1973-06-29

ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to lay upon the table of the House a certified copy of the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Nova Scotia, 1973, pursuant to section 19 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Chapter E-2, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970.


OBJECTION TO REPORT OF COMMISSION FOR PROVINCE OF SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty to inform the House that an objection signed by the right hon. member for Prince Albert and the hon. members for Assiniboia, Lisgar, Dauphin, Vegreville, Mackenzie, Winnipeg North Centre, Pal-liser, Crowfoot, and Burin-Burgeo has been filed with me pursuant to Section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Chapter E-2, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Saskatchewan.
If the House agrees, I would suggest that the text of the objection be printed as an appendix to Votes and Proceedings of this day. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration-Mr. Portelance (Gamelin).
[Editor's Note: For the text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings\


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as I undertook to do yesterday, I wish to table in both official languages the text of the final recommendations of the Helsinki consultations regarding the conference on security and co-operation in Europe.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, in keeping with my commitment to hon. members, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table in both official languages the series of staff papers prepared by my department as a contribution to federal-provincial consultations on regional development policy in Canada.



INDUSTRY


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), on behalf of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) I should like to table a report in both official languages respecting the effects of footwear imports on Canadian production of like goods.



FORMULATION OF NATIONAL POLICY-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION

Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I rise to propose a motion in a case of urgent and pressing necessity arising out of the government's failure or inability to enunciate a national energy policy. With consent, I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams):

June 29, 1973
Oral Questions
That this House immediately proceed to constitute a special committee, composed of proportional representation of all parties in this House, to investigate and formulate a national energy policy for Canada, with instructions to develop specific energy proposals.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's motion is proposed to the House under the terms of Standing Order 43 and requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 and in light of information I have just received that the recently announced embargo on the export of soybeans from the United States to Canada may force mills in Saskatchewan to cease operation within one or two weeks, which would throw the entire poultry industry into jeopardy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight):
That the House urge the Minister of Agriculture to immediately contact the American officials asking them to honour existing commitments made to Canadian mills and to negotiate with them an agreement that will ensure a continuation of adequate soybean supplies for Canadian mills.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion also requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In light of the position of the Prime Minister that the views of the Minister of Agriculture on food prices are strictly personal and do not reflect the views of the government, can the Acting Prime Minister tell the House whether the projected 10 per cent increase in food prices is acceptable to the government and, if not, is the government going to take action to avert such an increase in food prices this year?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is in the House. There is no Acting Prime Minister.


Mr. Nowlan:: Is there a Prime Minister?


Mr. Bell:: He is an actor.


An hon. Member:: He is a comedian.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I direct this most serious question to the Prime Minister who is now in his seat. In light of the position of the Prime Minister that the views of the Minister of Agriculture on food prices are strictly personal and not those of the government, can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the projected 10 per cent increase in food prices is acceptable to the government and, if not, is the government going to take action to avert a further increase in food prices this year?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, on the preamble to the question I must correct the hon. member. When the Minister of Agriculture states questions of policy he is, of course, talking on behalf of the government but when he states matters of opinion he is not.


Gerald William Baldwin: Trudeau on the constitution!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think the hon. member is referring to an answer I gave the House some time ago relating to a particular statement by the Minister of Agriculture. If the hon. member looks it up he will see that is what happened.


James Aloysius McGrath: In view of the fact that in the first five months of this year food prices have increased by almost 7 per cent, may I ask the Prime Minister if the government's present position on food prices is based on the assumption that food prices will begin to slacken off and, if not, has the government prepared direct measures and has it decided to use those measures if the present rate of food price increases continues?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we have set up the Food Prices Review Board and will be expecting its interim and other reports to decide if any recommendations arise from that source.


James Aloysius McGrath: May I ask the Prime Minister if he proposes to instruct the Minister of Agriculture that when the minister speaks in future he speaks as a minister of the government and presumably must reflect the views of the government?


GOVERNMENT POSITION ON COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION RESPECTING PROVISION OF PROPER FOOD FOR PEOPLE ON LOW INCOMES
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of the forecast of the minister who is charged with the matter of food and the production of food, and in view of the fact thousands of people are not now able, with today's prices, to get the food they need for good nutrition, is the government prepared to put into effect now recommendation No. 6 of the Food Prices Com-
June 29, 1973

Oral Questions ENERGY
mittee which speaks of special measures to get food on the tables of the low-income people in this country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can
assure the hon. member that if we have a policy statement to make while the House is sitting it will be made in this place, Mr. Speaker.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Can we have the assurance that such a policy statement will be made before we adjourn for the summer recess?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It may depend on when we adjourn, Mr. Speaker.


AGRICULTURE
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the embargo placed by the President of the United States on the export of feed grains and protein supplements and the adverse effect this will have not only on the poultry and livestock industries but on the cost of many food products, will the minister come to the House on Tuesday and make a definitive statement on what the government intends to do about this so that all the companies in Canada depending on these feed grains and protein supplements will know where they stand before the escalation of costs really starts to accelerate?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, we have been in contact with officials in the different parts of Canada, with provincial governments and with the people who supply proteins, checking on the supply of proteins, on how many days or week's supply of protein we have in Canada and what our needs are until the new crop of soybeans is ready. Once these figures are known, if action needs to be taken it will be taken. These figures were not final at the time of coming into the House but they may be final later this day.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: One thing at least is certain, that we are heading into a long weekend and how long this session is going to continue, until July, August or September, is unknown. Can the minister assure the House that he will make a statement some time next week, Tuesday or Wednesday, so that the uncertainty, confusion and real concern of livestock producers and poultrymen across the country can be somewhat alleviated if at all possible?


Eugene Whelan: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


POSSIBILITY OF FURTHER RESTRICTION OF OIL AND GAS EXPORTS AND TWO-PRICE SYSTEM
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and arises out of the study he tabled last night. In view of the fact this study is clearly based on the assumption that Canada will continue its present rate of export of gas and oil and perhaps even a higher rate of export, and in view of the fact the study makes clear that Canadians face escalating costs for both oil and gas, fuel oil, gasoline and so on, may I ask the minister whether he is now considering not waiting for a year until he announces his promised energy policy but restricting exports of oil and gas at this time below what are now being allowed?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should go back and take a look at the document. It does not in any sense indicate that the exports will continue at their present level or that they will be increased. Indeed, one of the policy choices that I think is clearly outlined there is the possibility of another structure of the Canadian market so there would be less by way of export. I think the hon. member would be well advised to take another look at the document.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I assure the minister that I will. He took four years to read the document; I think I am entitled to have at least one day to read it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Then ask the question next week. Take the weekend.


David Lewis: No, Mr. Speaker. Arising out of the minister's answer, if there is in the document an option of lowering exports, I repeat my question to the minister: Is he considering doing so now before a crisis is upon this country in energy resources available to Canadians at reasonable prices?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I can see that the hon. member might feel there is political advantage in creating a panic atmosphere, but he will have noticed, I am sure, even from the summary, that we are talking about the supply of oil and natural gas in the 1980s. Perhaps the hon. gentleman might like to examine the document first, and then I will be glad to deal with his questions.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister will stop trying to be smart, mainly because he seldom succeeds. I was present at the briefing yesterday and listened to what his officials had to say and I have an idea what is in the book.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might now ask his supplementary.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that-this kind of language is apparently necessary-I was present at the briefing yesterday and heard what his officials had to say and have some idea of what is in the report, I want

June 29, 1973
Oral Questions
to ask the minister whether the question of a two-price system, which he has said on a number of occasions is being considered, is now coming to fruition in his consideration so that Canadians will not have to pay the escalating prices that exports can obtain in the United States?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the papers indicated, and I am sure my officials indicated, that a two-price system would have very different impacts on various parts of the country. It is for this reason that we think it is important to have consultations with the provincial governments to ascertain the impact of either a two-price system or other policy choices which are set out in the document, so that we may know what kind of impact they would have on the economies of various parts of the country. It seems to me fundamental that, as in the case of the national oil policy of ten years ago or the trans-Canada pipeline arrangements, we should have acquiescence, if not accord, on the part of all parts of the country in the kind of policy we should be following.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I see that a considerable number of members are seeking supplementaries. The hon. member for York South will be recognized and then the hon. member for Calgary North, after which I will recognize the hon. member for Abitibi and return to supplementaries on the first and second questions, which ought to take a good part of the question period.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the question of exports which I raised and which my colleague, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, dealt with last night, the question of price for Canadians and the question of economic rents, which the study shows Canadians are not benefiting from but which are benefiting corporations, are all problems that are clearly coming to the point where they are serious for Canada, can the minister now state when the House and the people of Canada may expect a statement of policy from him instead of a study of statistics?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat to the hon. gentleman that many of the responsibilities in this area do not lie within the control of the federal government, that it is important that a major policy of this kind should be based on the agreement of other regions of Canada which have legislative jurisdiction here, and that at such time as we can obtain such agreement on policy course, we will, of course, announce them in the House.


David Lewis: How long will that take?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: How long will it take to get agreement from the provincial governments?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Calgary North.


OIL-PRIORITY OF EXTENSION OF PIPELINE FROM ALBERTA TO ONTARIO INTO QUEBEC
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, for a number of years we have imported more crude

petroleum than we have exported. My question arises out of a statement by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Was the minister stating government policy when he said at a certain press conference it is not the first consideration to extend the crude oil pipeline from Alberta to Ontario into Quebec-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows, I am sure, that when he asks a question about a statement made outside the House by a minister and wants to ascertain whether it is government policy, it is normally directed to the Prime Minister. Perhaps the hon. member might ask the question directly rather than by reference to what was said outside the House.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I did not hear Your Honour's last remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member is asking a question relating to a statement made outside the House, he should inquire of the Prime Minister whether that statement represents government policy.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Was the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources stating government policy when he said it is not the first consideration to extend the crude oil pipeline from Alberta to Ontario into Quebec but rather to build greater storage tanks for storing crude petroleum imported from other countries?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question, I said that the priority in dealing with security of supply for eastern Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has to take exception to what is now being done. The hon. member for Calgary North asked a question of the Prime Minister. I suggested it would be much easier if the hon. member would ask the question directly of the minister without reference to a statement made outside the House. This would save all the complications. Perhaps we might assume that the question has been asked directly of the minister without reference to what may have been said outside the House and the minister can respond on that basis. It will be much simpler.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will inquire to see exactly what the minister said and perhaps I can report at a later date.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I have caused such dissension and division in the government. I wish to ask the minister whether it is now the intention of his department to build more storage tanks and bring in more imported crude petroleum rather than extend the pipeline from Alberta to Ontario into Quebec? Is that now the intention?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the priority in dealing with the security of supply problem will be, first, to seek possibilities of a higher level of storage in eastern Canada for offshore supplies; second, to seek by international agreement, either multilaterally through OECD or,
June 29, 1973

if through that agency progress is not made, by bilateral agreement with supplier countries, to try to secure the supply. The third priority, if there is not success there, would be to give more intensive consideration to the possibility of extending the oil pipeline from Toronto into the Montreal and Quebec market.

[ Transla tion]


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
In view of his promise to the hon. member for Richmond yesterday, is the minister in a position to announce whether an agreement has been concluded in the Tembec-CIP dispute and a grant given for the reopening of that pulp and paper mill?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that the government of Quebec, CIP and the new company, Tembec, have now resolved their negotiations to the point where my department is now prepared to offer the restructured company an incentive grant of $4.5 million in order to get this facility working again and to establish many hundreds of jobs in that area.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CIP PLANT IN TEMISCAMING-ATTEMPT BY COMPANY TO MOVE LOGS-REQUEST THAT RCMP INTERVENE
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. First of all, I should like, on behalf of my constituents-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member ask his question. He has been recognized for the purpose of asking a question.


Mr. Blais:: In view of the most appreciated declaration just made by the minister, and in view of the publicized attempt by CIP to move its logs down the Ottawa River- perhaps this question might be better directed to the Solicitor General-would the Solicitor General consider intervention by the RCMP or an investigation in the Ottawa River region around Temiscaming with relation to the problems that are now evident in the area?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: I am not
sure as to the jurisdiction of the RCMP in any dispute there, but I would be pleased to look into the matter for the hon. member.
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


ACTION TO ENSURE CONTINUING SUPPLY OF VEGETABLE OILS FROM UNITED STATES FOR PROCESSING PRODUCTS
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Since Canada has been traditionally dependent upon supplies of vegetable oils from the United States for the processing of certain agricultural products, what steps has the minister undertaken to ensure a continuing supply of vegetable oils from that source for this purpose?


Eugene Whelan: As I said earlier in reply to another hon. member, the figures involved here are part of the information we urgently need before we can make any decision. All this data is being compiled at the present time. We intend to do everything we can in government to make sure these needs are properly looked after.


FISHERIES
Fred Alward McCain: Since the fishing industry is also involved I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries what steps he is taking to ensure supplies of vegetable oils needed for the processing of fish? I should like to say there is no way Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is attempting to make a statement. Statements are made on motions under the terms of Standing Order 15, not when asking questions. The minister is recognized for the purpose of replying to the hon. member's supplementary question.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: As usual we are in close consultation with the industry and trying to do our best in the circumstances.


FOOD PRICES
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Since the embargo imposed by the United States on the export of protein supplements will have the effect of increasing food prices in Canada, will the minister instruct the Food Prices Review Board to make positive recommendations immediately in order to minimize the increases in prices that are expected?


Hon.   Herb. Gray@Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs: The board is an independent body. It can certainly take cognizance of points of view such as have been expressed by the hon. member.

June 29, 1973
Oral Questions


Stanley James Korchinski: Does the minister expect the board to make recommendations immediately or will he be content to wait for several months?


Mr. Gray:: I will be happy to see the board produce reports as soon as it feels it is able to do so.


AGRICULTURE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that trucks carrying American soybeans to Canadian mills are now being stopped at the American border, although these supplies have been contracted for by previous orders, has the Minister of Agriculture contacted the appropriate United States officials to ask them to honour previous commitments made to Canadian mills?


Eugene Whelan: Checking with the United States authorities, we find they have stopped all shipments of soybeans and soybean byproducts from that country. They are reviewing the whole structure of these shipments, finding out where they are going and so on. They may allocate shipments next week. We do not know for sure what they are going to do. We are waiting to see what they are going to do in their country as a result of their studies and the necessary procedures they have to follow to guarantee that their producers are looked after.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In view of the fact they are stopping trucks carrying soybeans contracted for under previous commitments, has the minister contacted United States authorities to insist that this is not proper procedure? Has he protested the procedure?


Eugene Whelan: We have discussed practically everything with them, Mr. Speaker.


SURVEY BY STATISTICS CANADA OF PUBLICATION PROGRAM FOR STUDY
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister relating to the other questions asked about an energy policy. In light of the rather extraordinary comment in the secret information program that Statistics Canada will be asked to do a survey as to the value of the propaganda effort on behalf of the minister and the Liberal government, will the Prime Minister communicate with the minister to put an end to this improper use of taxpayers' money and ensure that if such an evaluation is made it is done at the expense of the National Liberal party and not out of taxpayers' money?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will certainly look into the matter but my suspicion is that it is the substance of the question which is improper rather than the practice referred to.


SUGGESTED AMENDMENT OF TAX LEGISLATION SO CANADIANS WILL HAVE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO INVEST IN INDUSTRY
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the discussion concerning foreign ownership and control in the government's energy analysis, and in view of the fact that regardless of the amount of exports in this field energy industries will experience rapid growth in the next few years, may I ask whether the minister has asked his colleague, the Minister of Finance, to amend the tax law so that Canadians will have an opportunity to participate and invest in the energy industry on at least an equal basis with investors from other countries?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. gentleman is seeking a particularly favourable tax regime for investors in the petroleum industry. I must say that the present taxation system is certainly very favourable to this type of investment, and it would be unfair to other industries in Canada to give a special advantage here. I think any arrangement with regard to the petroleum industry would have to be dealt with within the general laws concerning foreign investment in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: In view of the fact that nationals of other countries can invest or, in other words, drill wells in Canada at a cheaper rate than Canadians, will the minister reconsider his answer, look into the tax law and recommend amendments that will give Canadians an equal opportunity-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is making a representation.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. It arises from the fact that Bell Canada's application B calling for further rate increases in 1974 will require to be considered in the near future. Can the minister tell the House when the government plans to introduce legislation to establish a new and improved regulatory body, the need for which is referred to in his green paper, and is it the intention of the government that this application B should be consid-

ered by the new body and not by the Canadian Transport Commission?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot unfortunately predict accurately when the legislation may be introduced in the House. It will depend entirely on the time taken by the House to deal with the bills on the order paper.
As for the possibility that a new regulatory body would consider Bell Canada's Application B, it is obviously related to an eventual early integration of the telecommunications committee of the CTC with the CRTC.


Terrence Wyly Grier: My question arises precisely from some of the reasons given in the minister's reply. Would it be the intention of the government or of the hon. gentleman's department to defer consideration of Bell's application B until such time as the government and the House have disposed of the matter of the new regulatory body?
[ Transla tion]


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, as I do not know exactly how much time we will need to implement the reform announced in the green paper, I cannot tell the hon. member that we intend to put it off until Bell Canada's Application B has been considered, as consideration of that application cannot be put off indefinitely.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Now that the disability pension increases have been approved, and in view of the vast number of representations being made appealing for action on applications for disability pensions, would the minister advise what progress is being made to clean up the large number of applications that are backlogged, particularly those by older veterans which should be treated on a priority basis?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is of interest to note that production for the past six months has increased by 75 per cent over the same period last year. The average number of decisions written was 316 each month in 1971, 464 for each month in 1972, and so far in 1973, 762.


Jack Marshall: In spite of the progress that is being made, in view of the fact that older veterans are passing away before they can take advantage of their applications having been approved, would the minister reinforce the Canadian Pension Commission and also the medical staff in order to clean up this backlog, which is urgently required at the present time?
Oral Questions


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, we now have a policy whereby older veterans and those in immediate need receive first attention. But we do have a little problem in regard to controlling death.



AIR TRANSPORT


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would the hon. gentleman advise the House when it is proposed to resume the bilateral air negotiations with the United States? Would he also advise whether his colleague, the Minister of Transport, has indicated that these must wait until the government has come to a decision regarding the applications of Air Canada and CP Air for the connection between Canada and Milan?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, negotiations with the United States will resume on July 16.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Compton.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What about the second point? Is that tied in?



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Can he tell us what progress has been made with the provisions on family allowances? Can Canadians expect to receive the promised increase, and if so, when?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, if parliament approves the bill which will be tabled in the next two weeks and if this bill is passed before the end of the year, the family allowances increase should come into effect on January 1, 1974, as proposed by the government.


Henry P. Latulippe: Would the hon. minister also say whether the dispute between the federal government and the provinces, particularly Quebec, has finally been settled and what are the government's provisions for family allowances in this respect?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know there was never any dispute, to use the hon. member's expression, between the federal government and the provinces. It was simply a matter of reaching a clear agreement of the final procedures to be completed with regard to the flexibility formula proposed by the federal government, but the fed-

June 29, 1973
Oral Questions
eral proposal was accepted unanimously by the provinces at the April conference.

[ English]



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Would the minister explain the public comment by his Assistant Deputy Minister for Indian Affairs that power-hungry Indian politicians might sabotage the proposed youth resources program of his department-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair would like to suggest to the hon. member that there must be some way to ask the question other than in those terms. The rule is clear. I have tried, in any event, to bring to the attention of hon. members, not always successfully, that questions asked in the House during the question period should not relate to statements made outside the House by deputy ministers, ministers or members. To import such statements into questions in the House is irregular and has been so recognized for a long time. The hon. member might like to ask the question in some way other than by making direct reference to a statement made by an official outside this chamber.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister say whether the recent statement by his Assistant Deputy Minister had ministerial approval?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: I can answer the question, Mr. Speaker, even though it is hardly acceptable. I think that the statement of my Assistant Deputy Minister on this matter is very realistic.
We have set up a new and very effective program and, of course, we cannot satisfy everybody. Some leaders would like to distribute the money themselves, instead of the department. We come across situations like that every day and we try to accommodate everyone, but we do not have enough money to meet everybody's needs.
[ English]


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Would the minister say what his response is now to the request of the executive of the National Indian Brotherhood that his Assistant Deputy Minister's statement has so impaired his credibility with the Indian organization that he should immediately tender his resignation?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to make a remark concerning the first part of the question. There are people who are power-hungry, even in this House, and who do not have it; the phenomenon is quite natural.

With regard to the second part of the question, I would say, Mr. Speaker, that I trust the Assistant Deputy Minister wholeheartedly. I do not deplore the fact of having someone who can express his views and discuss them. It is extremely difficult to be Assistant Deputy Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, but I am pleased to have a very good one.



NATIONAL CAPITAL


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the urgent need for industrial land in the Ottawa-Carleton region, can the minister tell us whether the National Capital Commission or the government is considering embarking on a policy to permit the sale or long-term lease of lands within the green belt or bordering this area for industrial purposes?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the National Capital Commission is considering that and I have not had a report from them, but I certainly would not consider it.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs is able to provide the House and the country with a report on the disappearance of two Canadian officers attached to the Canadian observer group in the ICCS and assure the House that everything is being done to ensure their safety?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, these two officers were engaged in one of the customary activities of the ICCS. They were in contact with the Viet Cong. They are perfectly safe and arrangements are being made for their return to headquarters.


Donald W. Munro: If one of these customary activities consists, as I understand, of showing the flag, why were these two Canadian officers not accompanied by representatives of other nations on the ICCS? If they were out there alone, which flag were they showing?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think that was just a term of art. These two officers were engaged in an activity that I think was very useful as part of the functions of the ICCS, namely, making contacts with the two Vietnamese parties.
June 29, 1973



BROADCASTING


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Communications. It concerns the consideration given by the Canadian Radio-Television Commission to an application for a third channel for the west coast. In view of the recommendation of the 1966 broadcasting white paper, subsequent standing committee concurrence in 1967, and Department of Transport reservation in 1967 as well, that a television channel be reserved in the capital of British Columbia, Victoria, for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, has there ever been a Privy Council directive to the CRTC to reserve such channel in Victoria?


Gérard Pelletier: The only two directives that I remember, Mr. Speaker, if my memory is not failing me, did not deal either with the reservation of any particular channel or especially with Victoria but with the reservation of channels for community educational TV and with Canadian ownership of the cable and some radio and television stations. Therefore, I do not know but I can start a thorough investigation in order to give the hon. member an altogether accurate answer.


Mark Willson Rose: While the minister is looking into the matter, will he also investigate and explain to the House, if the answer about reservation is in the negative, why the policy of establishing CBC outlets in all provincial capitals appears to have been either ignored or abandoned in the case of Victoria?



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for manpower. In light of the fact that the ILO conference has now finished its deliberations, a conference which some members of the advisory committee attended to the frustration of the work of that committee in looking into the injustices alleged by many claimants, can the minister advise now whether he has met with the members of the advisory committee in terms of ascertaining what their intentions are and has he received an assurance from the members of the committee that they are prepared to work continuously for the next two or three weeks in order to complete this very important study? Can he give us that assurance?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, again I am just as keen to
Oral Questions
have this matter dealt with as the hon. member and other hon. members. My understanding is that there has been a meeting scheduled either for today or early next week, and I will be able to report further after that is completed.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton West, on a supplementary. Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member for Hamilton West. I believe the hon. member for Fraser Valley West rises on a point of order.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder whether Hansard could record that the minister nodded in the affirmative to my last question?


Mr. Speaker:: I hope that Hansard will record my nodding at the hon. member's point of order. The hon. member for Hamilton West.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have one final supplementary. I have indicated on many occasions the importance of this matter and I hope the minister shares this view. Would the minister undertake to meet with the advisory committee as soon as possible in order to advise the members of that committee of the importance of the matter, and if they cannot give their undivided attention for the next two or three weeks in order to clean it up, will he ask for their resignations and thereby be in a position to appoint people who will take this job seriously? It is most unfair the way-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will undertake to meet with them as I had intended anyway, but I will not be asking for their resignations under those circumstances.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the upward revaluation of the German mark this morning and the effect this has on the purchasing power of the pay and allowances of members of the armed forces stationed in Germany, will the minister recommend to his colleagues an immediate adjustment in the cost of living arrangement so that members of the armed forces will not suffer in so far as their standard of living is concerned?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, we have already made a 5 per cent increase in pay and allowances to reflect the relative devaluation of the Canadian dollar compared with the German mark. I will be looking at the relative valuation again now that this recent change has taken place.

June 29, 1973
Oral Questions



JERICHO DEFENCE LAND, VANCOUVER-GOVERNMENT TERMS FOR TRANSFER TO CITY

Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence arising out of a question asked last week in connection with the Jericho defence land in Vancouver. Can the minister assure the House that the government's position does not include any insistence that, one, the city of Vancouver must pay for the Jericho land or, two, arrange to transfer to the government city land in exchange for the Jericho land?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the government has already, in an earlier agreement, given a very large amount of the land to the city-


John Allen Fraser: That is not the question.


James Armstrong Richardson: -but the government is not prepared to give the remaining 38 acres to the city at no cost.


John Allen Fraser: If the government is not prepared to return this land which is needed for parks at no cost, can the minister advise why $33 million of federal money is being spent to acquire parkland for the city of Toronto? Why the double standard?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's supplementary is argument.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that Diversified Crops Limited, which has purchased large amounts of oilseeds in western Canada, has gone bankrupt and many farmers cannot receive payment, will the minister give assurance that the individual farmers involved will be fully protected under the bonding provision of the Canada Grain Act? Under the present volatile market conditions, will the minister also ensure that the Grain Commission checks a little closer into small unstable operations?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the primary producers will be protected. The hon. member can rest assured that I will be in contact with the Board of Grain Commissioners. Also, the hon. member could inform the hon. member for St. John's West that people who handle food products do go broke.


James Aloysius McGrath: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, perhaps you would inform the minister that it is St. John's East, not St. John's West.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the right hon. member for Prince Albert and then call orders of the day.



AIR CANADA


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that large Air Canada advertisements appear in today's daily newspapers saying that things are back to normal in Air Canada following recent labour problems, will the minister remind Air Canada of the strike of the finance department employees at Winnipeg and urge Air Canada to make the kind of offer which might bring this dispute to an early settlement?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: I think Air Canada will be informed by the question of the hon. member.



SASKATCHEWAN-INQUIRY AS TO REQUEST BY PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT FOR DECLARATION OF DISASTER AREA

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he has received petitions or applications from rural municipalities, or copies of such representations made to the provincial government, in connection with the flooding of large areas of Tisdale, Melfort, Choiceland, Nipawin and also in the Hudson Bay area represented by the hon. member for Mackenzie? Has there been any suggestion on the part of the government of Saskatchewan that the government of Canada should join in in having this area declared a disaster area because tens of thousands of acres are flooded and there is no possibility of there being anything but a modicum of production?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the tremendous damage that the flooding has caused in that area. I am aware also of the fact that the municipalities have passed this motion but to my knowledge it is not on my desk. I am awaiting an assessment by the provincial Minister of Agriculture in Saskatchewan. Maybe later this day we will hear from him, but there has been some discussions between our two offices.


John George Diefenbaker: Has there been any suggestion by the provincial government yet, upon whom the primary responsibility rests, to the federal government that this should be declared a disaster area?


Eugene Whelan: Not at this time, Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.
June 29, 1973



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, June 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. Drury that Bill C-196, respecting the 1976 summer Olympic games, be read the second time and be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this morning it was suggested to me that I might have something to say in connection with the setting up of facilities for the Olympic committee in order to bring within the realm of practicability the next Olympic games to take place in the city of Montreal. I begin by saying I believe in these games. I have attended other Olympic games and know what the effect is and what the benefits are.
Indeed, I decided last Saturday to visit the city of Montreal and see at first hand what were the plans that His Worship, Mayor Drapeau, had in mind. At the conclusion of the day, he gave me this Olympic pin which I am very proud to be the first to wear.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I spent a most interesting day with the mayor. It is not every day that an ordinary member of parliament has as his personal chauffeur the mayor of Montreal. The mayor spent a good part of the day doing everything possible to make clear and definite the magnificent plans that he has in mind. He showed me the two areas in question, and I can only say that he is a remarkable and inspiring genius when it comes to imaginative plans. He is courageous in revealing them, and has that old and indomitable spirit that leads to success.
It was a revelation to me. The day ended with my attendance at a baseball game. I always receive wonderful receptions in Montreal. Never has it been different through the years. But last Saturday evening at the game, with 18,000 people present, my name was called. I will never forget the warmth of that reception which was everywhere shown to me then and throughout the day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: After all, it was recalled that the government I had the honour to lead had brought about the establishment of Expo 67. We were not in office, of course, when Expo opened. We made two applications; the second one was successful in securing Expo, and it developed into the essence of Canadianism and gave to Canada a prestige all over the world that could not have been gained otherwise.
Of course, the question of finance arises. In order to assure the people of Canada as a whole that they would not be liable to tens of hundreds of millions of dollars of expenditures, a bill was brought in which became law. It
Olympic Bill
provided that the amount for which the federal government would be liable would be $20 million, the provincial government of Quebec, $10 million, and the city of Montreal, $5 million. At the time these amounts were being considered for incorporation in the bill, I discussed the matter with representatives of two other cities and was informed that it was quite impossible for either of these cities to be considered as the site for Expo because the amounts in question would not make possible the kind of international exposition that was envisaged. As things turned out, Expo cost the people of Canada about $250 million. When it came to the end of Expo, there were accounts to be paid, and the federal government decided to pay them. That is one matter that deserves consideration at this time. I raised the question some months ago, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) told me at that time that the government of Canada would not be responsible for picking up the bill at the end of the games. It is a matter that has to be considered.
I support those games wholeheartedly. I am 100 per cent behind Montreal being the location because it is one of the great sports centres, almost the greatest in our country. There has developed in that city a spirit in connection with sport that made it possible for the Expos to continue for four years with indifferent success, but never losing that enthusiastic support that was given to the team through the years. Incidentally, the attitude of Montrealers to Expo has given to Canadians as a whole a warmth toward the city of Montreal that could not have been otherwise brought about. As always when a matter arises of which I have no knowledge I endeavour to go and see for myself. I followed that course in South Viet Nam when I wanted to know what was happening, and I followed that course last week.
I saw the two sites that have been chosen. At the one on lie Notre Dame there is a construction on a 60 acre basin for rowing and canoeing competitions and stands were erected for 10,000 spectators. I saw as well at the other location, the excavation under way for an underground parking area that will accommodate several thousand cars. I saw two and a half million tons of earth being removed. I saw the Aswan Dam when it was first under way in Egypt. Last Saturday I saw something approximating the engineering genius of the Aswan Dam in what is being done at the site of the Olympics. Great as the Aswan Dam is, somehow it did not challenge my imagination as did what I saw last Saturday in Montreal. On the Viau site there is to be a stadium with a convertible roof the like of which has not been seen or even imagined elsewhere. A great, a grand, a magnificent idea.
Of course, the spearhead is the mayor of Montreal who, regardless of the difficulties, always faces the future optimistically. Of course, he sees no difficulty. He agrees that there will be no special assistance or no special financial aid from the federal government for the holding of the Olympics. Those were the words the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) used when I asked him this question on January 25. However, a few days later, on February 2, he stated in his announcement on the Olympics that the federal government, through CMHC, could be spending from $26 million to $54 million on the Olympic village, and in addition to that it would cost approximately $20 million for increased costs of security, customs and immigration.

June 29, 1973
Olympic Bill
Mention was made of the fact that the CBC, as host broadcaster, would provide television service at a cost of $25 million.
On May 10, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) asked the Prime Minister when a decision would be made about financing the games. The Prime Minister replied that the legislation would be forthcoming and introduced before the end of May. It is now before us, and the question that has to be determined is this: Will there be, in addition to what has already been admitted in connection with CMHC and the other matters to which I have referred, a call on the rest of Canada to meet whatever is the deficit at the end? Therefore, it is necessary to examine somewhat carefully the plans for financing.
The first plan is through the medium of coin sales. The mayor went into great detail in that connection, and I am not going to enumerate the plans he had in mind, or the manner of financing in this regard. That will have to be announced by aim, and I would not want to anticipate what he will say. Commissioner General Rousseau has advised that $253 million will be secured from coin sales. I very much doubt that. Germany did finance the Munich games in part through this coin system, whereby the state produces the coins, charges the Olympics Committee the actual costs of minting, and the difference between that cost and the circulatory value, the seigniorage, is to be available for the Olympics. Coins up to a value of $350 million will have to be sold if what the committee believes should be secured from the sale of coins is to be realized.
But just recall this fact, that on June 21 of this year the United States Senate unanimously passed a bill authorizing the minting and sale of 60 million gold coins and 60 million silver coins, to be issued during the years 1973-76 inclusive, to commemorate the bi-centennial anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Will it be possible at all for the Olympics Committee in Montreal to sell the anticipated number of coins which it today envisages? I would hope that it will succeed. I doubt very much whether there is any possibility of that taking place. As I said a moment ago, the Olympics Committee has made its estimate that $250 million will be secured from coin sales. The figures I gave a moment ago were not quite correct. In order to secure that amount, there would have to be an over-all coin sale of $417 million.
The Treasury Board investigation group came to the conclusion that at the end of the games there would be a deficit of $172 million. Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada paid the bill for Expo. There is strong feeling everywhere across the country that under no circumstances should the government of Canada, or rather the taxpayers of Canada, pick up the bill should there be the loss anticipated, or indeed a lesser loss than that.


Mr. La Salle:: Why?


John George Diefenbaker: If the hon. gentleman is unable to answer that, and hasn't it in his own mind, then all I will say is that he should study the matter-


Roch La Salle: That is no answer.


John George Diefenbaker: -from an independent point of view.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Rousseau disputes the claims by the Treasury Board secretariat, and claims the federal study group based their findings on a market projection comparable with that of Germany where 90 per cent of the coins were sold within the country. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, it must be realized that Germany has a population of 60 million, compared with Canada's 20 million.
The mayor believes that these coins will be picked up and will not go into circulation, and that they will be marketed generally through the chartered banks in Canada. The arrangements in the United States will be dealt with in due course. Personally, I think that while hopes and expectations are all to the good, those hopes and expectations must have some regard to the realities within the country.
The next manner of financing is through stamps. The price of the stamps will be the regular rate of postage, plus an additional surcharge fixed by the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet). That particular phase is a most uncertain one.
The third method is by lotteries. Lotteries, since they have been legalized by parliament, have not been sources of very large returns for those who operate them.


Mr. Drury:: Loto-Quebec?


John George Diefenbaker: It has been found that the attraction that lotteries had when we had only one source from which to derive the hope of being a winner, that is, when the Irish Sweepstakes alone were in existence, proved far more attractive as a gambling investment than when you had a choice in the purchase of lottery tickets. I think that the estimate as to the amount that will be secured by means of lotteries is over-exaggerated. Mr. Rousseau has advised that the commission, allocated to provinces participating in the lottery scheme, will be 5 per cent of the total sales within those provinces. Will there be provincial participation across the country? Manitoba has already refused. Ontario has expressed concern over the effect of the lottery. Other provinces, as I understand it, have not made any final or even qualified decision in this regard.
What can be done in order to protect and assure that the country as a whole and the taxpayer will not have to pick up the bill for this undertaking? Several things can be done. I read with great interest the speech given by the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek). It was an exceptionally well constructed speech. Unfortunately, I was not present for it but he spoke with the authority of one of Canada's great athletes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: In 1962, he and his sister won the world's championship in skating. He showed more than his understanding of the needs of athletic advancement which will result from the Olympics.
I am one of those who never could have been an athlete. After we went west, from 1903 to 1910 my days were spent 17 miles from the nearest village. Indeed, the only game
June 29, 1973

that I learned in a one-room public school, where an old country Englishman had settled, was cricket and I never had the time or leisure to carry on that game in my adult days.
I have always had a tremendous interest in physical well-being and it was because of that interest that my administration brought in the Fitness and Amateur Sports Act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Through this act, $5 million was made available to encourage amateur athletics in the country and also to encourage physical fitness on the part of our citizens. Indeed, I sometimes wonder why it has been said that Canadians as a whole have not that level of physical fitness which is common to many other countries. We endeavoured to rectify that by bringing in the legislation in question which all of us hoped would bring about greater athletic victories for Canada.
I was at the Olympic games in Berlin in 1936, and I was very much discouraged by the fact that only one gold medal came to Canada, won by Mr. Amyot of Ottawa in the canoe race. In the intervening years there has been criticism, often ill-timed and ill-considered, over the fact that Canada has not won the number of athletic awards that it should, having regard to its population. Those who make that kind of criticism do so without a knowledge of the degree to which athletics in Communist countries has become a way of life and the basis for prestige. I hope we never get into that category.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I do feel, as the hon. member with his distinguished athletic record, that out of these things may well come an inspiration to the young men and women, the youth of our country that will pay dividends in the years ahead.
What suggestions do I have to offer? There are many. One is to assure the people of Canada that they are not going to have to pick up tens of millions of dollars of an indebtedness at the end, and that the accounts of the committee should each year be subject to audit by the Auditor General of Canada. That would keep down the kind of expenditure that took place too often in connection with Expo when the sky was the limit. It would also assure that some proper return would be secured for expenditures. Then, I think the committee should be required to report yearly to parliament, setting out its financial position. Next, the Olympics are a Canadian project to be situated in Quebec. The incorporation of the Olympic Committee has established it as a limited company in the province of Quebec. Personally, I think it should be a company incorporated by the government of Canada under letters patent, otherwise the various provinces can raise objection to the fact that a provincial company comes into their province to carry on certain activities and does not have that right. If a company incorporated in the province of Saskatchewan endeavours to come into the province of Quebec, Ontario or any other province, it finds itself in a very difficult position. In all seriousness, I suggest that to make this a great national undertaking, the incorporation should be national.
Olympic Bill
There are other suggestions that I could make and may make when we come to committee. I want this venture to
be a success.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: We dare not fail. On the other hand, and I say this with the greatest sincerity, it will not be a success unless Canadians as a whole believe that at the end of the road they will not be called upon to pay taxes to meet large deficits. The hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) asked why? Those who pay have a right to a say and they want that say. I am enthusiastic about what has been done. I have seen the preparations from the beginning and I am sure the hon. member for Joliette, with all the interest he has, has not been over the grounds. I went there and I suggest to him that if he can get the mayor to be his car driver and guide, he will learn a lot more than he will by being in Joliette and looking from a distance.
Mr. Speaker, there is hope yet-I am beginning to see a sign of redemption. I hope that in this House we will give this vast undertaking our support.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Excellent!


John George Diefenbaker: When I make these suggestions I do it is because I want it to be a success. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) in his presentation was factual and objective. I have tried to be the same.


George Albert Proud: Excellent!


Mr. Roy (Laval):: Great speech!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I will not hide the fact that it is with much pleasure that I take part in this debate on the financing of the 1976 Summer Olympic Games.
I think the government has made a wise decision in introducing this bill. I might perhaps blame it for not doing it sooner, but considering the latest international official decisions, it is not too late to introduce this bill. To the extent that Canadians will be prompted by a national olympiadic spirit, we can achieve the success anticipated by those who believe in the twenty-first Olympiad.
I listened very carefully to several speeches delivered on the financing of the 1976 Olympic Games. The bill is aimed only at meeting the needs of the Olympic Corporation, that is, it deals with the methods of financing, the coins, commemorative stamps and lotteries, which are of a money-raising nature. Will that be sufficient? That is another matter. On the one hand, the economists who defend the organizing committee's position claim that it will, while on the other hand, the government experts claim the reverse.
Nevertheless, it is astonishing to note that the government, in the light of ostensibly serious analyses, admits that there might be a deficit, and then agrees to participate anyway. I think that this shows weakness on the government's part. If it is sure there will be a deficit, if it

June 29, 1973
Olympic Bill
feels sure of a failure and finds this unacceptable, then it does not have the right to allow the funding of such an enterprise.
Furthermore, the government recognizes the importance of the Olympic Games, and for this reason is agreeing, with a hesitancy I find disturbing, to share in the project's success. The government, in all sincerity and honesty, should not hesitate to participate to the fullest extent possible. On that basis, the government, which has shown its good intentions through its limited participation, should immediately reassure Canadians and agree to share in both the losses and the gains. I certainly do not accept this hesitant attitude taken by the government, which has limited its activity to forming a responsible committee or participating in a project of national importance.
The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) has spoken of a national character. Such a thing exists-I believe in it-and the President of the Treasury Board is perfectly right about that. For example, I do not accept that the government tries to wash its hands by saying: Only the province of Quebec or Montreal will have to pick up the tab in the event of a deficit. I hope that the government will review its position and will agree to participate financially in the Olympic Games.
In Germany, provincial and municipal authorities put up 25 per cent for the Olympic Games and the federal government 50 per cent. This is the minimum participation which the government should undertake. You believe in the Olympic Games for youth or you do not believe in it. I think the government believes in it as evidenced by its serious commitment but I find it unthinkable that it should refuse to meet the possible deficit.
I welcome the fact that several government departments did accept to supply qualified personnel to make a success out of those Olympic Games; this participation will amount to several million dollars which will be quite appreciated by the Olympic Games Organization Committee.
I think we should adopt a wider outlook and until now perhaps we have failed to assess the true importance of those games for the young and the not-so-young.
It has also been suggested that the games would last only two weeks. This is a gross mistake and I would be the very first one to oppose any legislation in favour of games which would last only two weeks without entailing longer range repercussions. Of course, it would be insane to spend so many millions for a project lasting only two weeks. We are quite aware of the fact that those Olympic Games will be motivating thousands of young who are expecting them and hope to take part in them some day.
One must have taken part in sports competitions for a long time in order to know exactly how much motivation they require. The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) implied that I had perhaps neglected to go to Montreal from time to time. Well, I had the opportunity of going there often and of indulging in an old favourite sport of mine, hockey, for many years. Therefore I know Montreal well enough, it is only about 40 miles from where I live, to be able to deal with this question. Therefore, the motivation of young people is already recognized and it is in that larger context that one must try to

asses the importance of those competitions. Of course, what may be involved is invaluable, but we know very well that the stars of professional or amateur sport have inspired our young people, and it is in that sense that we must consider the Olympic Games.
If I were to suggest that the Olympic Games will be enough to motivate our young people, it would be a serious mistake and I regret that the government did not do more than it did long ago to prepare our youth for those international competitions. And to simply spend several million dollars of public funds for games lasting only two weeks would be stupid; but the scope of the Olympic Games goes far beyond regional or municipal interests.
In my opinion training these youths for international competitions requires special attention from the government and much more than it has given up to now. Of course, there are additional funds, credits and services are offered uner the act to COJO. But what have we done since to train youth, to stimulate it? Should we spend as many millions for amateur sport, we could go even to municipalities, to regions in order to motivate youth and give it the basic tools it needs for training.
I take this opportunity to remind the government of the importance of increasing funds for amateur sport. We are going to spend a few millions and maybe more to see a few Canadians participate in the Olympic Games. Of course, we hope they will represent us by a performance never yet equalled. But then again, we will have to make further efforts and to encourage some chaps in an almost artificial way and in a short time, in order to have an adequate representation. But we will never be in a position to be qualified competitors and have an adequate representation as long as we content ourselves with training athletes on short notice. Therefore, it is important that this government contribute to these games. We have the opportunity of holding these games in Canada, in Montreal in particular, and we will take advantage of it. But we also have the opportunity of thinking about the funds that we should make available to the regions, provinces and municipalities.
I recommended, some time ago, the possible establishment of a department of sports and leisure in Canada. Of course, the Department of National Health and Welfare has, at the present time, funds available but they are not enough to train our youth for international competitions, and in particular to enable them to be motivated, in as much as they have basic tools. It seems difficult for some people to understand what basic tools are. At the municipal and regional levels, we are quite aware of the fact that thousands of young and not so young who cannot practice any sports which interest them for lack of the basic tool, the institution. The loss of voluntary effort is often deplored but this voluntary effort will exist in so far as organizations responsible for leisure will have such basic tools at their disposal. It is up to the government to put at the disposal of leisure and youth organizations the tools which are absolutely necessary.
I take advantage of this opportunity, as I said earlier, to urge the government to make further efforts for the development of the basic tools. I was answered that the estab-
June 29, 1973

lishment of a department responsible for sports and leisure might infringe upon provincial jurisdiction. I thought that it would be possible to develop a three-level financing policy under which 25 per cent would be secured by municipalities, 25 per cent by the provincial government, and 50 per cent by the federal government. In my opinion, if we set up such a policy, we could leave it to the municipality to ask the province to participate in its own capacity. If it were within the provincial government's jurisdiction to consider that request to participate on a 25 per cent basis, the federal government would not interfere at all with the provincial jurisdiction by its planning policy, and it could then accept to participate on a 50 per cent basis. In so doing, we would contribute to the training of young people for future competitions.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, that what I am saying may not seem to be within the scope of the bill before us, but I feel, and I repeat it, that we would be making a serious mistake if we subsidized only the 1976 Olympic Games, and let it go at that. To prepare international competitions where Canadians could give the maximum, it is absolutely necessary to establish a policy designed to prepare and motivate young people.
The federal government has never done it up to now but this year, they will perhaps answer me: Credits for amateur sports have been increased twofold and perhaps fivefold. Why? Because the Olympic Games of 1976 will take place late, since youth is hardly or not at all prepared.
Thus, I hope that these few observations on what we can do about young athletes who, when they are grown up and mature, will want to represent Canada suitably, will prompt the government to do more than they did up to now.
So I think that when evaluating only the credits which will be earmarked for the Olympic Games, we forget completely the motivation of youth I was speaking about earlier, the conditioning and the stimulation this implies for young people, as well as the training they will derive from sport. I think that the majority of young people want to participate in a sport, they want to apply themselves more and effectively to sports. In fact, without realizing it, they get themselves a training which is very valuable; in future, they will finally be responsible for the society they have to live in.
I think that if we devote only a moment to the consideration of the interest the Olympic Games of 1976 will arise among young people, we have no reason for hesitating a single moment to support the bill which is before the House, although incomplete, so that the Olympic Games of 1976 are a complete success.
Thus there is much to be done because the participation and the involvement non only of hon. members but of Canadians as a whole are essential. The Olympics will be that we want them to be according to our direct or indirect participation. But letting Canadians fret by brandishing the prospect of an eventual deficit, letting them wonder about who is going to make up the deficit and about the chances of success, that Mr. Speaker, is a very bad start.
I would like to see in this House members who are a great deal more optimistic. I would also like to remind hon. members the place held by recreational activities in
Olympic Bill
our society. It is not enough, of course, to be satisfied with believing in and hoping for a 40 or 36 hour work week. We know perfectly well, through the medias, the significant role played by recreational activities in our society. All the more reason to be in favour of those competitions and to prepare for them. It is in that sense that we as Canadians must look forward to the successful fruition of those international competitions.
Some worry, in certain circles, about the position taken by the mayor of Montreal. To my mind, Mr. Speaker, one shifts the problem in saying in this House that if those $350. $400 or 500 million were allocated for renovating the city of Montreal, we would all agree. That is shifting the problem because one does not exclude the other, and everyone knows that Montreal has its problems, just as Vancouver and Toronto as well as the government have theirs.
To accuse the Mayor of Montreal of being concerned only with the Olympic Games is to misunderstand him badly. He has in fact had great success with many undertakings in Montreal and I believe Montrealers are pleased with him.
Some have even claimed that Mayor Drapeau's successes, of which Expo, have left nothing behind and that there is the danger the 1976 Olympic Games will leave nothing good to the citizens of Montreal. Let us remember that great works have been achieved; for instance, the thruways, Metro, Man and his World, the most beautiful amusement park in Canada, are as many achievements which remained after Expo 67.
It is untrue to claim that Expo 67 did not leave the Montrealers anything good. Briefs were presented by various groups in Montreal opposing the 1976 Olympic Games project and claiming that green spaces were vanishing, but Mayor Drapeau went before the Quebec parliamentary commission and defended his position quite ably. The press recognized that Mayor Drapeau was well documented; he even proved that by choosing the site of the Olympic village, he added to the green spots in Montreal and by using a golf course reserved for a hundred of Montrealers at $5 a day. This was not mentioned, but if some people want to submit briefs, reference should be made, after all, to the one Mr. Drapeau submitted to the House committee which was well defended and was not questioned.
If we want to be honest, we must admit that, after all, Mayor Drapeau has achieved some rather fantastic results in the city of Montreal; of course, he did not succeed in everything, but was the present Prime Minister successful in creating the just society that he talked about in 1968, and do we have to fight him constantly for that reason? I believe he made some efforts, tried to adapt every day that just society and it would be fair to say that we are trying to adapt it better than to achieve it.
The Mayor of Montreal has tremendous achievements to his credit but he also failed in some other endeavours. But on the whole, what Mayor Drapeau gave to the people of Montreal was designed to attract thousands of visitors; the Olympic Games will be another attraction. A great number of visitors will come to Montreal and certainly those Olympics will bring profits.

June 29, 1973
Olympic Bill
But we have to be convinced, as the President of the Treasury Board said, that it is a national event. The athletes will not come only from the province of Quebec; of course, these events will take place in Montreal. If Vancouver had been chosen, I would say the same thing and I would be very happy to see Quebecers go and compete in Vancouver. But we have that advantage and as a "Joliettain" or a Quebecer, I am very happy that Montreal will stage those events, the Olympic Games, and I believe that because of the participation of Canadian athletes, the honour of Canada is at stake. None of the hon. members can say that I am wrong when I speak of a Canadian participation. An hon. member from the Progressive Conservative party would have liked that the games be decentralized and would have preferred that some of the events be carried out in various regions. It is an idea which is worthy of much attention and consideration. Now, of course, decisions have been taken and it would have been preferable that such a suggestion be considered. Of course, this suggestion demands consideration. And I repeat that surely the responsibility does not rest only with Montreal.
I deplore, for example, the attitude of the New Democratic Party on this question. It is of course easy to preach virtuousness, Mr. Speaker, it is easy for the New Democrats to say that they would be ready to approve a budget of $500 million for the renovation of Montreal, but I have serious doubts about the virtuousness of the New Democratic Party since January 4, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to say it, but I feel I have to.
Recently, I saw the New Democratic Party vote against an amendment which I had moved and under which old age pensions would have started at 60. This would have improved the lot of older persons. Yet, the New Democrats are very crafty in their defence of such principles.
Recently, I saw them vote against a motion moved by the Progressive Conservative Party to the effect that the government had not succeeded in slowing down the increase in the cost of living. I could not understand how hon. members from the New Democratic Party could vote against this, even though I knew very well the reasons for it.
Today, they are opposed to such celebrations because Montreal faces other problems. I have serious doubts about the virtuousness which the New Democratic Party is defending because, since January 4, Canadians know how they have betrayed their own commitments over a period of six months.
Therefore, in my opinion, the arguments put forward by the New Democratic Party with respect to the people of Montreal are not that convincing and one can hardly believe that members of this party could be sincere when they wish that these millions of dollars would serve other purposes.
I repeat, this problem is not the only one, but we need some motivation with respect to those Olympic Games; Montreal is no exception and also needs additional funds to solve some problems and avert some difficulties.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to come back to an issue which was previously raised. The President of the Treasury Board mentioned that athletes should undergo inten-

sive training and that funds would be granted for that purpose. Then, I say again that I regret we have waited so long and that this training did not start a few years sooner. Bearing in mind the minister's statement, this proves the importance of my earlier proposal that additional funds be granted to create basic tools for our youth to allow them to get ready for the games and other competitions. The minister also mentioned the necessity of international relationships and that through such international competitions our links with other nations will become closer. I think he is perfectly right and that relationships between nations are one thing. We also need good relationships between provinces and between members to get a better understanding of the importance of the Olympic Games and their national nature.
I will conclude by reminding the government of the importance of being more prepared to shoulder a larger share of any possible deficit than it has been so far. I do not think we have the right to limit ourselves to the deficit issue when we talk about a project which directly affects our Canadian youths who need motivation to grow, assert themselves and develop. I think that the money issue is no longer relevant, Mr. Speaker. Thus, the government has the responsibility to become involved. Its involvement so far has been limited and I hope, with the support of an hon. member, to propose in due course an amendment urging the government to commit itself for at least 50 per cent of the costs, just like the province of Quebec and the City of Montreal are doing. This suggestion would be readily accepted by both the Quebec and Montreal authorities, and, by so doing the federal government would prove how serious they are when they claim that they support the Olympic Games.
I dare hope, Mr. Speaker, that this bill will be supported by most hon. members and that the government will initiate a publicity campaign calling upon all Canadians to commit themselves. As I said earlier, the Olympic Games will be a success only if we, as hon. members do commit ourselves.
[ English]


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I might call it one o'clock.


Mr. Howard:: I thought I might be given that opportunity, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will appreciate that calling it one o'clock does not automatically give him priority to be recognized first at two o'clock. I am not sure whether there is agreement as between the parties with regard to which hon. member should have the floor. I might note, for the record, that the hon. member for Skeena was the only one who rose to call it one o'clock; this might give him some priority.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
June 29, 1973
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the outset that inasmuch as we are talking about matters relating to the Olympics, where they give prizes and awards for prowess and certain attainments, if such an award existed at the moment for perpetrating a hoax on the Canadian people, surely the government would win the gold medal with this bill. Largely what I think it seeks to do is to mislead the Canadian people, this House and certainly the people of Montreal who have their hopes and expectations set upon the Olympics, as well as being able to finance the activities of the Olympics. I do not say that this misleading on the part of the government is deliberate because I am sure it is not. It results from ignorance on the part of the government and from receiving bad advice, advice that is based on false understandings and premises in regard to what may be accomplished through the provisions that are set out in this bill.
The bill deals entirely with attempting to raise funds for the purpose of the Olympics in 1976. The major source of fund raising will be through the production and sale of $5 and $10 silver coins, the profit from which-or the seinior-age, as I understand it is known in formal government circles-will go toward the financing of the Olympics. Most, if not all, of the silver used in the production of these coins will have to be imported from other nations. If the coins are not to be struck from blanks already produced, there is not a firm in Canada, as I understand it, that can make blanks for the purpose, certainly in the quantity required. The Mint, when it moves to Winnipeg, I understand will not have the melting and rolling facilities to produce the sheets and blanks themselves; this will have to be done by calling for tenders and the letting of a contract. Not only will the silver have to be imported, it appears, but also the blanks themselves, or the sheets from which blanks can be punched within the Mint, which will have to be produced outside Canada.
An estimate has been placed on the record. It came from a newspaper article in February of this year. The estimate was that perhaps, taking into account the number of coins that Mayor Drapeau has indicated must be sold, the amount of silver required will be in the neighbourhood of 51 million ounces. Mayor Drapeau has spoken in terms of the necessity of producing and selling over the four-year period 65 million pieces, some $5 and some $10 pieces. Mayor Drapeau is receiving his advice about the question of coin sales primarily from coin dealers in the City of Montreal who stand to make a profit because they are in the business of dealing in coins and like to tell Mayor Drapeau what he wants to hear. If Mayor Drapeau seems to want to sell $500 million worth of coins, that is what the coin dealers tell him will be the case. He buys that, parrots it, and advises the federal government that this can be done. I think the wrong advice is being given to him, and on that basis I believe the bill is misleading.
The early Canadian silver dollars contained 80 per cent silver, so there was in fact 3A of an ounce of silver in each silver dollar of the pre-1967 mintage. There will be somewhere above 3A of an ounce of silver in the $5 and $10 silver pieces that are to be minted. I understand that the $5 silver piece will contain 3A of an ounce of silver and the $10 silver piece will probably contain a bit more than that.
Olympic Bill
Taking into account the fact that each coin, on average may contain 810 of an ounce of silver and that Mayor Drapeau is talking about selling 65 million pieces, we come up with a figure of 53 million troy ounces of silver required. This figure coincides with the estimate of 51 million ounces that the government related to Donald Phillipson of the Star in February this year. I use that example to show that 51 million or 52 million ounces is a very accurate, conservative figure of the amount of silver that may be required.
If we have to import that silver, which we must because we do not have the quantity ourselves to make the sheets or blanks, we will have to go to various outside countries. At today's price for silver which is $2.83 an ounce, we will have to spend a minimum of $144 million of Canadian funds which will be going out of the Country. This will be a loss to Canada, just in respect of the silver alone. If we assume that the silver will have tacked on top of it some kind of a profit for the producer of the sheets or blanks, and take 10 per cent as a round figure, then we are speaking of another $14 million or $15 million. So, in terms of exodus from Canada, we are speaking conservatively of about $160 million. This is an indication of the necessary outflow of money from Canada to import the blanks or sheets for the 85 million coins Mayor Drapeau thinks he can sell. Unfortunately, I could not be here yesterday to hear the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek) because I had to attend a committee meeting but I did read his speech. I understand that, thinking of the coin collectors and souvenir hunters in the world, he believes that quantity of coins can be sold and that there will be a profit from them available for the Olympics.
Let us look at a few facts about the sales of specially minted coins from the Royal Canadian Mint over the past years. Never has the Royal Canadian Mint sold in any one year more than one million pieces of any kind of issue it has produced. Our best year for the sale of specially produced mint coins in sets was during centennial year, 1967, when the whole nation was emotionally involved in our 100th anniversary. The whole nation from coast to coast was thoroughly and completely in support of the celebration of Canada's 100th birthday. I submit that is not the case now with regard to the Olympics. Even then our highest sale of individual coins in units produced by the mint for numismatic purposes was in the $4 priced proof-life sets containing a sale value of $1.91. That year we sold 963,714 sets, not one million. Of the gold sets at $40 per set, we sold 337,687 sets. Of the $12 sets, valued at $1.91, which were silver medallions and not legal tender, we sold 72,463 sets. The gross sales of the mint in that year for specially issued coins for numismatic purposes and not for distribution throughout the system for purchasing purposes, was $19 million. The net profit or return to the mint was $5 million in our best year of sales.
In addition, there was a pretty extensive marketing and promotional campaign in 1967. The Post Office is to be the promotional, advertising and marketing agency under this bill for these Olympic coins. What I wonder about, particularly in light of clause 11 of the bill which provides for setting up a special account, is whether the mint will operate on a cash basis with the Post Office or is there to be a credit relationship between the Post Office Department which is to market the coins and the mint which is to
5208

June 29, 1973
Olympic Bill
produce them. Heretofore the mint and the government have operated on a cash basis in respect of coins distributed either for legal tender within the system or for numismatic purposes. They do not and should not operate on credit. For the mint to engage in a program of producing coins and providing them to the Post Office Department of anybody else for sale or distribution on a credit basis would be like giving an alcoholic a credit card in a liquor store. We would end up with an inability to pay for those coins. They must be handled on a cash basis, and I hope that is what will happen, although it is not clear that that is what is contemplated in this section.
Mention has been made that banks should or might be the distribution agency for these coins. Heretofore, private chartered banks in Canada have never purchased numismatic pieces from the Mint for resale to their customers. I do not believe they are about to do it in this case either, for the very simple reason that the private chartered banks, like anybody else, will have to put out cash to buy numismatic pieces and hold them for resale. They cannot put them into the system for distribution, and they do not even collect interest on them, whereas that souvenir or collectors' money which might be sitting in their coffers does. They have not done so until now, and they are not about to hold those coins.
References have been made to Germany minting and selling coins. As the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) said this morning, 90 per cent of those coins for the Munich Olympics were sold within Germany. That may well be true, but there are tens of millions of dollars worth of German Olympic coins undistributed. Where did the 90 per cent, or a large part of it, of internal consumption in Germany go? It went through the banks which are stuck with those coins, and at present they are discounting them. My colleague, the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) says that they amount to $175 million. I had not sought to determine what that amount might be, but I have been told by people in the banking institutions here in Canada who know what is going on in banks in other countries that banks in Germany are stuck with them. No one will ever know what the loss has been to the German government and the German taxpayer over that. Will this money be recalled? Will the banks get back the money they paid for it, or will it be melted down? No one knows as yet.
The statement that 90 per cent of the coins for the Munich Olympics were sold within the country is misleading because the coins are still in the hands of the banks. As I understand it, 80 per cent of the budget of COJO is to be realized from the sale of these coins. I pointed out before that in our best year we did not sell one million of these special coins in this country, and that was in 1967. Now, we are about to embark on a project, as a result of accepting the assessment of Mayor Drapeau and others in Montreal, to sell 65 million pieces of coins over less than a four year period through the Post Office Department. I am not particularly impressed by the ability of the Post Office Department to distribute the mail that it gets for delivery, let alone to promote and sell these coins. I do not expect great sales from this.

Let us look at this in rough figures and see what we are talking about. If all those 65 million pieces sold were $10 pieces, and 40 per cent in rough figures was the cost of production at the Mint, then 60 per cent would be the seigniorage at face value, and we would end up with an income of $390 million. If they were all $5 pieces, the income would be $195 million. If we break the difference and assume that equal numbers of each will be sold, the income would be $292 million, which would be sufficient if you are looking for $250 million from the sale of these coins. But we will not be able to sell and promote, which we need to do, an average of 16 million $5 and $10 pieces each year, including this year. We are half way through this year already and no steps have been taken to produce the 1973 quota of coins because the bill is still here. We will have to embark upon a program of trying to sell 16 million pieces each year, and when our best year in the past has produced less than a million pieces in any one year, how can we hope to sell that many pieces this year?
Who is the government trying to kid that this is going to be a financially successful venture? Somebody will end up-by my calculations and I am being extremely conservative about this by taking the lowest figures-with a deficit of something in the neighbourhood of $200 million on this particular aspect alone. My prompter from the curtains, the hon. member for Fraser Valley West, says that that is also the estimate of the Treasury Board. If my estimate coincides with that of the Treasury Board, then perhaps there is something wrong with my estimate. However, that is my estimate. We will be short from the sale of coins alone by $200 million if we carry out the commitment that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made to the people of Canada that no federal taxpayers' money will go to this.
We are not talking now about the cost to the taxpayer for the CBC coverage or the cost to the taxpayer for the involvement of the Department of National Defence and the RCMP, or the cost for the $26 million to $54 million of the CMHC involvement. I am referring to the straight question of money anticipated to be raised by the sale of coins which at present is $250 million but which will end up by being $200 million short. If the commitment of the Canadian government is carried out that the Canadian taxpayer will not be asked to make up that $200 million, who will do it? The people in the city of Montreal and the government of Quebec will have to do it. It is a crying shame to bring upon the people in Montreal and the province of Quebec the prospect of having to foot a $200 million bill because some coin dealer sold Mayor Jean Drapeau a bill of goods about how many coins could be sold. This government bought it and is trying to pass it on to this parliament as being a worthwhile venture. It is not going to be worthwhile and I for one, on that basis alone and apart from what I may feel about the Olympic question and athletic matters, am led to conclude that I should not support the bill.
There is the question of lotteries involved in the bill, and that is perhaps the way out. This may be the subterfuge and the "technique" contemplated by that wily old politician, the mayor of Montreal, and others who have the same thoughts. Think of the prospect of having $200 million worth of Olympic coins unsold. In the first place, COJO, which will apparently operate the lottery, can buy
June 29, 1973

the coins for 40 cents on the dollar, taking the production cost out. If you deduct the production costs of 40 per cent, then for a $5 coin they would pay $2. The Olympic Committee could then use the $5 and $10 coins as prizes in the lottery. Just think about the prospects of winning a ton of $10 coins. That is imagination!


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: It's against the law, too.


Frank Howard: I am serious about this. And may I say this is the only time during my remarks that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) has perked up his ears. The suggestion struck home because this may be what they are contemplating doing. In any event, this is a gimmick way of getting rid of the coins in the first place and, in the second place, raising the money.
The other thing we have to think about, and it was also mentioned this morning, is that during 1976 the Olympics will not be the only event taking place in the city of Montreal that will be an attraction for coin collectors. That is also the year of the 100th anniversary of the independence of the United States, and it is currently planning to sell coins to commemorate that. We all know of the ability of the Americans as marketers, promoters and sellers. In that year, and in the years leading up to 1976, the United States will be embarking on a competition with Canada over the production, sale and distribution of coins. Are we going to attempt to operate in that same market?
I point out that in 1967, which was the best year we ever had either emotionally for the Canadian people or in terms of the sale of numismatic pieces with no competition from the United States, the best we could do with respect to the $4 cost item, the proof-like set containing $1.91 in face value coins, was to dispose of 963,000 units or pieces. Now, we are seeking to try to flog 16 million pieces a year? That is a hoax; that is a lot of flogging. I do not want to go too far into that. I just think somebody has sold somebody else a piece of goods, and the government of Canada, through ignorance and lack of understanding in this area, has agreed to try to fob off this concept upon the people of Montreal because they are the ones who will have to find the $200 million difference. The poverty and housing conditions are bad enough in the city of Montreal without making them this much worse.
I have concern, too, about our total system and our attitude with respect to what is most valuable. Is it the elitist-type fanfare that can be generated for a few weeks in one part of Canada, in one year of our time? Or is it the concern we should have about housing, about accommodation, about transportation, about poverty, about Indians? That is my major reason for objecting to this piece of legislation. The first is that it is a financial hoax, and the second is that this is a social hoax. It is an attempt to capitalize and further advance the opiate of the people, namely, sports involvement vicariously, not personally. I am completely and thoroughly in support of sports activities involving younger people. The older one gets the more your thoughts on sports turn to theoretical aspects rather than to the actual participation, whether it is indoor sports or outdoor sports you are talking about.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Speak for yourself.
Olympic Bill


Frank Howard: But with respect to the involvement of young people, I am thoroughly in support of that.
I come from an area of the province of British Columbia that contains a large number of smaller communities. It is a rural area in a sense. And, Mr. Speaker, every member who does not come from a big city riding knows this as well, that every community in my constituency, every small community in all of Canada, which tries to get a few bucks to build an ice arena, a curling rink, an auditorium or a swimming pool finds it is like pulling teeth. They have to run around on hands and knees and beg from every agency, municipal, provincial and federal. Hon. members know the response that they get, the people in Fort St. James, Burns Lake, Hazelton, Terrace, and in my own community of Prince Rupert. Mr. Speaker, you know the response we get from the federal government. Oh, it is done politely. It is not done with malice, or with disregard for the interests of people in those communities, but very sadly the response is, "no help, no consideration-tough- do it yourself." And the people do it themselves. The buildings that they erect by that process of community participation by citizens' groups, by municipal taxes bearing the load, are much more valuable to this nation and to the spirit of the young people in this nation than all the Olympic villages that are going to be built, whether in the city of Montreal or some other place.
If we could generate in this House the same spirit for supporting participation by our younger people as we can for this project in Montreal that is being put to us now, we would be a damned sight better off in our nation than we are at the moment. Is is to our undying shame that the federal government prates and talks about endorsement of sports, of amateur activities, of younger people, out of one side of its mouth, and denies some financial support to those projects out of the other side of its mouth.
I am very much afraid, Mr. Speaker, that the citizens of the city of Montreal are going to wake up-I should not put it in that light in meaning that they have been asleep-are going to have disclosed to them at the conclusion of this great venture that they will have to find at least $200 million somewhere. They won't like that. That will be the result of Mayor Drapeau having been sold a bill of goods by coin dealers and stamp dealers, accepting what was told to him because that was what he wanted to hear, without checking into it. That is the type of thing we are going to visit on the people of Montreal, and I do not want to see that happen in 1976 or any other time. The other objection I have is to this preoccupation with the question of sports at the top level, at the international level, at the money level, and nothing at the human level, all of which is placing the emphasis in the wrong place.


Mr. Ian Arrol (York East):: June 29, 1973
Olympic Bill
lowed this idea in the past, that first must come bread, housing, sewers and full employment, we would never have had the creation of the seven wonders of the world and we in Quebec would be denied the beauty and majesty of the churches and cathedrals that grace and give dignity to almost every village in the province.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian MacLachlan Arrol: If in the future we were to wait until all social problems were solved before the creation of a nonutilitarian structure or a spectacular of some kind, we would at best evolve into a dull gray society of uniformity without the excitement of creativity and adventure. Money spent on the Olympic games has financial value for all of us. As thousands of people come to Canada for the adventure of the Olympics, then every gallon of gas purchased will mean that half the price will be a donation to us. A bottle of liquor at $6 means about $5 to the Canadian public. All this in addition to the stimulation of the retail industry, the tourist industry, employment and then the returns in future years as Canada increasingly becomes part of the world consciousness.
There will be worldwide attention on Canada, not just on Montreal. Since Expo, up to and including the present, Canada has become a place to talk about. For the first time, journalists and communications people from all around the world discovered Canada and then went west to take in the beauty of the Rockies and the Pacific. Since the time of Expo, it is rarely that you pick up a publication from anywhere in the world in which there is not praise for Canada in the form of photographs or travelogues.
So, Mr. Speaker, for all good reasons, the Montreal Olympics should be supported.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honour for me to participate in this debate, and especially to say that we approve of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, we do not approve of debts, but under our present system, we cannot but run deep into indebtedness to get things done. If we did not resort to indebtedness, nothing would be done, and since we are active men, since we are progressive citizens who want to get things done, we must resolve to contract debts, as there is no other way at present.
The Montreal Olympic Games will certainly incur a deficit as many other members have already said, and we are worried about such a deficit. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that if war were to break out tomorrow morning, not a single member in this House would say: There will be no war for us because we would incur a deficit. We will not assume such expenditures because we will get into debt. They would all say: It is physically possible to wage war; we have men-the most important requirement-we have technicians, engineers, equipment, natural resources. There is nothing then to prevent us from going to war.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I would say the same for the Olympic Games: there is nothing to prevent us from assisting, organizing and promoting the holding of the Olympic

Games. We must, Mr. Speaker, do all we can to ensure that they are held.
It is thus with a feeling of pride that I would like to express my opinion on as important a matter as the Olympic Games, which are to take place in Montreal and in Kingston in 1976, precisely nine years after the Centennial celebrations. We ought to be proud to see our country coming to the fore, through its international activities, thereby achieving an important position which reflects on all Canadians, providing them with opportunities for keeping in contact with friends, relatives and people of several other countries.
In order that these fantastic events may take place and prove beneficial to us, it is normal that we pay our share, according to our capacity, our means, our goodwill and our pride. One should not always merely seek advantages in these international events, without ever assuming the inconveniences. I wish to congratulate the mayor of Montreal, Mr. Jean Drapeau, for the useful work he has performed in obtaining, both for Montreal and Canada, the Olympic Games for 1976, in spite of the competition from other countries. If he appears to have taken this initiative on his own, now that he has succeeded in having our country selected, it is appropriate that all of us should contribute, without restraint, according to our means and possibilities, to the success of these Games.
In principle, Mr. Speaker, we have here in Canada all the potential raw materials, labour, engineering and human resources to achieve that international "operation", without any reservations. Only financing seems to pose problems. Well, I should say not! That is the easiest thing to solve, in the light of all our old and moderns methods of financing, if only we will open our eyes to present possibilities. I am sure that if there were a world war, we would already have forged ahead in the great aventure. But because this is concerned with culture, the development of human beings, encouraging the physical and psychological fulfilment of the individual, we really attach too much importance to possible and imaginary difficulties which we may have to face in the execution of the proj ect.
The only real obstacle, Mr. Speaker, would be a lack of money. I say that is a farce. The lack of financing is the least of difficulties when we have material resources, manpower and human capital in the fields of engineering and sports. We have all that in Canada and the whole world can come to our aid and lend us the engineering that we might lack.
Mr. Speaker, in the case of a war, we would see all financial resources automatically offered for everything. At least, let us have the same financial initiatives for the Olympic Games as for local, regional, provincial or national endeavours. We are now giving proof that we can find enough money to underwrite projects which are very helpful, of course, but often also quite questionable.
In the case of the Olympic Games, at this stage of the project, I would even suggest that all financing be simply reduced to the obligations of a sound administration, so that we avoid as much as possible any waste and even plundering of public funds.
June 29, 1973

As long as we have materials, natural or cultural resources and unemployed labour, we should never refer to lack of finance or money or even to the fear of lacking money to finance projects which we have decided to undertake and complete within the agreed period.
Mr. Speaker, as to the irregular and extraordinary means stated by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), the Olympic commemorative coins and stamps and postal related products, a lottery or the grant of a tax deduction for gifts made to COJO, they are all minor means of financing which especially have the advantage of inducing the people to co-operate in the entire project, the extraordinary project thus drawn to the attention of the people by available means used at the same time for publicity purposes, by contacts, massive awakening to that unusual project to which the people must be sensitized through those new and irregular procedures.
First we must congratulate the government for having provided those financing procedures which are also part of the publicity and the public awakening to the Olympic Games, a noble objective at the international and world level in which we must all take part in various ways, as we all took part in the 1967 Confederation celebrations.
I would go so far as to say that we should not allow the prospect of a deficit cool off our enthusiasm for the Olympic Games. We could even contemplate ways of making up this deficit. I believe that we mentioned far too often the deficits that resulted from the Centennial celebrations.
Mr. Speaker, I am still optimistic as regards the financing of this project which is wanted and considered beneficial for us, Canadians, from the cultural and even the spiritual point of view. The want of money should never cause the government to worry about the developing of projects it has decided to carry out.
Therefore, if for the financing of the Olympic Games, the President of the Treasury Board and the Government have decided to recommend the issue of special $5 and $10 coins. I certainly have no objection to it. That is a financing method that our government should resort to a lot more often, and which should have been used a long time ago to ensure the carrying out of all kinds of projects, at the municipal, provincial, public or even federal levels, which are often delayed or never finalized, simply because we think we are short of money.
If some day, one could understand what money or capital actually are considered only as a means of exchange between citizens and countries, and as a means to ensure the development of science, accounting, and administrative science.
If some day, one could at last understand what money is, I am convinced that one attitude would change towards the difficulties or the impossibility of carrying out appropriate projects required by a population anxious to work, develop and grow.
Mr. Speaker, it is time that we lay our cards on the table. The commemorative coins to be issued and placed at the disposal of Mayor Drapeau of Montreal to help him finance the Olympic Games could indeed be used not just as commemorative coins but as regular money as well.
This would permit, Mr. Speaker, to put in the hands of taxpayers the necessary funds to ensure the development
Olympic Bill
and improvement of services. The issuing of commemorative coins goes to show that it is possible to issue credits when they have to be put at the disposal of the population.
I regret only one thing, Mr. Speaker, namely that the President of the Treasury Board said that a provision of the bill is aimed at preventing citizens from using this money at regular currency.
This money, Mr. Speaker, should have the same status as regular currency. If ficticious money for a value of $250 to $300 million is to be issued, no harm whatsoever will be done to the Canadian economy. This issuing of ficticious money, free of debts and interests, should greatly help the Canadian people and would show the entire world that a government that is truly responsible and equal to the situation, in short, a government that really wants to work for the people, will issue its own currency. The government which would take such an initiative would become the most independent in the world.
According to history, Mr. Speaker, nowhere except in the United States, has any little amount of this kind of money ever been issued; a former President of the United States allowed it at one time and this money is still in circulation in the country, in several places, and is legal tender. We could do the same thing for the Olympic Games: this money should be legal tender and not unlawful currency.
We use lawful means, Mr. Speaker, to do unlawful things.
Mr. Speaker, we may introduce, at the committee report stage, a motion to the effect that this money be made lawful currency that is money which could stay in the hands of Canadians, of the nation, and which would also be used as commemorative coins.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, if the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) listened to the remarks just completed he will find himself in somewhat the same position as Mr. Gordon once found himself when he was ready to support debt free money. The hon. member's argument was very interesting. He suggested this should be currency and it should be debt free. It is much more than debt free. It carries with it a premium of 60 per cent, $3 on every $5. I do not think that is debt free by any stretch of the imagination. According to the Social Credit philosophy, that might be debt free in that it is created money and does not have anything to do with either the value of the coinage or the monetary value of the coinage, both of which are different depending on how they are being used.
There is a great deal of interest in sports in the area from which I come. Percentagewise, there are probably more sports enthusiasts in northern Ontario than in any other part of the country. For many years it would have been impossible to run the National Hockey League without towns such as Kirkland Lake, Porcupine, Sudbury and the head of the lakes: this area contributed at least 50 per cent of all the players in the National Hockey League. We are not opposed to the development of sport, amateur or

June 29, 1973
Olympic Bill
professional. However, that is not what we are being asked to do here today.
It is very interesting to deal with Mr. Drapeau: you do not deal in realities but in dreams. Without doubt he is the best salesman I have ever met. I have met him on a number of occasions. I am as gullible as many other members of parliament. I have been sold on a number of things by Mr. Drapeau and later found there was a lot of salesmanship in a nicely packaged proposition. I remember in particular the long speech by Mr. Drapeau two years prior to the Expo development. We were treated to a special wine in the restaurant on St. Helen's Island which is owned by the city of Montreal. Mr. Drapeau indicated that he had the only kind of wine produced in an area which produced a special kind of brandy: this was the elixir of all wines. Everyone is aware that with regard to the vintage of wine the choice is made in various ways. The choice is often made on a personal basis. However, I think there were few at that banquet who were not sold on the idea that he had control of the wine from the best wine producing area in France and it could be purchased only through this franchise.
I think Mr. Drapeau has done this in a very interesting way. Members of parliament should consider the method suggested for raising money for the Olympics. They should consider what we are being asked to provide, and then decide-leaving aside all the ballyhoo that goes into salesmanship-whether we wish to participate to the extent of $250 million.
The last three Olympic games were very interesting. I refer to the games in Mexico, Munich and the summer games held in Winnipeg several years ago. In each case there was considerable argument about whether they constituted amateur sport. Most people concluded that amateur sport in one country does not mean the same thing in another. The only way we can agree with the decision of Mr. Brundage on what is amateur sport is by referring to the kind of sport in which he recently engaged, namely when he married a very young, attractive girl. I think that kind of sport is highly accepted in most countries and is considered of equal status in most areas. That kind of amateur sport is carried on universally. Other than that, "amateur" does not have any relationship to whether somebody has on the back of his jacket a manufacturer's name indicating that he has been sponsored as far as his clothes are concerned. What is important is how that amateur has developed and the method in which his country has decided to support him. It is a disgrace that this country has assisted in only a very limited way the development of our athletes. For that reason we do not have anywhere near the calibre of athletes we should have. Because of our northern climate we should excel in many sports. However, this has not been the case in many of the Olympic games.
Another point that raises considerable difficulty with regard to participation in the Olympics stems from the fact that they were originally conducted as between cities. At that time the cities of ancient Greece and Asia Minor were autonomous states. They had armies and fought against each other. They developed state societies comparable to most state developments in the world today. We negotiate on the basis of a city obtaining the Olympic

games. One city competes against others in the same country to hold the Olympics, when obviously the games should be sponsored by the nation. They are participated in by the nation. It does not matter whether the Olympic games are being held in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver. We would be less than fair to the Canadian people if we did not accept the fact that the Olympics are going to be held in Canada and will be a Canadian venture. For this reason the government should quit playing around and decide to support the Olympics as Canadians, and put up a certain sum of money.
The proposition before us is totally ridiculous. My hon. friend has pointed out that the best we were ever able to do in the way of selling coins was when we sold approximately a million in centennial year. Those coins did not get into the monetary system; nobody expected they would. On that occasion-and I know, because I was involved-the Mint required assured sales for every coin set in advance before these coins were minted. There was absolutely no question of the Mint being left with unsold coin sets. The Mint has never been in the habit of holding coins. Great interest was generated across the country by the appearance of this centennial set. We produced a gold coin for the first time in 30 or 40 years. Such coins were easily transported to the United States and many of them were destined to find their way into coin collections across the world. The fact that a gold coin had been minted obviously had a great effect on sales.
Mr. Drapeau is now talking of putting out about $144 million worth of coinage; these coins are to be sold to the city of Montreal and other agencies on the basis of $2 production costs and $5 sale value only if they are not put into general circulation. So the sale value would be in excess of $500 million. The President of Treasury Board will have to tell us at some point how he will decide which coins are to go into general circulation and which into the hands of collectors.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 


William Arnold Peters: The President of Treasury Board says, "All". I presume he means that all are going into the collecting field. That cannot be the case because, as my hon. friend pointed out, these are not medallions, but coins; they can be redeemed at a bank because they are legal tender. It will not be possible to sell as many coins as Mayor Drapeau hopes. We are therefore being asked, in reality, to provide $3 for every set of coins minted; that $3 can either be picked up by the Treasury Board through the banking system or it can be picked up by the coin dealers because they will be paying $5.
Hopefully, much of the money will come from collectors in other countries interested in obtaining these proof sets as souvenirs. They, of course, will be paying the full $5 and the seigniorage in that case will be available to the Olympic authorities. But the seigniorage on coins turned back to the bank will have to be paid by the Canadian people, and I presume history will show in 1976 or 1977, when the accounting has been done, that two-thirds of the coinage will have gone into circulation and the seigniorage will not have been collected legitimately by the Olympics
June 29, 1973

committee. It could be requested of them by the treasury, but this would not be a practical course since the committee would not then be in business any longer; it would not be functioning.
I am sure many Canadians are of the opinion that if the Olympics are worth holding here, they are worth paying for. It would be much more honest if the federal government were to state just how much money it was ready to put into this venture. Suppose, for instance, twice the amount of coinage were issued as is now envisaged in some quarters: the treasury would still be stuck with huge volumes of these coins going into general circulation, not subject to seigniorage for the Olympics. There will be a net deficit in any case and something will have to be done about it.
I feel sure that Mr. Drapeau will go to every businessman, every employer, everyone in Montreal who has a payroll, and say to them, "Be patriotic; pay your employees in such a way as to include a percentage of these coin sets. They are legal tender." As I understand it, only $20 worth can be issued at a time. So a person earning $200 might receive $180 in ordinary currency and the rest in these coins. If the persons receiving these coins as wages decide to hold on to them, the seigniorage would be paid and the operation as Mr. Drapeau envisages it would take place. But it seems likely that if they are asked on every payday to accept up to $20 in Olympic coinage, most families will eventually use that coinage to buy food or other necessary commodities. When this happens, how does the Treasury Board expect to get back those amounts of $3 from the Olympics committee? The committee can legitimately say the sets were given out as commemorative coinage as far as they were concerned, that they had not put it into currency and that the committee had therefore fulfilled its part of the bargain.
If the Liberal government keeps flirting with the Social Credit philosophy of debt free money and ways of putting money into circulation, as it did a couple of times in the past under Mr. Gordon and appears to be doing again by meeting some of the requirements of members of the Creditiste party, it had better look carefully at how it is operating the coinage system. I stand to be corrected, but I think it is a fact that not one centennial set containing a gold coin found its way to the banks. I think it is safe to say that not one gold coin ever went into circulation. Those coins cost more than they were worth; their face value was $20 and the set cost $21.91. On the open market today those centennial, proof-like sets containing gold coins are worth anywhere from $125 to $200 a set. Therefore I think it is doubtful that now or at any time in the future the banks will pick up any of these coin sets in the nation's coinage. If the President of the Treasury Board is in agreement that these coins are to be put into general circulation, then he should stand up and say so because it changes the picture entirely.
I am interested in developing amateur sport, particularly in my area. Not long ago the provincial government and the federal government were asked to provide a grant to a small community, which has turned out more great National Hockey League players than any other, to construct a rink with artificial ice. But no money was made
Olympic Bill
available to train these players. Also in my area a totally untrained swimmer entered Olympic-type competition and was very highly placed in two or three categories. Perhaps this is because northern Ontario is a better example of the potential of athletes than any other part of the country. We have a far superior type of person simply because of the area's history. We are a mining community and the people of the area are chosen for their physical prowess. If you do not have that, you do not work. You are not accepted in the bush or in the mines unless you weigh a certain amount and can do a certain kind of work. This partly explains why the potential of athletes in that area is better than anywhere else.
As I say, we have asked the federal government and the provincial government to provide the wherewithal to build in the area an Olympic-size swimming pool that is heated year around, since we do not have very long summers, to provide the kind of facility to train amateur swimmers. But our request has received no consideration. Perhaps that is right. I remember the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) saying on a number of occasions that the federal government would not give one red cent to the Olympics in Canada and that the city of Montreal would receive no money for the Olympics. But that is not true.
Looking back at history, our previous record of sales of these 250 million units showed that about three million units were sold. The government says that at least 240 million units of the proposed coinage will be offered for sale.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Units or dollars?


William Arnold Peters: Units. There is a difference, because you add an extra zero if it is dollars. It is like comparing apples with oranges. The history of centennial year shows that about three million units were sold to collectors across the world. Everyone from coast to coast was dedicated to the projects that were undertaken in centennial year.
We are now going to issue 250 million units and these will be put on the market via the banks and the monetary system. If that is wrong, I should like to hear the minister say so, otherwise I can only assume that is right. Certainly that statement has been made by a number of members, including members of his party. What the minister is really saying is that he is going to support the Olympics to the tune of $3 out of every $5 that is put up. We should know exactly what the figure is and we should know whether we are going to support the Olympics by that amount.
I suggest the minister is playing an immensely dangerous game when he uses the Social Credit theory of putting up $2 of expenditure to make a $5 sale, expecting to make $3 in the middle, then loses the $3 in the middle by these coins being put into circulation where they will purchase $5 worth of goods. The seigniorage will be lost. If it is not lost, then the Social Credit party has been right all along in saying that you can print money, take $2 and make $5 out of it. If that does not bother the government at all, then we had better take a look at our whole monetary system and change it.
The government has promised that no money will be given to subsidize the Olympics. This has satisfied a lot of

June 29, 1973
Olympic Bill
people. I am sure many were disturbed by the accounting used for Expo. There is no question that there is still great doubt in the minds of the people about who paid for what, and how much. The accounting for Expo was never fully given to parliament. We made payments to Expo on a number of occasions and under different guises, but I am not sure whether we ever found out how much it actually cost.
I think that once we decide to have the Olympics, whatever the amount of money involved, be it $200 million, $400 million or whatever is necessary, everything should be in the open. In the normal way we should allow Montreal and the Olympic committee to circulate medallions, as other organizations do, which have no monetary value. In that way we would make a contribution as Canadians.
People from Africa, Asia and every country of the world, particularly areas which are not as sophisticated as Canada, will be very perplexed about the division between the national government, the provincial government and the municipal governments. It is all right to say that the national government is not participating, or that the provincial government is not participating and that this is a city event being put on by Montreal. When Mexico put on the Olympic games we were of the opinion that they were being put on by Mexico and not Mexico City. The riots which took place reflected on all Mexicans and not just the people of Mexico City.
When the Olympics were held in Japan, I am sure everyone knew the games were held at Osaka, but they knew also that was the year of the Japanese Olympic games and that every Japanese person had to take responsibility for the success or failure of those games. Black September reflected not only on the citizens of Munich but also on the people of Germany. Last month when he visited Israel, the president of Germany apologized not on behalf of the city of Munich but on behalf of all the people of the Republic of West Germany for the atrocity which took place. I am told that Willy Brandt is the Chancellor, not the president. This is a distinction which would be understood, I suppose, by some of my learned colleagues who understand other governments better than I do. However, I should like to put his position properly on the record. I might say that Willy Brandt, as Chancellor of West Germany, has something in common with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), both being chancellors in their own right.
The point I was trying to make is that we are drawing a fine distinction if we think about Olympic games in this country being related to a city government rather than a Canadian, national responsibility. I, as a Canadian, and all other Canadians will have a responsibility to see that people coming to this country are hosted in the best manner possible, are treated in the best manner possible and that if necessary the games are financed in a fair and reasonable way.
This raises the point of choosing the site for the Olympics. I think it is a disgrace when a crackpot like Campbell of Vancouver, and to some extent Drapeau, are involved in these things. Drapeau certainly is less than responsible on

most occasions. He was the founder of the October revolution. When a municipal election was held he figured it would be a hell of a good idea to have the War Measures Act. He is pretty irresponsible. He became involved in a competition for the Olympic games, and got them.
I have no objection to the games being held in Montreal but I do object to the way they were obtained. The people of Montreal should have had something to say about this. For years Drapeau has saddled the people of Montreal with grandiose schemes, the game as Camilien Houde did before him. The people of Montreal have suffered because of these grandiose schemes organized by an elite group in that city. This is unfortunate and will reflect eventually on the rest of us because the price will have to be paid. That is why this crackpot scheme of distributing coins and stamps to cover an expenditure of $200 million or $300 million is a national disgrace. It is also a national disgrace that the government is allowing this situation to occur. The government either does not understand or does not give a damn. Surely the government could inquire of the Mint, the same as I did, and find out that there is no possibility that there will be sales in the amount suggested by the Olympic committee, or that the amount of money suggested will find its way back into the treasury.
Let us be honest. Let us make a decision that we will support the Olympics. Let us make a decision that we will do something socially and economically for the communities of Montreal. Let us participate and decide that the money we spend in this area will be spent in the best interests of the people of the area, and that whatever is left will not result in a restaurant for the mayor of Montreal or for some other person. We had an international disgrace after Expo. The law states that Expo was to be terminated and that St. Helen's Island was to be returned to the people in its original condition. We did not carry out that condition; we allowed Mayor Drapeau to continue Expo forever.
Mayor Drapeau has done things which no government could properly support. He has been bailed out on many occasions by this government. He is still a Conservative. What kind of a game is the Liberal Party in Montreal playing, when Mr. Drapeau and Mr. Diefenbaker can make the decision collectively and brag that they are able to do it? No one else can get away with this. Surely the President of the Treasury Board has a responsibility, surely the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has a responsibility, surely we have a responsibility to the Canadian public. If the government decides to have some input, if it decides that some of the Olympic games should be spread out into other areas, or if it decides that it should make a contribution in a direct rather than an indirect way, it is my opinion that the Canadian public all across this nation would support the Olympic games as Canadian games.
At the present time the people of Canada are disillusioned about the whole procedure of the Olympic games. This government will not act even in the amateur sports field to protect our young people from being sucked into the highly paid fields of hockey. The government says it has not had a meeting with the amateur sports people, the WHA or the NHL and therefore cannot make a decision. As well as great disillusionment in this country, there is considerable resentment against Montreal having these
June 29, 1973

games so soon after Expo and the trouble that developed there.
This resentment is not against Montreal or the people of the city of Montreal; to a great extent it is against the way in which the international events which are to take place in the city of Montreal have been managed. Much of the responsibility for that must rest with the provincial government, the city of Montreal and the federal government, all of which have participated equally.
This country is interested in the long overdue amateur sports and fitness program. It has received very little consideration by the Canadian public. We are one of the most unhealthy nations in the world, according to medical reports. I am sure that the Canadian stock is the best in the world. We have been blended over many years into what I consider to be better than average individuals. Yet because of overeating and lack of fitness programs, as well as lack of amateur sports programs, we have developed into very unhealthy individuals. Even during the last war, about 30 per cent of all Canadians who applied for admission to the armed services were rejected because they had suffered at one time from malnutrition or some other dietary defect: they were not healthy people.
So I suggest that the government should face the problem of whether or not we want to support the Olympics. I think the Canadian population does want to support the games. However, I am sure that it will bring no credit to this government if, together with the friends they have on the other side who brag about driving around in Mr. Drapeau's chauffeur-driven car they pass this piece of legislation. This will bring no credit to the Canadian people. We will lend ourselves to the making of a great disaster if we do not face this matter squarely in a frontal attack and determine what our support will be. This suggested use of coinage and stamps is a disgrace.


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


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, this bill proposes certain money-making activities which would endorse the Olympic games with the stamp of the federal government's approval, if I may coin a phrase. I want to concentrate my criticism on three areas of this bill. First, I should like to refer to the following statement made last evening by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury):
COJO decided deliberately to put a stop to the astronomical increases in the cost of the Olympic games since the second world war.
I cannot see how that statement can carry any weight when the games will bring 9,000 athletes to one location at which there will be 250,000 spectators a day for two weeks. Indeed, it might well turn out to be the most costly Olympic games since the second world war. I think that if Canada is really interested in giving the lead in terms of the Olympic games, we should be talking about decentralizing the Olympic games over a period of, say, a year. In the view of many countries there are many financial opportunities, as well as opportunities in the field of sports, to be derived from the Olympic games. It seems to
Olympic Bill
me that the concentration of all these resources in one area certainly does not distribute the opportunities to smaller countries, smaller provinces in Canada, and the underprivileged areas.
For example, the previous speaker, the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), referred to the area from which we come. Certainly we could use some of the facilities that will be concentrated in Montreal and which have been concentrated in other urban centres. For example, track and field facilities are unknown in our neck of the woods. Surely, if we are going to have the Olympic games, the decentralization concept would bring benefits to areas that are underprivileged in this regard. There is also the good will and the sense of community which could be spread around rather than concentrated in one area. If we are really interested in that ideal, we should spread it around and decentralize these games.
The second criticism that I have with respect to this bill was again referred to by the President of the Treasury Board when he spoke last night. I should like to quote his statement from yesterday's Hansard as follows:
-I am convinced that all... Canadians, boys or girls, who dream of representing this country in the great international sports arena will have the opportunity of training and of carving the way to becoming a member of the 1976 Canadian Olympic team.
I think that is a lot of unadulterated horsefeathers. It reminds me of the cliche I heard when I first came to North America, which went something like this: Any American boy can become president. Women, Mexican-Americans and Negroes in the United States know that that is a lot of unadulterated horsefeathers. Similarly in Canada, those of us who come from areas such as northern Ontario know that our young people will never have the opportunity to train properly for the 1976 Olympic games. They do not have a snowball's chance in hell of ever having the opportunity to make the Olympic team. It takes years to train athletes, and if we had been really concentrating on preparing a team for the 1976 Olympics, we should have started 15 years ago.
It seems to me that this government has never proposed or promoted the kind of plan that should have been put into effect in Canada for developing what I call the village concept, where each community would be provided with proper training personnel and facilities for involving young people and adults in sports programs. We have never developed this policy or approach to amateur sports in this country for the pure joy of achieving excellence in sports or for the enjoyment of participation, or for any other reason than to provide the world market with professional athletes who participate for a price-and the higher the price, the greater the striving to become professional.
I know from personal experience in working with young children in sports in the great outback of northern Ontario that it takes many years of patience by qualified, trained personnel, as well as proper facilities and good opportunities, for young people to develop interest and skill. Our focus in the area of athletics should be to put into effect what I have called the village program or village concept to develop within each community in Canada a nucleus around which athletic programs can be established.
5216

June 29, 1973
Olympic Bill
My third criticism of the bill relates to what the President of the Treasury Board calls the Olympic ideals regarding participation and competition on an international scale. The minister might want to believe that, but the way the wealthy countries of the world view the Olympic games certainly does not constitute the Olympic ideal. Countries which are wealthy and have the necessary funds, prepare their athletes and probably pay them through the armed forces or by attaching them to university training programs. They train them all the year round. So the Olympics have become a political arena where a country can score points. A great deal of fuss is made about who is first in the number of points and about gold, silver and bronze medals. I do not call that the Olympic ideal. Many of these world performers are not amateurs; they are in the pay of their respective countries.
This project might be a feather in the cap of Mr. Dra-peau but it does nothing for the promotion of amateur athletics in Canada. It is amazing how Canada can assemble all its resources to put on a spectacle of spectacles, but when it comes to solving problems of regional disparities, to solving disparities in freight rates which contribute to regional disparities, or to solving the housing problem it seems that all we ever get is the runaround. But we certainly can assemble our resources so that in three years we can put on this spectacle of spectacles which lasts ten days, where 9,000 athletes will gather and perform for a great mass of spectators.
This kind of bill which gives tacit consent to the Olympic games is not worthy of the support of the members of this House. We ought to concern ourselves with what is in the best interests of Canada, of our young Canadians. Therefore I urge hon. members to vote against this bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Before I recognize the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) I want to inform hon. members that if the minister takes the floor at this time he will close the debate.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I listened with considerable interest to the comments made in this debate. I find that there is general support for the Olympics as a concept, but some opposition to the holding of them at this time in Canada. I do not think that even the members of the NDP would suggest that we should not participate in the Olympics, that we should withhold our participation. They do, however, suggest that the kind of revenues and resources required for a host country to put forward would be inappropriate for us at this time, either because the scale on which Olympics in the past have been conducted in their view is excessive, or that for Canadians we have more urgent and higher priorities.
I am glad to see that they do not condemn our participation in the Olympics altogether. But it does seem perhaps slightly selfish to say we would like Canadians to participate but we, as Canadians, should at no time reciprocate by acting as host. An endeavour is being made, as has been outlined in the bill, for us to act as host, but on a rather more modest scale than has been the case in the past. The principal movers in the games, COJO, the committee

responsible, and the mayor of Montreal-the site of the forthcoming Olympics-have made it abundantly clear that they collectively, and the mayor personally, are committed to a very much more modest form of Olympic than has in the past been the case in other countries.
I would think that if Canada can take the lead in this, can succeed in holding the Olympic games in Canada according to the best Olympic traditions, and still get some kind of effective control on costs, this is not only a worth-while venture from the Canadian point of view but also in terms of world co-operation. I would think that even the members of the NDP would support such an aspiration.
The way in which this is going to be done, according to its proponents, will not involve the astronomical charges that in the past had to be met by the host nation as a whole, in this case the federal taxpayer. But revenues will be required; resources will be needed. The federal government has been careful to work out a scheme which will limit the demands on federal resources, and I think that in the explanation of the bill a full explanation of the liabilities that the Government of Canada is willing to assume has been disclosed.
Measures have been taken of a cautionary or precautionary nature to ensure that these charges on the federal exchequer, on the federal taxpayer, do not go beyond the figures set out. Also, I would ask hon. members to recall the letters of assurance received from the leader of the government of Quebec and from the leader of the city of Montreal that no call will be made on the federal exchequer, on federal resources, beyond those outlined in the bill and in the accompanying expository remarks.
There has been considerable comment on the arithmetic of the coinage issue, and not very much about the stamps. There seems to be reasonable satisfaction that the latter will work. In respect of the coinage there has been a fair amount of speculation as to whether it is going into circulation, and whether the quantum of sales at one time advertised by the mayor of Montreal as being probable, can be achieved.
I would suggest that these matters can most satisfactorily be examined and, in a certain number of cases, answered in committee rather than on the floor of this House. I suggest that the floor of this House is not the appropriate place to try to go into technical expositions on the operation of the coinage scheme. In the first place, I do not think the floor of this House gives an adequate opportunity for members to phrase their questions, and secondly I do not think that the whole House is interested in the details of how this system will work.
However, I should point out that in respect of the accountability and our preoccupation with this proposal, on the federal side we have a system which will be designed to see that the fiscal disasters so freely predicted by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) do not take place, and I trust we will be able to satisfy him in committee, if he has the time to attend, that these disasters are unlikely.
In respect of accountability, I should point out that this is a private corporation. COJO, which is responsible for the running of the games, is not a Crown corporation.
June 29, 1973

However, it is responsible to the international committee and others for a proper accounting.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. Is the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) rising on a point of order?


Mr. Lang:: Mr. Speaker, I would ask if the House would agree to revert to motions for the purpose of hearing a statement by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) on export controls.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Does the House agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the House I should like to make a short statement regarding the situation arising out of the decision of the United States temporarily to embargo exports of soybeans and soybean products and cotton seed and cotton seed products.
In view of the uncertainties arising out of this U.S. announcement and the speculative movements in the market, the government has decided to put Canadian exports of soybeans and soybean cake and meal, rapeseed and rapeseed cake and meal, flaxseed, linseed cake and meal and fishmeal on an export licensing basis for the time being. These controls will be effective as of midnight tonight. They will be applied under section 3(c) of the Export and Import Permits Act.
Until we are able fully to assess the availability of livestock and poultry protein feeding materials, including supplies from the United States, it has been considered necessary to take action aimed at stabilizing the market. It is the government's intention to ensure adequate supplies to meet Canadian requirements and to provide fair treatment of Canada's traditional foreign customers.
As hon. members will be aware, there has developed a short-supply situation throughout the world with respect to animal feedingstuffs. It is understood that early next week the United States authorities will introduce a system of export licensing which we would expect will take account of the requirements for traditional U.S. customers such as Canada. The immediate problem arises out of the heavy reliance in Canada on U.S. protein supplies, particularly of soybeans, soybean cake and meal. In 1972, for example, Canada imported 14.8 million bushels of soybeans and 245,000 short tons of soybean cake and meal.
Exports
We are in touch with our major trading partners and have notified them of the action we are taking today. In particular, the United States has been made aware of our traditional import requirements of protein materials so that they can take these into account in developing their export program. It will, of course, be essential through consultation with the United States and our other trading partners to avoid undue distortion in the market and to ensure a fair and equitable distribution of available sources of supply of protein feed supplements.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I think the government is correct in its decision to subject soybeans and soybean cake and meal, rapeseed and rapeseed cake and meal, flaxseed, linseed cake and meal and fishmeal to export licensing at least for the time being until markets are stabilized and the intentions of the United States are known. There appears to be no alternative, and it is good to see the government end its task force studies and take action.
In view of Canada's heavy reliance on U.S. protein supplies, especially soybeans and soybean cake and meal, it is essential that the United States recognize its responsibility to treat Canadian needs fairly. I hope that in this respect the minister will make an unusual effort over the weekend to point out to his American counterparts in very direct language that Canada's requirements must be taken into consideration, and as an old customer our needs must be part of the American export licensing program. I would urge the government to make every possible effort now to protect the needs of Canadian consumers, and I congratulate them for having taken action in this case.


Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to comment on the statement of the minister with some hesitancy regarding the effectiveness of the move that has been taken. I support this action in terms of the serious implications of the move by the American government to curtail export of the commodities named.
I wish to point out that the move by the United States to restrict the export of these commodities into the Canadian and other markets could have an extremely serious effect as was mentioned in this House earlier, on the price of food in the Dominion of Canada. This restriction by the Americans, and their attitude, should call not for willy-nilly expressions of concern such as those used by the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) where we go to the Americans and say, "We hope you remember us as a regular customer in future because we who live north of the forty-ninth parallel are a nice bunch of guys". I hope this government would have the guts to say to the Americans, "If that is the attitude you take to an old, regular customer, then we will turn off the tap on the export of gasoline, oil and natural gas for a while and see how you react to that".
There are two points that ought to be made in regard to the move that the minister has announced. First, it is an attempt to bring some order into the marketing and exporting of these products in the coming months. I know the hon. member for Trinity spoke about a short-term basis or a temporary basis, as did the minister. However, I want to point out that in the statement two commodities are mentioned which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang)
26446-40J

June 29, 1973
Exports
should also take into consideration. When bringing in licensing the minister is moving toward an attempt at orderly marketing. He mentioned rapeseed, rapeseed cake and meal, and flaxseed. This ought to point out, above all things, to the government that these two commodities ought to have been put under the Canadian Wheat Board. If they had been, we would not be in this kind of situation, because we would have a system of orderly marketing and the minister would not be coming to the House of Commons in the middle of Friday afternoon attempting to bring order to the marketplace.
This announcement ought to point out that there is a need for orderly marketing, not only for the western producer but also for the consumer who wants to know that the farmers who depend on feed grains and these commodities in Canada have supplies adequate to meet their needs, in order not to drive up the price to consumers of protein products. That is why the two commodities mentioned in this statement ought to be brought under the Canadian Wheat Board.
Second, and finally, I want to point out something to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) which he in turn might point out to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Above all other things, when they bring in licensing there is a need for orderly marketing in terms of all grains in Canada. The Minister of Justice, who is supposed to be in charge of the Wheat Board, ought not to move in the direction of taking feed grains out of the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board because that will lead us into the kind of problems we are facing with rapeseed, rapeseed cake, etc. It ought to be kept within the realm of orderly marketing and the Canadian Wheat Board. It not only protects the western producer and consumer and the eastern farmer, but it protects the Canadian consumer as a whole to know that farmers have an adequate supply of feed grains. Therefore, while welcoming the move toward control, I want to point out that it is only temporary, and for the long-range these grains ought to be under the Canadian Wheat Board so there will be orderly marketing of them.
[ Transla tion]


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleagues for their applause and their participation. Frankly, those are complicated matters about which I have little to say.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that we have to remain on good terms with our neighbours the United States. We know that they have imposed restrictions on the import of various Canadian products. We know that the embargo the Americans have just placed on soybeans will probably have repercussions on our economy. Well, I am among those who would like us to take all the necessary steps to stand up for our most sacred rights. I believe it is our duty to tell the Americans that we want to co-operate with them, that we are their neighbours, but that we also have the right to live, that we must be given special laws or special treatment so that we can keep the Canadian economy functioning.
Mr. Speaker, the minister will make these arrangements, and I agree with the previous speaker who said

that we must go at it harder, that we must not be afraid, that we must not cry over spilt milk. We must stand up for our rights, we must use every possible means to maintain our economy, particularly in the agricultural sector, which is the main industry in Canada. Western farmers have a right to live, as do farmers elsewhere.
In my view, it is possible to meet our American partners and ask them to take a more conciliatory approach to us, but if that is not possible, Mr. Speaker, we should take the necessary steps, though without employing methods that are too radical, for we too will have to use the means at our disposal to remain true citizens enjoying a certain economic standing and also having our fair share of the American and world markets.


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

1 understand that the House is to consider notice of motion No. 7, in the name of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert).


Mr. Reid:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think there might be agreement to consider notice of motion No. 23 standing in the name of the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should reconsider the advisability of introducing legislation to provide for the appointment of some elected members of parliament to government boards and to the boards of directors of the various Crown corporations and agencies so as to assure a better and more direct control of the legislative power over the administration and to restore to parliament part of its authority by permitting the representatives of the people to contribute toward the operation of semi-independent bodies and to permit them to watch over the affairs of the government in a more meaningful way.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this question has come to the fore several times in the past few years and has gained considerable support from both sides of the House. I shall not repeat arguments which have been put forward in the past, but shall try to confine myself to refuting some of the arguments which have been advanced against the idea of placing members of parliament on the boards of directors of Crown corporations.
June 29, 1973

First, let me underline that when we are elected to this House we come here as representatives of the people to look after their interests, and particularly to look after their interests as they relate to the spending of public funds. Every day we hear complaints not only from members of opposition parties but from members of parliament in general about our having very little say as to how government money is spent. We have little knowledge as to how it is being spent. If that is the case when we consider the estimates of departments of government, how much more is this true when we consider Crown corporations, which are practically independent of government control and for whom even ministers cannot answer adequately.
How many times have we asked in this House specific questions about the CBC, the Film Board, museums, or any Crown corporation-the CNR is a good example-only to hear the minister say, "I will raise it with the Crown corporation, because it is an independent body."


Mr. Muir:: The Cape Breton Development Corporation is another example.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: Yes, the Cape Breton Development Corporation is a good example. I do not mind people in this House arguing against my proposition if they have an alternative suggestion to make. However, simply arguing against it for the purpose of arguing does not really accomplish much.
Is there any better way of exercising more control over the spending of these bodies? Is there any better way for members of parliament to be given the opportunity of knowing what is going on in Crown corporations which are spending the money of the government, the money of the people? If there is a better way, I am anxious to hear about it. Although hon. members suggest that we must improve this situation, up to now I have not heard any argument which is better than the proposition I am putting forward. I can see no other possible avenue by which hon. members can make themselves aware of exactly what is going on within Crown corporations.
Recently we voted billions of dollars of expenditures under supplementary estimates. We automatically voted billions of dollars, not only for departments of government but for Crown corporations as well, without really knowing how that money is to be spent and what has been going on. True, there are committees. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to be chairman of an important committee, the broadcasting committee, through which a number of corporations report.
The members of that committee often complain that it is not possible to examine in depth the spending of these corporations. Of course it is not, because although some of them come before us perhaps once a year or once every two years, and we spend two or three days examining them, we still cannot go into all their spending. We can look at some specific matter and if, by some accident, we happen to hear about some money being misspent, or about money that could have been spent in a better way, we can zero in on that question. But even in cases like that we really cannot look in depth at the problem.
The other day the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) placed on the order paper a motion for reducing the salary
Crown Corporations
of the president of the CBC. That was an example showing the frustration which members experience. Personally, I think that kind of action accomplishes nothing, and attempting to reduce the salary of the president of the corporation simply because we are not happy with all aspects of the corporation is not necessary. If anyone has done a tremendous job in the short time that he has been there, it is the president of the CBC. Certainly, most of us in this House criticize the CBC. There are various things about it we do not like, but I do not think the way to go about curing them is by reducing the salary of the president.
If one or two members of parliament could sit on the board of such a large corporation, they would provide the necessary input that comes from knowing what is going on at the grass roots. The people in the corporation stand aside, as it were. They go into their ivory tower. I am not trying to deride them. They are good people, doing a good job; but they cannot possibly know what the public is saying. We, as members of parliament, are in constant touch with the grass roots of this country. We know what is going on at the level of the ordinary people. We are the ones who provide the kind of input that is necessary for the corporation. I have used as an example the CBC but I could refer to many others.
It nas been said that members of parliament are simply too busy to take on additional chores. Of course we are busy. Most of us are here 14 hours a day and must be available until 10.30 at night. Certainly, we all have an ever increasing amount of work to do. Yet it seems to me we always find time for the important things. The thing to do is to arrange one's work so as to look after priorities, and I think nothing is more important than keeping an eye on the taxpayers' money. As far as being busy is concerned, all of us who have worked in community affairs know that if you want to get something done, you do not ask the fellow to do it who has nothing to do; you ask the busiest guy in town, because he is the one who will do it for you. The argument of being busy is not really a good argument in this case.
It has also been suggested that perhaps there would be too much control on the part of politicians. If a board consists of 18 or 20 members and one or even two are members of parliament, I can see no way the members of parliament could control the outcome of the decisions of that board. That is not my purpose for wanting to have members there: it is not to take over these corporations in any way. The idea is to have a representative voice there, to keep an eye on it and to act as a watchdog on the spending of the taxpayers' money. That is basically the reason.
I could go on and give any number of reasons why I think members should be included on these boards. However, I do not want to be too lengthy today. As it is, part of our time has already been taken up. I would like to see this notice of motion passed today. It is not a question of passing a law or passing a bill; it is simply a notice of motion which recommends that the government consider the advisability of this course of action. That is ail it intends to do. I ask hon. members to give this motion a chance to be considered in depth. Let it pass so that the

June 29, 1973
Crown Corporations
government, either in a committee or some other way, can give full consideration to it and all the pros and cons.
In certain provinces, members belong to boards of provincial Crown corporations. In some instances it has worked well and in others it has not. I certainly would not like to see partisan representation. In fact, I have always said I want to see non-partisan representation. If we are going to have two members on the board of Canadian National Railways, I see no reason why they could not be from different parties. I do not think a partisan approach has anything to do with this question. In any case, Crown corporations are basically not concerned with partisanship. I see no reason why a member of parliament who would serve on a board would want to hold a partisan point of view.
I ask hon. members to allow this notice of motion to pass today so it can have the kind of study that is necessary, so that we can look at all the pros and cons and decide whether it would be wise for members of parliament to serve on such boards.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, this is the second time I have heard the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) advance this thesis with respect to membership of members of parliament on boards of commission and Crown corporations. He and I had a rather humorous "go" at one another some months ago on the occasion of a Social Credit motion which was remotely related to this subject. I apologize because I was not here when this matter was raised in the form of an amendment to the Senate and House of Commons Act on May 29, although I did read the debate that took place on that occasion.
I commend the hon. member for the spirit in which he has brought forward this motion. It has been brought forward with the intention that boards of commission and Crown corporations, like the cabinet, would in some way be representative of what the hon. member has chosen to call the grass roots' interest. I think that is his idea. The background behind that idea is sound. All of us complain about the remoteness of boards of commission and Crown corporations from the control of those engaged in the legislative process.
The hon. member has asked for alternatives and I intend to suggest some. I say with some regret that I am opposed to the idea of members of parliament, whether from the government side or the opposition side, being on these boards and commissions. I say this for a couple of reasons that I will advance. First, boards of commission and Crown corporations are administrative bodies. Their function is to operate a business which the government of the day has decided can best be operated in that context by a pseudo-public corporate structure, if I may call it that.
We see this in the field of radio; and commissions governing land, for example, such as the National Capital Commission in this area. They are into all types of things such as harbours, wharves and wheat. They are basically operating a business or providing a service to the community which the government, rightly or wrongly, has decided cannot be carried on by the usual departmental process: there is a need in the community that cannot be fulfilled, in the words of the government, by the private

sector. These bodies fulfil a particular need, but they are administrative.
As I see it, and there may be many who disagree, the function of a member of parliament is basically a legislative one. It is to provide the machinery by which administrators will operate the business of boards and commissions. In that narrow sense there can be a conflict between the legislative role of a member of parliament and the administrative role in which he would be placed if he served on a board.
There is no question that the member of parliament is too busy to do this kind of work. I agree with the hon. member when he says we work long hours. We are available, and do work long hours; but we do this basically in a representative and legislative function. To add yet another function to the member of parliament, that of an administrator or operator of a business, would take away from the time, effort and energy that could be devoted to his prime function, the reason he has been sent here, namely, as part of the legislative process.
I agree with the hon. member that there is a way of ensuring that the legislative arm, or a member of a board, would not exercise too much control. That is really no problem. The whole basis of his proposal would fail if members of parliament formed the majority of the members of a board, commission or Crown corporation. My first objection is that it is contrary to the functions of a member of parliament, and second there is another great danger. Perhaps this is even more important. A member of parliament, whether he sits on the opposition side or the government side, becomes part of the machinery, part of the decision-making process of a board or commission. What he then loses-and this is what all members of parliament ought to enjoy-is the ability to be free of conflicts. This is extremely important.
Take a concrete example, one which I am sure the hon. member for Cochrane will understand from his experience in another role. Let us suppose the government of the day saw fit to place a member of parliament from the national capital area on the board of the National Capital Commission. Then let us suppose that, even over his objection, the commission decided to enter into some field of the municipal life of the area such as land use planning, and took a position which was contrary to the wishes of a large number of people in his constituency. In order to represent his constituency properly, he would have to stand in the House of Commons, in committee or in some other place and make an objection to the action of the commission of which he was a member. If he failed to do so, if he decided to stay with the commission and go along with its decision, he would not be properly representing the wishes and needs of his constituency.
We often talk here about conflict of interest in terms of money which is or may be available. Here is another conflict of interest which restricts the freedom of a member of parliament to defend the rights of his constituents, from time to time even against the interests of his own party. There should certainly be no fetters placed on this right when it comes to looking after the interest of
June 29, 1973

constituents as opposed to one's engagement as a member of a board or commission.
Conflict of interest can be looked at in another way. A member of parliament might well become enmeshed in the day-to-day operations of the board on which he sits. In consequence, he not only loses his independence, or at any rate is in danger of losing it, but, of equal importance, he may well appear to lose it, as a result of which is position as a member of parliament becomes very difficult. In this regard he would be placed in the position of a lawyer or an accountant who must attempt to represent two parties at the same time in any matter over which there could be controversy or difference of opinion.
I suggest to the hon. member that however laudable his motives-and I believe his motives are laudable; I can understand them-the method he is proposing is not the best. He told us that some provinces, some jurisdictions have followed this approach. I cannot think of any jurisdiction which has not been criticized for appointing legislators to positions on such boards. He and I are both aware of instances in this province and others where the practice has been criticized because, it is said, it is a way of imposing policy direction in cases where such direction ought not to be exercized; it is an attempt to do indirectly what a government would not dare to do directly. And the members of parliament who serve on those boards are criticized from time to time because they are accepting remuneration from a second job, so to speak. So although the motive may be laudable, the practice is dangerous and I do not believe it is one which parliament or the government should approve.
I suggest there are other ways of doing exactly what the hon. member has in mind, namely, of bringing these commissions, boards and Crown corporations to better account in parliament and hence to the people who provide much of the funds for their operation. The whole issue, it seems to me, revolves around making these boards and commissions more directly accountable to the public. First, we should remember that the most important servant which parliament has is the Auditor General of Canada. I believe that beefing-up the Auditor General's office in terms of personnel, the scope of his authority and the manner in which he can report to parliament, would be one way of bringing public attention to bear on the inconsistencies and improprieties of actions taken by various boards and commissions. Second, the House must as a matter of priority look at the whole system by which estimates are dealt with. We discussed this question at some length a week or so ago.
I am a member of certain standing committees which have dealt with estimates, and I am not the least bit satisfied with what we found in that regard. The hon. member for Cochrane is similarly dissatisfied. I think the government should be required to place the estimates of all boards, commissions and Crown corporations before a special committee which would deal specifically with them. This is not the case at present. As the hon. member said, millions of dollars slide through the supply procedures without proper scrutiny, and the budgets of these corporations and agencies are wrapped up in these huge amounts. This is not to say that something is necessarily wrong with what happens on boards and commissions
Crown Corporations
merely because they are boards or commissions, but so much public business is carried on by them that the House, unfettered by any involvement in the internal workings of the board concerned, should be given the machinery with which to properly operate.
Next, I suggest that a special committee of the House of Commons, be it a standing committee or an augmented public accounts committee, should be given on a continuing basis more research staff responsible to the committee for reviewing the estimates of all departments and examining the programs of all departments. This staff would be the servant of the committee and would advise its members, assist the chairman, and so on, to do their job.
I am very much impressed with the operation of the committee system in the United States. We have many things to say about the Congress of the United States and how it operates, but one of the operations that works very well from the point of view of staffing and providing experts to assist legislators make the examinations they have to make is the back-up that is given to those legislators, something we do not have. I am sure this applies to members on the government side as well as to members on our side. I think each party in the House of Commons owes a great debt of gratitude to the research officers that each of us has.


William George Knight: And to the Globe and Mail.


Walter David Baker: The hon. member mentions the Globe and Mail. I suppose he is talking about that newspaper's scrutiny of the public accounts, and to that extent I agree with him. In spite of the excellent efforts made by our research staff, they are really only touching the surface of things that ought to interest them from the point of view of what the hon. member is proposing here.
In the United States, the legislative process has become so complicated that members of Congress tend to specialize in certain areas. I see the beginnings of this happening here. I suggest it would be better to have members who specialize in certain branches of the operation of government, backed up by research staff, that adopt the method proposed by the hon. member. Because I see in his method there being placed on the member of parliament, not just the physical burden of becoming involved but a new kind of burden, that of being engaged in the administrative process, I am fearful of that kind of engagement because in the end it can lead to the kind of conflict of interest that a member of parliament ought not to have thrust upon him.
In closing, I commend the hon. member for his interest in making these bodies more responsible. Although I do not agree with the method he chooses, none the less I commend him for being the public spirited person I have known him to be since I came here.


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, I seldom get the chance to make more than one speech in the same afternoon. I am usually a quiet member in the House who, as the House leader or whip knows, seldom takes part in debates. However, I am aroused to speak on this subject

June 29, 1973
Crown Corporations
not only because of the motion debated by the House earlier but because I was given to understand when I came here following a by-election in 1971 that this matter had been raised on a previous occasion by the hon. member.
I find myself completely opposed to the concept that members of parliament sit on boards that are related to government. I need only refer to a long and extensive commission that was conducted in the province of Ontario, known as the Camp commission, which inquired into what is presently occurring in the province of Ontario, namely, members sitting on given boards, and which recommended to that legislature the curtailment of such a practice. I think that was a good recommendation.
The hon. member in his sincere presentation today argued we ought to pass the motion because it is not like passing a bill. Should we pass the motion, what we would be saying is that this House gives its approval in principle to members of the House sitting on boards, and that is something I cannot go along with.
What power is there in a member of parliament sitting on a board? If the hon. member for Assiniboia were to sit on the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways, and that board were to decide to abandon a couple of hundred miles of railway branch line in Assiniboia constituency, I would be opposed to that. The CNR having given the economic reasons why this line should be abandoned, which I do not believe, I am still opposed to that proposal. When I put up my hand at the meeting in opposition, it is the only hand. So what power has a member of parliament in terms of curtailing the activities of that publicly-owned corporation? *
Similarly, what power would one or two members of parliament sitting on a board have to curtail the expenditure of money? They can vocally attack such expenditure, which many of us do in standing committees and in the House, but on those boards they would be merely one other voice. The only way to control the operation of the public purse is for the House of Commons to control it either through this House as a committee of the whole or through the committee system. Certainly one or two members sitting on a board would be unable to curtail such activities.
To my mind, Mr. Speaker, this is tokenism. I raised this very subject this week. Questions can be asked about the kind of appointments made to the advisory board to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce which handles millions of dollars of grants to corporations. There are questions to be asked about the kind of appointments to the board of directors of the Canada Development Corporation. There are questions to be asked about the kind of appointments made to the advisory board to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. Representatives of large corporations which are already accumulating millions of dollars in the form of grants and loans from the federal treasury are sitting on advisory boards, which lays wide open the question of conflict of interest. To add to this ingredient members of parliament would, to my mind, be close to disastrous.
The second point I wish to make is this. I am sure this arose out of the last debate, but the question has been asked: Who makes these appointments to boards? For example, I am sure the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. 
Howard) would not be appointed to the Harbours Board responsible for Prince Rupert harbour because for a period of 20 years in this House of Commons he has fought, as did the member before him and others, for improvements to that port. We would never have appointments made involving members whom it is known for years have fought for changes to be made to meet the needs of the people of Canada. When it comes to the point of making such appointments the situation would lend itself to nothing but featherbedding.
We have had a situation in which several members have been annoyed about not being appointed parliamentary secretaries. We have the example of one good member who was dropped from the cabinet, the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey). He should have been a member of the New Democratic Party a long time ago, but we have not succeeded in convincing him. What would they do with such a man in this situation? Perhaps they would appoint him to the board of Air Canada or to the board of the CNR.


An hon. Member:: Or to the Unemployment Insurance Commission.


William George Knight: Perhaps he would be appointed to the Unemployment Insurance Commission. It would be nothing more than payola. The matter of payola to disgruntled members of parliament would become involved in this. For instance if the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) should not be happy with his position as chairman of a committee-or the hon. member for Assiniboia, if he should be a Liberal-he might be appointed to one of these boards. That possibility is left open. I am sure this kind of game is being played in the province of Ontario.
On the question of watching the expenditures of the taxpayers, on Tuesday evening we saw one of the greatest examples of stupidity by the representatives of the people of Canada. On that evening we passed $17 billion in expenditures of the Canadian taxpayers' money. This was done in one evening. I suggest that a vast majority of those items were never scrutinized in the committee. I suggest that the whole operation of members of parliament attempting to consider estimates is ludicrous. If an hon. member for example wished to have an item cut from the budget of a given department, if for instance he moved to reduce the salary of a certain individual whom he felt had not been doing his job, or if he moved to curtail the car allowance of a cabinet minister, he could not do so because every time such a motion was moved the President of the Treasury Board would get up on the day on which we dealt with the estimates and move a motion of concurrence in the whole of the estimates.
Let us say that we wanted to curtail an expenditure in the amount of $5 million for an airport and moved such a motion in a standing committee of this House. By the time the estimates had returned to the whole House we would not be able to cut out the item of $5 million but would have to eliminate all the expenditures for all airports in the Dominion of Canada, which would involve perhaps $172 million or $285 million. It is absolute stupidity to allow such a system to continue.
June 29, 1973

I say to the hon. member for Cochrane, knowing his ability and sincerity in respect of watching the public purse-and all of us are involved in this area-that where he could bring pressure upon the government is in the area of changes in the way the estimates are passed through the House of Commons. I should like to suggest to the hon. member-this should be considered by any government in power-that there should be a wider range of appointments made to boards. This does not include members of parliament. If the government wants to hear what the grass roots think, they should not appoint to a port authority those people who have an interest in it, who make money from it and therefore wish to maintain it: rather, a farmer should be taken from Saskatchewan who is interested in the movement of his grain through that port. If he were placed on the port authority I am sure he would make known some of the things which could be done in respect of it.
When the advisory board in respect of regional development is set up it should contain individuals who are concerned about poverty in the Maritimes or in some parts of the west. If such people were placed on the board instead of some of the corporate elite, contact with the grass roots would be assured. Instead of making appointments from among the chambers of commerce, the Canadian Manufacturers Association, and so on, the appointments should be spread out so that there would be representation of the workingman on all boards, someone who has a sense of responsibility in relation to consumer affairs for instance. The appointments should be spread out instead of having this nonsense of political payola.
A previous hon. member, an ad man in Vancouver, a defeated Liberal in the last general election, should be like the rest of us and have to go out and earn a living; but he was appointed to the Tariff Board. I do not know whether the hon. gentleman has ever seen a tariff or has ever opened a book on economics. He is a person farthest away from the grass roots than I have seen for a long time. I will
Crown Corporations
sit down before five o'clock, on my old principle of never talking out an hon. member's private motion. As I say, I am opposed to the motion.
[ Translation]


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, as usual this is a very interesting Friday afternoon.
First I would like to praise the efforts made by my friend from Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) in the course of his remarks. If one consults the index of Hansard for the last session, one finds an impressive list of bills introduced by the hon. member and all kinds of motions moved by him in the House, which is to his credit, showing that he is a truly good member, an excellent social organizer. But I wonder whether, in moving such a motion as the one now before us, he truly realizes its purpose, and I believe that the formula he uses is not quite the right one. What he wants is to have a certain right to examine and to check on the various government agencies and Crown corporations.
His objective is certainly not that formulated in his motion. But, we have means at our disposal to do that in committee. Indeed, in my opinion hon. members do not understand their role as members and, Mr. Speaker, as chairman of a committee, you know how that works. On some occasions, certain members do not know what their role is. Some would rather make headlines than really scrutinize the organization or administration of a Crown company. This should be done in camera; it would be much better. The newspapermen should be shooed out, and the merits of the questions to be put seriously discussed with the representatives or officials of the Crown companies.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to call it five o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The hour
appointed for consideration of private members' business has now expired. It being five o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 2(3), the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, July 3, 1973