m.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, May 25, 1976